The Latin Advance: French and Spanish Colonization of the Americas

        In the Pre-Colonial era, France and Spain were two of the major powers of the day, and were also some of the biggest colonizers at the time. They are oft overlooked, however, being overshadowed by the British Empire, who was the most successful colonizing power, despite getting in the game somewhat late. Why were these two nations, in some respects, not as successful as the English in their colonization attempts? Did these two world powers share something in common besides speaking Romantic languages? What did England have that gave them the advantage, or were Spain and France merely lacking something?

         Spain began her colonization almost immediately after Christopher Columbus' first commissioned expedition in 1492. The Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand II of Aragon and his wife Isabella of Castile, began and financed the initial voyages, with the conquistadors at the spearhead. Soon private ventures began, with secular Spaniards going for trade and wealth, and the more religiously inclined departing as missionaries for the Catholic Church to convert the so-called heathen barbarians discovered there. For nearly four centuries this was the norm, with the Spanish Empire enveloping modern day Mexico, Central America, the Southwestern United States and Californian coast, and even extending their claims northwards as far as the Alaskan coast. To the south, they declared much of South America, all the way down the western coast to Tierra Del Fuego, although the eastern portion of the continent was claimed by Portugal. (Chaney, 2012)

          Christopher Columbus, the Italian visionary most people of the time thought insane, has often been portrayed in academia as the benevolent discoverer of America. Due to recent historical finds, however, it has been revealed that he was neither. Leif Eriksson claimed the title of Discoverer nearly 500 years before, and Columbus himself dispelled the illusion of benevolence and kindheartedness, recording in his diary that the Indians there "would make fine servants… With fifty men we could subjugate them all, and make them do whatever we want." (Zinn, 2003) This sentiment was echoed by the Spanish nobility, and truly set the tone for the following expeditions, not only the ones headed by Columbus, but by the conquistadors as well. As historian Edwin Weatherby said on his blog (2012), "To expand God, gold and glory was the mission statement of the Spanish during the 16^th and 17^th centuries. Every explorer and conquistador became obsessed with either one or the other." And oftentimes, the expansion of all three were backed under threat of force, even by the Catholic missionaries. Conquistadors and their men were most notable for letting their greed drive them, slaughtering entire towns, tribes, and cities merely to strip away the precious metals and resources located there. It is interesting to note that this was the first time that legends about mystical "cities of gold" began circulating, leading some historians to believe that these were merely myths conjured by the natives, using the greed of the Spanish against them, and causing them to move on from sacking one area in particular to search of the fabled treasure. (Weatherby, 2012)

         In short, the Spanish advance into the Americas was swift, and it was brutal. They refused to allow anything to stop or slow their conquest for the glory of the Crown and the Church – and by association, themselves as well. Nonetheless, their war against the native peoples was effective, breaking their spirit and gaining dominance over them, both of which can still be felt today in Latin America. The French, however, took a slightly different approach, despite desiring many of the same results.

         In a way, the French method of conquer was genius: take the Spaniards' gold without having to fight or mine, by way of monopolized trade. While the Spanish were busy making enemies and hoarding precious metals, the French began to establish their own colonial empire surrounding in-demand export products like furs, fish, timber, and sugar. Instead of coming to the New World thinking of themselves as mighty conquerors of God, the French took the approach of the sly businessman, creating a French-Indian policy that encouraged trade, peace, and intermarriage. (Osburn, 2009) In fact, it was not uncommon to have the French and Indian populations live together and teach each other their respective languages, along with various trade skills. This forged a bond that was unseen by any "civilized" country to that time, and the business side of the relationships caused a flourishing economy felt throughout the lower- to middle-class all the way up to the government of France itself. Even the Creek and Seminole Indian tribes would secretly trade with Frenchmen, despite being under the iron boot of the Spaniards, who had alienated nearly all the tribes under the new Spanish empire. (Weatherby, 2012)

         The French king who encouraged the exploration, and resulting Indian policy of diplomacy and friendship, was Francis I. He, like Ferdinand and Isabella, had an Italian head his nation's maiden voyage to the new world, and charged Giovanni da Verrazano with finding a route to the Pacific Ocean. After failing to find an intercontinental passage, the French then attempted to colonize the area explored by da Verrazano. Most of these settlements were short lived, partially due to the lack of French women willing to leave the Old World, but were eventually able to establish their presence in what is today Canada, the Midwestern U.S., and Louisiana, along with a few colonies scattered in the Caribbean. The French also relied on brigantines – small, fast ships capable of carrying a decent load – as opposed to the heavier Spanish galleons to protect their investments from English privateers. This cut the cost of having a fleet in the area, and thus led to more productivity, whereas the Spanish were forced to keep a strong military fleet in the area, resupplied with French timber, of course. (Weatherby, 2012) (Osburn, 2009)

         Eventually, both the French and Spanish were in effect forced out of the New World, either by England, or the native inhabitants rising up against them. Neither left without making their mark, however, as can be seen most clearly in the language groups commonly used in the Americas. The Spanish simply couldn't hold their colonies due to their repressive nature, making any and all under their rule resentful and restless; and the French were either bought out or driven out by the English. There was not any special formula or gift that gave the English an edge over the French, but by creating essentially a hybrid policy of force and diplomacy that varied from colony to colony, for dealing with the Indians and other European settlers, the English were able to survive and dominate where others couldn’t. The Spanish were there to storm beaches and conquer the heathen, the French were there to befriend the locals and subtly take out Spain, but England? The English subjects were there for a new start, a fresh beginning, a chance at freedom, proving once again that an idea in the heart and mind of man is more powerful than all the steel and schemes a government can muster.

References

Chaney, A. J. (2012, November 5). Spanish colonization of the Americas. Retrieved from https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas.html

Osburn, K. (2009, August 14). The French in the New World. Retrieved from http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-444/the%20French%20in%20theNew%20World.htm

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Illinois Bottomland Explorer Archives (1999, July 28). FRENCH COLONIZATION. Retrieved from http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/ibex/archive/IDOT/idot3.htm

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Illinois Bottomland Explorer Archives (1999, July 28). BRITISH AND SPANISH. Retrieved from http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/ibex/archive/IDOT/idot2.htm

Weatherby, E. (2012, October 3). Differences of the French and Spanish colonization | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/differences-of-the-french-and-spanish-colonization/

Zinn, H. (2003). A People's History Of The United States. New York: The New Press. p. 281. ISBN 978-1-56584-724-8.

An Old New World: American Indian Culture Before Columbus

        America was founded by Europeans. From the first Viking explorers, to the Spanish conquistadors, to the British settlers of Jamestown, our culture has been permeated by the impact of the "Old World". But what about the indigenous peoples that lived here before? Did these so-called savages have a culture of their own? Or were they the mindless savages portrayed by many of the European historians?

       When the Vikings first discovered what was later known as North America, they were surprised to find the land already populated, albeit to a lesser extent than they were used to. The Norse recorded them in the Vinland Sagas as being a hostile people, born of a hostile land, and kept their discovery mostly to themselves. But as stories and rumors of a strange land spread throughout Scandinavia, other Europeans began to become curious as to what lay to the West. When Christopher Columbus finally secured financing for an expedition, landing far south from where the Erik the Red first set foot on the soil of the "New World", he too interacted with the peoples he called "Indians", believing he had landed in the Indies, not a new continent. But, as Amerigo Vespucci would later theorize, it was an entirely new land, peopled with cultures and tribes such as had never been seen before in Europe. But it was greed and a desire for fame that attracted more than just settlers to this new land, and before long, much of the culture – and the people – of these Indian nations was eradicated by the conquistadors and the power hungry. (South African History Online, 2012) (Weatherby, 2011)

        These said cultures were incredibly complex and diverse, beginning with the American Indians arrival roughly 7,000 to 10,000 years ago. It is generally held that they came across the Bering Straits land bridge, spreading throughout the continent via modern day Alaska and British Columbia. (History Central, 2013) By the time Columbus arrived, it is estimated that there was anywhere from a 15 to 20 million American Indian population, with over 1,000 spoken languages. The cultures of the tribes were as diverse as the people, and their forms of government were equally diverse: in the far south, near Columbus' landing, there were the great, vast empires of the Incas and Aztecs, and the Toltecs, Mayans, Olmecs and Anasazi before them. (Weatherby, 2011) These wealthy empires were founded in worship of the gods, building great stone monuments to those they sought to honor. Teotihuacan was an entire city constructed by the Aztecs for this purpose, being called the "City of the Gods". (Chambers, 2013) But along the modern American Eastern Seaboard, nature worship was far more common, with the people believing the gods were in – or in some cases, were – nature itself. It is here that the Iroquois Confederacy was discovered, consisting of the Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Seneca, and Tuscarora tribes that had banded together under a common law and council, drafting a constitution of sorts called the Gayanashagowa, or "Great Law of Peace", with some speculating that it even influenced our on Constitution of the United States. (New World Encyclopedia, 2011) In the Great Plains of the to-be United States, the tribes there were mostly nomadic hunters, tracking the herds of bison that would provide their sustenance as the seasons progressed. Farther to the west, the tribes of the Pacific Northwest were also fishermen, in addition to being hunters. The Chinook tribe, spanning what is modern day Washington and Oregon, were one of the largest of these tribes, with their language uniting many of their smaller neighbors: the Clatsop, Clackamas, Cathlamet, Shoalwater, and Wahkiakum. They formed a sort of loose government, almost akin to the Grecian city-state format seen in antiquity, since these tribes often had similar cultural traits, besides a common tongue, like art, nature worship akin to the Northeastern tribes, and others, many of which can still be seen in the modern Pacific Northwest today. However, they had no need to farm, as the forested peaks of the Cascade Pacific mountain range provided game, and the Pacific Ocean, Columbia River and other waterways yielded bountiful amounts of fish. It is interesting to note that the tribes found here were one of the few non-farming communities that would build permanent homes; it was still a necessity, however, and the forests provided plentiful timber to protect the tribes against the often unforgiving winters. (History Central, 2013) One of the innovations also frequently credited to the Chinook was a sort of super-canoe, carved from a redwood tree, that would supposedly hold up to 50 people.

          Archaeologists also discovered evidence of trade routes all throughout the continental United States. Five branches of the route, reaching to every major Indian group – Northwest, Southwest, Great Basins and Plateau, Northeast and Southeast – would then consolidate into one main thoroughfare leading into Mexico, passing through Tenochtitlán, the heart of the Aztec Empire, and then splitting into three routes to span South America. (Chambers, 2013)  These trade routes in part lead to the vast wealth of the Aztec, and news ran quickly along it, but sadly, was also their undoing, along with many of the tribes along the way. European diseases, unseen in the Americas at that time, ran as quickly along the trade routes as news of the strange, pale men did.

       Unfortunately, many of these great cultures have been lost to us, either by conquest, disease, or just the slow decay of time, and much of what we know – or think we know – comes from assumptions based on the archaeological record, or from oral traditions amongst the tribe themselves. But we do know this: these heathens who lived here before the Spanish, and later Portuguese, British and French came to settle this land, were not the vicious, savage pagans they were recorded as being. Just as with the Vikings 500 years before them, they were demonized, and portrayed to be uncultured and animalistic, when the simple reality was that they were cultured, just differently so. And it proves that, once again, history truly is written by the victor.

References

Chambers, D. W. (2013). How Indians Made America: History Before Columbus. Retrieved from https://www.udemy.com/before-columbus-history-in-native-american-perspective/

History Central (2013, January 20). Native Americans Before 1492. Retrieved from http://www.historycentral.com/Indians/Before.html

Martin, P. S., Quimby, G. I., Collier, D., & Chicago Natural History Museum (1947). Indians before Columbus: Twenty thousand years of North American history revealed by archeology. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.

Native Americans in the United States - New World Encyclopedia. (2011, November 28). Retrieved from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

South African History Online (2012). America, Spanish conquest. Retrieved from http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/america-spanish-conquest

Weatherby, E. (2012, September 11). Native American Culture prior to Columbus | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/179/

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

The Bronze Age Cultural Alloy: Minoans and Mycenaeans

      During what is today known as the "Bronze Age", two distinct, vibrant cultures emerged in Greece: the Mycenaean and Minoan. Yet although they were distinct, they were also very similar, and while this might seem like an oxymoron, it is – to this writer's mind – the most accurate way of describing their atypical association.

      The first, and perhaps most obvious, difference was their physical location: the Minoans dwelt on the island of Crete, while the Minoans were inhabitants of the Grecian mainland. Because of this, the Minoans constructed their society around trade and diplomacy by way of the sea. They would trade their own pottery, cloth, and other wares for items like wood, stone, or metals that couldn't normally be found on the island; or in some cases, would present the finest specimens of their wares as gifts to foreign powers such as Egypt. The Mycenaeans also held this philosophy to a degree, and presented the pharaoh of Egypt with ceremonial plaques signifying friendship. (Goessl, 2008)

      One of the most evident differences between the two cultures was their stance on war and the military. The Minoans were blissfully ignorant of their defense, thinking their island was a strong enough fortress from the outside world. The Mycenaeans, on the other hand, were a war-like people, whose kings and nobles depended on their experienced soldiers. It is also interesting to note that these warriors served a dual purpose, being the Mycenaean law enforcement during peacetime. (Goessl, 2008) But Crete was a vital location for trade, and the Mycenaeans saw that, and desired it to be under their control. But it wasn’t until 1500 BC that Minoa was weakened to the point of vulnerability: a volcanic eruption on the island of Crete destroyed much of the Minoan navy, along with many of the sources of their prosperous trade. The Mycenaean king saw this and took his opportunity, mustering his own fighting force and invading Crete, where they had a smashing victory over the waning Minoans. Some historians today speculate that the Mycenaeans only won due to a technological advance available on the mainland, but not Crete: bronze. (Weatherby, 2011) Bronze meant better weapons and armor, and a stronger defense against stone and wood weapons that might have been common at the time. It also meant stronger tools and building materials, which the Mycenaeans are thought to have used to rebuild Minoa after they conquered it.

      After the Minoans fell, the Mycenaeans assumed various elements of Minoan culture, art, and religion, which they resourcefully used to construct their own, similarly remarkable, civilization. One could almost say that the Minoan culture lived on through the warlike Mycenaeans, as it was assimilated so well. Mycenaeans adopted aspects of Minoan religion like the Sacred Knot, sacred horns, figure-of-eight shields, the worship of trees and sacred columns, and "holy ecstatic dances for the Mother Goddess-Nature". (Spirit of Greece, 2005) Along with Minoan art techniques for ceramics and frescos, their religion was adopted and adapted by the Mycenaeans, and ultimately spread by them as well.

      Both of these cultures remained significant to the course of world history, and their impact was felt throughout the Mediterranean. Their trade skills were superb, their craftsmanship was unrivaled, and their military was feared all through the region. However, they were but a foundation for the mighty Hellenistic empire of Alexander the Great, but without the Minoans and Mycenaeans, the groundwork for that mighty realm might never had been laid.

References

Goessl, L. (2008, February 7). Political contrasts of Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/847076-political-contrasts-of-minoan-and-mycenaean-civilizations

Spirit of Greece (2005, April 28). MINOANS & MYCENAEANS - The mixture of two civilizations. Retrieved from http://www.spiritofgreece.gr/minoan&mycenaeans.html

Weatherby, E. (2011, December 19). Minoan vs. Mycenaean | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/minoan-vs-mycenaean/

Bureaucracy: It's Easier to Fix the Blame Than Fix the Problem

The United States Federal Government is rampant with bureaucracies, and it seems to be growing every day. Many of these agencies and departments have grown into somewhat of a monstrosity, hardly retaining even a shadow of what a bureaucracy should be. However, one small bastion in the midst of the red tape is the Department of Defense. Not to say that the DOD does not have its own share of bureaucratic formalities to bog down efficiency, but it is the best and most clearly-defined of establishments in the federal government today.

The Department of Defense, or DOD, has strict levels of hierarchy. All tasks and missions come from the top, or at least high up, the chain of command, and run downward all the way to the lowliest buck private. Conversely, accountability for that same buck private will run all the way back up, even to the department head, should he do well or fail miserably. The DOD is divided into quite a few sub-departments, including the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, Department of the Air Force, National Guard Bureau, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous civilian departments. These are the first – and most noticeable – division of labor, with civilians taking up support roles to the military portion, such as managing TRICARE, human resources, and civilian contractors, among other things. The actual subject of defense falls to the aforementioned sub-departments, with their recognizable division of labor via rank: both enlisted – E-1 to E-9 – and officer – O-1 to O-10 – and level of command.

Each department has written rules, some shared across the board, some differing widely. One of these regulations this writer has had personal experience with is the issue of tattoos: the Army allows any number of tattoos anywhere below the collar line, whereas the Air Force regulates visible tattoos, requiring them to be 40% or less of any exposed skin surface. Ironically, the Marine Corps tends to be strictest on tattoos, due in part to the new Commandant of the Marine Corps and his boss, the Chief of Staff of the Navy. Communications are a huge part in the DOD, with each branch of the military having an entire corps devoted to communication. The Defense Information Systems Agency, a civilian sub-agency, is devoted to intercommunication between all facets of the DOD, and assuring it all goes smoothly.

Finally, the last factor of a bureaucracy, impersonality and replaceability. Again, this writer has had persona experience with this, as the standards of conformity in the military are designed to strip most elements of personality and force the subject to conform and mesh with a unit of people. One is reminded every day that they are vital to the mission of their respective department, agency, or unit, yet they can be replaced in a heartbeat, should their performance be unsatisfactory. It is also interesting to note that anyone can be replaced, regardless of clout or political stature, as was the case with General Stanley McChrystal, the Army commander in Afghanistan who was removed from his post after a scathing article in Rolling Stone magazine.

In a nation with rampant bureaucracy run amuck, growing bigger by the day, the Department of Defense is a stronghold in the fray, staying true to its mission and to its original structure, without swelling into a monstrosity, as is seen with copious other agencies and departments within the Federal Government.

References

Department of Defense (2013). About The Department of Defense (DOD). Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/about/