whencyclopedia

[whencyclopedia]

WWII Through Striking Photographs

A powerful collection of 50 photographs captures the vast scope and human drama of World War II (1939–1945). These images show not only battlefield moments but also the daily lives of soldiers and civilians caught up in the war. The photos trace the conflict’s global reach, immense destruction, and the ultimate defeat of aggressive totalitarian regimes.

Key Facts

The gallery presents photos in chronological order, telling the story from the outbreak of war to its conclusion.

It covers major battles, soldier experiences, civilian roles, and the war’s physical and emotional toll.

Millions died or were displaced during the conflict.

The war ended with the defeat of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and their allies.

The photographs reveal both the violence of combat and the resilience of people amid hardship.

Historical Context

World War II was a global conflict involving most of the world’s nations. It began in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland and escalated into a war on multiple continents. The conflict lasted six years and resulted in unprecedented casualties and destruction.

Historical Significance

These photographs provide a visual history of humanity’s darkest and most transformative conflict of the 20th century. They help us understand the scale of suffering and the courage displayed by ordinary people. The images preserve memories essential to learning from the past and honoring those affected by the war.

Learn More: 50 Stunning Photographs of WWII

[whencyclopedia]

Joan I of Navarre: Queen Consort of France

Joan I of Navarre (1273-1305) served as queen of Navarre and countess of Champagne and Brie between 1274 and 1305. In 1285, she also became queen consort of France following her marriage to Philip IV of France (reign 1285-1314). Between 1289 and 1297, she had four children, three of whom would become kings of France while one became queen consort of England. In the last year of her life, Joan founded the college of Navarre at the University of Paris.

Joan I’s life is also notable for being the first of a long series of queens regnant of Navarre. Between 1274-1517, five women became queens of Navarre, more than anywhere else in Europe. Furthermore, Joan I established precedent for how Navarre would be ruled by her female descendents.

Early Life & Marriage

Joan I, also known as Jeanne or Juana, was born in January 1273 to King Henry I of Navarre (c. 1244-1274) and Blanche of Artois (1248-1302). Joan was a member of the house of Champagne and later inherited the counties of Champagne and Brie. A series of unfortunate events resulted in her ultimate ascension to queen of Navarre and countess of Champagne and Brie. In 1270, Henry I became king of Navarre following the death of his older brother, King Theobald II of Navarre (1238-1270) while on the eighth crusade. Shortly after this, Joan’s older brother, a baby boy named Theobald, died after falling from a castle window in 1273. With no precedent of female heiresses in Navarre, Joan was named heir only until a new male heir could be born. But before Henry I and Blanche of Artois could conceive another child, Henry I himself died on the 22nd of July, 1274. This series of untimely deaths concluded with Joan’s ascension to the throne as an infant in 1274.

As a minority claimant, Joan’s position was unsure. Neighboring kingdoms saw an opportunity for expanding their dominions through marriage or force. Notably, the Castilian, French, and English kings sought to intervene in Navarre. While in Gascony in 1273-74, King Edward I of England (reign 1272-1307) attempted to negotiate a marriage between Joan and his son. Fearing encroachment of power, Blanche of Artois instead sought refuge at the court of her first cousin, King Philip III of France (reign 1270-1285). The result of this was the 1275 Treaty of Orleans where Joan was officially betrothed to Philip III’s younger son, Philip (later Philip IV of France).

Joan spent the rest of her childhood in France. Indeed, after Blanche of Artois fled with Joan to the French court, Joan never again returned to Navarre. Instead, Navarre was taken into the protection of Philip III. Blanche of Artois acted as regent of Navarre, Champagne, and Brie alongside her new husband, the widower brother of Edward I of England, Edmund of Lancaster (1245-1296). After Joan reached her majority, and therefore was deemed old enough to rule her lands as her own, Blanche of Artois and Edmund of Lancaster were forced to concede their rule. In their place, a series of French governors ruled Navarre. Champagne and Brie were fortunate to receive more active governance from Joan, but were nonetheless encompassed into French rule.

At age eleven in 1284, Joan was deemed by Philip III to have reached her majority. As such, Joan and Philip were married on the 16th of August. Their marriage entered Navarre and France into a formal political union, and further entrenched Champagne and Brie into French dominion. Philip IV (as he became the following year) and Joan’s marriage is largely believed to have been a successful one and produced seven children, four of whom lived until adulthood: Louis, Philip, Charles, and Isabella. Joan achieved the unique position of being the mother of four monarchs. Each of her sons would become kings of France and Isabella would marry King Edward II of England (reign 1307-1327) to become queen consort.

Read More

⇒ Joan I of Navarre: Queen Consort of France

[whencyclopedia]

Restricted Data: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the United States

Both readable and rigorous, this book offers an invaluable overview of how the classification scheme around nuclear technology evolved -- and fruitfully critiques its effectiveness.

Democracy and security have never gotten along in American society; even as nearly everyone agrees that some information should be kept from the public, just as many agree that secrecy opens the door to corruption, tyranny, and conspiracy. Perhaps there is no better example of this tension than the nuclear establishment, where the stakes of failure are measured in millions of deaths. But despite the risks, nuclear secrecy is subject to constant suspicion – and, for the most part, is riddled with breaches and leaks. It is this conflict that Alex Wellerstein analyzes in Restricted Data: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the United States, a comprehensive account of nearly a century of governmental efforts, often frustrated, to control information about nuclear technology.

Wellerstein, a historian of nuclear technology and a professor at Stevens Institute of Technology, has written extensively about the atom’s influence on our lives, publishing both in academic journals and in popular magazines like National Geographic; he has even released a video game, Oregon Road ‘83, about life in a post-nuclear United States. This body of work conveys one of the book’s best qualities: accessibility. Restricted Data is, by and large, written in plain language, carefully balancing readability and rigor to make this volume useful to both laypeople and experts.

This story begins with the advent of modern atomic theory. Leo Szilard (1898-1964), the Hungarian physicist at Princeton, inaugurated the concept of nuclear secrecy through a quixotic effort to persuade scientists to self-censor papers on nuclear fission, in hopes of preventing dangerous governments from understanding the military applications of fission. This period soon gave way to the Manhattan Project, and as the US government faced the project of maintaining secrecy about a program with thousands of participants, the classification apparatus grew larger and larger – and, notably, failed to prevent espionage, as the project was soon infiltrated by Soviet intelligence. Finally, he turns to the Cold War and, later, the unipolar world, all of which tended to expand secrecy over time even amid multiple declassification pushes.

Indeed, this book is in large part a record of historical failures. For one, Wellerstein fruitfully questions whether it is really possible to maintain secrecy around what is essentially physical law: any organization able to afford a nuclear program can ultimately unravel atomic “secrets” on its own, regardless of any secrecy policies. For another, he points out that, in general, the main obstacles to building a nuclear weapon are material, not informational; for example, the main bottleneck for the Soviet program was locating reserves of uranium, not in discovering how the bomb worked. For three, the government is often its own worst enemy: When the existence of an American hydrogen bomb project leaked, it wasn't espionage that did it: Senator Edwin Johnson simply blurted out the truth on television.

To make this case, Wellerstein relies primarily on documentary evidence. Of course, this is a challenging history to write, as so much of the source base remains classified. The author admits he has no security clearance, but having one would not help him – it’d simply subject his work to more government scrutiny. Nonetheless, he shows that much of the government’s deliberations about secrecy have been declassified, along with a wide variety of reprinted primary sources, ranging from diagrams of nuclear weapons to handwritten proposals for secrecy schemes. Taken together, these offer a great deal of insight into how policymakers wrangled with competing loyalties to national security, their own ideals, and democratic government.

It is this facet of the book that most demonstrates its value. It is hard for a scholar to be sympathetic to the censor, but Wellerstein urges us to resist seeing them as shadowy MIBs or corrupt conspirators. Rather, he points to figures like David Lilienthal, the AEC commissioner who entered the government as an idealist and left a broken, exhausted man, one of many would-be reformers “assimilated” by the nuclear establishment. Indeed, Wellerstein portrays censors here as deeply torn about their work, offering a nuanced portrayal of the price some pay when society agrees that some information should be kept secret, but offers no coherent schema for doing so.

Doubtless, Restricted Data is an invaluable contribution to its field, offering a comprehensive history of nuclear classification that is far more accessible than most scholarly texts. It deserves to be widely read – perhaps then the body politic would reflect more deeply on how much we want our government to hide from us.

Read More

⇒ Restricted Data: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the United States

[whencyclopedia]

Rise of Mesopotamian Cities

Mesopotamia, often called the “cradle of civilization,” saw the birth of the world’s first cities in the land of Sumer. Here, people built not just homes, but temples dedicated to their gods, symbolizing the conquest of chaos by divine order. These early cities emerged in challenging environments, like Eridu near marshes and shifting waterways, showing remarkable human adaptation and organization.

Key Facts

Eridu was one of the earliest Sumerian cities, located at the edge of alluvial plains and marshes.

The construction of temples marked the rise of city-states with religious centers.

Mesopotamia’s cities thrived in a landscape of rivers and marshes, balancing land and water.

The Sumerians developed cuneiform writing around 3500 BCE, enabling historical record-keeping.

Early education included memorizing hymns and complex compositions that preserved culture.

Literature from this era expressed human emotions, divine relationships, and the human experience, as seen in priestess Enheduanna’s hymns.

Historical Context

The Sumerian cities arose in Mesopotamia’s fertile river valleys between the Tigris and Euphrates. This environment required sophisticated irrigation and social organization. Temples like those in Eridu symbolized both political and religious authority, anchoring these early urban centers.

Historical Significance

Mesopotamia’s early cities laid the groundwork for civilization by developing organized states, writing systems, and cultural institutions. The rise of temples and the written word allowed societies to control and document complex social, religious, and political life. These innovations influenced all future civilizations and mark the beginning of recorded human history.

Learn More: Mesopotamia: The Rise of the Cities

[whencyclopedia]

This map illustrates the Russian Revolution of 1917, a transformative year that saw the collapse of the Russian Empire and the rise of Soviet rule. Triggered by the February Revolution (8–16 March 1917, O.S. 23 February – 3 March), mass protests and mutinies forced Tsar Nicholas II (reign 1894–1917) to abdicate, ending over three centuries of Romanov rule. A Provisional Government briefly assumed...

[whencyclopedia]

The Roman Republic: A Government of Checks and Balances

In the late 6th century BCE, Rome transitioned from a monarchy to a republic, a system that theoretically represented the citizens' wishes. This transition allowed Rome to expand significantly, conquering much of the Italian peninsula and parts of the Mediterranean by the 3rd century BCE.

Myth and Legend The period before the Republic's rise is steeped in myth, including the legend of Romulus and Remus founding Rome. The transformation from monarchy to republic was gradual, possibly spanning decades. The historian Livy documented this period, though much of his work relies on myth and oral accounts.

Government Structure The Republic's government was characterized by a balance of power among different branches. The executive power rested in two consuls, elected annually, while legislative power was held by the assemblies, including the Roman Senate and the Concilium Plebis. There were also various magistrates, such as praetors and quaestors, each with specific roles. The unique position of dictator was reserved for emergencies.

Social and Economic Challenges Tensions between the wealthy patricians and the plebeians, who made up the majority of the army, were constant. The plebeians achieved some representation through the Conflict of Orders, resulting in the Concilium Plebis. Despite these advancements, economic disparities persisted, with the poor living in dangerous conditions.

Military Expansion and Cultural Influence Rome flourished through military victories, notably the Punic Wars and the Macedonian Wars. These conquests brought Greek culture to Rome, influencing its art, philosophy, and literature. However, the Republic struggled with managing its vast territories and the social changes that came with expansion.

The Gracchus Brothers and Sulla Efforts to address social issues, such as land distribution proposed by the Gracchus brothers, were met with resistance and ultimately failed. Sulla later implemented reforms, but these could not stabilize the Republic in the long term.

Fall of the Republic Internal conflicts, including the rivalry between Julius Caesar and Pompey, led to the Republic's downfall. Caesar's rise to dictator for life was seen as a threat, culminating in his assassination in 44 BCE. The power vacuum was filled by Octavian, who became the first emperor, marking the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire.

Learn More

The above summary was generated by AI using Perplexity Sonar. To read the orginial human-authored article, please visit Roman Republic.

[whencyclopedia]

Aethelred the Unready: The Failed King

"Aethelred the Unready: The Failed King" by Richard Abels is a brisk but illuminating introduction to one of England’s longest-reigning and most criticised rulers. Faced with a series of Viking invasions, Aethelred proved unworthy of his predecessors, and despite his best efforts and several strategies, he was unable to hold the English kingdom together.

In the year 1014, Archbishop Wulfstan of York stood before his parishioners and delivered a damming lecture: “Nothing has prospered now for a long time either at home or abroad, but there has been military devastation and hunger, burning and bloodshed in nearly every district time and again.” Such was his verdict on the long and unfortunate reign of Aethelred the Unready (reign 978-1016). Remembered for losing his kingdom to the Vikings and often listed as one of England’s worst rulers, Aethelred is the subject of Richard Abels’ latest book, Aethelred the Unready: The Failed King, which is part of the Penguin Monarch series, providing short and accessible introductions to many kings and queens of England.

Abels, a distinguished academic who formerly taught at the United States Naval Academy, is a leading expert on Anglo-Saxon warfare and best known for Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England (1998).

Across about 100 pages, his brief volume is divided into six chapters, beginning with Aethelred’s accession to the throne at the age of twelve, following the murder of his older brother, Edward the Martyr (reign 975-978). Abels then moves on to Aethelred as a boy king, initially surrounded by prudent counsellors, before he came of age, commencing his “years of youthful ignorance.” Chapter Three focuses on Aethelred’s early struggles against the Vikings, before Chapter Four breaks from the narrative to outline the early English kingdom’s political structure and system. The book then returns to the king as a mature monarch, attempting to recover from his early failings, but still largely ineffective, before ending with Aethelred’s loss of the English kingdom to the Vikings in the final years of his reign.

Abels is most at home when writing about Aethelred at war. He reminds readers that the king, while “never comfortable with military command,” was a dynamic ruler who didn’t lack initiative. He refortified old burhs, built a large fleet, led offensive campaigns into Norse bases in Strathclyde and the Isle of Man, turned Viking leaders against one another and even hired Norse mercenaries to boost his defences. Yet one idea after another failed, frequently resulting in the payment of tribute for peace, known as “the Danegeld,” a strategy famously condemned by Rudyard Kipling: “Once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.”

At the heart of Aethelred’s failure, Abels explains, was that “he was not a good judge of character” and was prompted by unworthy, cowardly, devious and self-interested men who both failed to defend the kingdom and led to factionalism. The king could order a fleet to be built, but he couldn’t stop rival factions – split between his sons, Aethelstan and Edmund, and his chief advisor, Eadric Streona – from using these ships to settle their own petty squabbles, which in 1009 led to the destruction of almost his entire fleet. Such was the disenchantment with the king’s rule that when Sweyn Forkbeard, King of Denmark, arrived to conquer England in 1013, Aethelred’s lords, looking to preserve their lands and titles, favoured surrender over battle.

With the book’s limited length, there is little room for an in-depth analysis of Aethelred’s personality or historiography. Perhaps in acknowledgement of this, Abels provides a helpful “Further Reading” guide for more detailed books of the king, including works by Ryan Lavelle and Levi Roach.

Like the other Penguin Monarchs books on pre-Norman kings (Aethelstan, Cnut, and Edward the Confessor), Aethelred the Unready: The Failed King is a good starting point for anyone interested in the often-forgotten period of English history between Alfred the Great and 1066.

Read More

⇒ Aethelred the Unready: The Failed King

[whencyclopedia]

12 Great Slave Escapes in US History: Freedom Seekers and Their Means of Escape

Although slaveholders in 19th century America regularly claimed their “property” was content with living in bondage, attempted or successful escapes by slaves were fairly common, whether assisted by the Underground Railroad or taken on by individuals with little or no outside help.

The following collection presents twelve of the best-known and most dramatic escapes from slavery in the era preceding the American Civil War (1861-1865) which led to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment and the end of legalized slavery in the United States of America.

Read More

⇒ 12 Great Slave Escapes in US History: Freedom Seekers and Their Means of Escape

[whencyclopedia]

Why Poland-Lithuania Disappeared

The Polish-Lithuanian Republic (1569-1795) was one of the largest and most populous states in Early Modern Europe, yet in 1795, its last remnants were partitioned between Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Here we take a look at the reasons why this mighty power ended up so weak that the neighbours who once feared it could now consume it.

The Noble Republic

The reason why Poland-Lithuania was called a Republic, even though it had a king, was because that monarch shared power with the fiercely independent nobles, and was very often treated as their equal. During one of the many interminable blood feuds between noble families, the king summoned a perpetrator to the Sejm (parliament) to explain himself, but received a curt refusal: "I am not a slave but a Polish gentleman". Writers have long blamed the decentralised political system of Poland-Lithuania – that is, the way that power was dispersed across many people and institutions – for its weakness.

Even before the union of Poland and Lithuania in 1569, both countries had powerful and independent nobles. Poland already had the legal principle neminem captivabimus, the rule that no noble could ever be arrested by the king without a court verdict. On the other hand, the royal courts could not intervene in cases between nobles and their serfs. These two laws illustrate how nobles had autonomy from the crown, but enormous power over the people. Once Poland and Lithuania joined together, the rights of the nobility only grew.

One of the most well-known features of Poland-Lithuania was that the nobility elected their king. All nobles could vote, and they stuck to the principle of unanimity: a king was only elected when all the nobles present agreed. To win them over, kings promised to maintain or expand the independence of the nobles. The very first elected king signed an agreement called the Henrician Articles (after his name, Henry of Valois), which guaranteed the privileges of the nobles and signed away most power to the Sejm. All kings thereafter, right up to the end of the Republic, had to sign the Henrician Articles.

The Sejm, rather than the king, was the true apex of the state. As with royal elections, legislation was passed by unanimity rather than by majority. All nobles present had to agree for the legislation to be passed. Of course, this meant that a single noble could prevent a new law, and in fact they could dissolve the session, nullifying any legislation that had been passed over that whole sitting of the Sejm. That is the famous Liberum Veto - veto just means ‘I do not allow it’ in Latin (Polish nobles were exceptionally well-educated in Latin). When everyone was acting in good faith, passing legislation was therefore a delicate act, with layers of compromise and negotiation. However, it meant anyone acting in bad faith could easily prevent the state from carrying out a policy, as in 1652, when a veto exploded any hope of a united response against the Cossack Rebellion. Agents of powerful nobles or foreign powers could, and did, abuse it. Between 1582–1762, 53 Sejms (almost 60%) were dissolved or broken up. Less famous, but arguably even worse, was that most nobles saw their local Sejmik (little Sejm) as more important than the central Sejm, and felt quite free to ignore any legislation the Sejm did pass if their Sejmik did not agree. It was a vicious cycle: as the central government weakened, the Sejmiki (plural of Sejmik) had to take on more responsibility, so the central government lost more responsibility, and so the central government weakened.

The Polish-Lithuanian nobility’s obsession with unanimity was because of their obsession with equality. Not equality between all people, but between nobles. Whereas nobles in England made up about 2% of the population, in Poland-Lithuania it was up to 9%. The upshot of this was that many had only a tiny amount of land, or none at all - in 1670, there were over 400,000 landless nobles. Although these landless nobles were often not much better off than a serf, they insisted on their legal equality with all nobles, no matter how rich and powerful, and invented the bizarre ideology of Sarmatism. The exact meaning is confused, but they were claiming special descent from the Sarmatians, who supposedly occupied Poland in ancient times, to distinguish the nobility from the common people, and associated the Sarmatians with their ideas of Golden Freedom: personal independence, lawlessness, and a kind of chivalry. This was not an ideology that would support reform in favour of a more powerful central state.

Perhaps the most tragic expression of the ‘Golden Freedom’ was the rokosz. A rokosz was a sort of confederation, which in Poland-Lithuanian law meant a temporary grouping of nobles to achieve some specific objective. In a country where power was so dispersed, it made sense for local nobles to take matters into their own hands. For example, a confederation was formed in 1655 with the aim of driving out the invading Swedes. However, a confederation could be formed to resist the royal government with force of arms. That did not just mean rebellion, it meant a legal rebellion. In the case of a rokosz, where in 1606 and 1662 the confederates’ rebellion spiralled out of control, it was legalised civil war. These were terrible wars that wracked the Republic, yet it was all perfectly legal, and so led to no changes to the constitution.

The cards were strongly stacked against reform. Not only did kings struggle with the Liberum Veto, confederations, and the Golden Freedom, they could not even ally with the lesser nobles to cut the major nobles down to size. This is what happened in states like Prussia, where the lesser nobles became military officers and civil servants. In Poland-Lithuania, the major nobles co-opted the minor ones, especially after devastating wars with the Cossacks, Muscovy and Sweden in the late 17th/early 18th centuries. The major nobles had reserves of cash, and they used it to buy up the wrecked lands of the now penniless lesser nobles. Minor nobles served in the private retinues and armies of major nobles, instead of for the government.

There was another argument against reform. That is, when the going was good, Poland-Lithuania seemed a better place to live than its neighbours. In the late 16th and early 17th century, the Republic avoided the horrific civil wars that blighted its neighbours, like the Thirty Years’ War in the Holy Roman Empire (1618-48), the English Civil Wars (1642-51), the French Wars of Religion (1562-98), or Muscovy’s Time of Troubles (1598-1613). Poland-Lithuania had its share of glories, too, like the reign of Stephen Báthory (reign 1576-86) and the victory of Jan Sobieski against the Ottoman Empire at the Gates of Vienna (1683). The Republic avoided royal tyranny and the extremes of religious conflict. Yet, by the 18th century, the same system was in headlong decline and mocked by famous writers like Voltaire and Montesquieu, while its neighbours recovered and thrived - especially Muscovy, which became the vast Russian Empire.

The problem was that the system was only fit for good times. Kings with powerful personalities, like Stephen Bathory and Jan Sobieski, could cover up its internal weaknesses for a time, but it was not a system that could survive serious pressure. What were those pressures?

Read More

⇒ Why Poland-Lithuania Disappeared

[whencyclopedia]

England's Greatest Knight

Sir William Marshal, known as William the Marshal, was one of the most celebrated figures of the Middle Ages. Born around 1146 CE, he was a master of combat and remained undefeated in tournaments. His remarkable career peaked when he became Earl of Pembroke and eventually Protector of the Kingdom, essentially acting as king without the title. His prowess in battle and chivalry earned him the admiration of his contemporaries, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who hailed him as "the greatest knight that ever lived."

Key Facts

Birth and Death: Born around 1146 CE, died in 1219 CE.

Titles: Earl of Pembroke, Marshal, and Protector of the Kingdom.

Military Reputation: Unbeaten in tournaments and renowned for his fighting skills.

Historic Act: Spared the life of Richard I of England in battle.

Historical Context

Sir William Marshal lived during a tumultuous period in medieval England, marked by the rule of King Richard I and the influence of the Norman Conquest. His career was shaped by these events, leveraging his martial prowess to secure key roles and influence.

Historical Significance

Marshal's legacy extends beyond his military achievements; he symbolized the ideals of chivalry and honor that defined the medieval knight. His story serves as a testament to the enduring power of courage and loyalty in shaping historical figures. Even centuries later, his reputation remains unchallenged, reinforcing his status as England's greatest knight.

Learn More: Sir William Marshal: England's Greatest Knight

[whencyclopedia]

This infographic illustrates the Epic Cycle (Ἐπικὸς Κύκλος), a lost collection of ancient Greek epic poems that once narrated the full arc of the Trojan War and its aftermath, from the origins of the conflict to the heroes' returns. Though only fragments survive today, the Cycle was once seen as a comprehensive mytho-historical narrative surrounding Troy. Likely composed between the 7th and 6th...

[whencyclopedia]

Benito Mussolini: Founder of Fascism

Benito Mussolini (1883–1945) was the founder of fascism and dictator of Italy from 1922 to 1943. He led the country into a highly authoritarian regime and then dragged it into the Second World War (1939-45) on the side of Nazi Germany. Mussolini was captured and shot by Italian partisans in April 1945.

Fascism is a complex ideology to define. Fascism's main characteristics include a cult of the leader, opposition to parliamentary democracy, the exaltation of violence and militarism, the supremacy of the state over individuals, and totalitarian and imperialistic ambitions. Mussolini was the first to establish a fully-fledged fascist regime and became a model for other movements in Europe, thus contributing to the spread of totalitarianism across the continent between the two world wars.

From Socialism to Fascism

Benito Mussolini was born on 29 July 1883 in a rural town, Dovia di Predappio, in the region of Emilia-Romagna. His father, Alessandro, was a socialist blacksmith, and his mother Rosa was a devout Catholic school teacher. From childhood, Benito was exposed to radical, republican, and anticlerical ideas, which profoundly influenced him. After graduating as an elementary school teacher, he worked briefly in Switzerland between 1902 and 1904, where he joined local socialist circles and became acquainted with the international Marxist organization. Arrested several times for his political activities, he returned to Italy after an amnesty (1904), where he resumed teaching and began his political career within the Italian Socialist Party (PSI).

Over the years, Mussolini gained prominence as a journalist and revolutionary theorist. The oratorical skills he developed as a journalist would later be useful, together with his theatricality, in his speeches as Duce with which he managed to woo the masses. Thanks to his rhetorical prowess and aggressive editorial stance, in 1912 he was appointed editor of the socialist newspaper Avanti!, the official voice of the PSI. From this position, Mussolini became one of the party's most radical voices. However, at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, he suddenly changed his stance: although the PSI was neutralist, Mussolini declared himself in favour of Italy's intervention in the conflict, believing it to be a historic opportunity to regenerate the country and spark a social revolution. This change of direction led to a split with the party, from which he was expelled in November 1914. In the same month, Mussolini founded a new newspaper, Il Popolo d'Italia, this time supported and funded by industrialists, through which he propagated nationalist and interventionist ideas.

When in 1915 Italy entered WWI, Mussolini volunteered and was wounded in an explosion in 1917. At the end of the conflict in 1918, Italy found itself in a dramatic situation of inflation, unemployment, labour unrest, and widespread dissatisfaction with the so-called "mutilated victory", according to which Italy, despite being victorious, had been betrayed by the Allies and had not obtained what it had been promised, particularly the territories of Fiume and Dalmatia. In this unstable and violent climate, Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in Milan in 1919, a movement that united former combatants, nationalists, revolutionary trade unionists, and anti-communists. The movement exploited the discontent of the middle classes, the fear of communism, and the support of the landowners.

In 1919, the fascists failed to win any seats in the national elections. However, starting in 1920, they began to expand rapidly, thanks in part to the systematic use of political violence. In this first phase Mussolini benefitted from the action of the squadristi, paramilitary groups which attacked unions, socialist cooperatives, and opposition newspapers, often with the tacit complicity of local authorities. In 1921, Mussolini founded the National Fascist Party (PNF), and he was elected to parliament that same year. The party espoused a strongly nationalist, authoritarian, and anti-communist rhetoric, and presented itself as a bulwark against social chaos and parliamentary paralysis.

Read More

⇒ Benito Mussolini: Founder of Fascism

[whencyclopedia]

The Fortress Kingdom: The Wars of Aethelflaed and Edward the Elder, 899–927

Paul Hill provides a detailed and well-researched reminder that England was not merely imagined into existence or won by a single epoch-defining battle. It was forged over several decades through the unglamorous and grim business of fortress building, slow methodical advances, and military cooperation between two very capable siblings.

When Alfred the Great – often presented as England’s founding father – died in 899, much of England was still under Viking rule. His kingdom was restricted to the southern realms of Wessex (south of the Thames) and western Mercia (West Midlands). Yet, by 927, his grandson, Aethelstan (reign 924-939), would claim sovereignty over all England. What happened in the intervening three decades to allow for such an expansion of power? This is the question Paul Hill tackles in The Fortress Kingdom: The Wars of Aethelflaed & Edward the Elder, 899-927.

Hill, formerly curator of Kingston-upon-Thames Museum, is the author of ten books on medieval warfare, including The Road to Hastings (2005) and The Wars of Alfred the Great (2022). His focus in this latest work is now on the achievements of Alfred’s children: his formidable daughter, Aethelflaed (870-918), and his all-conquering son, Edward the Elder (874-924).

Divided into five parts, The Fortress Kingdom begins with Alfred’s death in 899 and the emergence of Edward’s rule in Wessex and Aethelflaed’s in Mercia. It follows the siblings through their successful defensive and then offensive campaigns against the Vikings, to Edward’s takeover of Mercia in 918, following Aethelflaed’s death, and finally ending with the early reign of Edward’s son, Aethelstan, and his conquest of northern England in 927.

The book’s title, The Fortress Kingdom, alludes to the military strategy at the heart of this conflict. Fortresses (or burhs), guarded by wooden ramparts and deep ditches, were primarily an innovation of Alfred’s and were used to defend his kingdom from the Vikings. However, under his successors, they became instruments of aggression and conquest. Used as springboards for invasions into Viking territory, successful campaigns would be followed up by fortifying captured Viking settlements or building new fortresses at strategic locations, consolidating control over conquered lands.

Chapter Six, “How did a Fortress Work," is particularly useful in explaining this process. Here, readers learn about the machinery behind these fortresses – the numbers in a garrison, the road networks linking them, and the beacon system, which gave each fortress early warning of incoming attacks.

Some may find the search for vanished fortresses disruptive to the book's narrative – was Scergate in Shropshire or Gloucestershire? However, such details are essential in a book so deeply rooted in military geography. With this in mind, Hill makes good use of his 24 in-text "Maps and Plans," showing each fortress’s location, their proximity to one another, and how they might have looked.

The main challenge for the historian of this period is to expand upon the often dry and limited primary sources, which typically merely state that Edward or Aethelflaed captured a certain fortress in a certain year. Yet, in Hill’s account of these fortress battles, he explores broader considerations, including strategic cooperation between the siblings, diplomacy with Celtic kings, negotiations with defeated Viking leaders, and explains how these fortresses became centres of commerce, faith, and urban life.

With its focus primarily on warfare and fortified towns, The Fortress Kingdom is not an extensive dual biography of Aethelflaed and Edward. For readers seeking more detailed personal portraits, Tim Clarkson’s Aethelflaed: Lady of the Mercians (2018) and Michael John Key’s Edward the Elder: King of the Anglo-Saxons (2019) are worthy alternatives. However, this book is unique as it focuses solely on the siblings collectively as military leaders and partners.

While the book targets a general audience and is an engaging and accessible read, its scope is limited to the 28 years from 899 to 927. Thus, newcomers to the Anglo-Saxon period might prefer to start with broader works, such as Marc Morris’s The Anglo-Saxons: A History of the Beginnings of England (2021), or first read Hill’s earlier book on Alfred, before moving on to his latest work. However, those already familiar with early English history will find The Fortress Kingdom an excellent contribution to the existing literature on tenth-century England.

Read More

⇒ The Fortress Kingdom: The Wars of Aethelflaed and Edward the Elder, 899–927

[whencyclopedia]

This map illustrates the extent and key urban centers of the Indus Valley Civilization (circa 3300–1300 BCE), one of the world’s earliest complex societies. Spanning parts of modern-day Pakistan and northwest India, this civilization was notable for its large, well-planned cities, sophisticated infrastructure, and extensive trade networks. Often referred to as the Harappan or Indus-Sarasvati...

[whencyclopedia]

Judea under Herod the Great

Herod the Great's 33-year reign (37-4 BCE) as the client king of Rome was a prosperous time for Judea. Herod the Great's building program included over 30 projects throughout the eastern Mediterranean, from new fortification walls, a palace, and the renovation of the Second Temple in Jerusalem to the construction and improvement of several desert fortresses, palaces, aqueducts, and other major works in Masada, Samaria, Jericho, and Herodium. However, perhaps the biggest achievement of his reign was the construction of a brand new metropolis, Caesarea Maritima, with a colossal harbor as its jewel in the crown.

In this collection, we explore Herod's reign and building program in detail, including a unique digital reconstruction of Herod's Harbor.

Read More

⇒ Judea under Herod the Great

[whencyclopedia]

The Artisans of the Indus: Mastering Ancient Craftsmanship The Indus cities had highly skilled artisans and the craft production appears to have been fairly well organised. The craftsmen worked near the source of the raw material and then circulated the goods around the Indus Plain. There is also evidence for the use of imported materials such as faience and terracotta as well as high quality pottery. #indian #pottery #craft LEARN MORE --> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/z_E1Bgn07WM

[whencyclopedia]

Martin Van Buren: Father of American Partisanship

Martin Van Buren (1782-1862) was an American lawyer and statesman who served as the eighth president of the United States. An ambitious and cunning man whose political tricks earned him the nickname 'the Little Magician', Van Buren was a talented organizer, establishing such political machines as the Albany Regency in New York and the Democratic Party on a national level. The handpicked successor of Andrew Jackson (1767-1845), Van Buren fared less well in his presidency than his illustrious predecessor; his single term was marred by the Panic of 1837, which contributed to his loss in 1840. After two more failed presidential bids, Van Buren died in 1862 at the age of 79.

Early Life

Martin Van Buren was born on 5 December 1782 in the small rural town of Kinderhook, New York. He was the third of five children born to Abraham Van Buren, a farmer and tavernkeeper, and his wife Maria Hoes Van Halen. Both of his parents were of Dutch descent, and, indeed, Van Buren primarily spoke Dutch for most of his childhood and did not learn English until he began attending school; he remains the only US president whose first language was not English. He received a rudimentary education at the village schoolhouse before studying at Kinderhook Academy. In the evenings, he would help his father run the family tavern, and by interacting with the guests travelling between New York City and the state capital of Albany, Van Buren developed the social skills that would serve him well as a politician.

In 1796, Van Buren began reading law under the prominent Federalist attorney Peter Silvester and his son Francis. While clerking for the Silvesters, Van Buren began taking on civil cases in the local justice's court, where admission to the bar was not required, and became regarded as the champion of the common man. His popularity around his hometown of Kinderhook quickly grew; after one victory, he was carried out of the courthouse on his clients' shoulders to the cheers of the gathered crowd (Brooke, 288). He completed his legal studies in New York City and passed the bar in 1803, returning to Kinderhook to set up his practice. On 21 February 1807, Van Buren married his childhood sweetheart, Hannah Hoes, in Catskill, New York. The marriage would produce six children, four of whom would live to adulthood. Sadly, Hannah died of tuberculosis in February 1819; the distraught Van Buren never remarried.

Read More

⇒ Martin Van Buren: Father of American Partisanship