The Sicilian Expedition

What could possibly go wrong?

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The Sicilian Expedition has gone down in history as one of the worst conceived military campaigns in history, and the worst defeat Athens ever suffered.

In 415 BCE, a small Sicilian city-state appealed to Athens for aid in their war against Syracuse, another, far more powerful city-state.

There were two camps of opinion. The elder statesman Nicias thought they should send a large, but not overwhelming, force to Sicily, gather reinforcements from local city-states that were keen to see Syracuse taken down a peg, and from this position of strength, negotiate a settlement that was favourable to Athens.

The young, handsome and wealthy Alcibiades had a different take on the situation: why not just conquer Sicily? You know, all of it. What could go wrong?

Nicias explained what could go wrong to the Athenian assembly in excruciating detail, but Alcibiades said that was coward’s talk, and unpatriotic to boot, and when the votes were counted, Alcibiades won by a landslide.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The Athenians called a second assembly to decide how large a force they should send, and Nicias tried to scuttle the whole thing by vastly exaggerating the cost of the expedition. It would take a huge army to conquer Sicily, infeasibly huge, so infeasibly huge that it was probably best to just forget the whole thing.

Alcibiades said this was exactly the kind of bold military expenditure that Athens needed and won the vote by an even larger margin.

So the expedition of 134 triremes set off under the command of three generals: Alcibiades, Nicias, and some fellow called Lamachus.

When they arrived at Sicily, opinions were split on what to do next. Lamarcus wanted to attack Syracuse, while they had the element of surprise. Nicias wanted to parade the army around in a show of force, and then leave before Alcibiades had any more bright ideas. Alcibiades wanted to land on the opposite side of the island and march to Syracuse overland, gathering local support on the way. Once again, Alcibiades got his way.

The Athenians were not able to gather any support from the locals. Cities that might have contributed some soldiers to a moderate force took one look at the Athenian legion of doom and decided that whatever the Athenians had planned, they wanted no part of it.

So, after marching across the whole of Sicily for no reason, and losing the element of surprise, the Athenians began the siege of Syracuse. The fleet blockaded the port, and the army began building a wall around Syracuse.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The Greeks were absolutely hopeless at siege warfare in this period, with no siege engines more complex than ladders. Instead, the Greek idea of a siege was to build a wall all the way around an enemy city and starve it out over a period of years.

Syracuse started building counter-walls. Walls were basically unbeatable, so the only way to defeat a wall was with another wall. Defenders would build counter-walls out from their city wall and try to build it out fast enough to get in the way of the attacker’s wall. If you could block the attacker's wall before it was built, you’d won the siege.

Syracuse built two counter-walls but did not finish them fast enough to block the Athenian wall. But, with the help of a Spartan general sent to aid them, they completed the third wall ahead of the Athenians.

Nicias was in sole command at this point - Lamarcus had died in the fighting and Alcibiades had been recalled to Athens to face charges of sacrilege and had defected to Sparta rather than face trial.

He sent word of the defeat to Athens, and they decided to send another 73 triremes, throwing good money after bad.

Demosthenes, one of the new generals sent with the reinforcements, tried a risky night attack on the counter-wall. The confused Athenian troops started fighting each other, then Syracuse attacked them and they panicked, fleeing through the unfamiliar terrain and falling off the cliffs in the dark.

With the remaining Athenian forces in shambles, Syracuse was able to trap the Athenian fleet in a bay and destroy it.

With no hope of escape, the Athenians fled inland, before succumbing to exhaustion and dehydration and falling into the hands of the enemy.

The Athenian defeat was total. Those who survived the fighting were sold as slaves or died in captivity.

Even more than two thousand years later, the Sicilian Expedition serves as a chilling example of what can happen when a government would rather throw their soldiers away than admit that they made a mistake.

---

If you want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, the Athenian historian Thucydides wrote a detailed account of the war in 431 BCE, which you can read here.

---

Taliesin Rouleau

Taliesin is a student at Algonquin College. He was raised in the woods by Neo-Pagans and studies Medieval combat from old manuscripts as a hobby.  

The civilization that gave us all

Provided by PIxaBay.com

There's nothing like Mesopotamian civilization like no other. The ancient civilization gave us the basics that all early civilizations must have.

They existed around 5000 BC to the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. It is located in the middle east. Although Mesopotamia refers to lands between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, Mesopotamia also means between the rivers. The land mainly consisted of dry plains and deserts; they had two rivers that proved to be plentiful in agriculture due to irrigation, making it bountiful even with the lack of rain in the region. People had already lived here before the start of the Mesopotamia Era; they were already farming settlements. But during the early Ancient era of Mesopotamia in 5000 BC-3500 BC, due to the plentiful food going around, small settlements grew in numbers, and so did their settlements; their temples also grew more prominent. Sooner or later, the Sumeria people would create the first city-state in the middle east. the first proper city called Uruk, the start of all beginnings and ends.

Mesopotamians or the Sumerians is the civilization that gave us writing, metallurgy, mathematics, basics of time, maps, and notably the wheel. The first signs of writing were image writing in the Mesopotamia era; they contained information such as laws, administrative documents, letters, stories, and hymns, some were on walls, but they would use clay tablets in day-to-day use. They would be the first to use currency in exchange for objects of value. Initially, buying things didn't exist; before currency, it was more of an exchange than a purchase like trading fur for food, etc.

One of their most important inventions was hard to pick, mathematics or wheel, but I chose the wheel because it was a step forward for transportation; they made carts to transport food and goods from one city-state to another, making trading accessible resources stocked and never depleted. Then, of course, mathematics was essential; through counting, they managed to be more organized than civilization before them and in the present. When others still live in huts, they hunt and farm for their food in small villages, while the Sumerians already have multiple city-states with trading lines, farms, markets, and claws resembling modern civilization like today.

Sumerians were pioneers and innovators of early human society development. Not only that, they made several technological and concept breakthroughs such as irrigation, wheel, metallurgy, glass, accounting, and many more. In particular, although they invented the clock, the idea of the time of day and night has perceived time in their daily lives. For example, time of meetings, time for breakfast or dinner, etc., they utilize it to the best of their abilities. One of my favourites tales that they invented was the epic of Gilgamesh, a story of a king to find the secret of immortality after his friend died. It is also one of the oldest tales in human history that survived to this day.

The Mesopotamian Era was a period of what humanity is truly capable of, and this was a pure example of creating and utilizing the tools we make and the ideas we muster to strive for a better future. Although this Era did not last long, and its civilization fell. Their influence in the world never died.

---

Thomas Arcilla

A 2nd professional writing student who loves video games and sushi. He writes a lot of novels but never finishes them. However, he promised to end them eventually, at least one of them.

Match-Makers and Phossy Jaw

Match-Makers

Phosphorus-Necrosis of the jaw

In 1839, physician Lorinser of Vienna was introduced to possibly his strangest case. A female matchmaker from Vienna, her jaw rotting away. Having extended some ways back towards the skull, there was not much flesh to hold together the jawline. Not long after that, Lorinser was called to twenty-two more cases of this strange disease in the same area.

In each case, all patients worked in a match factory, responsible for the production of countless matches. Around this time, phosphorus was being introduced to the match-making process. Added to the tips of the match, this meant you could strike these puppies anywhere. Of course, they were in high demand.

Eventually, the women were diagnosed with what is called Phosphorus Necrosis of the Jaw or (phossy jaw) in most circles. If untreated, this unsavory, foul disease would eat away at the jawline with the hunger of an unfed feline. Well, sort of. It would start with a swelling of the jaw that progressively got worse until eventually, your jaw would start to rot away. Without proper amputation of the jaw, the infection can reach up to the brain; and even then, life expectancy is still low.

The Women of Match- making

For years, women were exploited to make match-sticks under brutal conditions; for very little pay. Simply showing up late, or dropping a match-stick would grant you a fine. These factories were authoritarian, and phosphorus jaw was rampant.

The potential to catch the disease is just too great. Eventually, a book was published exposing the harsh conditions these women were had to work in, “White Slavery in London” and the factories were put under pressure to improve their factory’s work conditions. Each employee was even encouraged to sign a paper stating they were happy with their work conditions, in an effort by factory owners to restore the communities faith in them.

A strike was eventually organized by the women against the factories. All work was seized by the women, and the entirety of the workforce refused to work around phosphorus. It took twenty years after that for phosphorus to be declared illegal in the use of match-making. Though the substance is legal now, and we have the proper equipment/procedures curated for handling phosphorus.

What made the First World War so bloody?

courtesy of pixabay

History class in high school tend to focus on the battles of World War One and the Second World War, but they never focused on other aspects of the war. This blog post we will focus on just that, why was the First World War was so bloody.

First let us look at the new technologies and lack of technology that helped make the war so bloody.

The development of artillery and indirect artillery throughout the years. Artillery before the first world war had to be close to the front line and protected against infantry and cavalry attacks. Now with the development of indirect artillery fire, artillery can now be placed further away from the front lines and still fire at enemy positions.

The increase use of barbed wire helped protect a defensive position. It slows and can prevent troops from moving forwards. By slowing the enemy troop movements, it allows the defensive force to eliminate the attacking force.

Machine guns development in 1885 saw the creation of Hiram Maxim’s machine gun. The gun feature water cooling system to prevent the barrel from overheating. This allows it to fire more rounds than the other machine guns. Firing more rounds, the kill potential the machine gun has.

Lebel rifle

Courtesy of wikimedia commons

Another innovation that took place in 1880s with the replacement of charcoal gunpowder with smokeless propellants as well as metal-cased cartridges. These allow for better reliability of the rifle and with the smokeless propellant allows the gunman to not have his vision blurred or covered by discharging the firearm. Riflemen could now continuously fire on the enemy without losing sight of the enemy. With these new innovations brought with it new rifles that allowed them to fire more rounds than before. An example to illustrate this is a French division with Chassepots (their older rifle) could fire 40,000 rounds a minute. The same division with their new rifle the Lebel could fire 200,000 rounds a minute.

These improvements made it so wars would be more deadly than before with the quicker fire rate and number of bullets they can fire they can simply mow down the enemy troops.

courtesy of wikimedia commons

Schlieffen plan

Tied into this is the doctrine of nations. Most if not all European states favoured offensive doctrine. An example the Germans had the Schlieffen Plan, and the French with their Plan XVII had the ‘cult of the offensive’ belief, to name a few. The Schlieffen Plan in the best-case scenario would have knocked France out of the war in six weeks by marching through neutral Belgium, encircle the French army near Alsace-Lorraine destroying it, and marching onwards to Paris while the encirclement happened.

The French ‘cult of the offensive’ belief was to avoid defensive positions and focused more on the offensive. Being on the defensive demoralizes soldiers and gives the enemy the initiative. By focusing on offensive, they can push into enemy territory and win the war. As General Joseph Joffre of the French army said, “the offensive alone leads to positive results. … Battles are above all moral struggles.”

As I alluded to in my previous blog post about the Russo-Japanese War the French saw how the Japanese won battles because of their high morale compare to the Russians. What the French didn’t realize was by constantly charging enemy defenses, their manpower reserve would run low and they will not be able to continue fighting. The deaths caused by the French cult of the offensive spirit could have been avoided if they focused on defensive doctrine instead.

The military technology did not support the French military doctrine or other offensive doctrine and instead favoured a more defensive style. It was not until 1916 when technology finally caught up to the offensive doctrine. Invention of the tank, airplanes, and new tactics helped nations go on the offensive. This allowed for causalities to be minimal compared to previous offensives without those technologies or tactics.

Italian front 1915-1917

Courtesy of wikimedia commons

We also have some generals who should not have been leading the army. An example Luigi Cadorna, the Chief of Staff of the Italian Army during the First World War. He was in charge of the Italian front against the Austria-Hungary Empire. He participated in twelves battles of Isonzo. During those assaults, almost one million Italian causalities occurred. The last battle finally saw him dismissed from the Italian army. Luigi Cadorna had the reputation of being ruthless. He dismissed officers, he executed officers whose units retreated and even executed soldiers. These types of Generals who threw lives away also helped make the war bloodier than it was.

New military technology, the offensive doctrine, and the generals all played a part in making the First World War bloodier than it should be. If things played differently lives would have been saved.

---

Braden Harrison

Braden is a second-year student of the Professional Writing program at Algonquin College. He enjoys learning history, via reading books or watching videos, and reading fantasy novels.

The Ptolemaic Dynasty: History’s Worst Kings

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

History is filled with tales of royal corruption and decadence but tracing the origin of the more lurid stories generally leads to a political rival with a vested interest in discrediting their adversary. Real-life just isn’t as interesting as the rumours.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Usually.

The Ptolemaic dynasty is the exception. Their history reads like ad copy for guillotines.

The story of the Ptolemaic Kingdom isn’t widely known, but most of us know the beginning and the end. It begins 305 BCE with the death of Alexander the Great. As Alexander's empire started to break up, one of his generals, called Ptolemy, took his army to Egypt and declared himself Pharaoh, becoming Ptolemy I Soter and establishing the Ptolemaic Kingdom.

Things went well at first, but Ptolemy I had a difficult balancing act to perform. He was a Macedonian, leading a Macedonian army, and to retain their loyalty, he needed to be a king in the Macedonian tradition. However, the vast majority of his subjects were Egyptian, and to prevent them from overthrowing him, he also needed to be a pharaoh in the Egyptian tradition.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Ptolemy I did a pretty good job splitting the difference, but his successor, Ptolemy II, did the Egyptian thing and married his sister. The Macedonians thought this was very weird and gave him the name Ptolemy II Philadelphus, or sibling-lover, but this was exactly what was expected of an Egyptian pharaoh.

Things started to go downhill from here. The first five weren’t crazy, but after that it gets absurd.

Ptolemy V died in 180 BCE and the kingdom entered a sort of Schrödinger’s monarchy. Ptolemy VI was only six when his father died, so Cleopatra I ruled for a while, then when she died two of her friends took over, then all three children were the king at the same time. Ptolemy VI married Cleopatra II, and there were constant power struggles between him and Ptolemy VIII. Both brothers succeeded in exiling the other and seizing the throne at one point or another.

Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II had two children, Ptolemy VII and Cleopatra III. If you're wondering why the numbers aren’t in order, it’s because the scholars who numbered everyone were just as confused by this mess as I am.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Anyway, at one point, Cleopatra II sent Ptolemy VII to Ptolemy VIII, and Ptolemy VIII was so affronted at this that he cut his nephew into pieces and sent them to his sister on her birthday.

It seems like something that would spoil a relationship, but apparently not because when Ptolemy VI died, Cleopatra II married Ptolemy VIII. It was Ptolemy VIII’s decision to also marry Cleopatra III, his daughter-in-law/niece that did that.

So there was a civil war between Cleopatra II and her brother/husband and daughter, but she lost and just went back to being married to him.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Thanks to Ptolemy VIII's innovative decision to combine incest with polygamy, the family tree becomes a total mess from here to the end of the dynasty. It defies description, but you can see it for yourself here.  

Still, the Ptolemaic Kingdom staggered on through decades of misrule until Cleopatra VII, who was reportedly one of the best-educated women in the Mediterranean, despite being massively inbred, made an alliance with Julius Caesar, and we all know how the story goes from there.

The world is full of fascinating histories, yet all too often they are relegated to playing bit parts in the histories of a chosen few.

It is remarkable how much interesting stuff is out there for those who stray from the beaten path.

---

Taliesin Rouleau

Taliesin is a student at Algonquin College. He was raised in the woods by Neo-Pagans and studies Medieval combat from old manuscripts as a hobby.  

The Disappearance of Michael Rockefeller

Michael Rockefeller

An odd entry in American Lore

Michael Rockefeller was a quiet man. Grandson to John D Rockefeller, industrial and financial mogul, Michael was living amongst a family of wealth and intellect. Political and financial royalty.

His parents, Nelson Rockefeller and Mary Rockefeller were owners of several art museums, introducing young Michael to a realm of artwork beyond the western hemisphere. Garnishing an interest in Foreign work, Michael hoped to acquire some of the elaborate wood carvings of the Indigenous Asmat tribe of New Guinea. And just like that, twenty-three-year-old Michael Rockefeller set sail.

Asmat tribe cooking. Photo taken by Michael Rockefeller.

In the spring of 1961, Michael arrived in New Guinea with Dutch anthropologist René Wassing. Together they traveled between villages in their self-built catamaran. New Guinea had been undergoing colonization by the dutch for the past decade, though many people living on the island had still never seen a white man. There was certainly tension between the secluded tribes and the Dutch. Years before, there had been a violent altercation between the two. The Dutch retaliated with the murder of five tribesmen, some of whom were valued, community leaders. And with that, retribution was at hand. Oops.

Things seemed to be going smoothly. Until their boat was capsized just off of the coast. The two men waited on top of the capsized Catamaran for hours, with not much hope of seeing anyone any time soon. Frustrated, the young Rockefeller tied two empty gas containers to his hips and took off for shore. This was the last time he was seen.

Michael Rockefeller, 1961, New Guinea

As one might expect, his disappearance sparked a massive manhunt. Though after an aggressive search of the island, the young Rockefeller was presumed dead.

Michael would have had to swim twelve miles from his capsized boat to get to shore. His family, as well as authorities, believed Michael to have most likely drowned amongst the twelve miles of ocean. The case was eventually re-opened upon reports from dutch missionaries staying in New Guinea, claiming in detailed reports that Michael did not drown, but was killed and eaten alive by the Asmat tribe in an act of revenge against the dutch.

The violent retaliation by the Dutch years prior was not forgotten by the tribesmen. Dutch missionaries dedicated to converting the island to Christianity reported the Asmat tribe murdered the young Rockefeller as revenge. The Asmat tribe were cannibalistic, this was already confirmed. This would also confirm the Rockefeller family’s worst fear.

The Asmat tribe is known for its cannibalistic nature. During their ritual-based human dishes, it is customary not to waste any piece of the corpse; including dissecting and eating the brain. Upon further investigation into the Asmat people, it is believed that a translater overheard a tribesman warning others “Don’t tell them about the white man we killed.” Of course, by this point, there wasn’t much anybody could do. It would have been heinous to take revenge on an entire tribe, as these stone age societies have rarely seen anybody outside of their tribe. An utterly different world from ours.

Although we may not know what really happened to Michael Rockefeller…We can take our best guess…

We may never know the truth about the young Rockefeller…Though we can certainly take this entry from American Lore as a warning. Maybe Michael would have been better off if he had done a little more research into the relationship between the local tribes and the Dutch government trying to colonize them?

My name is Cordell Blundon, I am currently attending my second year of Professional Writing at Algonquin College. I enjoy old movies, anything vintage, and beer.

The bucket that started a war

War is terrible. Nobody can deny that. Throughout human history, we have accumulated quite an agenda when it comes to war. Countries and leaders go to war for different reasons, such as expanding territory, more power in the political stage, resources, and many more. But nobody would expect to go to war for petty reasons, right? Wrong. Have you guys heard of the Emu war in Australia in 1932? It was a war between man and flightless birds who migrated to a newly cultivated field, rendering wheat crops yield for the farmers. The Australians sent machine guns and fired at them, only to be jammed and overwhelmed by the emu, by birds, literally flightless birds. The birds won the war that lasted a month. A pretty ridiculous tale, isn't it? But, it was real and documented. There's a lot more like this. Have you guys heard the War of the Bucket?

As the name suggested, it was the war of bucket. This war was between two Italian city-states of Modena and Bologna. This was during a time of great turmoil that would span 300 years from 12th century to 15th century. In the 13th century, Italy was not united since the fall of the roman empire. It was split into two main factions, the Guelphs, who supports the Pope, and the Ghibellines supporting the holy roman emperor. In Italy, city-states had to choose between these two factions, ultimately splitting the once known remaining reminisced of a great empire. As much as like to cover the great 300 years of war in the Italy peninsula, this is where it gets juicy. Modena was in league with Ghibellines, while Bologna did the opposite.

On a serious note, war is terrible. To lose your life over an object shouldn't exist, yet the buckets' war proves it exists. The Modena and Bologna ended clashing in the fields of a village, between two cities of the south. Bologna had Modena outnumbered, but unfortunately, in a ridiculous fashion, they had terrible leadership that broke Bologna's forces. Modena pushed them back, and they scattered like rats. Now, the soldiers of Modena had a clear view of the Bologna; they continued their march to their city. They destroyed several small castles, did some vandalism here and there. To humiliate Bologna even further, they parade around the city, re-enactment the recent battle events, and they soon gleefully left the area; they also took the bucket to insult them.

After this conflict, the two city-states decided to end their aggression with each other. The two signed a peace treaty and returned to the status quo before the war started. Modena returned all the castles they conquered to Bologna, but unfortunately, no one could bring back the 2000 lives lost that day. And also, Modena didn't return the bucket; the bucket is still in Modena. The bucket is up in display in the basement of Torre della Ghirlandina. They also have a replica on display in Modena's Town Hall.

---

Thomas Arcilla

A 2nd professional writing student who loves video games and sushi. He writes a lot of novels but never finishes them. However, he promised to end them eventually, at least one of them.

Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905

Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05.

Courtesy of History archive

Russan propaganda poster of an easy Victory of japan

Before we get into the war, let’s talk about the build up to the war first. Japan underwent massive transformation in their society around 1868 which is known as the Meiji Restoration. It brought the country closer to a western European nation. Brought its politics, economy, and military to resemble a European nation.

Courtesy of wikimedia commons

The signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki ending the first sino-japanese war

Japan set their sights upon China and so the first Sino-Japanese War of 1895 occurred which resulted in Japanese victory. In the peace treaty Japan gained Taiwan, Liaodong Peninsula as well Port Arthur, recognition of an independent Korea, war reparations, and opening of treaty ports.

This victory did not sit well with European powers who also had interest in China namely; Russia, France and Germany. These nations formed the Triple Intervention and threatened Japan with war if they did not return Liaodong Peninsula and Port Arthur. Japan backed down and returned the land. Russia, wanted a warm water port, licensed Port Arthur from China for 25 years. They also attempted to persuade the newly independent Korea to join the Russian sphere of influence.

Japan, humiliated by the Triple Intervention, was angered by Russia’s encroachment into Japanese sphere of influence. With the loss of Port Arthur, war seem inevitable between the two powers.

In February 8, 1904, Japan launched a surprise attack on the Russian fleet stationed at Port Arthur and proceeded with a blockade. Unchallenged on the seas, the Japanese shipped their troops to Korea and near Port Arthur. Japan won the Battle of Nanshan cutting Port Arthur from the rest of the Russian forces.

Courtesy of pinterest

The Japanese Third Army laid siege to Port Arthur, shelling the city and the Russian ships in dock. Japan launched multiple offensives to take the city, but each failed. This is due to the defenses of barbed wires and machine guns. Advisors from the Western world watched and noted the effect of machine guns and superior firepower had on infantry assaults. These lessons can be seen in the First World War. An example is that the French saw how the Japanese won battles with their fervor and continuous infantry assaults. On January 2, 1905, Port Arthur surrendered to the Japanese force.

The last land battle of the war, the Battle of Mukden. The Russian side had around 330,000 men and the Japanese had 270,000. The Japanese were victorious but it came at a heavy cost. The Russians saw 89,000 dead, and the Japanese saw 71,000 dead. The massive number of causalities that Japan suffered at the Battle of Mukden and the siege of Port Arthur saw their reserve manpower near depleted. If war were to carry on the Japanese would have surely surrendered due to lack of manpower, while the Russian had deeper manpower reserve. Luckily, the last battle of the war took place on the Japanese control seas.

Courtesy of Wikimedia commons

The Russian Baltic Fleet set sail in the fall of 1904 to help reinforce the Russian Far East Fleet. They arrived in May of 1905 and tried to reach the port of Vladivostok by going through the straights of Tsushima. Unfortunately, the Russian fleet sailed for months experienced a lack of maintenance, so when they arrived in May at the Tsushima straits, their ships were unprepared for the Japanese fleet waiting. As a result, the Russian fleet was decimated, two-thirds of it sunk, and only four ships made it to Vladivostok.

With the Russian fleets decimated, the army in retreat, and civil unrest happening in Russia. Peace were sought for. The Treaty of Portsmouth ended the war which gave control of Port Arthur, half of Sakhalin Island and recognition of Japan’s control of Korea.

The war did three things for the world; one, it showed the European powers can be defeated by a non-European power. This was never done before, and it added to the Russian’s anger towards the monarchy. Second, it shifted Russia’s foreign policy away from the Far East and more towards the Balkan region.  Finally, it gave a glimpse to the future of warfare that later became the heart of the First World War.

 To learn more about the naval side of the Russo-Japanese War watch the video of the war by Kings and Generals.

*We will return to this topic in my next blog post about the First World War and why it was so bloody.

---

Braden Harrison

Braden is a second-year student of the Professional Writing program at Algonquin College. He enjoys learning history, via reading books or watching videos, and reading fantasy novels.

Victorian Egyptomania

The desecration of Egyptian culture

The Victorian Era was subject to many strange practices. From their regular intake of arsenic to taking family photos with dead relatives’ corpses. Gross right? Though, amongst their most detrimental and strange obsessions was that of the Egyptomania period. Desecrating Egypt’s culture was only the beginning, soon they would be able to do this from the comfort of their own homes.

Eroupe’s fascination with Egypt began with Napoleon Boniparte’s invasion of Egypt.

On July 1st, 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte and his French regime invaded Egypt. After nearly completely wiping out the Mamluk rulers, Napoleon and his army were free to collect ancient artifacts, essential to the history of Egypt. Finders keepers?

Amongst the artifacts found, was the infamous Rosetta stone. The Rosetta stone harbored the key essential for decoding Egyptian Hieroglyphics. A language that had been dead for nearly 2,000 years. Once returned to Europe, a spark of interest was ignited throughout the nation; a light that would burn for quite some time.

Things are about to get weird…

Once Victorians caught wind of some of the fascination, it wasn’t long before people began traveling to Egypt to get in on some of the action. This would often lead to Mummy’s being extracted from their designated place of resting and shipped back to Europe. The result? Mummy unraveling parties. The Victorian’s fascination with mummies was not for scholarly interest, one would say it was more of intrigue for the macabre and consumptive power.

It was widely believed that Mummy carcass’s carried bitumen, a substance the medical community believed contained healing properties. This of course was eventually forgotten, as a growing belief in the mummy its self being the healer, emerged. Superstitious and enamored, people were eating pieces of mummies in accordance with what they believed it cured. I don't know about you, but ill stick with the science.

Bizarre medical practices were not the only thing we relied on mummies for. “Brown mummy paint” was also extracted from the corpses. If anything, this was definitive proof of the interest for the macabre. What artist wouldn’t want to brag about their undead paint supply?

Time to wrap it up…

Eventually, the Victorian’s obsession with Egypt began to fade. Having been a fascination of theirs for decades, people were getting bored. You've seen one mummy, you've seen them all. After macabre medical practices exhibited nothing but failure time and time again, it was time to wrap the mummy back up. Of course, this begs the question…Was it worth desicration?

My name is Cordell Blundon and I am in my second year of the professional writing program at Algonquin College. I love beer, writing, and old movies.

Early Medieval Tournaments

What if there wasn’t a war, and we all showed up anyway?

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

There were two kinds of tournaments in the Middle Ages, tournaments and jousts. The terms came to be used interchangeably towards the end of the Middle Ages. ‘Tournament’ became the preferred name, but it was ‘jousts’ that have defined our modern understanding of tournaments. We all know what jousting is, but what was an old-fashioned tournament?

First, imagine a war. Now imagine you’re fighting it for fun.

Old-fashioned tournaments were open-world team deathmatches with sharp weapons. There could be as many as 200 knights to a side and the arena was often defined as the space between two villages or some other large swath of land full of terrified peasants.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Teams were usually divided by geography, French knights versus English knights, for instance. Each team had a safe zone and would ride out on horseback, armed with lance, sword and shield, to fight the other team. There were few rules. Knights could ambush stragglers, or gang up on isolated opponents, or just charge into a huge melee and start hacking away.

The point wasn’t to kill your opponent, simply to force them to surrender. Then, you could hold them to ransom for immense sums of money. The ransoms could be set before the tournament started, so they were less fight-to-the-death than high-stakes gambling, but with kidnapping. If your opponent died, you would have to content yourself with stealing their armor, their weapons, and their war house, assuming you hadn’t killed that as well.

The practice of ransoming off noble prisoners was common at the time, and it worked much the same in tournaments as it did in normal warfare.

However, tournaments were still fought with sharp weapons, and being worth more alive than dead wasn’t nearly enough to prevent deaths. It was a rear noble family who couldn’t point to at least one relative who had been killed in a tournament. The very first evidence of tournaments is a record of the death of a Godfrey de Preuilly in 1066 C.E. in a tournament he had organized.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Nothing demonstrates early tournaments' commitment to fair play quite like the Kipper. Capturing a knight could be very difficult; knock him off his house and he could just fight on foot, ride him down and you’d probably kill him and lose the ransom money, dismount to fight on foot and you’d give away your advantage. Kippers were the answer.

A kipper, from the Scandinavian ‘Kippa’- to seize, was a serf who followed their lord into the tournament and would collect the spoils so the knight wouldn’t have to stop fighting. When a knight was unhorsed, the opposing knight’s kippers would run up and beat the fallen knight senseless with clubs, steal their armor and weapons, and drag him off to captivity.

Imagine for a moment what, say, modern football would look like if every player was followed around by a gang of thugs with baseball bats, ready to beat the tar out of fallen players and steal their jerseys. It seems ludicrous now, but knights back then didn’t think twice about it, even though there was a good chance they would end up on the wrong side of a kipper themselves.

Under constant pressure from numerous kings and the Catholic Church, tournaments eventually became less bloody. Sharp weapons became rare, and kippers were seen as unsportsmanlike. Old-fashioned tournaments were phased out in favor of jousts, which, though far from safe, were at least safer than a general melee. Collecting ransoms became less important than showing off to the crowd. This focus on pageantry can make tournaments seem faintly ridiculous today, but it’s worth remembering that originally, a tournament was intended to be all the fun of a real war, with none of the boring politics.

---

Taliesin Rouleau

Taliesin is a student at Algonquin College. He was raised in the woods by Neo-Pagans and studies Medieval combat from old manuscripts as a hobby.  

The Treadmill, a tool of torture

Image provided by unsplash.com and taken by Ryan De Hamer

The treadmill is one of the most valuable tools used for exercising. It improves stamina, enhancing legs muscles as well. So, why was it used as a torture device in the 18th century? A tool of torture or an instrument for benefits? Let’s take a look at the origin of the Treadmill.

Treadmills have been around since the height of the Roman empire. Before they were called treadmills, they were called tread-wheels. They used it to transport heavy loads, by replacing the crane with a wheel where people would walk on to lift the materials to their designated places. It was a tool of transportation before it was a tool for torture, or to improve the human body.

In the 18th century, William Cubitt, a civil engineer who created prisoner’s treadmills, was later tasked to oversee the construction of the crystal palace. His invention was infamous among prisons as a tool of rehabilitation. However, the most popular version of his treadmill was in Brixton Prison in London. It was a giant wheel that could host up to 24 prisoners at once. These contraptions were used primarily to grind up corn, sometimes for up to ten hours a day. Later, a wall would be added between each prisoner to prevent them from socializing. The Prisons Act of 1889 abolished this practice.

The treadmill that we know today did not exist until the 1960s. Early 19th century treadmills were mainly used for medical, primarily to measure heart rate and lung condition. William Staub, a mechanical engineer, was inspired by the book "Aerobics" written by Dr. Kenneth Copper, which explains that improvement and the benefits of improving the body's fitness. The two spearheaded the production of the earliest treadmill PaceMaster 600 in the public market. By the 1980s, they had sold 35,000 units per year. The idea that you could own a device that could be put inside your own home while bringing your body to fitness and health was appealing to customers. They didn't have to jog or walk in the scorching heat instead, and they could comfortably exercise inside.

From the lowest and cruel functionality regarding the Treadmale in human history as a torture device to rehabilitating prisoners, it makes its way to millions of gyms worldwide utilized it regulairly. Of course, you don't expect a tool of your everyday life to be used for an atrocious act like torture. Nevertheless, the Treadmill outweighs its grim history by its benefits.

---

Thomas Arcilla

A 2nd professional writing student who loves video games and sushi. He writes a lot of novels but never finishes them. However, he promised to end them eventually, at least one of them.

Marie-Antoinette

Did Marie-Antoinette really say, “Let them eat cake?”

We’ve all heard of the famous phrase, “Let them eat cake”; which was said by Marie-Antoinette, the wife of King Louis XVI, the Queen of France around 1789. This phrase helped anger the Paris population, but the question is: did she really say that phrase, and was it used during the French Revolution? Let’s find out.

Marie-Antoinette, Image Courtesy of pixabay

Marie-Antoinette was born on November 2nd 1755 in Vienna, Austria. She was married at the age of 14 in May 1770. Four years later she would become queen when her husband Louis XVI took the throne. This marriage was seen more of an act of keeping the peace between Austria and France since the Seven Years’ War had just concluded. Many of the French people already saw her as an enemy to the state. Her massive spending while France was suffering economically did not help her image and damaged her reputation among the French population. Many saw the massive spending as what was wrong with the nobility and the monarchy in general. During the economic hardship of 1789, is when the so called “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” which translates roughly to, “Let them eat cake” was said by Marie-Antoinette.

Historians and the author of Marie-Antoinette’s biography, Lady Antonia Fraser, suggests that the quote –if it was said by her—would have been quite opposite of her character. Despite her massive spending she also spent a lot of her money in donations to the poor and charitable causes. If we went off Marie-Antoinette’s character, if she heard about the hardship the poor faced, she would have helped them. It was out of character, but it does not mean something could not have happened to change her to say that. We would need more evidence; luckily there is.

A series of novels by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, called Confessions, written around 1766 gives another piece of evidence. In his sixth book he tells a story where a great princess turned her nose up at to the poor when they had no bread. That great princess said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”. Some historians suggest that the great princess Rousseau was talking about was Marie-Thérèse, the ruler of the Habsburg realm and mother to Marie-Antoinette.

Brioche, Image courtesy of pixabay

At the time of Rousseau wrote the story and coined the phrase “Let them eat cake”, Marie-Antoinette was 10 years old. Hardly a comment a small princess would make about French peasants and poor people. She did not even live in France at the time. How could she make a comment while not being there? She can’t, so it must have been someone else.

It is out of character for Marie-Antoinette, she did not live in France and was known to the French people and to Rousseau. This clearly shows that the phrase, “Let them eat cake” was not actually said by Marie-Antoinette.

Let’s move onto the question: did the organizers of the French Revolution use that phrase out of context and blame Marie-Antoinette to help the revolution? Researchers don’t think so, since there is no evidence or quotes in newspapers, pamphlets or any other material published at the time used that the quote was used to help fuel the revolution. If a monarch truly said that, it would have been in newspapers and pamphlets to try and anger as many people as possible. The fact that it is absent from any of the media shows that the phrase was not used for the revolution.

The first time the phrase was directly connected to Marie-Antoinette was during 1843, when a French writer, Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, reported on finding the phrase, “Let them eat cake” in a book written in the 1760s. Karr had hoped this would stop the spread of the rumor that Marie-Antoinette said that phrase, but clearly it will take more time for the quote and Marie-Antoinette to be separated.

---

Braden Harrison

Braden is a second-year student of the Professional Writing program at Algonquin College. He enjoys learning history, via reading books or watching videos, and reading fantasy novels.

The Mark 14: America’s Worst Torpedo

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The Mark 14 was the primary U.S. submarine torpedo in WW2 and has gone down as one of the biggest boondoggles in naval history. Designed during the Great Depression to replace the obsolete Mark 10, budget cuts, interdepartmental bickering, and production holdups meant the first live-fire test was conducted in the Philippines when U.S. sub-mariners were sent to sink Japanese ships.

The Mark 14 had a state-of-the-art depth sensor, so it could run at whatever depth the crew set, and the top-secret Mark 6 Exploder, a device that detected the magnetic fields of large metal ships and detonated the torpedo’s warhead when it got within range. With this, the Bureau of Ordnance (BuOrd) was sure they had created the ultimate weapon.

The Philippines engagements told a different story. Torpedoes were exploding too early, or too late. They were smashing into ships and bouncing off, or just sailing under ships without doing anything.

Image courtesy of the San Francisco Maritime National Park Association

BuOrd issued a statement forbidding anyone from wasting torpedoes by testing them and blaming everything on incompetent crews.

This seemed plausible at the time, as no one had trained with the torpedoes.

However, as the war progressed, reports of torpedo failure became too common to ignore, and eventually the navy decided to run some tests anyway.

The problem was the Mark 14s going too deep, and the tests showed that they levelled out an average of 11 feet below the target depth, sending them safely under the enemies’ keels.

BuOrd was furious that their orders had been disregarded, but the cat was out of the bag, and they were forced to admit that there may be some small flaw in the depth sensor.

The depth sensor was the Mark 14 in miniature, more flaw than machine, but the amazing part is how this went unnoticed.

When BuOrd was calibrating the sensor, they replaced the live warhead with a mock-up. However, they made the mock-up lighter than the warhead so the torpedo would float and could be recovered. 

So the Mark 14 was calibrated perfectly as long as you removed the 300 kg warhead and replaced it with a pool float.

Once the depth sensor was fixed, it was time for the Mark 6 Exploder to prove its worth.

Crews began reporting that their torpedoes were exploding early, simply showering the target in spray.

Mark 14 diagram. Image courtesy of the San Francisco Maritime National Park Association

Magnetic detonators need to account for the earth's magnetic field, and that field is different from place to place. The Mark 6 Exploder worked fine in weaker fields of the testing ground, but where the fighting was happening, getting anywhere near a ship would be enough to trip the sensor.

BuOrd issued another statement about how everything was fine, but the navy had learned a valuable lesson about taking BuOrd seriously and quickly deactivated the Exploders. They would rely on the backup contact detonator. Even BuOrd couldn’t mess that up.

Improved contact detonator. Image courtesy of the San Francisco Maritime National Park Association

Except...

The navy was flooded with reports of torpedoes smashing into ships and bouncing off without exploding.

BuOrd denied everything again, but they were ignored.

The firing pin in the detonator was perpendicular to the torpedo, so when it hit something, the deceleration would jam the pin against the side of its housing, preventing it from moving. The torpedo had to be redesigned with an ball switch detonator, and by that time it was two years into the war.

The Mark 14 is remarkable not just for its poor design, but for the obstructionist attitude of its designers. 

It is perhaps fitting that the improved Mark 14 torpedo would remain in U.S. service until 1980, outliving BuOrd by 21 years.

---

If you are interested in the improved version, the declassified manual can be found Here.

Sources

---

Taliesin Rouleau

Taliesin is a student at Algonquin College. He was raised in the woods by Neo-Pagans and studies Medieval combat from old manuscripts as a hobby.  

Charles the 2nd of Spain

Charles the 2nd of Spain

Anomaly? Or product of Royal Intermarraige?

Charles the 2nd was the Habsburg ruler of Spain during the 1700s. Born on November 6th, 1661, Charles became king at the tender young age of 4. Known most notably for his physical disfigurements; it is still widely debated as to the reasons why? Many believe he is the by-product of a continuous effort to maintain an exclusive Royal bloodline. For much of history, royal families often implemented these incestual practices. In Europe, this was widely practiced from the dark ages to the fringes of World War One. Families would often take part in Royal Intermarriage, either by law or national interest. This practice could also serve to initiate or maintain peace within dynasties.

It is widely believed that over sixteen generations of inbreeding took place, possibly solidifying Charles’s grotesque features. Frightfully ugly, it is said that Charles unsettled even his own wife. Throughout his life, he suffered from many health complications, and many didn’t think he would grow to live past his adolescence. Historian John Langdon-Davies summarized his life as, "Of no man is it truer to say that in his beginning was his end; from the day of his birth, they were waiting for his death"

Charles’s family lineage can be traced back through generations of Royal Intermarriage.

Charles the 2nd of Spain was married twice, though, was unable to bear any children. When he died at the of 39, he was unable to produce a successor to him. His 16-year-old half-nephew Philip of Anjou was eventually appointed to take the throne. His mental, as well as physical impairment, made it tremendously difficult for Charles to rule the monarchy on his own; appointed primarily to maintain the throne within the Habsburg bloodline. Charles’s tongue was so large, it impeded his speech when he spoke. His mandible was equally distorted, with his teeth not being able to touch at all. This presented a massive issue, as he was unable to chew his food. It is believed that Charles was poorly educated, with barely any effort being put forth by the Royal family as a response to his physical and mental condition. Presumably illiterate, Charles was not much use to the throne. Although we are not quite sure why Habsburg had such a protrusive jaw, it is widely speculated that his jaw was the result of a recessive gene, this occurs when the phenotype of each individual reproducing is the same.

There is no definitive proof that Charles the 2nd was inbred. Though, with his symptoms mirroring that of incestual inbreeding, we can only assume this was the case. Considering all of the facts you must ask yourself, do you believe he was inbred?

History of Eyewear

---

Framing the Eyes

Image provided by www.pexels.com and taken by Shane Aldendorff

Did you know that more than half of Canadian adults in 2016 wear eyeglasses for vision correction? Or that 74% of adults wear glasses for vision correction according to The Vision Council, me neither. As someone who wears glasses, I didn't know about it. People who wear glasses or contacts are people who have trouble seeing. But who invented it? Where did the business of eyewear start? How did it impact the lives of many who have difficulties with blurry vision in their day-to-day life?

The first spectacle were made and worn in the 13th century. But in truth, They’ve been around even before the 13th century. The first use of eyewear was not to help with visual impairments but to magnify and see small words, commonly used by ancient Romans. Who invented the glasses has always been a complex topic because nobody knows who created them. Some say it was Benjamin Franklin because he developed the bifocals that made glasses far-sighted or short-sighted. Some say Salvino D'Armate invented the first spectacle in the 13th century. Still, historians doubt Salvino D'Armate is the true inventor of glasses because of his fraudulent epitaph and his nonexistent name in the Armate family registry at the time. No one can honestly know who invented it, but it has been improved throughout centuries by multiple inventors and innovators who have proven its use to this very day.

Eyewear is not a medicine prescribed by a doctor but a tool, a commodity that helps the users with their vision. It gives the user visual corrections in their day-to-day lives. It's also a business; the eyewear industry has been around since the 13th century when the first convex glasses came to be. Ever since the creation of glasses, a lot of companies specifically for eyewear has started showing up. One of the biggest companies in the eyewear industry is Luxottica, and they began in 1961.

Image Provided by unsplash.com and taken by Josh Calabrese

The business in eyewear's total market size value is 147 billion USD in 2020. According to the report made by Grand View Research, the market size will increase to 278 billion USD in 2028. That's a hefty amount of money due to the success of eyewear because They will never run out of customers. It has become an item of necessity for people, especially for the adult population, because as they grow older, their vision can weaken. To add on, the increase in quality of the frames, glasses, contact lenses and other materials also contributed to the industry's success. They show no signs of stopping

As someone who wears glasses, I don't know what I would do if I couldn't see anything; this is how it impacted people's lives. Furthermore, blurry vision is inconvenient and can make life difficult. You can't see the letters and words nor see the faces of friends and families. Eyeglasses are one of humanity's best inventions; without them, people would be bumping into lampposts and walls. Some might find it inconvenient to wear them every day, but contact lenses exist and work like glasses. They will stay around for a very long time unless humanity makes a breakthrough to recovering our vision back to 20/20. For now, this is what we have.

More than anything, I don't know what kind of world we would live in if eyeglasses didn't exist. I don't think I'll be able to live without these bad boys. So I'm glad and grateful for such an invention to exist.

---

Thomas Arcilla

A 2nd professional writing student who loves video games and sushi. He writes a lot of novels but never finishes them. However, he promised to end them eventually, at least one of them.

The Raid on Dieppe

Image Courtesy of The Churchill Project Hillsdale College

Europe was ablaze in the Second World War. The Allies were pushed out of Europe by the Axis. The Soviets were desperate in their attempt to get the Allies to open a second front to and draw the Axis attention away. The Allies obliged. On August 19, 1942 the Allies launch a daring raid off the coast of France on the city of Dieppe. 6, 000 soldiers, “5, 000 were Canadians”[1], participated in the raid.

The goal of this raid was three-fold: one, to show the Soviets their commitment to opening a second front, two, to help boost morale back home in United Kingdom and the allies, and lastly to gain knowledge that will help the Allies launch D-Day in 1944.

The raid itself was conducted in the early morning hours to keep the element of surprise. The main force attacked the town while two other contingents landed on the flanks of the city with the goal of knocking out the main gun batteries overlooking the port. The flanking army failed in knocking out the main gun batteries, which left the main force vulnerable to enemy troops as they stormed the beaches.

By 1 p.m. the allies were on the retreat, with “913 Canadian soldiers dead and 1, 946 soldiers captured”[2].

But the question it raises: why was the raid launched, and was it really for the reasons the Allies said it was, to boost morale, show their commitment to the Soviets and learn lessons for the future[3]? Well, documents that became declassified sheds new light on the whole purpose of the raid of Dieppe. David O’Keefe, a military historian, found the declassified documents and put together another reason why the raid occurred.

Enigma Machine

Courtesy of www.Pixelbay.com

Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond and commander in the Naval Intelligence Division, was front and center of the raid. According to the documents O’Keefe uncovered, Ian Fleming —onboard his destroyer— watched the raid unfold before him, waiting for the signal to move in and fulfill his mission. The mission and the whole point of the raid on Dieppe was to get the Enigma cipher machine that the Germans used for the codes and secret messages[4]. Getting one would allow the Allies to crack the German code and save lives by preventing the merchant fleet, that Britain needs to survive, from being destroyed by the German U-Boats. A group of commandos under Fleming were to storm the German headquarters in Dieppe, grab the Enigma cipher and other information and deliver it to Fleming on his destroyer.

The original reasons given for the raid on Dieppe: to boost morale, show their commitment to opening a second front, and to gain experience for the future landing on D-Day. Those reasons were a mere cover story for the true purpose, which was to steal the Enigma machine with Fleming at the head of the operation. The true purpose revealed, once revealed, allowed those who survived to find peace in their friend’s death.

References:

[1] “Dieppe Raid. Why?” The Canadian Encyclopedia, The Canadian Encyclopedia, 28 Feb. 2017, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dieppe-raid-why.

[2]Reardon, Terry. “Dieppe-Raid-WW2-Churchill's-Involvement-Responsibility.” The Churchill Project - Hillsdale College, 1 Dec. 2017, https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/dieppe-the-truth-about-churchills-involvement-and-responsibility/.

[3][4]“New Theory About Fleming's 'Dieppe' Role.” The James Bond International Fan Club, 5 Apr. 2013, https://www.007.info/new-theory-about-flemings-dieppe-role/.

---

Braden Harrison

Braden is a second-year student of the Professional Writing program at Algonquin College. He enjoys learning history, via reading books or watching videos, and reading fantasy novels.

Tempus Incognita

Can't get enough of history? Fear not! Tempus Incognita will tell you the history of what is real and what is not. From the bizarre history to strange tales, we will pique your curiosity and satisfy your need for knowledge about humanity's origins.