British Mercantile and Navigation Acts

Throughout history many countries and governments have enacted economic policies based in the principles of Mercantilism or Protectionism. Their policies would be based around the role of government in maximising a nation’s balance of trade. The English series of Navigation Acts, were the first legislation set down by the English parliament based on these pronciples and set about legislating against the use of foreign boats in the trade of England and its colonies. Through this restriction, and a subsequent increase in tariffs of foreign items, England sought to ensure that trade in English goods flourished, and that supporting industries, such as shipbuilding and the merchant navy, did likewise.

A British Man of War - Thomas Whitcombe - PD-art-70

The first of the series commenced with the 1651 Act of Parliament. Whilst this was the first parliamentary act, it should be noted that there had been previous Statutes, and was therefore a continuation of English practice dating back to the 14th Century. The timing of this first parliamentary Act can be attributed to some failed diplomacy by Cromwell’s Commonwealth diplomats. A proposed formal union between England and the Republic of Seven United Netherlands, had come to nothing. The Dutch government instead sought a Free Trade agreement, a proposal that would have cemented the Dutch as the major trading nation of the time. Already by the 1650s the Dutch had the largest merchant fleet as well as the largest trading network. The English saw this as a slight as the English merchant navy would have been unable to compete, and a large proportion of profit from trade with England and its colonies would have gone to foreign nationals. As an act of Protectionism Cromwell’s Parliament brought in the 1651 legislation.

The details of this initial Act focused on the import of goods into England and its colonies. The Act dictated that all imports from the plantations of Asia, Africa and Americas, were to be shipped in ships owned by “Englishmen”, these ships were also required to have been built by English shipbuilders and crewed by an English crew. At this point in history the term English related to any native of England or one of its colonies, and therefore an American colonist in one of the English colonies was also an Englishman. The other major terms of the Act was to stipulate that all goods shipped from Europe were only allowed to be shipped in English ships or ships from the country that had produced them.

No nation was directly named in the Act, but as the biggest trading fleet the Act would ensure that the Dutch traders would suffer. The Dutch fleet would in essence only be allowed to ship cheese and butter to England and its colonies, as these two items were the core produce of the Dutch states. The level of suffering can be argued though as the Dutch traded worldwide, and whilst growing the English colonies covered a fraction of the globe. The Act though has oft been quoted as a key contributory factor to the commencement of the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-54). The war was won by the English after a series of naval victories by the English fleet in 1653, including the Battles of Portland, Gabbard and Scheveningen. In defeat the Dutch government was forced to acknowledge the Navigation Act.

The First Dutch War - Reinier Nooms - PD-art-70

With the restoration of Charles II, the 1651 Act was declared invalid, though rather than being repealed, it was re-enacted in 1660 as the First Navigation Act. Thus all the elements of the 1651 Act were made law once again, though the new law decided to make additional stipulations to protect English trade. Certain products produced by the English colonies were only to be transported to England or other colonies, these products included sugar, tobacco, cotton and indigo. In addition all transportation to the colonies had to be undertaken by English or English colonial ships. This 1660 Act was expanded by the subsequent Navigation Acts of 1662, 1663, 1670 and 1673. Whilst these Acts added other restricted products to the list or increased taxes on the transported goods, the 1663 Act is probably the most notable. This 1663 Act, also known as the Staple or Act for the Encouragement of Trade, stipulated that all European goods heading for an English colony had to be shipped through England or Wales first. This mean that goods were to be unloaded, inspected, have duties paid, and then reloaded onto English ships as required.

English colonies benefited from the early ramifications of the Navigation Acts. Goods such as tobacco and sugar had protected and dedicated markets, and because of duties on foreign imports sold in preference to the cheaper products of foreign nations. Shipbuilders in the American colonies also benefited greatly as English ships were required for all trade. The later Acts though saw the increase in duties on products between colonies, and therefore increasing the cost of simple products to the colonists. Resentment grew though, with the introduction of such Acts as the Molasses Act of 1733, as American colonists because of duties, were forced to buy the more expensive sugar from the British West Indies rather than the sugar from the French West Indies.

In isolation the Navigation Acts provided a balance to the colonists, of benefits and hardships. The Navigation Acts though did not operate in isolation as the English government also introduced further Protectionist acts. Acts such as the Corn Law of 1666 blocked the English home market to all foreign grown corn; further acts prevented the import of linen, woollen items (Woollen Act 1699) or hats (Hat Act 1732). Harsher acts, such as that of 1750, the Iron Act, prevented colonies from rolling iron. All were designed to ensure that manufacturers in the homeland prospered to the detriment of the colonists. At the same time bounties and rebates were placed on the raw materials produced by the colonies to the benefit of the colonists.

The effort to enforce the Navigation Acts, and prevent the associated smuggling, in later years was a great cause of resentment for the North American colonists in particular. The English government was in need of money to fund wars and upkeep the colonies but the colonists had no desire to pay the higher prices for goods. After 1765 there was arbitrary seizure of goods and ships owned by the American colonists and these actions have been seen as a contributory factor to the American War of Independence.

It should be noted that English government actions may appear to be harsh, but their view was that the colonies existed for the benefit of the homeland. The colonists benefited in some areas, in the production of raw materials and shipbuilding, but were penalised with high duties and the prevention of manufacturing. These actions allowed England to retain the balance of trade in its favour.

The Navigation Acts were finally repealed in 1849, by this time Britain dominated the world’s ocean both in terms of the Merchant Navy and Royal Navy. The British Empire no longer needed to restrict or protect trade, and were more focused on bringing in cheaper goods, especially food articles. The Acts prevented competition from other nations, such as the Dutch, making the English Merchant fleet the biggest on the world’s oceans. The Acts also contributed to the growth of the Empire, despite the loss of the North American colonies, and ensuring that London became the major world city for two hundred years

For further reading I would recommend:
L. A. Harper, The English Navigation Laws (1939, repr. 1964);
O. M. Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution (1951, repr. 1974).

Copyright - First Published 29th November 2007

Pocket Boroughs and Rotten Boroughs

In the years and centuries that followed the Norman conquest of 1066, various monarchs were forced to give concessions to the people to ensure that they stayed on the throne. One such concession was the establishment of parliament, a place where representatives of the people could make their voices heard.

Settlements were given the right to send two representatives, Members of Parliament, by Royal Charter, which made the settlement a borough. These charters were given to the major settlements of the medieval period, thriving market towns and the like. Changing demographics and settlement locations though were not taking into account, and by the start of the nineteenth century England had many rotten and pocket boroughs.

The Russel Purge - CJG 1831 - PD-art-70

The terms rotten borough and pocket borough are often interchangeable, but they do have fairly specific meanings, and whilst a rotten borough would probably be a pocket borough, a pocket borough didn’t necessarily have to be a rotten one.

A rotten borough was a place which sent two MPs yet had a tiny electorate. The most famous example, and the most extreme example of a rotten borough, was that of Old Sarum in Wiltshire. When the borough had been created Old Sarum had been a thriving town established around the old cathedral. Subsequently, though a new Cathedral had been built at Salisbury and a whole new settlement was established. All that remained at Old Sarum was three houses, comprising seven eligible voters, who returned two MPs. At the same time, the new industrial cities of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester were unrepresented.

A pocket borough differed slightly, in so much that this type of borough was “in the pocket” of an individual or family, meaning that they could guarantee the two members who would be elected. This was done by controlling the majority of the electorate. Of course, if the pocket borough was also a rotten borough, it made easier to control.

Both types of borough tended to be in the hands of large landowners, the likes of the Dukes of Devonshire and Lord William Fitzwilliam. These landowners, who might well own several pocket boroughs, could nominate friends and family to office, and once elected the MPs would ensure that their patron’s interests were looked after.

The wealth of the landowners was normally used to control the electorate. In many boroughs the voters were tenants of the landowners, and if they did not vote as their landlord wanted could find themselves evicted. It was a time where votes were done by a show of hands rather than in a secret vote format. Some landlords would bribe voters with money or promises of jobs, or others might be forced to vote one way, otherwise their businesses might be boycotted.

To a large degree, British politics before 1832 was based on a principle of not what you knew, but who you knew. Regardless though, some pocket and rotten boroughs did produce some of England’s great statesmen. Indeed William Pitt the Elder was first made a member of parliament in 1735 when he took up a seat at Old Sarum, Pitt’s brother having been successfully elected at both Okehampton and Old Sarum.

Rotten boroughs were particularly associated with the Tories, but pocket boroughs were in the hands of both Tory and Whig landowners, and so there was little political will to make changes to a system which benefited them. At the start of the nineteenth century though, the Charterist movement started to make itself heard, with demands for political reform, and it had enough popular support to make parliament’s position uncomfortable.

Earl Grey - After Thomas Lawrence (1769–1830) - PD-art-70

As a result in 1832, Earl Grey managed to push through the 1832 Reform Act, which effectively removed the right of almost sixty rotten boroughs to elect MPs. This though did little to get rid of the larger pocket boroughs, and even the Reform Act of 1867, which increased the number of males eligible to vote, did not completely eliminate them. Eventually, the 1872 Secret Ballot Act ensured that landowners could no longer see which way the voters voted, effectively meaning that pocket boroughs no longer existed. Even today though there are safe seats, ones where it is virtually certain that a party will be returned to parliament because it traditionally always has.

A quirk of English politics, pocket boroughs were a feature of the Westminster Parliament for many years, and with a relatively small electorate and no secret ballots, it was something that was just allowed to happen as it always had. Their demise came about as more people were entitled to vote, and pocket boroughs simply passed into the history books.

Copyright - First Published 7th June 2011

The States of the Old USSR

The socialist state that was the USSR has now been consigned to history. Formed in 1922, it would become one of the world’s two superpowers throughout the Cold War, until political upheaval saw its demise in 1991.

The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was, as the name suggests, a grouping of fifteen socialist states in Europe and Asia, although it originally grew from just four. It is common to see the USSR also referred to as the CCCP due to the Cyrillic script used in the Russian Alphabet.

The Russian Empire had disintegrated in 1917 in the face of political upheaval. In Russia the October Revolution would see the rise of the Bolsheviks and communism, resulting in the formation of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. This period though was also marked with a Civil War within Russia as the communists fought against the anti-communists. Elsewhere in the old Empire, three other republics had formed; the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic; the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic; and the Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. In 1922 these four republics would join in union, creating the USSR.

Soviet Union Administrative Divisions 1989 - Public Domain

From 1922 through to 1956 changes occurred in boundaries, partially through armed conflict, but also through political manoeuvring, and other Soviet Socialist Republics were formed, whilst others disappeared. From 1956 through to the end of the 1980s and early 1990s there were 15 member republics, although politics were dominated by the Politburo in Moscow.

The 15 member countries of the USSR were the Russian SFSR, Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, Ukrainian SSR, Moldavian SSR, Georgian SSR, Armenian SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Kazakh SSR, Turkmen SSR, Uzbek SSR, Tajik SSR, and Kirghiz SSR.
Other countries, including Poland and East Germany, were also heavily influenced by the USSR without being part of the Soviet Union.

Political and economic might had a lot to do in keeping the USSR together but eventually the individual Soviet Socialist Republics sought for more independence from Moscow, and starting with the Baltic states, the USSR started to crumble.

After the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991, fifteen independent countries became recognised. These were Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikstan. Despite the passing though of more than twenty years, many of the regions that were once part of the USSR still face political upheaval, and armed conflicts still occur as other regions attempt to become their own independent countries.

Copyright - First Published 22nd May 2012

The Storming of the Bastille

The storming of the Bastille is the symbol of the French Revolution, the point where the French people rose up against the aristocracy and said “no more”. Highly symbolic and indeed highly significant in its own way, the actual events of the storming of the Bastille are perhaps not exactly what people think they are.

Bastille Day is to most people the most famous of the French national holidays, although officially the 14th July celebration is the Fete Nationale; the 14th July being the date of the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The Bastille, the Bastille Saint-Antoine, the dominant fortress-prison of Paris, and so most people think that the storming of the Bastille was an attempt to free the prisoners held within it.

The Bastille - Hubert Robert - PD-art-100

The truth is though that on the 14th July 1789, the Bastille was prison to only seven prisoners, and even its most famous resident, the Marquis de Sade had been moved some ten days earlier. The seven prisoners comprised four forgers, two lunatics, including an Irish or Englishman who thought he was Julius Caesar, and the Comte de Solanges, an aristocrat imprisoned for sexual misdemeanours.

Even at its fullest capacity the Bastille would normally only play host to fifty or so guests, and indeed the cost of its upkeep had already meant that its decommissioning and demolition were planned.
If though the storming of the Bastille was not to release its inmates, what was the purpose?

The Bastille was a symbol of oppression to the residents of Paris, but even more importantly than that though the storming of the Bastille was an effort to gain ammunition for the arms that had already been scavenged. Indeed some thirty thousand muskets had been seized from the Hotel des Invalides.

The Bastille was relatively poorly defended by 82 invalides and 32 Swiss Mercenary Grenadiers, but on the streets of Paris were many thousands of rebellious residents. The governors of the prison, Bernard Rene de Launay agreed to listen to the demands of the crowd who had gathered outside of the prison, a crowd that perhaps numbered nine thousand. The demands were the surrender of the prison, the provision of armaments and removal of the prison’s cannons.

The prison was defendable, especially against a crowd with limited skill and few weapons, although De Launay received no assistance from the Royal forces stationed around the city. De Launay though made the mistake of allowing the crowd into the Bastille’s courtyards, providing access to the rest of the prison. Four hours of fighting would follow, with the crowd assisted by dissident French soldiers. With the crowd inside the castle, the situation was hopeless and De Launay was forced to sue for peace.

Storming of the Bastille - Jean-Pierre Houël (1735–1813) - PD-art-100

In the fighting some 98 of the crowd were killed, and one of the defenders, but despite a promise of safe passage many of the defenders were subsequently killed. Those who stormed the Bastille are remembered as vainqueurs, of which almost a thousand are named, and to be known as one was a badge of honour in the Revolution that was to follow.

The storming of the Bastille was not an effort to free the inmates, but was an effort to gain much needed powder and musket balls. The symbolism of the storming of the Bastille though was important for the Revolutionaries, and ever since has been remembered as the key event of the 1789 Revolution.

Copyright - First Published 25th February 2011

Keywords - Storming Bastille, bastille day, vainqueurs, french revolution, paris bastille

The Sinking of the Lusitania and the Start of WWI

The past hundred years has seen many examples of luxury liners that have met an unfortunate end. Some liners have been sunk by accident, such as the RMS Titanic, and some through an act of violence, such as RMS Britannic. RMS Britannic was the sister ship to the Titanic and was sunk by a mine in 1916. The Britannic though was not the only ship that was sunk through violence during the First World War, in fact a more famous sinking was that of the RMS Lusitania, which is sometimes considered one of the starting point of World War I.

First off though it should be said that the sinking of the British luxury liner RMS Lusitania, can in no way be said to have commenced the First World War, as is often argued, for one simple fact, the Lusitania was sunk on 7th May 1915, whereas the Great War started in the summer months of 1914.

Arguments as to the exact date can be made, though the 28th June 1914 is as good as any, this being the date that Gavrilo Princip, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

RMS Lusitania 1907 - International Film Service - PD-old-100

There is in fact more to the arguments made that the sinking of the Lusitania helped bring about the end of the First World War, these arguments are based on the sinking ultimately bringing the United States of America into the war, but even so this argument is in no way conclusive.

The Lusitania was owned by the Cunard Steamship Line Shipping Company, and was constructed to be a rival to the Olympic ships of the White Star Line, and the German North German Line. The Cunard company set out to build the fastest liners afloat and in the building of the Lusitania (1904-1907) and her sister ship the Mauretania; they succeeded in building liners that crossed the Atlantic at speeds of 25 knots. Cunard were though subsidised by the British government under Prime Minister Balfour, to a tune of 2.6million, to stave off the threat of an American buyout. The British government also agreed to pay an annual fee of 150,000 to Cunard to ensure the Cunard liners were in a state of war readiness, with provisions for mounting deck guns as required.

At the onset of the War, whilst the Mauretania was converted to a troop transport, the Lusitania was considered inappropriate for such a conversion. The Lusitania was too large to be a troop transport and continued in its role as a luxury liner, conveying passengers between the United Kingdom and the United States. As a liner carrying non-military passengers many considered the Lusitania safe from attack but there was other factors that made it a legitimate target for enemy submarines. The Lusitania routinely carried British issued small arms ammunition, but of greater importance the British Admiralty had ordered all merchant ships to report sightings of any German naval craft, and were to attempt to ram any submarine that it saw surfaced. This order meant that the Lusitania was a legitimate military target and a German submarine would not have to guarantee the safety of any passengers.

The Lusitania travelled through a declared war zone around the British Isles. The German Embassy issued warnings to passengers not travel aboard the Lusitania prior to the liner’s 202nd crossing. There is no evidence that the embassy had any prior knowledge of the possibility of attack and was probably acting on the off chance of an attack. The embassy would realise the impact on German-American relations in the event of a loss of American lives in any such attack. The warning was to be issued in 50 East Coast newspapers, though in the end only one newspaper published the warning.

Passengers were not put off by any potential dangers and on the 1st May 1915, almost two thousand passenger and crew departed from Pier 54 in New York, on what proved to be the liners final voyage. As the Lusitania crossed the Atlantic, the British Admiralty was tracking a German submarine, the U-20, under the command of Captain Schwieger. On 5th and 6th May the U-20 sank three vessels of the southern tip of Ireland, in the direct path of the Lusitania, low on fuel though, the U-20 had started to head for home when the Lusitania suddenly crossed its path.

Schwieger launched a single torpedo with devastating results. Within 18 minutes of the torpedo striking the hull of the Lusitania, the liner had sunk having travelled two miles to a point just off the coast of Ireland at Kinsale. 1198 people died as a result of the single torpedo and the Allied press promptly condemned Captain Schweiger as a war criminal.

Avenge the Lusitania - PD-GovUK

Timing proves that the sinking of the Lusitania did not start the First World War, timing also disproves that the sinking immediately helped to end the War. The main argument goes that the sinking forced the American government commit to the war. There is no doubt that the actions of the U-20 turned public opinion in many countries against Germany, and the British government presumed that the death of 128 American citizens aboard the Lusitania would force an American declaration of war upon Germany. President Wilson though did not want to be involved in what was perceived as a European conflict, and instead of declaring war, he sent a formal protest to Germany.

Whilst noted, it was not until a further three American were killed on board the White Star liner Arabic, and a further protest from President Wilson, that submarine attacks on liners ceased. Both these attacks occurred in 1915, and America did not declare war on Germany until 6th April 1917, almost two years later. The declaration itself has been attributed more to do with the sinking of seven American merchant ships and publication of the Zimmerman telegram, a telegram inciting Mexico to war, than the sinking of the liners.

The sinking of the Lusitania was an act of war, resulting in a huge loss of life, an act described as a war crime, which resulted in worldwide sympathy for the allied powers. It is though only one act in a four year war, and dates dictate that it can not be described as the action that started the Great War. Nor can any great credence be given to arguments that the sinking caused the end of the war, due to the gap in time until the American declaration of war.

Copyright - First Published 8th February 2008

Howard Carter Discover of Tutankhamen's Tomb

The fame of Howard Carter has now gone beyond the boundaries of his archaeological profession. The discovery of the intact tomb of the pharaoh Tutankhamen, catapulted Carter into the public eye, and even now, a hundred years after the tomb’s discovery, the hard work that Carter had put in still enthrals, as does the treasure found. The life and works of Howard Carter have been an inspiration to many of the modern day archaelogoists, who each in their own way are waiting for their time to discover “wonderful things”.

Howard Carter - Library of Congress - PD-life-70

Carter did not come from a privileged household, and as the youngest son of an animal portrait painter, Samuel John Carter, his upbringing could best be described as middle class. Howard Carter was born on the 9th May 1874, at 10 Rich Terrace, in the small town of Kensington, which has subsequently been swallowed up by the sprawling city of London. Much of his early life though was spent with his maiden aunts in the market town of Swaffham in Norfolk; they helped provide him with a modest private education. Carter though had inherited his father’s talent for drawing and painting, a talent that was developed alongside his father as they drew and painted horses and livestock for local landowners.

Whilst obviously highly skilled in drawing, the young Carter was far more interested in the stories of ancient Egypt, and he craved the opportunity to leave Norfolk and travel to Egypt. His opportunity came earlier than he could have hoped for, and with the assistance of a family friend, Lady Amherst, at the age of 17 he set sail for Alexandria. He had though not travelled without an aim, and had already been hired by the Egypt Exploration Fund in London to assist PE Newberry as a tracer. Tracers undertook epigraphic recordings, drawings of tombs and artefacts to allow for future study. Carter’s first assignment commenced in the last months of 1891, at the excavation of Beni Hassan ad El-Bersha, the burial site of the sovereign Princes of Middle Egypt from c2000BC. Though a hard worker, Carter’s role in the excavation was in the recording of the tomb wall scenes, rather than in any true archaeologist activity.

His chance to become an archaeologist though soon came as he was asked to join to renowned archaeologist, William Flinders Petrie, at El-Amarna in January 1892. Petrie was not convinced that Carter had the makings of a good archaeologist. Petrie pushed Carter, who responded to the pressure in making a number of important discoveries and therefore proved Petrie wrong. Carter continued his training into 1893 as he was appointed to the position of Principle Artist for the Egypt Exploration Fund’s excavation of Deir el Bahbri, with the burial and temple of Queen Hatshepsut. Whilst in the main an artistic role, Carter, did manage to develop his excavation and restoration skills under the direction of Edouard Naville. Carter had ample time to develop these skills, as his position as Principle Artist continued through until 1899.

Carter’s hard work and diligence though had not gone unnoticed and his efforts brought about his appointment as First Inspector General of Monuments for Upper Egypt. In 1900 Carter was still only 25 but had responsibility for supervising and controlling the archaeological activity in the Upper Nile Valley, including the ancient area of Thebes. Staying in the role for four year, Carter transferred to the equivalent position responsible for Lower Egypt.

The Tomb is Opened - Harry Burton (1879 – 1940) - PD-life-70

This move brought about the end of his meteoric career progression. With responsibility for the Egyptian staff of the Antiquities Service, Carter sided with his men when a brawl broke out between them and a group of French tourists at Saqqara. Unfortunately the French tourists were not without influence, and upon complaint to the Egyptian Consul General Lord Cromer, Carter was told to apologise to the tourists. Believing that he was in the right, Carter refused, and was promptly demoted and transferred to an archaeological backwater at Tanta in the Nile Delta. Within a year Carter had resigned and 1905 saw him jobless.

From the peak of his profession Carter now found himself on hard times, and he was forced to scratch a living for three years. Acting as a guide to tourists, as well as a dealer in antiquities and painter of water colours, Carter survived in Egypt. His hard times were soon to be a distant memory though as his old boss from the Antiquities Service, Gaston Maspero, made an introduction that changed his fortunes.

The 5th Lord of Carnarvon, George Herbert, who had visited Egypt to improve his health, was seeking to invest some of his personal wealth in archaeological excavations. The Antiquities Service though insisted that all work be under the supervision of an experienced archaeologist. Maspero, put forward Carter as the preferred option. The joining of Carter and Lord Carnarvon commenced in 1909, and the partnership hit off immediately. As Supervisor of Excavations, Carter brought immediate success to Lord Carnarvon, and by 1914, Lord Carnarvon owned one of the premier collections of Egyptian antiquities in private hands. Lord Carnarvon used his contacts to gain a concession to dig within the Valley of the Kings. Finds were made including six tombs within the Valley, the war years though meant only limited work was undertaken, though both Carter and Carnarvon worked on the tomb of Amenophis III in 1915.

Carter though was no longer satisfied with the finds that were being uncovered. His own research had lead him to believe that the tomb of a little known Pharaoh, Tutankhamen, was waiting to be uncovered in the Valley of the Kings. With Carnarvon’s financial backing, work commenced once again in 1917, Carter tore through the Valley in his quest for the lost tomb. Five relatively fruitless seasons of excavation followed, and even the enthusiastic Carnarvon, became frustrated, and 1922 was to be the final season of searching.

If Carter’s career had finished there, he would have been recognised in archaeological circles as a success, but his name would have meant nothing to the wider public of that and subsequent generations. Carter’s career though did not finish there, and in November 1922 Carter’s career reached its pinnacle. Searching continued in the Valley of the Kings, at the site of Ramesses VI tomb. Steps to the tomb of Tutankhamen were uncovered amongst the debris rubble, and undisturbed seals to the tombs were found as the steps were cleared. 26th November 1922 was the historic date that saw Carter and Lord Carnarvon break through the plaster block into the undisturbed tomb, for the pair then looked upon the "Wonderful things".

Howard Carter - New York Times - PD-old

The discovery of the century took a decade just to catalogue the contents of the tomb, and at the peak of his career Carter effectively retired from archaeology. Carter stopped his active participation in the excavation of the tomb in 1923, and instead undertook a series of lucrative lectures in the United States in 1924. It would have been presumed that Carter would have written a scholarly account of the discovery but the only work published was “The Tomb of Tut.ankh.Amen” written by Howard Carter and Arthur C. Mace.

Carter though never lost his love of ancient Egypt, and following his retirement became a successful collector of antiquities. Whether all of his collection came from legal sources has been questioned as artefacts and jewellery from Tutankhamen’s tomb were found in Carter’s home following his death, this being suggestive that he had violated the excavation permit he had been working under. Many of his friends from his time in the Valley of the Kings had died, and the latter years of his life he would be found happy by himself in the grounds and building of the Winter Palace Hotel in Luxor. Away from public limelight Carter lived to the age of 64, though diagnosed with lymphoma, a type of cancer, Carter had returned to the place of his birth. On the 2nd March 1939, Carter passed away in Albert Court, Kensington.

History has seen fit to criticise Carter for the poor archaeological knowledge of the time, which saw the mummy from the tomb left in direct sunlight for a number of hours. Carter though was acting within the knowledge boundaries of the time. Carter has been the most famous Egyptologist and archaeologist for a century, and has inspired countless generations to be interested in ancient Egypt, and numerous others to enter the professional field of archaeology. One find made him famous, though even without the finding of Tutankhamen’s tomb his reputation would have been secure within the circles of archaeologists.

Copyright - First Published 9th February 2008

Keywords - Howard Carter, Howard Carter Tutankhamen, Howard Carter Egyptologist

The Destruction of the Royal Library of Alexandria

The ancient world was home to many wonders, a number of which were constructed with design and technology that astounds people even today. Seven of these wonders were named as such, and include the likes of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Colossus of Rhodes and Pharos of Alexandria, and the surviving Giza Pyramids. Most of these wonders, and many others though have been lost, destroyed in antiquity. Alexandria in particular has lost much of its ancient buildings, and although the famed lighthouse lives on in legend, the Royal Library of Alexandria though deserves an equal level of fame.

The Royal Library of Alexandria was famed in its day as the largest library anywhere to be found in the world, the library of Alexandria is considered to have been the seat of all of the world’s knowledge. The fame still survives and even in modern movies, such as National Treasure, makes reference to the wonders that the library held.There is no exact known number of scrolls held within the Library of Alexandria, although it was given a target for five hundred thousand scrolls. What is known though is that the most learned individuals of the time all made use of its resources.

"The Great Library of Alexandria"- O. Von Corven - PD-old-100

The Library of Alexandria though did not survive into modernity but no one year can be given as to the date of its destruction. The library was originally started in the third century BC, after the founding of the city by Alexander. The construction of the library is credited to the Ptolemy and his family. Ptolemy being one of Alexander’s generals.

How long the library survived for is a matter of debate, and is dependant on when you consider the library to have been destroyed. Julius Caesar is often blamed for the destruction of the library during his conquest of Alexander in 48BC. Caesar was fighting Ptolemy XIII when the docks of Alexandria were set alight, a fire that spread to the library. It is though generally agreed though that it wasn’t the library that was destroyed in this fire but rather a store room of accounts and ledgers. This is based on the fact that the library is not thought to have been near the docks, but additionally the Roman writer, Strabo, made use of the library some twenty five years after this event.

Confusion continues as it is not known how many libraries existed in the city and what each building was used for. The library is still thought to exist in the third century AD as the remaining contents of the library were said to have been moved to Constantinople after the attack of the Roman Emperor Aurelian, against the revolt of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. In this attack the library building were said to have been destroyed with the loss of much of its contents.

Even after this date there is the possibility that the Library of Alexandria still existed. The Emperor Theodosius I made a decree that all non-Christian temples should be destroyed in 391 AD. The Library of Alexandria was thought to be at least partially housed in the Serapeum, a temple, and so would have been destroyed by the Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria. There is though no evidence to suggest that the Searpeum still acted as a library at this time, indicative that there was no scrolls left to be destroyed with the destruction of the building.

Burning of the Library of Alexandria - Ambrose Dudley - PD-old-100

One final finger of blame is pointed to the Muslim conquest of Alexandria in 642 AD when the city was sacked. This though is often seen as propaganda to blame the Muslims for burning books to heat bathwater.

Another theory is that the library was destroyed by a natural disaster just as the city’s Pharos was destroyed. There is though no evidence for this, the fact is that the site of the library is not known for certain. I for one prefer to think that an earthquake or tidal wave destroyed the library rather than being a deliberate act of destruction by one man.

Today searches continue for the site of the Library of Alexandria, and are a search made difficult by the fact that the city has been rebuilt so many times. In fact most searches now focus in on the harbour area where there is no new building to obstruct the search. Statues and monuments are regularly discovered, but there is no certain site even today. It is difficult to imagine that there was a deliberate destruction of a library, but it is not so long a go that people burnt books because they disagreed with their contents. Whether it was a natural disaster or whether it was a deliberate attack, it is known that much ancient knowledge was lost through the destruction of the Royal Library of Alexandria.

Copyright - First Published 12th October 2008

Keywords - Library of Alexandria, Library of Alexandria burning, 

The Scuttling of the German High Seas Fleet

The First World War is most famous today for the trench warfare of the Western Front; and as a result other elements of the war are often overlooked. The build up to the war though had been particularly marked by the arms race, which had been exhibited by the build up of naval forces of the Royal Navy and the Imperial German Navy. 

During World War One the Grand Fleet of the Royal Navy and the German High Seas Fleet would face off against each other. During the four years of fighting though there was only one major battle, the 1916 Battle of Jutland. For the latter half of the year, the German High Seas Fleet would stay at anchorage in Kiel and Wilhelmshaven. 

The German Fleet in Scapa Flow - PD-UKGov

In November 1918 the First World War came to an end, but end in hostilities brought forth the question of what to do with the relatively intact German naval fleet. Numbering almost 100 ships, many of which were amongst the most advanced in the world, the consensus was that they could not remain in Germany but there was little other agreement over their fate. 

Allies, including Italy, France and Japan, wished to have a selection of the German ships, to improve their own navies, although Britain was somewhat reticent at boosting the navies of other countries. So whilst negotiations took place in Paris, it was agreed that most of the German High Seas Fleet should be placed under guard at Scapa Flow. 

Scapa Flow was the home base of the Royal Navy’s Grand Fleet, and the natural harbour could easily anchor several fleets of vessels. So word was sent to Admiral Franz Ritter von Hipper, commander of the German High Seas Fleet. Admiral von Hipper placed the fleet under the command of Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter, and so it was von Reuter who led 70 German naval ships to Scapa Flow. 

German Sailors Surrender - PD-UKGov

Getting the ships to Scapa Flow was actually quite an achievement as desertion had been rife in the fleet before the end of the war, and mutiny was also spreading, with orders failing to be followed.

By January 1919, there were a total of 74 German ships anchored; there were 11 battleships, including the SMS Friedrich der Grosse, 5 battlecruisers, 8 cruisers and 50 destroyers.  Initially there were also 20,000 German sailors onboard, but with no need to sail, the crews were repatriated until only skeleton crews remained, numbering less than 2,000 men. 

For ten months the German Fleet was anchored beneath the guns of the Grand Fleet, and as the months passed the morale of the German sailors decreased. Food and entertainment was scarce, and there was no orders coming to von Reuter from Germany. 

Plans were being made in Britain to take control of the German ships, and von Reuter must have realised this possibility. Having no wish to hand over the German navy intact to another country, von Reuter set about making his own plans to deny the Royal Navy his ships. Plans were advancing as there was a belief that the armistice was about to be redacted. 

There were too few men onboard the ships to fight or to sail, and so the only option was to plan to scuttle the ships. Instructions were sent around the German ships. 

Fortuitously for von Reuter, the Grand Fleet started torpedo exercises in the North Sea, and so Admiral Freemantle left behind only a couple of destroyers and tenders to guard, what was presumed to be, an inactive German navy. 

At 11:20 a.m. on 21 June 1919 the signal was sent to all ships to commence scuttling.

Seacocks, portholes and watertight doors were opened and the waters of Scapa Flow started to flood in. 

There would not have been any immediate sign of the German’s actions, but after about forty minutes the Friedrich der Grosse started to list. This was the signal for the crews onboard the German vessels to start to abandon ship. 

News was quickly dispatched to Admiral Freemantle, who turned his ships around, to return to Scapa Flow, but for the British sailors left behind, they faced an almost impossible task of preventing the sinking of the German fleet. 

The first German ship to sink was the Friedrich der Grosse (12:16) and the last of the capital ships to go was the Hindenburg (17:00). In total 15 of the 16 capital ships were sunk, four of the eight light cruisers, and 32 out of the 50 destroyers. The British sailors managed to save the other German ships by beaching them, mostly by towing them to shore.

Von Reuter had managed to destroy more of the German navy than the Royal Navy had done in four years of fighting. In the eyes of the German admiralty, von Reuter and the German sailors had regained the pride lost in the original surrender. 

The scuttling was not without bloodshed though, as although most of the German sailors managed to abandon ships, nine were actually shot and killed as the British sailors tried to stop the scuttling of vessels. 

The 23 ships that had been beached were quickly repaired, refloated and distributed amongst the allied fleets of Britain, America, France and Japan. The sunken ships though were left where they lay.

Eventually though, it became economically viable to salvage the vessels, and from 1923 the firm of Ernest Cox set about retrieving the vessels for scrap. In the first 18 months of operation, Cox’s firm managed to raise 24 destroyers, but with much of the easy work done, it was time to take on the more complex, larger vessels. By the start of World War II only seven German vessels remained where they had sunk. 

Salvage Work on the Baden - PD-UKGov

Today, the wrecks of the Konig, Kronprinz, Markgraf, Brummer, Coln, Dresden and Karlsruhe can still be seen on the bottom of Scarpa Flow, and for those skilled enough, and with the right paperwork, the wrecks can be dived. Other evidence of the scuttling, including left behind gun-turrets, can also be viewed in the area. 

The scuttling of the German High Seas Fleet was a final act of defiance by the German navy, and although some in the British government saw it as a breaking of the armistice, some also admired the integrity of von Reuter in leaving Scarpa Flow with some honour.

Copyright - First Published 9th April 2014
 

Keywords - WWI, German Fleet, German Fleet WWI, Scapa Flow WWI, Scuttling Scapa Flow