Film Review : Alexander Nevsky (1938)

Beware this review will contain spoilers from the start!

Alexander Nevsky is a 1938 film directed by Sergei Eisenstein in association with  Dmitri Vasilyev, it is concerned with the Teutonic Knights invasion of Novgorod in the 13th Century and there defeat by the titular hero. The film bears many marks of the contemporary political climate, with strikingly anti-Nazi propaganda and communist and anti-religious sentiment. Most of the film is composed of the Battle of the Ice, a highly influential battle scene, that is also regularly confused with actual historical fact.

Where to watch?

The best place is to watch is here http://cinema.mosfilm.ru/. It is completely legal and free, as Mosfilm recently began uploading its old films in order to counter piracy, so if you want Soviet and post-Soviet Russian films, this is the place to go. It is effectively a Youtube video and the films can also be found on Youtube itself. The website is in Russian, but you can just translate the page (at least you can on Chrome, I am not sure about other browsers) and you can also turn on English subtitles for this film and a lot more (I think.)

                             DVD Cover (though at least one release has quality issues in the UK I have heard.

From this point on expect even BIGGER spoilers. The film starts with Alexander Nevsky fishing in a seemingly rural area. When the Mongols of the Golden Horde arrive, offering Nevsky the position of a commander,he is already a famed and skilled warrior, an interesting spin in my opinion, after defeating the Swedes. At the beginning we hear a lot of patriotic singing and you should expect a lot of this throughout the film.

We then head to Novgorod, where we hear about the fall of Pskov, it is at this point more of the main characters are introduced, Vasili Buslai and Gavrilo Oleksich are two famous warriors from Novgorod who are also friends, they are competing for the affections of Olga Danilovna and her hand. This competition will decided by the bravery they show at the Battle of the Ice.

In Pskov, we see absolutely horrendous acts committed by the Teutonic Knights, including babies being thrown into fire (I did say horrific) and the slaughter of innocents! Although, disturbing, it is not as disturbing as it would have been in a modern film, due to the age of the film.

The film proceeds (though to be fair, I can't remember if this happens earlier or not) with Alexander Nevsky gathering an army of peasants who are in stark contrast to the knightly Teutonic Order. He enters Novgorod itself where gathers mass support , though he faces the opposition of the boyars and merchants there who are urged on by the monk Ananias. One of those who joins Nevsky's swelling ranks is Vasilisa, a daughter of boyar killed in Pskov by the Order and she takes pivotal combat role.

                                                     It does get pretty hectic sometimes!

I presumed the army of Nevsky now headed towards Pskov, when the vanguard is attacked we quickly change to a lengthy battle scene, which is the Battle of the Ice. It seems Nevsky has a plan here and I interpreted it is as him putting men on the left flank, so the centre and right could hit. But after trying to become clear by looking at a article from the Guardian and after watching the battle itself, I still unsure whether this was the plan. For the majority of the film (it at least felt like that) there is a chaotic battle, impressive considering the time it was made, I was left confused by the actual strategy, despite noticing Nevsky's flanking manoeuvre, the climax is predicted before, the armour of Nevsky's enemies is too much and you can guess what happens, when they are on ice, though  to me they Order seemed to be already on the retreat(though interestingly it seems this did not happen in real life).

After the battle, we see the scenes of the aftermath, almost as if after the frenzy we come to poignant scene about the costs of war, as we see a lot of cinema and television. We then head back to Novgorod (I think, perhaps Pskov) for final scenes of judgement, mourning and celebration and the conclusion of the romance story at the beginning, perhaps in a semi-expected way but with a twist.

Though this is a point I must make, due to watching using a translation, I feel part of my confusion for some of the time, was the English. So if you are fluent in Russian, it is certainly the better way to watch it!

                                          An innovative shot for the main battle scene.

I thought about talking about Marxist (Stalinist) themes in this film, but I feel looking at the history of the film and its innovation are perhaps deserving of a different post or two, rather then stuffing them into an over bloated article, though I would like to know your opinion on this, please comment if you prefer longer or shorter articles (and whatever is best for my SEO, that is a semi-joke.)

So this a review right ?

I enjoyed the film, albeit a little bit of confusion, I dare say this is time of film you would enjoy more if you have done Film Studies or just have a general interest in cinema history. 'For it's time' is a bit of a cliche I admit, but I have seen many modern films with less impressive battle scenes. The propaganda is strong, but it is in this century is well, it is just less subtle. This should not spoil your enjoyment of the film. The soundtrack by Sergei Prokofiev is catchy and epic, but is a bit repetitive, it is nice to know he reworked and that although it has degraded significantly many people have watched the film with music played by an orchestra.

So should you watch this ? I would say yes if you are in it for nostalgia and a general interest in the Soviet period, it is a fine historical film in itself. And although the plot is thin and I wish the film could be longer, it in a way avoids the awful trappings of modern cinema. Therefore, I would recommend it, although not perfect it, I can value its worth in innovation and as a classic piece of cinema.




Bibliography:
The Guardian
http://www.second-reel.com/annex/choruslines/olivier-nevsky.shtml

It's Alive ! My Personal Historical Niggles

Yes, the blog is alive. It may have been almost a year to the date (well actually Gustavus Adolphus Day in November) that I did my last blog post. Of course, education gets in the way, but now I have decided to try and continue with a more casual tone then what I used to write with. Anyway, I thought I would start off discussing my own personal historical niggles. Whether, you think they are worthy or not I get annoyed by certain terms and ideas in history to varying degrees. And so let it begin !

                                     Did you get it ? The words 'It's Alive!" is never actually used in the novel Frankenstein; or the Modern                            Prometheus. Also, Frankenstein's monster is often erroneously referred as simply Frankenstein.

The Byzant....Roman Empire

The map above shows the Byzantine Empire at its height under in 560 a.d under Emperor Justinian. Wait the Byzantine Empire ! why am I using a term coined by later historians ? This is my first niggle, I would prefer it to be called the Roman Empire, as it is effectively the Roman Empire or at least the Eastern Roman Empire  (though apparently that is a later term as well, so maybe not.) The people of this empire called themselves Romaioi or Romioi (meaning Roman) or Graikoi (Greek) and they continued to refer to the empire as the Imperium Romanum (Latin) or Basileia Rhōmaiōn (Ancient Greek). Now really you could do a whole book on how the so called Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire, with an added Greek element (that's a good idea), but it is a long and complex topic I suppose. The term 'Byzantine' was first used by the historian Hieronymus Wolf in 1557 over a century after the Fall of Constantinople. This term comes from the name of Constantinople, 'Byzantium' before Constantine made the city capital. 

In the West, the Byzantine Empire was often called the Greek Empire in order to distinguish it from the Roman Empire of Charlemagne and his successors. In 800 A.D Pope Leo III used the excuse that the (Byzantine) Roman Empire had no male occupant at the time, to crown Charlemagne as Roman Emperor, because he needed his support. In the West,  Imperator Romaniae was also used to describe the East, meaning Emperor of Romania, whereas Imperator Romanorum, Emperor of the Romans was used to describe Charlemagne and his successors. In the Islamic and Slavic worlds, no distinguishment was made where Byzantium was more straightforwardly seen as the continuation of the Roman Empire, one of the uses of the word Rûm in the Islamic World was simply as the name of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire. 

There you go, we should really be calling Byzantium the Roman Empire, though to be fair I do understand the practicality of using it when we covering such distinct periods of time.

Constantinople not Istanbul

In 1953 the Four Lads sung about the official renaming of Constantinople to Istanbul. Though many may presume that Constantinople was renamed Istanbul in the 15th century after its conquest by the Ottomans this is a misconception. Constantinople was only officially renamed Istanbul in the first half of the 20th century. So this is a confusing topic, I must admit the city has many names. The name that was most common for official use until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, was Konstantiniyye which is an Arabic calqued (borrowed) form of Constantinople. Though it is wrong to say the word 'Istanbul' was never used, some sources show, in variants it exists back in the 10th century. It is the Greek version of a phrase that literally means 'in the city', so it is possible Istanbul was used in common speech in Turkish. Some times other names were more popular, such as Islambol, one source states that this was the more popular name in the 16th century and it was to some degree officially used from the late 17th century to the late 18th century.

By 1923, with the end of the Ottoman Empire ( fell in November 1922) and the creation of the Republic of Turkey all names except Istanbul had become obsolete in the Turkish language, but it was only in 1930 that Turkish authorities requested foreigners to adopt Istanbul with the Turkish Postal Service Law of 1930, otherwise there parcels would be rejected ! This led to Istanbul being the universally accepted name over time, and names such as Tsarigrad and Constantinople were no longer supposed to be used.

Just one final thing...this is a complex topic, every area of history is, I am not claiming to present the full picture, but a basic outline.By the way, Miklagarðr is an Old Norse name, meaning 'big city'.

Those horrid years between Rome and the Renaissance

The Dark Ages the time when commoners were oppressed by a right-wing state and orcs freely raided villages and slayed peasants and the Church controlled absolutely everything......

This niggle is of course relating to the negative view of the Medieval Period and I would argue that the belief that this period was darker than any over period is due to the love of Antiquity that Western thinking has held since the Renaissance onwards. I understand that in academia the term 'the Dark Ages' is barely accepted, even if it is, it nearly always solely refers to the Early Middle Ages (5th-10th centuries) following the 'chaos' from the Fall of Rome. However, I think the image of the 'backwards' Middle Ages is still found commonly in popular culture.

The idea of a 'darkness' was first expressed by the scholar Petrarch in the 1330s, who was a big fan of the Greeks and Romans and was a critic of the quality of late Latin literature, this idea was enchanced by the Renaissance. 

Later, during the Reformation, the Medieval Period became associated with Catholic Corruption and with the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th it became associated with being the exact opposite of reason due to its association as an 'Age of Faith'. Even today much of Western society is based on Roman and Greek law and philosophy and so it is easy to see why this period has been frowned on, as it is not commonly associated with these things.

Of course, we must not be fools, the Roman and Greek heritage had to be preserved throughout the Middle Ages to last into later periods of history and so it was. Learning was not defunct in the Middle Ages, after all it saw the foundation of many universities. 

Furthermore, it is wrong to group around a 1000 years of history into one period. On a website once I saw a brilliant example if we say the Middle Ages ended in the late 15th century (generically), it lasted around 1000 years from the Fall of Rome. It has been around 500 years since 1500 and think about all the major events that have happened in that time, which is half of the Medieval Period ! It is wrong to group the entire Medieval Period together !

This is why we divided it into the Early, High and Late periods and as previously mentioned the Early Middle Ages are perhaps where the biggest doubts are laid. Many would point to the Carolingian Renaissance of the hight of the Early Period, but I think it is wrong to insult the so-called 'barbarian' cultures. They may have adopted parts of Roman culture, but is that not exactly what the Romans did to other cultures absorb parts of them to suit their purposes. I watched a programme called The Dark Ages: An Age of Light by Waldemar Januszczak on BBC Four and this shows that art was still prominent in the Early Middle Ages.

It is my opinion negativity on these periods is based on the Modern Mind, logic is often valued over faith. The intellectuals in this period held beliefs that are perhaps not as popular now in the Modern academic world (I know this is a sweeping statement) and that our Roman and Hellenic heritage perhaps has a much larger impact than you would think, even in 2015.

The Not So German Empire

It is not uncommon to see the Holy Roman Empire referred to as the German Empire and this annoys me a bit (whether I am in the right that is up to you). Now this is a detailed topic and I will not go into it much. 

The term 'Holy Roman Empire' was apparently used first in the 13th century, but in 1512 in a decree following the Diet of Cologne the name was changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. So should we call the Medieval Holy Roman Empire the German Empire ? I would say no, but I am no expert.

This also raises the idea of whether we should refer to the Kingdom of Germany using 'German' or not. The Kingdom of 'Germany' started as part of the Frankish Kingdom which split following the Treaty of Verdun, therefore the rulers were often referred to as rex Francorum or even just rex.  The first reference to a 'German' Kingdom was when the Pope referred to his enemy Henry IV as rex teutonicorum, King of the Teutons.

In the Middle Ages, the 'Kings' only became emperors after a Papal coronation. The title rex Romanorum, King of the Romans was used to emphasise their rule before they were emperors. King of the Romans later became associated with the heir apparent.

So when did Germany come into existence, this is no easy question, the term German was first used all the way back in the 3rd century BC, but Germany itself in the modern sense came into being in 1871. Someone, I asked makes a valid point in referring to that 'German' is  a valuable term pre-1871 as it refers to Germany 'culturally', it would almost impossible for one person to recount all the tiny states within the Holy Roman Empire. 

Conclusion 

My so called 'niggles' seem to mainly refer to particular terms and whether they are in or out of place, depending on when they are used. The problem is that though these terms may never have been spoke historically by the people to whom they refer to it, we must accept that they are in common usage and have some helpfulness. It would seem impossible, unless we were there at the time, to know and use the exact terminology, but I still think there is a problem of clearing up possible mistakes that could be made with these terms !




Image Credit goes to
Wikipedia
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/File:Orcs.png

Happy Gustavus Adolphus Day !

Today, is a very special day, for it is Gustavus Adolphus Day. The commemoration for arguably one of the greatest generals in history. And for this reason, I have decided to do a short (informal) post to celebrate the great King of Sweden (and yes he is one of my heroes, despite that I am English). The day, on the 6th November, is also on the date when he died at the Battle of Lützen in 1632 during the Thirty Years War. Often called 'the Lion of the North' he transformed Sweden into one of the greatest powers in Europe. Not only did he aid the Protestant cause in the Thirty Year's War, he also lead successful wars against enemies such as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia (Obviously, you can debate his motives, which like anybodies are never fully clear). He has been quoted as the 'Father of modern warfare', as was admired and studied by commanders such as Napoleon Bonaparte and Carl von Clausewitz. Yet, he also increased the efficiency of the administrative system in Sweden and also encouraged education, including in conquered territories, such as Estonia.

 Gustavus Adolphus Day is celebrated on the 6th November, despite him dying on the 16th November, according to the Gregorian Calendar, this is because the Julian calender was still in use in Sweden when he died. The day has been celebrated since the early 19th Century and became especially popular in 1832, the 200th anniversary of his death. Today, it is still popular in Gothenburg, which he founded, while it also still celebrated in Estonia and Finland. In Sweden and Finland it is an official Flag Day. Despite, being celebrated in the past with torchlight processions and patriotic speeches, mainly today it is celebrated with the Gustavus Adolphus Pastry.

Although, the recipes vary locally, they nearly always have a chocolate or marzipan portrait of the King on. Candy with the image of the King on was sold in the 1850s in a Konditorei, with the earliest mention of the pastry in western Sweden in the 1890s. The pastry may have been created around the festivities of when a statue of Gustavus was erected in Gothenburg, at this time, in the square now known as Gustav Adolfs Torg (Gustavus Adolphus Square). One bakery in Gothenburg claims to have created in the early 20th century, with the years 1905 or 1909 being mentioned. Now for a final celebration, lets role on the pictures of some pastries (all credit to those who made them and/ or who took the photos.)

Yummy !

Image Credit goes to:

Wikipedia

http://swedenroots.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/gustav-adolfsdagen.html

http://lettersfromgothenburg.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/gustavus-adolphus-day/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/malter/5152145216/

The Last of the Samurai : The Satsuma Rebellion Against the Meiji Government

The Meiji restoration in 1868 had restored the practical rule of the Emperor of Japan, after centuries of practical power being in the hands of the Shogun, a military governor. The Satsuma clan was based on the southern region of the island of Kyushu and although it had was a key player in the Meiji restoration and the Boshin War and many men from Satsuma had risen to influential positions in the new government, after nine years of working close to the central government, the samurai of Satsuma were growing dissatisfied with the direction the government was taken. Although there were quite a few reasons for this dissatisfaction, the process of westernisation of Japan since the restoration of the Emperor had not only upset the samurai's privileged status, but it had also resulted in a rapid change in Japanese culture. Saigo Takamori, who would be the leader of the Satsuma Rebellion, was particularly worried about the political corruption, after all he had supported the reforms of the Meiji government in the first place, he had even helped to create the imperial army he would face.

                                                                   Saigo Takamori

As mentioned, Saigo was at first a supporter of the Meiji government, but the field marshal resigned into retirement a while after an incident regarding Korea, which had refused to recognise the authority of Emperor Meiji. Saigo had been a proponent of war against Korea, even to a degree that he agreed to go to Korea himself in 1873 so the government would gain a plausible excuse to go to war. To gain this casus belli he agreed to insult the Korean government to such a degree, that they would have to kill him, which would indeed provide the Japanese with an excuse to wage war on Korea. However, Saigo was already on a boat heading to Korea, when the government recalled him, reconsidering their agreement.with Saigo. Yet, Saigo and his fellow conservatives still tried to push for war and a samurai-bases army. However, the peace party got the upper hands in the imperial councils and therefore in protest Saigo and his party resigned in protest. This causes to voluntarily retire and return to his home city of Kagoshima. Even personal appeals from his friend Shimpei Eto who led 2,000 Kyushu samurai in revolt in 1874, failed to move him. This rebellion was soon crushed and Eto subsequently beheaded.

A large number of imperial guardsmen had resigned with Saigo and they later went to Kagoshima. Here, Saigo employed and supported these men by starting a series of 132 private schools or shigakko. These were scattered throughout Satsuma. These schools centred on Chinese classics, but English and French were also taught. However, all students were required to take weapons training and learning in tactics. Saigo also started an artillery school. Emphasis was indeed put on the ways of the Satsuma samurai and students were also taught the Bushido Code, the samurai's ancient chivalric code.

The martial nature of these schools worried Tokyo. In the later days of the Tokugawa Shogunate, just before the Meiji restoration , the Satsuma clan had begin to heavily invest in armaments, for this reason there was considerable weaponry stockpiled in armouries throughout the province. Worried about some of the best warriors in Japan rising up, on the 30th January 1877 a government sent ship arrived in Kagoshima. Without, explanation it began to remove munitions. Outraged by this 50 students attacked the Somuta arsenal, trying to carry off arms. Over the next 3 days, over 1000 students carried out raids on the naval yards and the Iso arsenal, stealing 84,000 rounds of ammunition. The officer who was in charge of the removal of arms lodged a formal complaint with the provincial government. The police however said they were unable to find even one of the raiders, despite them parading with their trophies throughout the streets. The officer gave up in disgust and ordered the ship to leave Kagoshima. Therefore, the students seized the arms factories and hired more men, going into full production. Saigo was absent hunting while these events happened, when he learned of what had happened he was in rage against the student leaders. Despite, this the act had been committed and he later congratulated his students.

                                                         The Clash at Kagoshima

Between February the 3rd and the 7th, the provincial government of Satsuma arrested 58 government agents, several of them were Satsuma born Tokyo policemen, so they could speak and understand the local dialect, making them perfect for spies. Even today the dialect of Satsuma is unintelligible to outsiders. Soon after the arrests, rumours broke out that several of the suspected spies had confessed to being sent by the government to assassinate Saigo and stir up insurrection as an excuse to invade. Therefore, his students began to press for war, but Saigo over his subordinates objections decided to go to Tokyo to negotiate. Saigo was opposed to taking an armed bodyguard with him, relying on his status as an imperial marshal for his protection. However, an advanced body of samurai had already departed for Tokyo, without Saigo's knowledge. The rebels knew that Saigo was too much of a traditionalist to abandon his samurai in a time of crisis and they knew he would be morally obligated to command them.

Despite, this Saigo still tried to avoid war, rejecting large numbers of volunteers and departing with only 12,000 volunteers. Saigo made no attempt to contact other hans (domains) for support and also left Kagoshima unprotected. Saigo only took 25,000 yen from his warchest, sufficient enough for only a month's supplies. Saigo also wore his army uniform to help in projecting an heir of legality. On the 17th September Saigo departed with his rearguard, while the main portion of his army had departed the day before.

Two days earlier, Taketa Tani commander of Kumamoto Castle had received a letter orr two, the first most likely written by some students wanting war and the second written by Saigo asking to pass peacefully. This is indeed a mystery in itself. Regardless, of what the commander of Kumamoto Castle actually received, he did not intend to let them pass. Tani had an army of 3,800 and 600 policemen at his disposal (the policemen not to be underestimated as they were picked from the samurai class and it would do well to mention the point that mostly they did not use firearms, relying on swords and martial arts skills.) by the 21st of February. However, Tani acted defensively, as most of the garrison was from Kyushu and some were from Kagoshima, itself and he did not want to risk defection or desertion. Tani gathered supplies in the castle and also destroyed several hundred houses around the castle to provide fields of fire. The Siege of Kunamoto Castle was bloody and ferocious. On the 21 February advanced imperial guard were forced back into Kunamoto Castle and by 22nd of February the castle was surrounded. And so it began......

Saigo had 9,000 samurai at the moment. After the surrounding of the castle and the keeping up of small-arms fire all day, a series of poorly coordinated attacks were launched on the walls. Despite, being repulsed by concentrated fire, for two days ferocious, almost suicidal attacks were launched upon the walls. But soon the enthusiasm of the besiegers drained. 3,000 men dug into the rock icy ground around the castle and tried to starve the garrison out. However, a detachment of the besiegers sent to block the passes of the town soon encountered forward elements of the imperial relief force. After several sharp clashes, the forces disengaged on the 26th of February.

 The fighting resumed on March 3rd, however both sides had been reinforced and numbered around 10,000. Although, officially the imperial army was controlled by Prince Taruhito Arisugawa, it was effectively under the command of General Aritomo Yamagata, an old friend of Saigo. Yamata ordered a frontal assault on the Satsuma positions on March 4th, this became the 8 day-long battle of Tabaruzuka.

                                              Two scenes from The Battle of Tabarazuka

Both sides were dug in and so a fierce war of position became apparent. There was little shooting and most attacks were made with cold steel. Both sides had lost around 4,000 by the time the rebels were dislodged.  At the height of this battle it is clear that Saigo was not committed to the rebellion and sought a peaceful rebellion. In a letter to the prince he wrote why he had been heading to Tokyo. The government however refused to negotiate.

In order to cut Saigo off from his base in Kagoshima a group of three ships bearing 500 policemen and several detachments of infantry arrived at Kagoshima on March 8th. After landing they took control of the arsenals and took the provincial governor into custody. During the stalemate at Tabarazuka, Yamagata decided to land a detachment behind the rebels, so they could be hit upon their rear. Although these reinforcements received some opposition, when the imperial army received them, its number was 4,000. The rear of the Satsuma army was attacked and pushed into the main part of the Satsuma army.

Although fighting continued on for a while, it later became clear that the Battle of Tabarazuka had been lost. After the failure to take Kunamoto Castle , Saigo led his men on a 7 day march to Hitoyoshi. Morale was low and Saigo ordered that any desertion would or abandoning of weapons would lead to suicide. Without a definite plan, the rebels dug in and waited for the imperial forces. However, the rebellion had been costly for the imperial forces and so it was forced to suspend operations for a few weeks. During this suspension one of Saigo's men slipped into Kagoshima and managed to raise a force of 1,500 samurai. The garrison was reinforced on May 4th to prevent a recurrence of such an event. It was not long the imperial forces restarted their offensives and Saigo was forced to retreat to Miyazaki. Saigo had left numerous groups of samurai in the hills to conduct guerilla warfare. On July 24 here the imperial army launched an offensive upon Saigo's army in Miyakonojo. Retreating from their enemy, the army next made a stand in a city north of here Nobeoka.

Yamagata landing forces to the north of Saigo at Oita and Saiki, was once more able to encircle Saigo. The rebels proved too strong and Saigo and his men, concentrating on one point, managed to cut their way free. The battle of Nobeoka had been so fierce the imperial army was forced to assign a task to some men to make sure floating bodies did not foul a pontoon bridge, over which supply lines passed. Captain John Capen Hubbard, an American sea captain in service of the Mitsubishi company happened to be in the area soon after the battle and in a letter to his wife he mentioned that most of the bodies were of the rebels.

Yet, the rebels had not given up, by August 17th they had been reduced to 3,000 effectives and almost all of their modern firearms had been lost (though they still had less modern ones). On the slopes of Mount Enodake they made a stand. The samurai had their backs towards the wall and were outnumbered 7-1 and many numbers of samurai surrendered. However, to some this was unacceptable and the only alternative was a glorious death. However, the slopes of Mount Enodake were not to Saigo's likening for a final resting place and so he decided to try to break for Kagoshima through the ring of steel. On  the evening of August 19th Saigo departed, burning his private papers and his uniform. His army abandoned the sick and wounded and marched to the misty summit where the imperial cordon was weakest. Saigo had to be carried in a special litter as he was suffering from hydrocele. The rebel army under the cover of the mist managed to slip through, dispatching the few guards that were there ( quite ironic as Yamagata had been determined to prevent such a thing.)

Yamagata had no idea in in terms of what direction Saigo had went and so he sent out patrols in all directions. After eight days of marching, Saigo found his path blocked by a patrol. Saigo's men halted and faced them all day, when night came their army was divided into two. Then they slipped around the flanks of the patrol and therefore they had escaped yet again. On September, 1st the remaining 500 rebels slipped into Kagoshima, eluding government patrols in heavy rain, taking a few pieces of artillery from the private schools and some food from the local peasants. They took possession of Shiroyama ('Castle Mountain') where they would make their final stand.

              The final battle scene of the 2003 film The Last Samurai is very reminiscent of the Battle of Shiroyama and is likely an interpretation of the battle. The film itself is mostly based off the Satsuma Rebellion.

The government forces arrived soon after. While there was only 500 samurai there were 30,000 imperial troops. Saigo's men were outnumbered by 60-1. However, due to being outmanoeuvred and outfought so many times Yamagata was determined as ever, probably even more than before, to make this the final battle. Therefore, the imperial force spent several days constructing an elaborate system of ditches, walls and obstacles, in order to prevent another breakout. Although, Yamagata already had extensive artillery, five government warships in the harbour of Kagoshima added to the imperial firepower. The artillery began to systematically reduce the rebel's position, over 7,000 shells were used and even so the Imperial forces had enough 7,000 reserve if they needed them. The situation was much more dire for Saigo. His men were down to melting smuggled statuettes and casting them into bullets, these statuettes were smuggled in by locals. Saigo's medical equipment consisted of one carpenter's saw for amputations and a few rags for bandages. The only shelters were shallow holes scraped in the hillside, During the final days of the siege, Saigo lived in a hole, 6 feet deep and 3 feet wide. 

                                             Imperial Fortifications around Shiroyama

Yamagata's battle plan was to assault the samurai position on all sides at once. A special unit, was ordered to seize the area between Somuta and a private school and occupy Iwasakiguchi, thus Shiroyama would be split in two. Yamagata ordered every man to hold their position at all costs, they were forbidden to help any other units. If a unit retreated with enemies in pursuit, the neighbouring units were to fire into the area indiscriminately, killing their own men if necessary. This was mostly to prevent Saigo from escaping.

Two of Saigo's officers approached the imperial army with a white flag, in hope of finding a way to save him. The officers were disgusted as they felt like they were being treated as deserters. Yamagata gave them a letter to take to Saigo to tell them to surrender, in the friendliest terms and to end the senseless slaughter. Saigo read the letter carefully and yet his resolve was unshaken. The war had been bloody, costing the imperial force 6,000 men in terms of those killed and 10,000 wounded. The much smaller force of Saigo had lost 7,000 men in terms of those killed and 11,000 wounded. Much blood had been spilled, but honour prevented Saigo from surrendering and so Saigo spent his last night in a sake party.

                                                  \        The Battle of Shiroyama

For most of the night of September 21st there was an intensive artillery bombardment. At 3am in the morning imperial forces stormed the mountain. In a few minutes the once organised imperial line went into discord. The swordsmanship of the Samurai was superior against the army with little traditional training. Although, Saigo's line held for a while, his men were pushed back by the force of numbers. By 6am there were only 40 rebels left. As he was being carried towards Iwasakiguchi, Saigo was wounded in the thigh and stomach. Losing blood rapidly, Saigo selected a suitable spot to die. One of Saigo's most loyal followers Shinsuke Beppu carried him further down the hill on his shoulders. Then Saigo kneeling on the ground had Beppu cut off his head with a single strike. A servant hid the head in order to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. However, other evidence contradicts this, suggesting that Saigo died of the bullet wound and Beppu cut off his head to preserve his dignity. Then Beppu and the last of the samurai drew their swords and charged downhill towards the enemy positions until each one of them was mowed down. And so ended the Satsuma Rebellion.

At 7am the rebellion was over and yet we can still see the Satsuma Rebelion as a transition point in the history of Japan. It marked the final move from a feudal system to a 'modernised' and 'westernised' system. It was the first challenge for the Imperial army that would prove such a threat later and also later prove a humiliation for some of the European powers and the USA. Saigo's strength of convictions and integrity left a lasting impression on the people and government he fought. Later, the government removed his brand as a traitor and made his son a marquess. Saigo Takamori was later honoured by a statue in Tokyo's Ueno Par. Although, Saigo was one of the last of his kind, he still had a profound impact not only on Japan's history, but also the World's history.

Image Credit goes to Wikipedia, Pininterest and:

https://inhermajestysname.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tls-1.jpg

myplex.tv

I do not claim copyright and ownership to any of these images.

Sources:

"Satsuma Rebellion: Satsuma Clan Samurai Against the Imperial Japanese Army." History Net Where History Comes Alive World US History Online Satsuma Rebellion Satsuma Clan Samurai Against the Imperial Japanese Army Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2014.

"The Satsuma Rebellion." About. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2014.

"Satsuma Rebellion - Meiji Period." Satsuma Rebellion - Meiji Period. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2014.

Margaret I and the Formation of the Kalmar Union

Although, Margaret I was never technically monarch of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (except, in regards to Sweden through her marriage to King Haakon VI of Norway), she was indeed highly influential in the history of Scandinavia. During her reign more unity would be brought about, with Denmark, Norway and Sweden (with Finland as part of the Kingdom of Sweden) and also the overseas territories of Norway (at this time including the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland) being part of the Kalmar Union, along with there being more peace and stability in general. This post shall look at how the dynastic relations lead to this situation of unity, in terms of the Scandinavian kingdoms.

Born in 1353, at the age of 6 she was betrothed to the 18 year-old Haakon VI of Norway, son of King Magnus Eriksson of Sweden (Haakon had previously  ruled Norway as co-ruler with his father, but now he was sole King) . One intention of this marriage was to counter the threats of the Dukes of Mecklenburg's claims to the Scandinavian thrones. Although, the marriage was briefly imperilled by a renewal in the conflict between her father, King Valdemar IV and Magnus of Sweden in 1360, the danger was over when Magnus was forced to end hostilities due to the lack of support from the nobility and also military reverses. In the same year that these hostilities ended, 1363, the marriage went ahead at Copenhagen. Even so, a greater problem emerged for Magnus, that of Albert of Mecklenburg, who defeated him and his son and became King of Sweden in 1364, ruling until 1389. Despite, this Haakon managed to remain as King of Norway, which is where Margaret would grow up, tutored by a daughter of the Swedish St Bridget, Märta Ulfsdotter. Margaret displayed her skill at wielding power at an early age, apparently outshining her husband. Margaret and Haakon had only one son, Olaf, who was born in 1370.

                                                      Margaret I of Denmark

However, in 1375, Margaret's father, Valdemar died, leading to Olaf being elected to succeed him, against the objections of the Mecklenburgian claimants. Albrecht, the son of Margaret's late sister, Ingeborg, also a relative of Albrecht of Mecklenburg, had been chosen by Valdemar to succeed him, but Margaret had managed to persuade the nobility to elect her son. Margaret ruled Denmark as regent in her son's name and when in 1380 Haakon died, she also ruled Norway in Olaf's name. This union of the crowns of Norway and Denmark would last until 1814. In 1385 she won back economically important strongholds from the Hanseatic League on the west coast of Scandia and for some time she able to safeguard Denmark's southern borders with an agreement with the counts of Holstein.

Olaf came of age in 1185, and so Margaret was no longer regent, although she still closely advised him. However, in 1185 Olaf unexpectedly died. Margaret was named 'all powerful lady and mistress and the Kingdom of Denmark's Regent," and  in the year after she was named Norway's 'reigning' Queen. In the absence of an heir, she adopted six-year old Erik of Pomerania (changed to the more Scandinavian 'Erik' from his birth name Bogislav), who was the grandson of her late sister Ingeborg (also, grandson of Henry of Mecklenburg), with Margaret I still being regent. Margaret then joined up with Swedish rebels rising against Albert, who were rebelling over the disposation of the lands of the powerful chancellor, Bo Jonsson Grip. By the Treaty of Dalaborg of 1388, Margaret was named “sovereign lady and rightful ruler” and was granted the main portion of the former chancellor's lands. Defeating Albert in 1389, Margaret took him prisoner and only released him with the conclusion of peace, in six-years time. His allies, who had allied themselves with  pirates in the Baltic sea , only surrendered Stockholm in 1398.

Margaret had became the undisputed ruler of all of Scandinavia, with Erik being proclaimed hereditary King of Norway in 1389 and his election as King of Denmark and Sweden in 1396. Erik was crowned in 1397 as King of all three countries, which would be in a 'eternal' union at Kalmar, a southern Swedish town. Despite, this the document was not actually ratified in the three kingdoms. Also, at Kalmar, the nobility displayed increasing concern of absolute power. Even though Erik was crowned at Kalmar and was aged 15, Margaret remained de facto ruler until her death. 

                                       The Kalmar Union (not including Greenland)

In 1402, Margaret arranged the marriage of Erik to Phillipa daughter of Henry IV of England. The English King also urged the idea that Erik's sister should be married to the future King Henry V of England to bring them into an alliance against France in the Hundred Year's War, but Margaret preferred to keep the Scandinavians out of the conflict. At around the same time as the marriage negotiations a young man in Poland was thought by some to be Olaf, Margaret's dead son. Margaret offered to interview him, stating that if he was her son, she would accept him. However, he could not speak Danish and admitted he was a peasant from Prussia. He was burned at the stake, wearing a mock crown, for what was considered an attack on the monarch. Margaret I unexpectedly died in 1412, at which time there was an armed conflict with Holstein.

Erik ruled until  in Denmark and Sweden until he was deposed in 1439 and in Norway until he was deposed the next year, despite this he continued to rule in Pomerania. The term 'Kalmar Union' would not have been recognised by people at the time and though the union wholly collapsed in 1523 ,when Gustav I Vasa of Sweden officially declared independence, the union was not completely continuous, with frequent breaks during its existence.

Bibliography:

Norman, Lennart T. "Margaret I (queen of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2014.

"Margaret of Denmark - Medieval Ruler of Denmark, Norway and Sweden." About.com Women's History. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2014.

"Margaret, Queen of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden." Margaret, Queen of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2014.

"The Kalmar Union." The Kalmar Union. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2014.

Image credit goes to Wikipedia

Historical Book Review : Aspects of the Crusades by J.J Saunders

As I enjoy reading History books, I thought it would be a good idea to start to review some of the books I have read. The first book I shall review is J.J Saunders' Aspects of the Crusades. 

.

Introduction

Essentially, the book is a collection of essays regarding, as the title suggests, various aspects of the crusades, many of these aspects not frequently covered and so an interesting read is created. However, it is also short at only 80 pages, with around 60 of these being part of the main content and over 10 of these being notes. Saunders makes a point in the book itself that it is not just from a Western viewpoint and takes into account material regarding the Arab point of view. In order to display the wide range of topics covered to a worthy level, I shall list the chapters below:

1. The Literature of the Crusades
2. The Idea of a Holy War
3. The Role of the Assassins
4. The Significance of Egypt
5. The Armenian Ally
6. The Franks and the Mongols
7. The Passing of the Near Eastern Civilisation

Positives

Many of the topics covered are interesting, but also it is often difficult to find information on these topics and so the book is indeed enlightening in rarely covered areas. For the common reader, it may be difficult to find material anywhere else in such detail on these 'aspects' and so if you have a particular interest in several or perhaps one of these topics I would strongly recommend it. The book is also highly readable and should not be difficult to swallow, although a basic knowledge of the Crusades is probably required due to the specific nature of the essays. My favourite essays were probably, the ones relating to Egypt, the Assassins, the Armenians and The Franks and the Mongols. In particular, the chapter on the Armenians was very insightful. I must profess that I discovered this book through a sample chapter on the significance of Egypt, which was most helpful  for writing an essay for my AS History course. This sample is legitimately available at http://web.archive.org/web/20110605033053/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/saunders.pdf , as you may have inferred it was this sample that also encouraged me to purchase the full book. I will not spoil the sample chapter's theory on Egypt, as you will be amazed by how significant Egypt was in terms of the Crusades.

Negatives

 

Alas, as with any book some parts do not match the greatness of others, though in this instance I suggest it is down to personal opinion. Although, some of the other chapters are indeed good, they are not as interesting as the others. As I have mentioned this no fault of the author, it is just down to my personal tastes. For some reason, when I bought the book ( having looked at the essay titles beforehand) I thought the essay on The Literature of the Crusades would be somewhat different for some reason ( possibly just expecting information on fiction, such as poetry).

Conclusion

I would thoroughly recommend this book, but I should note that it is not the simplest book to receive. I personally, bought it on AbeBooks and I would suggest it would be very hard if not impossible to gain a new copy of the book. As you may have noticed the image of the book is not to a great standard for a review, this is due to the difficulty of finding an image of the book on the internet. You should also consider that you are buying a very short book, that will probably be second hand, for a price which is quite hefty for the quanitity. In this instance, I would suggest that it is quality not quantity that matters and if you are really interested in purchasing the book, then you should buy it. However, look around for the best price, it was quite a lot cheaper on AbeBooks compared to Amazon, despite both offering only used copies.

Obscure But Important Battles: From Guadalete to Khalkhin Gol

History is full of famous battles, such as Hastings, Waterloo and Poltava, all of importance. However, there are also many battles that are of similar significance that are nowhere near as well known. This post aims to introduce a few of these battles and provoke interest and further research into the battles. By no means will the detail in this post be comprehensive, as the post aims to briefly describe these battles and the impact that they had. Also, the Battle of Ain Jalut, one of the many obscure but important battles, has not been mentioned as it may have a post by itself.

The Battle of Guadalete

The Battle of Guadalete was fought between Christian Visigoths and an invading force of Muslim Arabs and Berbers on the southern shore of the Iberian Peninsular in 711 AD.  The Visigothic King of Hispania, Roderic was informed of the attack, while he was fighting the Basques, forcing him to march south. Although numbers for the battle vastly differ, one suggestion is that there 33,000 on the Visigothic side and 12,000 on the side of the Umayyads  (Lewis suggests this). The Muslims carried out hit and run attacks while the Visigoths moved en masses (in one body). A cavalry wing that had pledged to betray Roderic did and stood aside, allowing the Muslim cavalry to exploit the break. The Visigoth army was eventually routed and King Roderic was slain. Following this much of Iberia fell under the control of Muslims, with Islam only finally being driven out of Iberia with the end of the Reconquista and the Fall of Granada in 1492, over 780 years later.

The Battle of Molodi

The Battle of Molodi was fought in 1572  between a Russian army and the Crimean Khanate, a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. The Russians had an army of around 60,000-70,000 men led by Prince Mikhail Vorotynsky against an army of about 120,000 lead by Khan Devlet I Giray. The battle was a resounding success for the Russians, as the horde was defeated so badly that the Sultan and the Khan gave up any hope of expanding upwards into Russia, thus preventing Ottoman or Crimean expansion northwards and possibly saving Russia as a whole. The map is of the Crimean Khanate in 1600, after the battle took place.

The Battle of Blenheim

The Battle of Blenheim was a pivotal battle of the War of the Spanish Succession, with the French and Bavarians fighting against multiple forces including those of the Emperor, England and the United Provinces in the year of 1704.Louis XIV had hoped to knock Emperor Leopold out of the war by seizing Vienna and therefore leading to a favourable peace settlement. The defeat of the French was of much importance, ending Louis XIV's hope for a quick victory, maintaining the Grand Alliance and putting Bavaria out of the war. As a turning point in the war, one could argue that if the battle had gone the other way, the Bourbons may have won the war and therefore a French-Spanish nation or union could have been eventually formed.

The Battle of Warsaw

The Battle of Warsaw of 1920, although not part of World War I and World War 2, is still probably one of the most important battles of the 20th century. When Soviet forces invaded Poland in 1920, the Polish army disorderly retreated westwards, with their forces on the verge of disintegration. As Soviet forces approached Warsaw and the nearby Modin Fortress, a Polish counter-attack lead by Józef Piłsudski, disrupted the Soviet offensive and forced them to retreat eastward, in a disorganised manner, across the Neman River. The battle had huge implications, if the Bolsheviks had successfully taken Poland, a Germany weakened by WWI would have also been vulnerable to a Soviet attack and therefore the installation of a Marxist system. This may have eventually resulted in Marxist governments throughout Central and Western Europe, obviously vastly affecting events, such as the possibility of a different or even no World War 2.

The Battle of Khalkhin Gol

The Battle of Khalkin Gol was fought in August 1939, weeks before the start of WW2 and it was fought by the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of Mongolia against the Empire of Japan. It was part of the undeclared Soviet-Japanese border conflicts, which were the result of the Japanese occupations of Korea and Manchuria. After the occupations, the Japanese turned their attention north leading to these conflicts. The battle, a Japanese defeat helped to prevent any further expansion north, dictating policy for WW2. It may also have played a factor in Japanese expansion in the Pacific, as expansion north-west no longer seemed to be an option. The battle was also the first victory for the soon-to-be famous General Georgy Zhukov, winning him his first of four Hero of the Soviet Union awards.

Bibliography:

"Major Battles." Islamic Spain. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 July 2014. <http://www.islamicspain.tv/Andalusi-Society/Major-Battles.htm>.

"Молодинская битва." Молодинская битва. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 July 2014. <http://www.hrono.ru/sobyt/1500sob/1572molod.php>.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Battle of Blenheim (European History)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 17 July 2014. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/69261/Battle-of-Blenheim>.

"Polish-Soviet War: Battle of Warsaw." History Net Where History Comes Alive World US History Online PolishSoviet War Battle of Warsaw Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 July 2014. <http://www.historynet.com/polish-soviet-war-battle-of-warsaw.htm>

"Khalkhin-Gol: The Forgotten Battle That Shaped WW2." History of Russia. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 July 2014. <http://historyofrussia.org/khalkhin-gol-battle-nomonhan/>.

Image Credit goes to Wikipedia