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

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

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

Church Wars: The Battle of Catholicism and Protestantism in England

        The 17^th century was a tumultuous time for England, as for the rest of Europe. Political squabbles, economic depravity, and social strife were rampant, made all the worse by the ongoing battle for power between the Roman Catholic church and the fledgling Protestant sects. Or was it the other way around? Did the clash between the Protestants and Catholics fuel the already dilapidated socioeconomic climate, or was the religious row the catalyst of the whole situation?

        England's Glorious Revolution ended the absolute monarchy in place, and instead replaced it with a "constitutional monarchy", handing over much of the control of England to Parliament. Driven by the fear of what a Catholic monarch may attempt, James II was cast out, being replaced by his Protestant daughter Mary and her husband, William of Orange. Despite the Revolution being relatively bloodless, with only Scotland and Ireland putting up resistance, it's impact on British society was considerable, gradually bringing long lasting changes. Even after William and Mary died with no heir, Parliament was able to place Anne – another of James II's Protestant daughters – on the throne. But this fear of a resurgence of "popery" was not held by Parliament alone: it was widespread throughout the kingdom. This fear went beyond hatred and ventured into the realm of paranoia, as the majority of the people of England, many of whom were Protestant since birth, believed that Catholics were systematically plotting the downfall of both the Anglican Church and English state. This intricate conspiracy theory claimed that the Pope would then establish Catholic-led tyranny, not unlike the absolute monarchy in France, reducing England to a mere puppet state. It is interesting to note, however, that this conspiracy theory was given some measure of credibility, due to the fact that there actually was some real Catholic subterfuge, the most notable of which was Guy Fawkes' 1605 Gunpowder Plot. (Vallance, 2011)

         Thus, despite James' Catholic descendents attempting to stir a rebellion that would carry them out of exile in France and back to the English throne, it would never happen, as public support was suppressed by the paranoia about Catholics. In fact, the people and Parliament thought it better to give the crown to the Germans than to the French. That is when King George I entered the scene: a Stuart by blood, German by culture, and ruler of Hanover, but the next Protestant with claim to the English Crown. However, neither George I or his son, George II, were fluent in English, understood or cared much about England, and they never presided over the Cabinet meetings. (Damerow, 2011) Because of this, Sir Robert Walpole, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, became the first Prime Minister, holding this position from 1721 to 1742. Answering both to the king and to a majority in the House of Commons, Walpole became the de facto leader of the nation, and the Crown began its descent into being a mere figurehead; however, when Sir Robert's parliamentary majority was lost, he proceeded to resign from his post, despite still having the support of the king. By doing so, he provided a model for all Prime Ministers after him, and set a precedent for all future leaders of this fundamentally different England. (Damerow, 2011)

 

          During all of this, mass exploration was going on as well. The ever present threat of France was multiplied when they sent Jacques Cartier to the New World, followed by René-Robert-Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, among others. To the English mind, the Catholic French could not go unopposed, so in 1585, the English established an ultimately unsuccessful settlement on Roanoke Island. However, they made more attempts shortly thereafter, with settlements at Jamestown and Plymouth. Finally, in March of 1630, roughly 900 Puritans sailed to the New World and established the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Other colonies were rapidly founded in succession: Maryland, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. (Kreis, 2009) These colonies were well established, with governments approved and placed by the Crown when the Glorious Revolution rattled the home country. One of the governors in Colonies was a man by the name of Sir Edmund Andros, a heavily pro-Anglican authoritarian man, and one despised by most of the largely Puritan population. Tensions were high in the colonies, between Indian raids and Andros' own harsh policies and crackdowns, when word of the Glorious Revolution spread to America. (Alchin, 2012) In April of 1698, the Boston colonists revolted against the tyranny of Andros, descending on the city and arresting government officials and other Anglicans. Former colonial governor Simon Bradstreet led what the British called a "mob", but was closer to an organized militia, to the steps of Fort Mary, where Andros had barricaded himself. Bradstreet served up the terms of surrender, which Andros refused, and instead attempted to flee to the Rose, the last of the Royal Navy presence near Boston at the time. However, the boat sent from the Rose was intercepted by militia, and Andros was forced back to negotiations. He was taken into captivity, and meanwhile, in New York, Lieutenant Governor Francis Nicholson was toppled by Jacob Leisler's New York militia, something that has come to be called Leisler's Rebellion. New York would be governed by Leisler until 1691, when he was arrested and put to death by an army led by the provincial governor, newly-appointed by the Crown. Andros was ultimately permitted to leave to England, but by then, his Dominion of New England had practically come to an end, and the colonies making up the Dominion reverting back to their prior styles of government. As Linda Alchin wrote that the "rebellion the American colonies, which although were short lived, can be seen as precursors to the American Revolution." (2012)

         Overall, the Glorious Revolution was a nearly bloodless insurrection that this author would assert was caused by the tensions between Protestants and Catholics. It was supplemented by the socioeconomic and political strife rampant at the time, and was felt all throughout the farthest reaches of the fledgling empire. The impact in the American Colonies was both a symbol and a forerunner of what was to come, but staved off the inevitable revolution for 88 more years.

References

Alchin, L. (2012, March 1). Land of the Brave: Glorious Revolution of 1688. Retrieved from http://www.landofthebrave.info/glorious-revolution.htm

Damerow, H. (2011, July 12). Glorious Revolution. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/glorious_revolution.htm

Kreis, S. (2009, August 4). Lecture 6: Europe in the Age of Religious Wars, 1560-1715. Retrieved from http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html

Vallance, E. (2011, February 17). BBC - History - British History in depth: The Glorious Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_01.shtml

From Darkness to Light: The Fall of England's Feudal Economy

        From the 11^th century onward, feudalism had a stranglehold on the island kingdom of England. As the norm of the land for hundreds of years, it seemed there was no foreseeable end to it, until the middle of the 14^th century. As the adage goes, things had to get worse to get better, and after a series of calamities, England faced the downfall of feudalism and a century of prosperity. This begs the question, however, of why the catastrophes helped? What was so terrible that it changed the very foundation of the government, or did the power really shift much at all? And what effect did these events have on the common man?

         Feudalism in England was officially introduced in 1066 with the Norman Conquest, though elements of it had been present in feudalism gained prominence in the 9^th century. It was a harsh system, with a rigid class-based structure that allowed for little to no upward mobility. If one was born into serfdom, there was next to no opportunities to advance, being stuck in a state that was often considered worse than slavery. Lords, barons, or other nobility were the only major landholders, with life being entirely dependent on the success of the lord's manor. This way of life began to crumble, however, after the first few survivors of the Crusades returned. These warriors would regale their fellow townspeople with tales of far off lands and vast riches, and would eventually inspire trade with faraway territories. After the Crusades, Venice, Genoa, and other cities along the Mediterranean took a central role in trade, profiting from dealing in Oriental goods, the growing significance of banking and, after the fall of their chief competition – the Byzantine Empire – their newfound monopoly. (Felsch, 2013) This expansion of trade trickled its way up to northern Europe, and by the 15^th century, had permeated the economy of England.

        The population of England had been falling since the 14^th century, however, and many historians believe it continued to fall until 1450-70. (Muhlberger, 2003) A major part of this decline was due to something known as the Black Death, lasting roughly from 1347-1351, though remnants could be found well into the 1400's. This was not the only crisis, but was the one that was engrained in legend. However, with a declining population, basic foodstuffs – especially grain, normally the main source of income for farmers – were not in high demand anymore, and consequently drove prices, and ultimately the farmers' own rent, down to prices never before seen. (Knox, 2013) Manual labor, on the other hand, was at an all-time high in demand. Wages began to rise, but many local governments attempted to pass laws restricting them, though such legislation was ineffective. Prices and land both dropped in price during this rise in wages, allowing much of the peasantry to create what one might consider a precursor to the middle class, whose rights could be defended by the king's justice. If they were able to labor, they could eat rather well, thanks to the new, higher wages earned. (Muhlberger, 2003)

         However, this did not necessarily mean the decline of the landlords. When many serfs and servants became freed tenants, some nobles who were set in their ways attempted the aforementioned legislation. Others, however, were more skilled at adaptation, and decided to turn their efforts to the production of material exports like wool. By doing so, they entered into an industry that was required less labor, and was vastly more profitable, but required new techniques to be effective. Enter fenced enclosures, pastures, and pens, something that had only been seen in limited aspects until now. Barons, lords, and landowners would convert once-plowed pastures of newly vacant villages and manors were fenced in and allowed to grow, to be utilized for sheep runs. (Muhlberger, 2003) Prior to the mid-14^th century, the majority of England's wool was sold to France, Italy, and the Netherlands, where it was converted into usable cloth in the larger, industrialized cities. As the century progressed, taxes on the export of raw wool – imposed to support England's war effort – encouraged English landlords to send their goods to the local manufacturing regions, helping it to grow rapidly. (Felsch, 2013)

           Unfortunately, it was this very adaptation that spelled the downfall of the rising middle class, as the economic boom was not to last. Serfs had enjoyed protection of tenure with their lord. When 15^th century servants gained their personal freedom, that security was retracted, and suddenly, serfs who had been dependent on their lord for all of their sustenance were on their own virtually overnight. Most peasants merely had a lease on the land they occupied. Leases used a leasehold, not unlike modern lease agreements. The leaseholds would end at a set time, at which point the landlord could renew it, modify it, or take the land back outright. Because of this, the newly-freed leaseholders had no long-term security. As the fifteenth century progressed, leaseholders were not terribly insecure because property was once again copious. Landlords lost  what influence they had, but by the 16th century, a growing population again made available property scant. (Knox, 2013)(Muhlberger, 2003)

          Overall, the economics of 1400-1500 England was the equivalent of a medieval roller coaster. The local populace was thrown about like a ragdoll at times, but those who were able to adapt and overcome weathered the storm best, regardless of serf, free peasant, or nobleman. Echoes of capitalism were seen, with the constant rise and fall of supply and demand; and it was here, in the wake of the Black Death and uncertain economic times, the people got a taste of their collective power.

References

Felsch, M., Astor, E., & Southard, Ü. (2013). Diercke International Atlas - Trade and economy in the 15th century. Retrieved from http://www.diercke.com/kartenansicht.xtp?artId=978-3-14-100790-9&stichwort=slave&fs=1

Knox, S. (2013). European economy in the Age of the Reformation. Retrieved from http://europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/reformation/economics/overview.shtml

Muhlberger, S. (2003). ORB: The Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies. Retrieved from http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/muhlberger/15c_economy.htmlc

Spanning Generations: The Hundred Years' War

       Few conflicts in this world's troubled history have lasted as long as the war between England and France known as The Hundred Years' War. A bloody ping pong match between ruling families, the body count would reach epic proportions for just a few extra yards of land, just to be lost again with the same – or higher – loss of life. What started the constant clash? Was it a disagreement over borders, or plain and simple greed? Or was there something more nefarious at work, an underlying power play to unite all the major nations of Europe under one house to begin an empire?

       The Hundred Years' War officially lasted from 1337 until 1453, consisting primarily of on-again, off-again sieges, raids, and sea battles between England and France. But to fully understand why King Philip VI of France instigated the fighting, one must look further back, to the days of William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy. In 1066, when William shook off the title of "Bastard" and donned the mantle of "Conqueror", he united England and northern France for the first time since the Roman Empire. His descendent, Henry II, expanded the lands owned by England to proportions unseen before that time, though his successors found this expansion too great and complicated to control. This lack of control led to a slow erosion, until Edward III's reign, when England's holdings in France consisted of only Gascony and Ponthieu. Technically, these holdings were still under French rule, thus making the King of England a vassal of the King of France, at least in regard to the territories held on mainland Europe. Then, in 1328, just one year after Edward's ascension to the English throne, Charles IV of France died, with no heir, or even a brother to pass the crown to. His sister, however, happened to be the mother of Edward III, and it was by this lineage that Edward made a claim to the French throne as well. (Trueman, 2011) The French people did not share his view, though, and enthroned Phillip – a cousin to the deceased Charles. This move infuriated Edward, but he was virtually powerless to intervene, at least for nearly a decade. In May of 1337, Phillip moved on the English-controlled duchy of Aquitaine, and Edward jumped at the opportunity for war – a politically astute war, where he would not be viewed as the aggressor by neighboring kingdoms. However, merely appearing as the defender was not enough for King Edward, and he responded with a claim to the French throne, saying that he was the next legitimate heir to Charles IV, not Phillip.

        Edward's attempts to raise an army to challenge King Phillip were fruitful, for the most part, as there was no shortage of adventurous men willing to risk life and limb for king and country. Although, Edward shrewdly sweetened the deal by allowing volunteers to bring any French plunder they could carry home to England, which would often make even the poorest man feel as rich as the king himself. There were some, however, who were more concerned about leaving their farms, as the war didn't start heating up until the end of summer and beginning of autumn – right in the middle of the harvest. (Gormley, 2001) The feudal system in place at the time helped alleviate some of this, though, as the king called upon his vassals and feudal lords to draw armies, who would in turn allow individual villages and manors to select their fighting force. Those sent to the king – primarily archers, as most people in England were expected to be proficient with use of the feared English longbow – were paid three pence a day, along with the spoils of war; those left behind were cared for by the community as a whole until their volunteer's return, if he would indeed return.

        Three years into the conflict, Edward began what today would be called a public relations campaign, officially adopting the moniker of 'King of France and the French Royal Arms'. (Keen, 2011) It is still debated to this day if Edward actually thought this was accomplishable, or if it was merely a ruse to garner support, but regardless, it gave him vital leverage and pull in his consequent dealings with King Phillip. He used that title to split France amongst herself, with some French that were more friendly toward the English backing Edward's claim, and pitting those supporters against those of Phillip's. Additionally, the title became a negotiating piece, a bargaining chip as it were, if he were to offer a renunciation of it in return for vast territorial surrenderings, such as the independence of the duchy of  Aquitaine, or even the cession of Anjou and Normandy. (Keen, 2011)

        Edward's army was almost as successful as his political maneuverings for the most part, smashing the French forces all the way south to Castillon and controlling most of the western coast. Battles at Agincourt, Crécy, and Poitiers gave the English a chance to employ a new technique of warfare, combining divisions of longbowmen with units of men-at-arms to devastating effect. But then, in 1429, as the English pushed eastward at the Siege of Orleans, a young peasant girl believed by the French to be divinely blessed rose up against the English. Joan of Arc, leading a relief force, smashed through the English siege and delivered the city from falling, and marked the end of the English advance, having them retreat from all their French holdings, save Calais.

         Depending on the heritage of the historian you ask, Edward III was either the aggressor or defender, with a stark contrast between the two. Ask a Frenchman, and he was a bloodthirsty English king seeking to greedily devour as much land as he could while king; yet to an Englishman, he was a noble defender of English holdings on the mainland, with a perfectly legitimate claim to the French throne. Regardless of thoughts on either king, however, the Hundred Years' War proved to be nothing more than a horrific loss of life, for both sides. Little ground even permanently changed hands, and in the end, it was a poor decision for both parties involved. Yes, greed was a factor, but both Edward and Phillip showed that land they could claim as their own was worth more than the lives of their subjects, and that is nothing to be proud of, regardless of bloodline, pedigree, or perceived divine right.

References

Gormley, L. (2001). eHistory at OSU | Hundred Years War. Retrieved from http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/archive/hundredyearswar.cfm

Keen, M. (2011, February 17). BBC - History - British History in depth: The Hundred Years War. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/hundred_years_war_01.shtml

Trueman, C. (2011, February 16). The Hundred Years War. Retrieved from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hundred_years_war.htm