The Forgotten Foundations: England's Roman Roots

         When most people think of England, or more specifically the history of England, images of Victorian Britain are conjured, and that's as far back as is commonly thought of. But the foundation that that incredible era are often forgotten, with the occasional, strange exception like Stonehenge. Some say that this is due, in part, to the lack of written records of the time, especially in regards to Britain before the Roman invasion. But what were the British Isles like before Julius Caesar set them in his sights? And what was the Roman impact there after their presence was established? Was there any lasting influence left on the land or people, and if so, can we see it today?

         Archaeology provides the best look into Britain's pre-Roman past, although being a border colony, Roman-occupied Britain did not enjoy the same attention to detail in records as some of the Mediterranean areas. What we do know is that Britain was home to many rather hospitable forests, ideal for nomadic hunter peoples like the ones discovered at Star Carrin, Yorkshire. (Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2012) But there are few dates that catch the eye of the average archaeologist or historian, save for important changes like the introduction of farming by immigrants, most likely from northwestern Europe. This vital change from roaming nomads to agrarians is also estimated to have coincided with a rise of ritualistic spiritualism, as discovered in both the Durington Walls dig, and the Windmill Hill dig, in Wiltshire, UK. (Weatherby, 2012) Some suspect that it was the Celtic          Druids who brought much of this change, and began the work on Stonehenge, bringing their culture with them. While some may think that saying "Celt culture" is an oxymoron, the Druidic peoples were surprisingly refined, in their own way. United by their common belief, usually known simply as Druidism, the Celts brought art, religion, tools, weapons, and many other improvements to Britannia, and proved to be a worthy adversary to the Romans, when the Legion would finally arrive. Little did the Romans know that the fierce Celt warriors were being led by the eerie, nature-worshipping Druidic priests, who would begin many confrontations with unsettling rituals, some of which even involved human sacrifice. (Weatherby, 2012) Also, a recent push in the modern United Kingdom's academic circles to revive pre-Roman history has uncovered a number of astounding facts. In a BBC article from 2003, Dr. Francis Pryor, president of the Council for British Archaeology, claimed that the Romans stymied Celtic culture, suppressing artistic expression, and even giving a "false importance" to London: without the Romans, "the country would have evolved into a better system of regional hubs." (BBC News, 2003) This push forced many in the historic and archaeological communities to reevaluate the importance of the Celts in early British history, and by doing so led to the discovery of a written Druid language. This language was only used by the ruling religious class, however, and when the Romans destroyed the last Druidic stronghold of East Anglia in 57 AD, they destroyed the last group capable of deciphering the written language. However, Gaelic and Breton are both linguistic descendents of this language, so a lasting, albeit small, legacy lives on. (Weatherby, 2012) (Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2012)

         The Romans, however, never actually conquered Britain. They arrived in 55 BC, with Julius Caesar intent on teaching Britons not to interfere with the glorious Roman Empire, since the Britons had been helping the Gauls – modern day France – revolt against it. With 12,000 soldiers under his command, Caesar landed near, but not at, Dover. He planned to land his ships in the city itself, but scouts had reported native British soldiers lining the cliffs to repel the invaders. But moving the landing site a few miles did not do much to help strategically, since the Britons moved as well, and took the initiative into their own hands. The defending army stormed into the water to attack the Romans as they exited their crafts, throwing the Romans into disarray and making quite the impression on Caesar himself, who wrote "These dangers frightened our soldiers who were not used to battles of this kind, with the results that they do not show the same speed and enthusiasm as they usually did in battles on dry land." (Trueman, 2011) Sheer numbers forced the Britons to withdraw, but not without inflicting heavy casualties. Realizing he would need a much larger force to be effective, Caesar returned the next year with 30,000 troops at his disposal, but despite facing fierce resistance yet again, began to have some minor successes. He also left his outposts in Gaul vulnerable, and the Gauls rose up again, forcing Caesar to withdraw his army to deal with the renewed rebellion. That was the last the British Isles would see of the Roman Legion for nearly 100 years. (Trueman, 2011)

         After Roman traders and merchants began to trade with the British tribes, they realized what a prosperous land it truly was, and in 43 AD, Emperor Claudius picked up where Caesar left off by ordering a renewed invasion of Britain. The Legion was able to conquer most of southeastern England, after a number of the tribes switched their allegiance. (Johnson, 2013) But they would never fully conquer the islands, with local heroes like Boadicea resisting the Romans wherever they could, and entire groups such as the Picts and Scots being so fierce, the Romans opted to merely wall them out. (Weatherby, 2012) But the Romans did leave somewhat of a legacy, mostly in the careful building of roads, a codified law system, and other Romanized effects, but when Magnus Maximus revolted against Emperor Gratian in 383 AD, the end of Roman rule in Britannia was near. It wasn't until the Fourth Century that the Legion finally began to fully withdraw from Britain, and they left behind some Romanized Britons, along with some British Romans, with Emperor Honorius officially telling the cities of Britannia to fend for them selves in 410 AD. (Williams, 2011)

         In short, the Romans made a smashing impact on British history, yes. But not as much as they would have liked to, and certainly not as much as in some of the other nations they defeated. The British, Celts, Picts, Scots and other natives of the British Isles proved to be more than worthy adversaries for the Roman Legion, never allowing themselves to be fully overcome, and never giving up resisting the takeover. Much of pre-Roman culture is lost to us, but a renewed search may lead to the discovery of even more clues to how and why such ferocious resistance was encountered, and may dispel the myths that the natives of Britain were mere savages. But only time will tell, and both the Roman and the Celt legacies will live on, each in their own way.

References

BBC News (2003, February 21). BBC NEWS | UK | England | Call for pre-Roman British history in schools. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2786737.stm

Johnson, B. (2013). Roman England, the Roman in Britain 43 - 410 AD. Retrieved from http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Romans-in-England/

Trueman, C. (2011, February 16). The Romans in Britain. Retrieved from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/romans_in_britain.htm

Universität Duisburg-Essen (2012, April 10). Pre-Roman and Roman Britain. Retrieved from http://www.uni-due.de/SHE/SHE_Roman_Britain.htm

Weatherby, E. (2012, September 10). Romanization of Britain | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/romanization-of-britain/

Williams, P. N. (2011, May 18). Narrative History of England - Part 2: The Roman Period. Retrieved from http://www.britannia.com/history/narromhist.html

Gunpowder, Treason and Plot: Groundwork for the English Civil War

"Remember, remember, the fifth of November

Gunpowder, treason and plot.

I see no reason why gunpowder, treason

Should ever be forgot."

         This poem, immortalized by time and brought again into popularity by Hollywood, speaks of something not often remembered. Guy Fawkes' Gunpowder Plot was one of the many events leading to the English Civil War, but what truly inspired the revolt? How was such a war even possible, taking place not forty years after Elizabeth I, arguably one of the most popular monarchs in the history of Great Britain?

         Elizabeth I died in 1603, childless and without a proper heir to carry on the Tudor lineage. James Stuart, her cousin and King James VI of Scotland, was suddenly thrust upon the throne of both England and Ireland. Becoming James I, he was placed into a remarkably challenging position: ruling three vastly different countries, each with their own unique histories, animosities, and ways of living. Indeed, much of the hostility felt by the three kingdoms was towards the selfsame three, with hatred amongst the Scots, Irish, and English running so deep it can even be felt at times to this day. Each nation favored a different religion as well, adding to the enmity experienced between the Irish Catholics, Calvinist Scots, and Anglican English. (Stoyle, 2011) However, there were still comparatively strong minorities, and the Catholic minority in England held out hope that James I would be less severe towards them than Elizabeth was. These hopes were baseless, and the outrage sparked by this was felt throughout the land.

         Outrage was not the only thing sparked, with Guy Fawkes and his fellow co-conspirators planning to demolish the Houses of Parliament – including James I who was attending it that day – with 36 barrels of gunpowder stored in a cellar beneath the Houses. (Alchin, 2009) Fawkes and his co-conspirators were consequently put on trial as a traitor for plotting against the king, being convicted and hung, drawn, and quartered.

         James I attempted to stay free of foreign entanglements, but through a series of unfortunate events, was drawn into the rather unpopular Thirty Years' War. However, his heath deteriorated rapidly, and in 1625, James I died, leaving the kingdoms to his son, Charles I. Charles continued the fight for five more years, but eventually withdrew in 1630. He was a meticulous monarch, but was obstinate, tended to keep to himself, and was a rather inept politician, with troubled rumors regarding his government beginning to spread almost as soon as he took the throne. (Stoyle, 2011) He further alienated Scotland by introducing a new prayer book in 1637, inciting a livid response. He attempted to squash the Scottish rebellion, but his iron handed attempts were disastrous, and forced him to convene a Parliament. Disregarding the copious criticisms and complaints leveled at his policies, Charles seemed to have lost all support. But the Parliament was to no avail, and in 1641, the Irish took up arms against the English and Scottish protestants living there. The revolt inspired panic in England, and made it nigh impossible for political cooperation. Charles I and Parliament could not reach an agreement on any points, and England began breaking into two armed factions. (Trueman, 2011)

         The first major battle of the English Civil War was at Edge Hill in 1642. There was not a significant outcome from that battle, despite both sides claiming victory. However, the following year had a string of minor, insignificant battles that were just as worthless, at least in the sense that neither faction dealt a serious blow to each other. This was the year, though, that a young commander began to rise through the ranks of the rebellion: his name was Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell was a passionate man, the son of a lesser knight, and was little more than a yeoman himself. He was bankrupt before 30 – twice, in fact – and if it weren't for a rich uncle dying and leaving him some wealth, Cromwell would have never had the opportunity to be as influential as he was in the war. He was a minor Member of Parliament, serving in the House of Commons before the war, but once fighting broke out, he discovered his true calling as a commander on the field. (Weatherby, 2012) Despite never being classically trained militarily, Cromwell rapidly rose through the ranks due to his natural tactical prowess. Within 6 months he was promoted to  cavalry commander, and in just another year, he was appointed as commander of the New Model Army. The New Model Army was the brainchild of Cromwell, and revolutionized the militaristic structure. It was based solely off a soldier's ability and leadership – not on social standing or birthright; this improved the value of the troops under Cromwell's command, and their competence was markedly superior to the rest of the Parliamentary Army. This, among other things, cause Charles and his nobles to consider Cromwell barbaric and uncouth. (Weatherby, 2012)

         There were only three major battles in the English Civil War – the aforementioned Battle at Edge Hill in 1642, the Battle of Marston Moor in 1644, and the Battle of Naseby, 1645. In 1644, control of the north of England was wrested from Charles as a result of the Battle of Marston Moor, where the joint armies of the Scots and Parliament soundly trounced the Royalists. Then, in June 1645 at the Battle of Naseby, Cromwell’s New Model Army wreaked havoc and a mortal blow to the Charles' army. Charles was unable to recover from this crushing rout, and the Royalist cause was lost. The king was then executed on 30 January, 1964. (Trueman, 2011)

         It would be 5 years of harsh rule under Cromwell before another revolution took place, restoring the Stuart Monarchy under Charles II, dubbed "The Merry Monarch". The English Civil War was not a long, or even overly bloody war, even by the standards of the day. But it did show to the Crown and the government of the day that the people ultimately hold the power, regardless of how cruel or kind the ruler.

References

Alchin, L. (2009). Remember Remember the Fifth of November Rhyme & History. Retrieved from http://www.rhymes.org.uk/remember_remember_the_5th_november.htm

Stoyle, M. (2011, February 17). BBC - History - British History in depth: Overview: Civil War and Revolution, 1603 - 1714. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/overview_civil_war_revolution_01.shtml

Trueman, C. (2011, February 16). The English Civil War. Retrieved from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civil_war_england.htm

Weatherby, E. (2012, December 13). English Civil War | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/english-civil-war/

Nordic Shadows: The Norman Invasion of England

         The socioeconomic factors leading military side of the Norman conquest of England culminated in 1066, as the history books – and tapestries – say, but social and political causes laid the groundwork years before. What led William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, to cross the Straights of Dover and claim Harold Godwinson's kingdom? Was it a choice, or necessity? What factors caused William to lead his army from mainland Europe to capture the island realm, and what effect did that have on the politics and geography of the time?

         On the 5^th of January, 1066 AD, Edward the Confessor, King of England died. The very next day, before the ground covering the old king had settled, Harold II Godwinson was crowned by Archbishops Ealdred of York and Stigand of Canterbury, taking the throne. However, this coronation was never officially recognized by Pope Alexander II, and was the basis of William the Bastard's claim that Harold was a false king. William then commissioned Lanfranc of Bec to petition Rome to back William's claim to the English throne, through his great-grandfather Cnut the Great. Lanfranc implored his former pupil Alexander to back the Norman claim, and Alexander agreed to do, being sympathetic to the Norman cause. While Lanfranc was in Rome, Harold – paranoid by the appearance of Hailey's Comet in April – ordered his troops to assemble near the River Dives, while his fleet began to patrol the English Channel to deter invasion from the south. Both the army and the navy were recalled in September to resupply and refit, and it was in this time of vulnerability that both Tostig Godwinson, Harold's half brother, and Harald Hardrada of Norway attacked in the north.

         William took advantage of the convenient diversion and positioned his fleet at Saint Valéry-sur-Somme, leading some to speculate that William consciously waited for Harold's army to move north. (Osprey Publishing, 2006) Both of the invasions by Tostig and Harald were repelled, but William's force of 7,000 Norman fighters landed at Pevensy, symbolically burning some of his ships and using the rest to set up camp near Hastings. Recent archaeological findings suggest the Normans landed at Wilting Manor, but listed Pevensy as it was the nearest well-known port. (Ibeji, 2011) Harold rushed his army to Hastings, a defensible burg located in the midst of a bog formed by estuaries. William chose this location because of a tried and true Viking tactic, camping on a peninsula or island with only one means of entry – in the case of Hastings, an ancient road that ran between the two rivers in the north. (Osprey Publishing, 2006)

         William ordered raids in the surrounding countryside, pillaging food and supplies, and to bait Harold south in order to retaliate. It worked, with Harold rushing his battle-worn troops to battle William's Viking descendents. He stopped in London for reinforcements, but only waited six days before marching on to Hastings, camping roughly eight miles from the city. Scouts from the Norman camp observed all of the Anglo-Saxon army's movements, which Harold made next to no attempt to make secret. William used this to his advantage, and before dawn on the 14^th of October, marched his forces out and caught the Anglo army off guard. The startled, out-manned English formed a hasty shield-wall, but their determined defense was of no avail, with Harold being shot down by Norman longbowmen. With the death of Harold, William the Bastard became the sole survivor with claim to the English throne, and began to secure his holdings. Over the next several years, he killed the sons of Harold Godwinson, and put down various Anglo-Saxon rebellions until finally, in 1072, captured the last of northern England.

         The significance of the Norman invasion is multifaceted, but also presented William with a new dilemma: being the newly crowned King of England, yet still having a role as vassal to the King of France, from his title of Duke of Normandy. This would eventually lead to hundreds of years of constant warfare between England and France, as both ruling families attempted to take over both kingdoms. However, this connection also forged a bond between the British Isles and mainland Europe, which would eventually lead to greater diversity in trade, language development, and overall culture. (Lee, 2012)

         It is said by some that the English identity comes not from the Angles and Saxons, from which England received that name, but rather from the Normans. The mixed people with elements of Scandinavian and French cultures, when combined and placed in England, made for a very unique situation indeed. Speculation abounds as to why it was so, but there are a few differing theories. One hypothesis held by the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day said that Normans truly wanted to become Englishmen; though this may have been unlikely and exceptional, the conscious embracing of a foreign culture may have had an element of truth to it, at least in regards to certain classes among the Norman invaders. (Hudson, 2011) But overall, it is agreed that the assimilation took a far more gradual pace, starting with French and Norman titled families intermarrying with English aristocracy. A division of lands by these families furthered the integration, with houses splitting land between the mainland and islands, and having separate branches of the family develop in different ways. Finally, nearly 100 years after William the Conqueror solidified his rule, the royal treasurer wrote that "with the English and Normans living side-by-side and intermarrying, the peoples have become so mingled that no-one can tell – as far as free men are concerned – who is of English and who of Norman descent." (Hudson, 2011) This mixing of peoples forever changed the course of British history, with the tiny separate island suddenly being thrust into the affairs of mainland Europe, both through necessity and blood.

         Overall, the driving factor of William the Bastard, or after 1066, William the Conqueror's invasion of England was greed, whether for wealth or lasting glory. Tactically, it was a nigh perfect invasion, and with the backing of the Roman Catholic Church, the Normans captured England with all the legitimacy one could expect of the time. It changed the outlook of England forever, introducing many mainland ideas and ways of doing things, and changed the very course of British history. And not only British history, but the history of the world, as England would go on to grow and flourish under Norman rule, eventually blossoming into a glorious empire just a few hundred years later.

References

Hudson, J. (2011, February 17). British History in depth: What Did the Normans Do for Us? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/normans/hudson_norman_01.shtml

Ibeji, M. (2011, February 17). British History in depth: 1066. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/normans/1066_01.shtml

Lee, R. A. (2012, October 22). The History Guy: Norman Invasion and Conquest of England. Retrieved from http://www.historyguy.com/norman_conquest_england.html

Osprey Publishing (2006). Essential Norman Conquest - An interactive day-by-day retelling of the events of 1066. Retrieved from http://essentialnormanconquest.com/story/norman-conquest.htm

Growing Gold: The Tobacco Colonies

         In modern times, tobacco can be such a dirty word, and smoking a social taboo. It was not always this way, however, and it was in fact a staple of the Chesapeake Bay region, eventually becoming the backbone crop for many of the southern colonies. It had a profound effect on two in particular – Maryland and Virginia – so much so that they gained the moniker of "tobacco colonies". While they shared a common agricultural link, was that the only similarity? Were there more, or were differences more prevalent between the two? Were they founded to merely house cash crops, or did their proprietors have bigger plans for the colonies?

         The Virginia Colony had a rather rocky start, with a number of colonization attempts ending in failure before the ultimately successful Jamestown colony. Originally, the colony's borders stretched all the way from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Charleston, South Carolina, with the London and Plymouth Companies each receiving an equal portion. The London Company commissioned the first settlement voyage after Jamestown, and determined the government of the new colony before the even set sail. Led by Captain Christopher Newport, they intended to land at Roanoke, where the fabled Lost Colony had been located previously, but were forced north by a violent storm the Atlantic Ocean is so famous for, and stumbled across Chesapeake Bay. (Goodrich, 1823)

         After finding an ideal location to settle near the bay, they broke the seal on the governmental orders to see who the ruling council would consist of. Seven men were chosen by the company, including the expedition's Captain, Christopher Newport, and Captain John Smith, who would gain fame through his interactions with the indigenous American Indians there. Shortly thereafter, the colony began to experience a range of disasters and misfortunes, which – while expected of a newly formed colony – were nevertheless discouraging and distressing to many of the new colonists. These hardships prompted Captain Newport to leave and travel back to England in 1607, in an attempt to garner more support, supplies, and settlers. However, unbeknownst to the colonists, this marked the beginning of an upward turn for the Virginia colony, as the London Company petitioned the king for a new, updated charter granting them greater control, and more privileges, and appointed Thomas West, Lord De la War, as governor-for-life. Lord De la War immediately dispatched nine of his personal ships to go to Virginia, with Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George Somers – his two most trusted officers – at the helm. In a strange twist of fate, however, Sir Thomas' ship was blown off course and wrecked in "the Bermudas", where his men stayed for a short while and rebuilt 2 smaller vessels out of the wreck.

         One of those men marooned on Bermuda was a young businessman by the name of John Rolfe. He knew about the tobacco plants in the area, and he also knew the Spanish had a monopoly on the trade of tobacco. This, coupled with the fact that tobacco consumption was growing exponentially in England, proved to be a tantalizing business deal that could not be ignored. No one really knows how he obtained the seeds, as selling tobacco seeds to non-Spaniards carried the death penalty in the Spanish colonies, but he managed to smuggle them up to Virginia. The land and climate in Virginia is rather harsh to most crops, but tobacco flourished there, becoming the salvation to the settlements. As time went on, the Virginia Colony increasingly enlarged its production of tobacco. Yet, just a few decades before the American Revolution, the populace of Virginia was growing far quicker than the tobacco output was, forcing greater variety in the way of crops. (Economic Aspects, 1995)

         In 1624, the London Company's charter expired, and Virginia become direct property of the Crown once again. King Charles I then decided to carve up a portion of the colony and give it to George Calvert, Lord Baltimore, who had attempted in vain to begin a colony in Newfoundland. Unfortunately, he died before the deed was finally drafted and given to him, but Charles stayed true to his word, and passed the deed onto Calvert's son, Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore. Maryland, officially named for Queen Henrietta Maria, was one of the freest colonies, as Lord Baltimore had been granted quite a long leash by the Crown, and Baltimore fulfilled his father's dream of creating a Catholic haven in the New World. (McMaster, 1907) The first settlement was formed of a group consisting of roughly twenty gentlemen and approximately three hundred craftsmen and workmen. Leading the company were two of Lord Baltimore's brothers, along with two Catholic priests, and in 1635 they held their first Assembly. All freemen, were able to attend whether mere artisans or actual landholders, and they crafted a code of laws that were sent to their 'proprietor', Lord Baltimore, for authorization. Baltimore refused it outright, and countered with his own laws, which the Assembly, including Baltimore's own brothers, then rejected. Undeterred, the Assembly tried again and drafted a new set of laws, and Baltimore – showing exceptional good sense that was all but absent among his fellow proprietors –  decided to yield, giving his brother power to officially consent to acts drafted by the people, but, in compromise, he reserved the veto. As a result, Maryland became the first free, self-governing colony founded in the New World. (McMaster, 1907)

         Due to the close nature of the flourishing tobacco trade in neighboring Virginia, it was only natural for the settlers of Maryland to ply their trade as tobacco farmers as well. However, Maryland was geographically superior to Virginia, at least in respect to location: despite the plethora of tobacco plantations causing a lack of towns, there was never a dire need for roads or even artificial harbors. The copious coves, creeks, inlets, and small rivers gave ships the ability to come directly to the docks at a plantation to trade raw tobacco for English goods, something the larger Virginia Colony didn't have. (Economic Aspects, 1995)

         Virginia and Maryland were both success stories, but overall, their similarities were few. On one hand, Virginia was founded by a company seeking riches in a new corner of the world, whereas Maryland was originally a refuge for persecuted Catholics. It's unlikely, however, that Lord Baltimore protested at the colony becoming so wealthy from tobacco, but it was not the colony's original intent. Whether fate, or divine blessing, or whatever else may be suggested in regards to the two original "Tobacco Colonies", one thing is for certain: without that addicting little plant, life in the New World would have been incredibly more arduous than it already was. That one little plant, those few seeds protected and cultivated by John Rolfe may have almost single-handedly saved not only the two colonies listed, but the entire English colonization effort.

References

Economic Aspects of Tobacco during the Colonial Period 1612-1776. (1995). Retrieved from http://archive.tobacco.org/History/colonialtobacco.html

Goodrich, C. A. (1823). A History of the United States of America: A Brief History of the Virginia Colony, 1607-1679. Retrieved from http://www.celebrateboston.com/history/virginia.htm

McMaster, J. B. (1907). A Brief History of the United States: Maryland, the First Proprietary Colony. Retrieved from http://colonialancestors.com/md/proprietary.htm

From Britain to England: The Anglo-Saxon Era

         To the average American, the names Britain, England and the United Kingdom are completely interchangeable, just different names for the same place. While this may be true to a degree, each of these titles has a different historical connotation that is oft overlooked, and are linked to a people group forgotten by all but a select few. While it's easy to see how the island got one of its titles from the Britons, the Angles and Saxons brought their name with them from the mainland. That's not all they brought, either, but why did they come in the first place? What inspired the Saxon conquest, and how did they change the island? And lastly, how did the Anglo-Saxons compare to the group that would eventually conquer them, the Normans?

         It all started in 410 AD, when Emperor Honorius of Rome withdrew his Legions from Briton, and told them to look to their own affairs. This "liberation" came at a price: the Roman Legion provided an air of stability and protection for Britain, and upon their depart, left the island vulnerable to attacks an raids by 'barbarians', namely, the Picts, Irish, and "sea people", which included the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. (James, 2011) However, some local governments sought help from the Foedarati, Roman mercenaries of Germanic descent, to help combat the Picts in the north. This adventus Saxonum, or "Coming of the Saxons", marks the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon conquest, with the Foedarati commander Hengest landing on the shores of Britain with "3 keels" of soldiers around 450 AD. (Woods, 1999) Soon after, they stopped defending Britain and began to play the role of conqueror, with the southern and eastern territories falling into Saxon control. These mainland invaders began to refer to the native Britons as "wealas", a derogatory slur meaning literally "foreigner", and seen today evolved as the word Welsh. Soon, other Germanic tribes began to migrate to Briton, including the Angles, Jutes, Frisians and Franks, in addition to many Irish and Scots, and by 500 AD, most of the invaders had settled there permanently. (James, 2011)

         By 550 AD, many of the native Britons, or Welsh, had converted to Christianity, but attempts to convert the pagan Anglo-Saxons were unsuccessful. These "Celtic Christians" were primarily Welsh and Irish folk, and preferred a rather Spartan monastic lifestyle, but were nonetheless passionate about their faith. (Ross, 1998) Some historians theorize that the fabled Friar Tuck from the story of Robin Hood was a monk of this order, especially due to his love of mead – something not uncommon to Britons at the time. It wasn't until the Roman Catholic church began to send missionaries to England from the south that Christianity made real headway into the Anglo-Saxon culture; however, some resisted and the Anglo-Nordic religion of Asatru can still be found today. Pope Gregory commissioned Augustine, later St. Augustine, to found a mission in the domain of King Aethelbert of Kent, who was selected because of his marriage to Bertha, a Frankish princess who was known to be a Christian. These Celtic and Roman monks were a bastion of education in an otherwise illiterate society, and this fact caused many high officials in the church to gain powerful secular posts, acting as advisors to the local king, witnesses to charters, and being ministers of estates. (Ross, 1998) It was during this time that Bede, the most famous of Anglo-Saxon writers, began his journey as a writer and historian. His works while at the Jarrow Monastery in Northumbria would go on to shed more light on the Angles and Saxons than any other single work to date, but it was in the nearby Lindisfarne Monastery that a Celtic art-inspired illustrated Bible was made, a masterpiece that is currently on display in the British Library. Many works written in Latin were translated by these monks into Old English as well, giving the formerly illiterate society Christian writings in their own tongue. These missions succeeded in converting the kingdoms of Kent, Northumbria, Essex, and East Anglia, but paganism returned and only Kent remained Christian until the end of the 7^th century, after the Scottish Church began sending missionaries.

         As mentioned earlier, many church officials held secular political positions as well, and that, coupled with the economic weight and stature of the Catholic Church itself, meant that the monasteries in England never had to worry about their coffers being filled. Granted, the rural economy of England grew exponentially as well, especially under Saxon monarchs like Alfred the Great, but the Church and her satellites were a constant. This also made them soft targets for the Vikings, heathens who had little regard for Christian sanctuaries. But as these raids grew more constant, some of the Nordic raiders thought of conquest as well, and eventually claimed a portion of land through treaty and threat of force known as the Danelaw. By 1000 AD, England had become a prosperous prize, ripe for the taking by another power with the will and drive to do so. This people would be the Normans, a sort of hybrid culture, blended from the Vikings and French. They had adopted the feudal system of government, where landowners were granted parcels in return to military service to their lord. In addition, they began using horses for their warfare, and constructing grand stone castles like their European counterparts, while still keeping in touch with their Nordic architecture as well. (Osprey Publishing, 2006) They brought all this social change with them when they conquered England, replacing the Anglo-Saxon way of life – a much more Scandinavian in its administration, with kings and lesser kings ruling small individual kingdoms that dotted the English landscape.

         The Angles and Saxons were either a blessing or a curse for Britain, depending on who you asked. On one hand, they were the protection the island desperately needed from the other, more barbaric tribes. Conversely, they were also the oppressors of native Britons, effectively wiping their legacy out of the nation, and confining it to Wales. They expanded language and trade, and once converted, Christianity as well. Some people – particularly descendents of the Britons, who hate the term Welsh – claim that Britain would have flourished into an even more glorious empire if the Anglo-Saxons had never come, and that Britain would still have the Briton fables and myths that were lost or Anglicanized. It's impossible to say for sure, but one thing is certain: the Anglo-Saxons had a profound impact, not only on the island that bears their name, but through that island nation, an impact on the world.

References

James, E. (2011, February 17). BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Overview: Anglo-Saxons, 410 to 800. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/anglo_saxons/overview_anglo_saxons_01.shtml

Osprey Publishing (2006, September 25). Essential Norman Conquest - An interactive day-by-day retelling of the events of 1066. Retrieved from http://www.essentialnormanconquest.com/

Ross, D. (1998). Early Christianity in England. Retrieved from http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Early_Christian_Britain.htm

Woods, K. (1999, December 8). Anglo-Saxon England. Retrieved from http://www.uta.edu/english/tim/courses/4301w99/ashc.html

These Are the Times That Try Men's Souls

         The Battle of Saratoga in 1777, while strategically insignificant, proved to be the turning point in the American Revolution. Not only did it provide the necessary psychological boost to the struggling revolutionaries, but it shored up the support of France, forcing Britain to go on the defensive around the globe for the first time. American victories began to be more frequent and tactically important, such as the case with the Battles of Cowpens,  Monmouth, and lastly, Yorktown, which forced Britain to sign the 1783 Treaty of Paris. This raises the question of how these particular battles came about, and why were they so successful? Were the English really that rattled by French involvement, or was there some other factor influencing the outcome on the battlefield?

         The Battle of Cowpens was the first with General Nathaniel Green in command of the rebel army. Gen. Horatio Gates was relieved by Greene after Gates' disastrous performance at Camden, Greene took a more guerilla approach, sending Henry Lee and Daniel Morgan to hassle and upset the British western outposts and supply lines to Charleston, respectively. Frustrated by the "ungentlemanly" fashion of warfare Greene exhibited, English Gen. Charles Cornwallis unleashed Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarlton, a man known for his brutality and malice, to deal with Morgan's forces. However, Captain Morgan was man full of guile, and planned for the battle to take place at Cowpens, where he could use the geography to his advantage. (U.S. National Park Service, 2013)

Morgan placed 150 of his sharpshooters, nicknamed "Morgan's Riflemen", on the front lines, supported by 750 militia, all of whom were given rather abnormal orders: fire several volleys as Tarlton's cavalry charged, then fall back behind the hill. Using the militia's reputation with the British as nothing but terrified farm boys, Morgan drew Tarlton in, counting on the latter's bloodlust to carry him into a trap. The overzealous English troops faced stiff resistance at the top of the first hill at Cowpens, and when the American right flank seemed to deteriorate, Tarlton's men jumped at the weak spot. Pouring through the weakened flank, the British found themselves facing the militia who had fallen back to the other side of the hill previously. General Greene then rushed his own cavalry units in, flanking the British line and wreaking havoc on both the men and their morale. Lt. Col. Tarlton escaped with fewer than 50 of his men, and news of the loss infuriated Gen. Cornwallis, who vowed to hunt Capt. Morgan down. (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008) This victory not only swung the momentum of the war in the south to the revolutionaries' favor, but also proved to the British that the southern campaigns weren't nearly as cut-and-dry as some of the upper echelon of officers would portray.

         The Battle of Monmouth was in some sense the northern equivalent of Camden and Cowpens for the American leadership. A result of British General Sir Henry Clinton deciding that New York was too valuable a port to lose to the French, upon his hearing they had entered the war on the side of the revolutionaries, 11,000 regulars, 1,000 loyalist volunteers, and a supply train stretching for 12 miles began to work their way tediously from Philadelphia to New York. The English' journey was riddled with problems though, facing burnt bridges, trees 'fallen' across the roads, and muddied wells, none of which were unintentional. American militia and their supporters were purposely harassing the English troops, slowing their movement to a mere 40 miles per week. (Logan, 2001) Despite American General Charles Lee's objections, General George Washington opted to pursue Clinton's forces, attempting to strike them while strung along in their travels. Washington's war council rather surprisingly decided not to attack the vulnerable British, though agreed to a compromise: the American army would send a 6,000 man advance corps to attack the rearguard of the English column. At first, Lee is offered the role of general for the corps, but turned it down, only to accept after Washington offered it to the Marquis de Lafayette.

         Lee's attack was mediocre at best, and his lack of communication with his subordinates nearly ruined the assault. Clinton sent Gen. Charles Cornwallis, fresh from the southern campaigns, to defend the rearguard, and despite being outnumbered by nearly 3,000 men, the Americans were forced to begin a disorganized retreat. When Washington rode forward to observe the attack and saw his advance corps fleeing headlong towards him, his shock and disbelief gave way to uncharacteristic rage. (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008) Relieving the incompetent Lee from his command, Washington took over the corps personally, establishing a new defensive line on high ground that was flanked by dense forest and a swamp. The newly-emboldened Americans under their charismatic general held their lines as the British attempted to attack their hasty fortifications, and after failing several times, Cornwallis wisely withdrew, causing Clinton to escape with his army under the cover of nightfall.

         Lastly, the Battle of Yorktown, where the last defeat of Gen. Cornwallis took place at the hands of Gen. Washington, and was part of Cornwallis' response to Cowpens, to crush the Virginian support of the rebels in the Carolinas. The Marquis de Lafayette did a magnificent job of holding a staunch resistance to Cornwallis' army, cornering the British into Yorktown and buying Washington enough time to orchestrate a blitz into the region. Logistically, Washington coordinated the battle months beforehand beautifully, going so far as to personally oversee repairs of bridges and roads, arranging resupply points, and leaving a decoy in New Jersey to feign an attack on Gen. Clinton in New York. (Klos, 2001) When Washington's troops finally arrived to relieve Lafayette's men, the number of Americans besieging Cornwallis swelled to 17,500. Escaping to the sea was rendered impossible, due to the French blockade, so Cornwallis penned a frantic letter, requesting help from Gen. Clinton in New York. Clinton wavered, before finally sending a meager fleet and only 7,000 soldiers – who arrived a fully 5 days after Cornwallis gave up hope and surrendered. (Klos, 2001) This didn't render an immediate end to hostilities, but when news of the surrender reached Parliament, they began taking measures against the hawkish King George to arrange peace with America.

         This peace was formed through the 1783 Treaty of Paris, orchestrated by Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams for the Americans, and Richard Oswald for the English. The treaty not only formed a peace between England and the newly-formed American states, but achieved British recognition of America as an independent nation, fishing rights along the Atlantic coast, and had the island kingdom cede all lands between the Mississippi River and Allegheny Mountains to the Americans, doubling the size of the fledgling nation in the stroke of a pen. (Foner, 1991)

         These were just three examples of resounding American victories that ultimately led to the British defeat. The threat of France, while helping exponentially, was not the ultimate driving force behind American victories – those were due to effective leadership, proper training, and most importantly, fighting for an ideal and home, something the British military never had there. As Thomas Paine once said, "These are the times that try men's souls," and those trying times proved that the mettle of Americans was strong enough to shake off the most powerful empire of the day, and to create the last bastion of freedom.

References

Foner, E., & Garraty, J. A. (1991). Treaty of Paris (1783) — History.com. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/treaty-of-paris-1783

Klos, S. L. (2001, July 27). Battle Of Yorktown. Retrieved from http://www.battleofyorktown.com/

Logan, J. T. (2001, December). The American Revolution - The Battle of Monmouth. Retrieved from http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battledetail.aspx?battle=21

Shmoop Editorial Team (2008, November 11). Cowpens (Jan 17, 1781) in The American Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/cowpens-battle.html

Shmoop Editorial Team (2008, November 11). Monmouth (Apr 28, 1778) in The American Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/monmouth-battle.html

U.S. National Park Service (2013). The Battle of Cowpens - Cowpens National Battlefield. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/cowp/historyculture/the-battle-of-cowpens.htm

Forged by Failure: Washington's Continental Army

         "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." This blunt statement by Sir Winston Churchill sums up George Washington's first few years as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army quite well. Faced with the insurmountable task of resisting the British Empire, the strongest military power of the time, he struggled just holding his ragtag volunteer army together. But as defeat after defeat led to despair, Washington's charisma was stretched to its limits, and his willpower was almost single-handedly holding the Revolution together. How did it come to that? How did the independent-minded Anglo-Americans get to the point of widespread dejection? And perhaps more importantly, why did the Battle of Saratoga – a seemingly unimportant location, both strategically and geographically – change the face of the war, tipping the scales in favor of the rebels?

         When the minutemen of Lexington and Concord clashed with the advancing redcoats in April of 1775, the American Colonies were suddenly thrust into a war the populace was ill prepared for. Many people, including most of Washington's militia force, were blissfully ignorant of the mountainous task ahead, and only a mere fraction of them were willing to see it all the way through, regardless of the inevitable barriers ahead. This was quickly apparent less than two months after Lexington and Concord, when the well-regulated and disciplined British troops drove the colonists' from Breed's Hill. Despite initial stiff resistance, the untrained rebels broke rank as the English bayonets descended upon their position, and the level of military education proved dominant on that day. (Weatherby, 2010) However, it was the invasion of British Canada that proved to be the first in a series of harsh defeats. The first major initiative of the Continental Army, the attack on Quebec was supposed to supplant the British army there, and garner French-Canadian support against the English. However, with the combined forces of American generals Richard Montgomery and Benedict Arnold dwindling due to starvation, disease, and expiring enlistments, the Battle of Quebec was nothing short of a disaster. Losing what little public support they had gained, due to British propaganda, the rebels were driven all the way back to Fort Ticonderoga. (Boundless Learning, 2013)

Fast forward eight months to August of 1776, and the Battle of Long Island. English General William Howe's force of 30,000 men handily defeated Washington's much smaller army, taking the island. Washington managed to orchestrate a rather skillful getaway, fleeing to Manhattan, but lost that island less than a month later. The loss of New York City merely reinforced Loyalists in the region, and further disheartened the rebellion's troops. Discontent among the populace was at an all-time high, and Washington faced even more troop loss as more enlistments began running out, further depleting the 5,000 man army. There was no rest for the weary, as they say, and Howe's forces pursued Washington through New Jersey and into Pennsylvania, camping for the winter in a place called Valley Forge. (Boundless Learning, 2013)

         Meanwhile, during Washington's retreat from Long Island, the Hessian mercenaries hired by the English captured Fort Washington, and while not overly vital position, proved a blow to the morale of the rebels – since the fort was a namesake of their commander-in-chief. It was when the spirits of the people and their army were lowest that Washington attempted a daring, albeit somewhat foolhardy, maneuver that gave people hope, and guaranteed him lasting fame. In a nighttime raid, he crossed the Delaware River again, and attacked the drunken Hessian garrison in Trenton, NJ – taking nearly 900 prisoners in the process. While this did not turn the tide of the war completely, it did make the beginning of the turnaround, with the British withdrawing to eastern New Jersey. (McJoynt, 2002) That victory that proved to be the turning point was the strategically insignificant Battle of Saratoga.

Before Saratoga, nearly everyone was short on hope, even General Washington himself. In a letter to his brother, he said "… I think the game is pretty near up, owing, in a great measure, to the insidious arts of the Enemy, and disaffection of the colonies before mentioned, but principally to the accursed policy of short enlistments, and placing too great a dependence on the militia, the evil consequences of which were foretold fifteen months ago, with a spirit almost Prophetic." (1890) However, Saratoga changed that, due in part to Washington's iron will. Originally looking to be a British victory, one of the rebel commanders issued the order to retreat, but Washington relieved him of his command, ordering his men to dig in and fix bayonets. Between the steadfastness of their general, and the Prussian training received during their winter encampment at Valley Forge, the rebels stood their ground, surprising the English. The shocked British troops were routed, with General Burgoyne surrendering to Washington just a few hours later. General Howe lost over 10,000 troops that day, with almost 6,000 being captured, a loss that successfully curbed his ability to retaliate. (Weatherby, 2010) (USHistory.org, 2008)

         Saratoga was not a vital center to the war effort, but it proved that Americans, with proper training and support, could in fact defeat the English war machine. This proof was what the French were looking for, and after the victory at Saratoga, were convinced to through their weight behind the revolution. As soon as news of the American triumph reached Paris, the French dispatched diplomats, and soon two Franco-American treaties were signed. The first of these treaties ensured peace and preference of commerce between the two nations, and the second guaranteed a "conditional and defensive alliance" (USHistory.org, 2008). This stated that if Britain and France began fighting due to the first treaty, France and America would be allies, and could not broker a peace with England, a truce, or even "lay down their arms until the Independence of the united states shall have been formally or tacitly assured by the Treaty or Treaties that shall terminate the War." (USHistory.org, 2008)

         Thomas Edison once said "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." This was most certainly the case with George Washington and his fledgling army: they were beat down and pushed to the point where hope had all but abandoned them. A single decision, not to relieve a cowardly subordinate, but a decision not to give up, would set apart Washington from the other leaders of the day. The unwavering determination of Washington kept that small flame of optimism alive, and his resolute approach grew that flame into a beacon. It could be argued that without the charismatic, determined leadership of Washington, the French may not have ever supported the revolution.

References

Boundless Learning Technologies (2013). Quebec, New York, and New Jersey - The First Year of the War: 1775-1776. Retrieved from https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/the-american-revolution-1763-1783/the-first-year-of-the-war-1775-1776/quebec-new-york-and-new-jersey/

McJoynt, A. J. (2002). Brief Review of George Washington's Military Career. Retrieved from http://xenophongroup.com/patriot/washington/washingt.htm

USHistory.org (2008). The Battle of Saratoga [ushistory.org]. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/11g.asp

Washington, G., & Ford, W. C. (1890). Washington Describes the Setbacks of 1776. Retrieved from http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Wash1776.html

Weatherby, E. (2010). Washington’s Army | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/washingtons-army/

The Roots of Revolution: America After the Seven Years' War

         The Seven Years' War began as the French and Indian War, a struggle between France and England for dominance over the North American continent. It soon bled into what could be argued was the first real world war, dragging numerous nations across the globe into the conflict. In the American colonies, it set the framework for the inevitable revolt against the English Crown. However, this begs the question: how exactly did this war change the socioeconomic and political atmospheres? And did the body known as the Continental Congress act as a catalyst to the movement, or was it merely a figurehead?

         The French and Indian War, named so by the English and colonists due to the – at the time – unorthodox and ungentlemanly alliance between the two namesakes, was a war testing the dominance of each parent nation in the New World. It would eventually spread to western Europe, but the end result was the same: a bitter, bloody English victory that vastly expanded their holdings in North America. Yet this triumph was a double-edged sword, in regards to the ends of what it accomplished; on one hand, it belayed colonial unrest and resentment towards the Crown by providing a common enemy, but on the other hand, it laid the groundwork for the coming Revolution. First and foremost, the victory against the French and indigenous American Indians proved that triumph heals all wounds even more than time does. With the British successfully defending her colonies against a common enemy, the pre-war hostility between the Anglo-Americans and the redcoats were all but forgotten. (USHistory.org, 2008) In fact, it sent the British politicians and warriors skyrocketing to a near deified state: William Pitt, the Prime Minister who almost single-handedly turned the outcome of the war around, was honored with hundreds of communities and towns being named after him – the most famous being Pittsburgh, PA. Even future Revolutionary War general Israel Putnam renamed his tavern in Connecticut the "Genl. Wolfe", in honor of James Wolfe, the audacious and bold hero who gave his life at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham outside Quebec. (Purvis, 2006) The war rekindled the colonists' sense of pride at being Englishmen, and made them proud to fly the Union Jack. 

         The same could not be said, however, for the class of elites back on the mother island. Englishmen that comprised the upper class claimed that the colonies had not contributed enough to the war effort, or at the very least, had not contributed equal to their abilities. This was due in part to a lack of information about the manpower the colonial governments volunteered to supplement the British regulars, as noted by Benjamin Franklin: "They say that last Year, at Nova Scotia, 2000 New England Men, and not more than 200 Regulars, were join’d in the Taking [of Fort] Beau Sejour; yet it could not be discover’d by the Account sent by Govr. Lawrence, and publish’d in the London Gazette, that there was a single New England-Man concern’d in the Affair." (1756) The upper crust of London also held the belief that the principal gauge of support was not manpower at all, but rather the tax revenue and incurred debt. England's debt doubled in nine years due to the war, and approximately 40% of that was spent on the colonies, and the taxpayers of Britain felt the colonists should pay more taxes to help with the military expenditures. (Purvis, 2006) News of the cost of maintaining their newly-conquered territories turned English public opinion downright hostile, and instead of reveling in their shared victory, they allowed the cost of the war to make themselves resentful of the Anglo-Americans, driving them further apart.

         As the British populace continued to resent their cousins across the pond, Anglo-American discontent grew as well. Parliament passed new laws and taxes intended to increase revenue for the island kingdom, driving costs in the colonies to rise. Taxation without representation and other issues causing discontent led those people now identifying as "Americans", not Englishmen, to form a representative body, known as the "Continental Congress". Officially established in 1774, the Continental Congress was the governing arm of the American Revolution, attempting to balance the needs and interests of the unified colonies, while being the liaison representing the colonies to Parliament and the Crown. In 1774, after the passage of the Intolerable Acts, the legislatures from each colony were pressured by groups – such as the famous Sons of Liberty – to send delegates a congress. The original intent of this congress was to set terms of a boycott of British goods, sponsored by the aforementioned Sons of Liberty. (Office of the Historian, 2010) What they accomplished was the passage of Articles of Association, which was not only a statement of boycott to the English government, but showed the British that the colonies had banded together against the perceived injustices of the Crown. (History.com, 1996) The Continental Congress would eventually go on to take control of the united colonial government, after the start of the Revolutionary War started, and then took the historic step of issuing a proclamation declaring independence from their mother country.

         The Seven Years' War and the corresponding effects it had on the colonies were indeed bittersweet. It allowed Britain to prove her dominance in the New World and across the globe, and gave the Anglo-Americans a chance to take pride in their heritage as Englishmen. However, it also forced those self-same Englishmen in America to think as Americans for the first time, since the Crown wouldn't treat them like true Englishmen. It was this thinking that led to the formation of the Continental Congress, the unification of the colonies, and eventually, American independence.

References

The Continental Congress — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts. (1996). Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/the-continental-congress

Franklin, B. (1756). The Papers of Benjamin Franklin; Personal correspondence to Sir Everard Fawkener (VI, 473). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Office of the Historian (2010). Continental Congress, 1774–1781 - 1776–1783 - Milestones. Retrieved from Department of State website: http://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/continental-congress

Purvis, T. L. (2006, March 20). HIS 571W: Colonial and Revolutionary America - Sam Houston State University. Retrieved from http://www.littlejohnexplorers.com/onlinegraduatecolonialcourse/sevenyearswarandpoliticallegacy.pdf

USHistory.org (2008). The Treaty of Paris (1763) and Its Impact. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/8d.asp

Southern Hospitality: How the Middle and Southern Colonies Came to Be

         The brilliant and interesting thing about the American Colonies is the fact that each of them has a unique and intriguing tale of how they were begun. These colonies might not be the most prevalent, especially when clumped together with some of their more seemingly-important brethren, but each plays a vital role in the history of what would soon become a fledgling nation.

         The "Middle Colonies" are generally agreed upon as consisting of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, though they are often grouped with New England in modern reckonings. New York came about after the English captured New Netherlands from the Dutch in 1664, and it was given by the King of England to his brother, the Duke of York, for whom the colony was named. It officially gained the status of a royal colony 21 years later, in 1685. (Goyal, 2013) New York also gave rise to the colony of New Jersey, after the Duke of York ascended to the throne. Taking a portion of his colony, the newly-coronate James II offered a portion of the land as remuneration to a pair of his supporters, who dubbed the plot "New Jersey". It was advertised as having a representative government and freedom of religion, something James II was not overly fond of. The nobles' ploy worked, however, and the colony attracted many a settler, growing rapidly for its small size. It was not to last, though, and in 1702, New Jersey fell to the Crown as well. (Alchin, 2012) (Goyal, 2013)

         William Penn established the colony of Pennsylvania in 1682 with land granted to him due to a debt that was owed by the Crown to his late father. He aspired to fashion a colony that not only allowed, but encouraged freedom of religion, due in part to his need to shelter himself and fellow Quakers from rampant persecution, coming even from Penn's own family. Pennsylvania – meaning "Penn's Woods" – also experienced a slight breaking apart, much like New York.

Delaware, formerly New Sweden prior to British annexation, started as the lower counties of land given to Penn, but were fiercely independent, just as they were when part of New York. After a number of years attempting to keep them a part of Penn's Woods, William Penn finally granted them proprietorship of their own, small colony, becoming Delaware, second smallest state in the United States, but would forever be known as the very first state to ratify the Constitution of that newborn nation. (Alchin, 2012)

         The Southern Colonies are generally considered to be Maryland, Virginia, Carolina, and Georgia, though the first two are not often grouped with the "South" in modern vernacular. Virginia was the first colony formed, originally attempted with a failed settlement at Roanoke, and Maryland was established less than 30 years after: a gift to the Catholic proprietor, George Calvert, Lord Baltimore. The Carolinas, or simply Carolina at the time, share a much more turbulent beginning. Originally one royal colony, after decades of arguments over differences concerning defense, government, and the ongoing battle between two separate agricultural methods used by the colonists, the colonial government set in place by the King split, with seven of the eight original proprietors selling their interests to the Crown, and the colony becoming two autonomous territories. (The History Channel, 2013)

         Georgia was established upon capturing the region from the Spanish, and settlement was spearheaded by James Oglethorpe, a Member of Parliament at the time. Oglethorpe wanted a haven for the English poor, someplace to flee to instead of being sentenced to the already overloaded debtors' prisons. After securing a royal charter Oglethorpe and his Trustees founded colony of Georgia on 9 June 1732. This gave rise to the fallacy that Georgia was established to be a penal colony, akin to the founding of Australia. (Giola, 2011)

         The two regions were just as diverse as they are today, if not more so. The Middle Colonies relied heavily on indentured servitude and tenants to drive their industries of shipping and food export, a natural choice due to the copious amounts of timber, fish, and coastline they had access to. Their two major ports, New York City and Philadelphia, provided quick and efficient transport of all their goods, whether built or grown. Pennsylvania even launched a successful venture into export of pork, beef, wheat, and corn, among other foodstuffs. (Miller, 2011) They were also religiously diverse, due in part to Penn's Quakers, and because there were so many nations represented when the English began to dominate the region. (Miller, 2011)

         The South, in contrast, was much more predominantly Protestant British. Catholics were present as well, but were a small minority when compared to Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. The geography and climate was more suited to agriculture than most of the Middle Colonies as well: less mountainous, better farmland, and warm weather all added to the agrarian society. (Giola, 2011) However, this also meant that cheap, efficient labor was in high demand, and indentured servants were only good for so long. By 1675, the slave trade was well rooted in the Southern economy, and by the 18^th century, slaves had near wholly replaced indentured servants. African slaves had been a commodity in the New World since Jamestown was established, due to an unlikely capture from a Spanish vessel headed to Mexico, though it is still unclear to historians if they were slaves or considered indentured servants. (Monticello, 2013) They became a vital part of the South's financial system, and no amount of religious or political pressure could force a change, until war finally tore the young nation apart.

         By and large, the Middle and Southern Colonies vastly different, yet remarkably similar. Each colony was filled with independent, hardy people who weren't afraid of a new land, with new dangers. The prospect of a fresh start, free from political, religious, and social upheaval was worth it to them, and they would do whatever it took to pursue prosperity and happiness.

References

Alchin, L. K. (2012). The Middle Colonies. Retrieved from http://www.landofthebrave.info/middle-colonies.htm

Giola, S. (2011). Southern Colonies - The Thirteen Original Colonies. Retrieved from http://original13colonies.weebly.com/southern-colonies.html

Goyal, M., Johnson, C., Khan, R., & Rojas, R. (2013). Who founded the Middle Colonies - The New World Colonizers. Retrieved from http://thenewworldcolonizers.weebly.com/who-founded-the-middle-colonies.html

The History Channel (2013). Southern Colonies. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/southern-colonies

Miller, F. T. (2011). Middle Colonies. Retrieved from http://clio.missouristate.edu/FTMiller/121/Online/LM/17th%20Century/Middle/midcolonies.htm

Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello (2013). African Slavery in Colonial British North America. Retrieved from http://www.monticello.org/slavery-at-monticello/african-slavery-british-north-america