Her uncle William IV had previously declared that he wanted to live to see her 18th birthday, if only to avoid a regency by her mother. He succeeded, though barely, dying a month after she turned 18 – part of the reason she reigned for such a long time.
A year later, on Thursday 28 June 1838, her coronation took place and she was formally invested as the Queen of England.

Planning and protest

Official planning for the coronation was started in March 1838 by the cabinet of Lord Melbourne, the Whig Prime Minister of the UK. Melbourne was seen as a father figure by the young Victoria, who had grown up isolated; his presence reassured her throughout the coronation ceremony.

One of the great challenges he faced was involving the general public. The popularity of the monarchy had fallen during the preceding age of reform, and especially due to her despised uncle George IV. Melbourne decided upon a public procession through the streets. Scaffolding was built for the spectators, and apparently there was:

“scarcely a vacant spot along the whole [route] that was unoccupied with galleries or scaffolding”.

This procession was the longest since that of Charles II 200 years earlier. 

The Gold State Coach that Victoria rode in. Image credit: Steve F-E-Cameron / CC.

However, the traditional banquet at Westminster Hall, and the challenge of the Royal Champion were omitted. Imagine someone riding in full armour through Westminster, throwing down a gauntlet and issuing a challenge, then you may understand why this ritual has not been used since the coronation of George IV.

These exclusions were to meet the budget of £70,000, a compromise between the lavish coronation of George IV (£240,000) and the frugal one of William IV (£30,000).

Both the Tories and the Radicals objected to the coronation, though for different reasons. The Tories disapproved of the focus on the public procession as opposed to the ceremonies at Westminster.

The Radicals disapproved of the expense, and were generally anti-monarchist. An association of London traders also protested due to not having sufficient time to order their merchandise. 

The Crown Jewels

St Edward’s Crown had traditionally been used for the coronation of British monarchs: the iconic crown is also used as the crown in the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (visible on British passports), on the logo of Royal Mail, and on the rank insignia of the British Army, Royal Air Force and police.

However, it was thought that it may be too heavy for the young Victoria, and so a new crown, the Imperial State Crown, was made for her.

On this new crown two notable jewels were mounted — the Black Prince’s Ruby (named after the Black Prince, who gained fame as a commander in the Hundred Years’ War), and St Edward’s Sapphire. This jewel is almost a millennia old, thought to be the stone from Edward the Confessor’s coronation ring.

Edward the Confessor is known for his death, which sparked the Battle of Hastings and the conquest of William of Normandy. 

A “botched” ceremony

The day of the coronation dawned. The streets of London were full to the brim. Due to newly built railways, some 400,000 people from around the country came to London to view the coronation.  Victoria wrote in her diary:

“I was alarmed at times for fear the people would be crushed, in consequence of the tremendous rush & pressure.”

Another spectator felt that London’s population felt as if it had “suddenly quadrupled”. After the hour long procession, the service at Westminster took 5 hours and involved two dress changes. It was obvious to the spectators that there was very little rehearsal. A young Benjamin Disraeli wrote they:

“were always in doubt as to what came next, and you saw the want of rehearsal”.

As a consequence there were mistakes, such as the Archbishop placing the ring on the wrong finger. An elderly peer, aptly named Lord Rolle, fell and rolled down the steps. Victoria gained public approval when she descended a couple of steps to prevent another fall.

The music itself was also widely criticised, with only one original piece written for the occasion. It was also the only time the Hallelujah chorus was sung at a British coronation.

Nevertheless, not all were critical. The Bishop of Rochester praised the music for having a suitably religious tone, and Victoria herself wrote:

“The demonstrations of enthusiasm affection, & loyalty were really touching & shall ever remember this day as the proudest in my life”.

Queen Victoria’s coronation medal (1838), designed by Benedetto Pistrucci. Image credit: the Met / CC.

Reimagining Monarchy

Many considered the young, female Victoria a breath of fresh air following decades of rule by old men. A picture of beauty and morally uprightness, unlike her uncles, Victoria quickly won the hearts of her people, even if it took somewhat longer for her to understand the intricacies of politics.

Her relationship with Parliament was respectful, and unlike her predecessor William IV, she understood where there were lines which she could not cross as a constitutional monarch.

Here are ten facts about the courageous man.

1. Ney was bilingual, with both French and German roots

He was born in the town of Sarrelouis along the French-German border, a French enclave in a largely German region. It was annexed by Prussia according to the Treaty of Paris of 1815. Ney’s lawyer attempted to use this to prevent his execution, stating that since he was now Prussian, he could not be tried by a French court. However Ney refused this line of defence, apparently declaring:

“Je suis Français et je resterai Français!”

(I am French and I shall remain French). This impassioned patriotism was rewarded with a guilty verdict and subsequent execution.

2. He was originally denied entry to the officer corps due to being a commoner

Louis XVI the last king of France before the Revolution. Under his reign, only nobility could be officers in the army

While he was originally denied entry to the officer corps under the Bourbon monarchy for his lack of noble blood, he would later be made a Duke by Napoleon, and then the Prince de la Mowska. He would be made a peer by the restored Bourbon monarchy before having it revoked upon execution in 1815. His peerage was then posthumously restored in 1831.

3. His marriage was orchestrated by Joséphine Bonaparte

Joséphine, Napoleon’s first wife

His wife Algaé Auguié was a handmaiden of Joséphine’s and the daughter of a high civil servant. Her connections allowed him a more active role in political and social life.

4. He was known as the last Frenchman on Russian soil and the “bravest of the brave”

He commanded the rearguard of the French retreat from Russia during the 1812 invasion and so he was called the last Frenchman on Russian soil. During the campaign he and his forces were cut off from the main army, but they managed to escape over the Dneipr river. Napoleon said that,

“The army of France is full of brave men, but Michel Ney is truly the bravest of the brave!”

Ney at the Battle of Kaunas during the Russian campaign

5. He was involved in Napoleon’s first abdication

British etching from 1814 in celebration of Napoleon’s first exile to Elba at the close of the War of the Sixth Coalition

He was the spokesperson of the marshals who refused to march. When Napoleon said that the army followed him, Ney replied that it would follow its chiefs. He then swore loyalty to Louis when the Bourbon monarchy was restored.

6. He then defected back to Napoleon to join in the Hundred Days campaign.

A public proclamation by Ney, dated March 1815, urging French soldiers to abandon the king and to support Napoleon

Ney was charged with stopping Napoleon, who had thus far returned unopposed. However, he rejoined Napoleon and fought by his side in their final campaign.

7. Ney may have cost Napoleon the Battle of Waterloo

Ney leading the cavalry charge at Waterloo

During the battle, Ney ordered a charge of French cavalry. The co-ordination between the artillery and cavalry, however, was bad; Wellington’s troops were able to stand in hollow square formations and repel the cavalry. They suffered heavy losses.

Amongst the generals, four divisional commanders and nine brigadiers were wounded, with one killed. Napoleon called the charge “an hour too early”.

8. Ney lost five horses during the Battle of Waterloo

Whilst his command may have been ineffective, his valour (though some would call it recklessness) remained unquestionable. He supposedly lost five horses during the battle, and apparently cried out:

“See how a marshal of France meets his death!”

He did not die.

9. He gave his own execution order

The death of Marshal Ney

After Napoleon’s second and final exile, many off his top officers were tried. While the majority were pardoned, Ney was not. Condemned to execution by firing squad, he refused the blindfold and was allowed to give the firing order. Therefore with his last order he finally met his death, with his reputation as “bravest of the brave” intact til the end.

10. There is a myth that he survived his execution

Shortly after Ney’s death, a French veteran appeared in America called Peter Stuart Ney. This school teacher had a red complexion (Ney was known as “le Rougeaud”, “red faced”) and was supposedly good with a sword. One version states that the Duke of Wellington orchestrated his escape as they were supposedly both freemasons.

Although it seems unlikely, other officers of Napoleon did end up in America, such as Charles Lallemand. Ultimately, as with any conspiracy theory, we shall likely never know.  

The Anglo-Saxons are conventionally understood as Germanic tribes that immigrated to England, either via invitation, hired as mercenaries by the Romano-British, or through invasion and conquest. Originally worshipping pagan gods, it was this period that saw the spread of Christianity throughout England.

Credit: self|cc-by-sa-3.0

Prior to the emergence of a single unified kingdom under Æthelstan of Wessex, the land was dominated by various warring tribes and kingdoms, which eventually coalesced into the heptarchy — 7 kingdoms that controlled England.  

Here are those 7 powerful kingdoms.

1. Kent

Settled by the Jutes, one of the three tribes that colonised England in the 5th century (the other two being the Angles and the Saxons), the legendary founders of Kent were the brothers Hengest and Horsa.

Traditionally considered the leaders of the first wave of Anglo-Saxons, legend has them invited by the British warlord Vortigern to defend his people, and were granted a portion of his land — Kent. Whilst the veracity of this myth is difficult to ascertain, there may be some truth to the kingdom originally being colonised as part of a negotiated treaty rather than simple invasion. 

The 7 kingdoms of the heptarchy.

A prosperous kingdom based around Canterbury and positioned on the trade route between London and the continent, we can see evidence of their wealth in the lavish grave-goods of the 6th century. They certainly had links with the continent — Æthelberht, during his time the most powerful king in southern England, married Bertha, a Frankish princess.

And it was Æthelberht whom Saint Augustine converted; Augustine became the first Archbishop of Canterbury.

Augustine of Canterbury preaches to Æthelberht of Kent.

Their 6th century prowess would not last, and Kent fell under the control of Mercia, a rival kingdom. Kent remained under Mercian control until Mercia too fell, with both kingdoms conquered by Wessex.

2. Essex

Home of the East Saxons, the royal house of Essex claimed descent from the old tribal god of the Saxons, Seaxnet. They seem to have had a fondness of the letter “S”. Sledd, Sæbert, Sigebert, all but one of their kings bore names beginning with the letter.

They often had joint kingships within the ruling family. No single branch of the family was able to dominate for more than two consecutive reigns.

Their territory contained two old Roman provincial capitals — Colchester, and notably London. However, the kingdom was often under the sway of a more powerful one. This complicated their relationship with Christianity, which was generally intertwined with the hegemony of a different kingdom.

Essex suffered a similar fate to Kent, coming under Mercian dominance, and then the control of Wessex.

3. Sussex

Legend attributes the founding of the kingdom to Ælle, a brave invader who fought with his sons against the Romano-British and viciously sacked a Roman fort. The story’s veracity is highly-dubious, however. Whilst Ælle may have been a real person, archaeological evidence suggests that Germanic settlers arrived early in the 5th century, before growing to dominate the region.

King Ælle of Sussex.

Due to a great forest that covered large swathes of its north-east, Sussex was more culturally distinct to the other kingdoms. Indeed they were the last kingdom to convert to Christianity.

A weaker kingdom, it recognised Mercian dominance before being conquered by Wessex in the 680s. 50 years later it once again recognised Mercian supremacy. Eventually it, like the other southern kingdoms, came under the control of Wessex when Mercia was defeated.

4. Northumbria

Dominating the North, during its height Northumbria stretched from the Humber and Mersey rivers in the South, to the Firth of Forth in Scotland. It was formed due to the union of two kingdoms, Bernicia and Deira in c.604; it would go on to be the most powerful kingdom during that century.

Bede, the most famous of Anglo-Saxon authors and one of our major sources, was from Northumbria during this time. Several great works of art were produced, including the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Codex Amiantinus.

Lindisfarne Gospels. Image Credit The British Library Shelfmark: Cotton MS Nero D IV.

The next century didn’t go quite so well.

Being king seemed a particularly perilous job. Of the 14 kings during the 8th century, 4 were murdered, 6 overthrown, and 2 chose to abdicate and become monks.

Their great rivals were the Mercians, however it was the Picts who ended their 7th century hegemony, and the Vikings who ended their kingdom. Beginning with the sack of Lindisfarne, by 867 the Vikings had taken York. Vikings retained control of the province of Deira until the 10th century.

5. East Anglia

Sutton Hoo is one of the most significant finds of Anglo-Saxon England. Filled with gold treasures and intricate metal-work, these burial mounds grant us insight into Anglo-Saxon culture and society. Burial mound 1, with its great 90ft ghost ship, is thought to be the grave of an East Anglian king.

A shoulder clasp from Sutton Hoo. Image Credit Robroyaus / Commons.

The common theory is that it was Rædwald, a contemporary of Æthelberht of Kent. Rædwald is known for hedging his bets when it came to the new religion, supposedly placing both Christian and pagan altars in the same temple. This seems to have worked out for him, as he became the most powerful king in England after Æthelberht’s death.

The wealth found in the Sutton Hoo burials demonstrates just how powerful he was. As with most of the other kingdoms, East Anglia too declined, and soon came under Mercian influence.

They managed to overthrow the Mercians, before being conquered by first Wessex, and then the Vikings, under whose control it remained until it was absorbed into a unified England. 

6. Mercia

Mierce in Old English translates to “border”, and so the Mercians were literally border people. Which border this was however, is a matter of debate. Regardless, they soon expanded past any border, and became the most powerful kingdom during the 8th century.

Whilst having a strong monarchy, the kingdom doesn’t seem to have been a single, homogeneous unit, and instead more of a confederation of various peoples. The ealdormen (nobles) were not appointed by the king but instead seemed to be the leaders of their own people within the kingdom.

There were two standout Mercian kings. The first was under Penda, during the mid 7th century. Penda is known as the last great pagan king and was supposedly a fierce warrior. However, his death weakened Mercia, which temporarily fell under the rule of Northumbria.

The second was under Offa. It was he who in the 8th century conquered most of the other kingdoms. Indeed Asser, King Alfred’s biographer described him as a “vigorous king … who terrified all the neighbouring kings and provinces around him”. Yet 30 years after his death, Mercia was controlled by the Vikings, before being conquered by Wessex under Alfred the Great.

7. Wessex

Kingdom of the West Saxons, Wessex is the only kingdom whose regnal lists contain a female ruler — Seaxburh, widow of the king. Throughout the 8th century it was threatened by its more powerful neighbour Mercia, however during the 9th it quickly gained power.

Alfred the Great, King of the Anglo-Saxons.

Alfred the Great ended his reign in the 10th century as “King of the Anglo-Saxons”, controlling all but the Vikings, though they acknowledged his power. His grandson Æthelstan became the “King of the English”, the first ruler to reign over a unified England. 

Title Image Credit Fondo Antiguo de la Biblioteca de la Universidad de Sevilla / Commons.

The Roman system during the Republic was a mixture of all three elements:

The monarchical was represented by the consuls, who retained imperium — executive authority, the aristocratic was represented by the Senate, and the democratic by the people, represented through popular assemblies and the Tribunes of the Plebs.

Each of the three could be just and effective, however they were all liable to corruption, tyranny, oligarchy, or mob rule.

Polybius praised this system for its stability, with each element keeping the others in check. The power of the consuls was tempered by the authority of the Senate, and both answered to the populace via the voting assemblies.  

The Republic had a complex internal structure. Existing for over 5 centuries, it is not surprising that there were changes in the institutions and their relations to one another.

The following versions of the Senate and popular assemblies are from the “Classic” Republic: the incarnation of the Republic that existed from c.287 BC (after the “Struggle of the Orders”) to c.133 BC (with the re-emergence of political violence).

The Senate

A 19th century fresco of the Senate, depicting Cicero attacking Catiline.

The Senate was an assembly of elite Romans who represented the aristocratic in Polybius’ analysis.

They were closely linked with the magistrates, with most members of the Senate being ex-magistrates. This is how political elites were able to maintain influence after their single year terms in office.

The actual structure of the Senate was informed by the magistracies; the higher the office gained, the more senior the senator. This ranking determined the course of proceedings; ex-consuls spoke first, the ex-praetors second, and so on.

What may seem strange is that the Senate had very little formal power. They could not pass laws, or propose them to an assembly. They could not elect officials, and they did not sit as a judiciary court.

What they did have was a huge informal influence.

They could make suggestions to the magistrates, through Senatorial decrees. They discussed a wide range of policy. From foreign policy, to all financial matters, to the command of legions, all this would effectively be decided by the Senate. Crucially they controlled the allocation of resources for imperial purposes.

Whilst magistrates could, and did, defy the Senate, it was rare.

The Popular Assemblies

The uncontested sovereignty of the Republic belonged to the people. The very name res publica meant “the public thing”. All laws had to be passed by one of the various popular assemblies, and they were the voters in all elections.

Legitimacy lay with the people. Of course, practical power was a different story.

The Roman “Constitution”, showing the relations between the Assemblies, Senate, and Magistrates. Image Credit / Commons.

There were a number of popular assemblies, effectively subdivisions of the populace, based on various criteria.

For example, the comitia tributa was divided by tribe (each Roman citizen was a member of one of 35 tribes, assigned either by birth or legal act). In these groups citizens would either elect an official or vote to pass a law. 

However, these assemblies could only be called by certain magistrates. Even then the magistrates had the power to dismiss the assembly at any time.

No popular proposals could be raised by the assemblies, and debate took part in separate meetings to the voting ones. These too were called, and presided over, by a magistrate.

The magistrates even had the power to refuse to accept the vote of an assembly. This happened on at least 13 recorded occasions. 

Nonetheless, the sovereignty of the populace was never challenged. Whilst they were passive, they were still required to confer legitimacy on any proposal or law. How much power the populace actually exercised is a matter of debate.  

The overall system

Overall, the Senate acted as the central policy and decision maker, whilst the magistrates exercised the actual power to implement these. The assemblies were required to ratify laws and elect officials, and act as a source of legitimacy.

This system was supposed to keep all the institutions in check, however throughout most of the Republic’s history, power truly lay with the leading families who comprised the magistrates and the Senate.

The system lasted for 5 centuries, although there were internal conflicts and changes.

The system eventually broke down and by the end of the republic civil war waged, allowing Augustus to establish the Principate and become the first Roman Emperor.

Featured image credit: SPQR banner, emblem of the Roman Republic. Ssolbergj / Commons.

Sovereignty lay with the people, the very name res publica translates to “the public thing”. The political elites of the Republic never contested that legitimacy came from the people.

However, the populace was fundamentally passive, their interests were completely in the hands of the elected officials. And these elections weren’t the free elections we are used to today.

Voting occurred during popular assemblies, presided over by the officials who convened them. Debate occurred during separate meetings. These too had to be convened by an official. The official decided who spoke, and which issues would be discussed.

So who were these magistrates that had so much control?

The cursus honorum

During the Republic, a concept called the cursus honorum developed.

Translating to the “course of honour”, it was effectively a ladder of political offices (magistracies) that politicians would climb to reach the top. The top being the consulship, represented by two politicians who were the effective heads of state.

They represented the monarchical element in the Greek historian Polybius’ analysis of the structure of the Roman Republic.

The other two elements were aristocratic, and democratic — represented by the Senate, and the popular assemblies respectively.

Cursus Honorum. Image Credit C.K. Ruppelt (Cruppelt) / Commons

The magistracies made little distinction between civilian and military offices, and the power of the consuls was largely defined in military terms — their imperium (executive authority) was the power to command men both at home and in the field.

They could give the most important military commands, and politically they could propose legislation, convene the popular assemblies, and preside over Senate meetings.

They also held auspicium, the power to consult the gods on behalf of the state. This was a great power in a society such as Rome’s, which attributed its imperial success to being devout.

The rank below the consuls were the praetors, who shared in the consuls’ imperium and often dealt with administrative matters whilst the consuls were at war.

Other magistracies included the censors, who oversaw the censuses, and the aediles and quaestors, who performed various financial and administrative duties.

The Tribune of Plebs

A remarkable office was the “Tribune of the Plebs”.

This office could only be held by plebeians rather than patricians, and was designed to protect the rights of the common citizen against magisterial abuse.

By the time of the “Classic” Republic (287-133 BC), however, plebeians could be just as wealthy and powerful as the patricians.

They had the power to veto the actions of other magistrates, or decrees of the Senate.

They could also convene the Senate, as well the comitia tributa, one of the popular assemblies, and call and address a contio, a formal debate on various policies and laws.

These powers granted them immense political agency, however, by the third and second centuries BC, they often aided the proposals of the Senate. This was due to them often being part of the same landowning class as the consuls and senators.

Gaius Gracchus, one of the Gracchi brothers, who were the most famous Tribunes of the Plebs.

Dictator

Another special office was that of dictator.

These days a dictator is a political leader who has absolute power. During the Roman Republic they were special officials who could be appointed by the consuls in a time of emergency.

Only in office for six months, they possessed the highest degree of imperium.

They were attended to by 24 lictors, special officers who accompanied magistrates and carried fasces, bundles of rods with an axe-head.

Within the pomerium, the sacred boundary of Rome, lictors usually had to remove these axe-heads, symbolising the sovereignty of the people. But the dictator’s lictors were not required to do so, representing just how much power a dictator held, as well as the dire straits required to appoint one.

Whilst some dictators would immediately relinquish their power once the emergency was over, notably Cincinnatus (featured image) who became an icon of civic virtue, the office was open to corruption. The famous examples are Sulla and Caesar.

Sulla revived the dictatorship by force, and Caesar was named dictator thrice, with his third term being 10 years (interrupted by his untimely demise).

The dictator’s second-in-command was called the magister equitum, “the master of the horse”, and held his post during the dictator’s time in office.

The assassination of Julius Caesar, whilst he was dictator.

Curbing electoral malpractice

We should not think of the magistrates as a government, as they acted as individuals, often in conflict with each other.

Nor was there any such concept as a “political party”, the closest example would be the optimates and populares, ideologies that loosely favoured the upholding of ancestral laws, or the following of popular measures.

Magistracies could only be held for a single year, and with the exception of the consuls, could only be held once. Even the consulship could only be held in 10 year intervals.

There were also age limitations and the cursus honorum set out an expected path to follow.

This highly regulated system of political office was meant to curb electoral malpractice, and prevent any individual from gaining too much power. By the time of Julius Caesar and Augustus, it had evidently failed.

The political landscape was very different then. New France dominated large swathes of the continent, with British America and the Spanish colonies clinging to its edges. Tensions were ignited by Washington’s ambush of French Canadians in 1754, leading into the Seven Years’ War, a war that involved every European great power and spanned 5 continents. 

North America prior to the Seven Years’ War. Image Credit Pinpin / Commons.

In North America, it was fought between the British and the French colonies, with troops from both parent countries and support from various Native American allies on both sides. At first the conflict went disastrously for the British with several losses – including the Siege of Fort William Henry. 

But the Siege of Quebec proved the turning point. 

The perilous approach to Quebec

From the very onset, the plan to take Quebec was filled with danger. Just getting to Quebec was a challenge. Surrounded by cliffs and forests, these natural barriers made access by land nigh impossible.

So the British, led by Major-General James Wolfe, decided to sail down the St Lawrence River. 

This river was, and remains, extremely treacherous, with shifting tides, sudden shallows, and low-sitting rocks. Even the French, who had retained control of the river until the British captured Louisbourg in 1758, suffered losses traversing it.

It was still uncharted, and so the British decision to sail a fleet down it seemed suicidal.

To the shock of General Montcalm, the French commander, Wolfe’s force emerged before Quebec without having lost a single ship. This was due to a methodological, scientific approach that involved proper scouting and charting of the waters as they advanced. One of the officers involved in charting the river was a young James Cook, the later famed explorer.   

Another danger that British armies normally faced was poor health, particularly scurvy. However, Wolfe was part of a new generation of young officer who prioritised troop well-being and preparedness.

This part of North America was full of spruce pines, which contained vitamin C, and so to combat scurvy Wolfe ordered his men to produce beer out of it. This was yet another example of the new scientific approach to war being conducted by the British. 

The siege

The defences of Quebec were still formidable and the British were on the wrong side of the river, so Wolfe decided on an artillery barrage to soften them. For weeks shot after shot rained down on Quebec. Cannonballs, explosive mortars, incendiary carcasses devastated the city.

It proved to no avail. Quebec stood strong.

As winter approached, Wolfe attempted a new sort of amphibious assault. Using flat-bottom boats, the British soldiers sailed across the river to the opposing shore. Once there, the men charged towards the French lines. It was a disaster.

Rather than line up and wait for orders, the grenadiers charged with reckless abandon. By the time they retreated the field was strewn with corpses; the French cheered in triumph. The British settled in for a long siege. 

Map detailing the initial British landing. Beauport in the top right is where the first amphibious assault occurred. Image Credit Hoodinski / Commons

One month later, Wolfe tried again. Learning from his mistakes, he sent a small deployment to cross the river by night, and seize a small French camp defending the plain outside the city. He then followed with his main force. By the morning the British had gained a foothold, and were lining up their troops. Montcalm decided to charge the British.

And so on 13 September 1759 the Battle of the Plains of Abraham commenced. This was the type of warfare Wolfe’s troops had trained for. Whilst the French fired haphazardly as they charged, the British waited. And waited.

Only once they were within 30 yards, when they could see the enemies’ eyes, did they fire. Volley after volley, they turned back the French charge. The battle was over. The British had won. 

Both Wolfe and Montcalm died during the battle. Vaudreuil, the Governor of Quebec, decided to abandon the city, and within days the victorious British marched in.

The British did not enjoy their victory for long. With winter came bitter cold, and with most of the buildings destroyed by the artillery bombardment, shelter was scarce. Scurvy ran rampant, and the garrison was reduced to 4,000 men. After winter, a relieving French force defeated the British garrison at the Battle of Sainte-Foy and laid siege to Quebec, waiting for reinforcements.

However, the first ships to arrive was a British squadron, having defeated the French support ships. 

This 1797 engraving is based on a sketch made by a soldier during the siege of Quebec.

The aftermath

The capture of Quebec proved to be the turning point of the Seven Years’ War. In 1763 the French ceded all their territories in North America. The continent was now controlled by the British, though the Spanish also gained some land to the west.

The British were now confirmed as the dominant global power, with their Empire slowly growing to become the largest in history. Whilst the war had led to British supremacy, it also led to their most humiliating defeat.

Britain was now in huge debt, and so to raise money they decided to tax the colonists in America. Enraged by the taxes, and no longer needing British protection from the French, the colonies rose up under the leadership of George Washington, the very man whose actions had precipitated the Seven Years’ War.

North America in 1763 after the Seven Years’ War. Image Credit AlexiusHoratius / Commons.

We could argue that the siege of Quebec was one of the most significant in history. It pioneered a scientific, approach to warfare reliant upon the navy, and British industry, that would characterise British warfare for the next century.

With the French defeat in the Seven Years’ War, the path was open for Britain to become the largest empire the world has ever seen.

North America was now British, and though the United States would emerge 20 years later, its language, customs, and constitution were formed on a British foundation. The debt incurred by the French would lead into the French Revolution, sparking the Revolutionary Wars and the decline of the old absolute monarchies.

Some scholars have even argued that in this part of religious life, ritual observation was more important than faith and belief. As loci of ritual activity, temples were of supreme importance.

Here are 5 key Roman temples before Christianity.

1. Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus 

19th Century woodcut depicting an artist’s reconstruction of the temple.

Situated on the Capitoline hill, this was the most important Roman temple. It was dedicated to the important Capitoline Triad — the king of the gods, Jupiter “the Best and the Greatest”, his wife Juno, and daughter Minerva.

The oldest large temple in Rome, it was dedicated in 509 BC during the founding of the Republic, though it was later rebuilt several times. Its size remains a matter of debate, however it was supposedly larger than any other temple for centuries afterwards. One estimate is that it was 60 metres by 60 metres.

This is where triumphant generals sacrificed at the end of their grand processions through Rome. This is where consuls and praetors made vows to the gods on their first day in office. This is where the Ludi Romani, a great religious festival full of athletic shows, chariot races and theatre, began.

It is difficult to imagine the awe this building must have inspired.    

2. Temple of Vesta

Remains of the Temple of Vesta in Rome. Image Credit GinoMM / Commons

Dating to the 7th century BC, this temple was supposedly built by the legendary second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius. Heralded as the father of Roman religion and the king who civilised the warlike Romans, he brought the Vestal virgins to Rome from Alba Longa. They were intrinsically related with Rome already, as Rhea Silvia, mother of Romulus, had been a Vestal virgin.

Once enshrined within their new temple, they became regarded as fundamental to the continuance of Rome. Many ascribed them mystical powers, and certainly their political power was very real — when a young Julius Caesar was included in Sulla’s proscriptions, it was the Vestals who interceded and gained him a pardon. 

Mars and Rhea Silvia, a Vestal virgin and mother of Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, by Rubens.

Architecturally distinct for being circular rather than rectangular, this temple housed several important items including the sacred flame of Vesta and the Palladium, two of the pignora imperii that guaranteed the continued imperium of Rome. 

3. The Pantheon

The only one of this list that is still in use, though as a church rather than a temple, it strikes an impressive sight. The best preserved of any Roman building, it has inspired visitors over two millennia. The Venerable Bede supposedly declared in the 8th century that whoever leaves Rome without seeing the Pantheon, leaves Rome a fool. Michelangelo believed it to be angelic, not human. 

The Pantheon is still in use today. Image Credit Roberta Dragan / Commons.

Contrary to its state of preservation, the actual purpose of the building remains unknown. Commissioned during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) by Marcus Agrippa, it was reconstructed by Hadrian around 126 AD. The name “Pantheon” has lead to the belief that it was a temple to all the gods, yet some scholars argue that it wasn’t a temple at all.

Truthfully we are uncertain as to what its true function was, as its architecture is distinct from any other building.    

4. Temple of Saturn

Etching of the Roman Forum, reconstructed by the artist.

The ancient authors agree that this temple was the next oldest in the Forum Romanum (the Roman Forum) after the Temple of Vesta. They disagree on the exact date of construction, but it was dedicated in 497 BC.

It was likely built in response to Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and these would have been the two largest temples in the immediate vicinity.

We can still see the remains of the front porch, though this is the third incarnation of the temple. A trend with Roman temples is that they seem to be destroyed and rebuilt, a lot, often by fire. 

Remains of the Temple of Saturn. Image Credit Sailko / Commons.

The temple is dedicated to Saturn, the father of Jupiter and associated with agriculture, time, wealth, dissolution, and renewal. He supposedly ruled Latium in a “golden age”, where humans enjoyed the bounty of the earth without labour, land ownership, animal slaughter, or slavery.

He had a contradictory nature — being one of Rome’s oldest gods yet originally a foreigner, and associated with liberation yet bound for most of the year. This binding was represented by Jupiter chaining him with stars, and physically with the legs of his statue wrapped in wool.

These wrappings were only removed during the Saturnalia, a great festival meant to reflect the lost golden age, where social customs were turned upside down. Gambling was allowed, and slaves even ate with their masters.

The great wealth associated with his rule is likely why the treasury was kept in the temple during the Republic. 

5. Temple of Mars Ultor

Built by Augustus in 2 BC, this was the sole temple dominating his new forum — the Forum Augustum. Prior to this, no temple dedicated to Mars had been built within the pomerium, the sacred boundary of Rome. Mars had been kept outside the city walls so that he could repel foreign invaders rather than foment internal dissent.

A miniature model representation of the Temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum Augusti. Credit: Rabax63 / Commons.

Augustus’ enshrining of him within the heart of Rome marked a re-conception of the deity. From the youthful hellene, Mars became the fatherly protector of Rome’s citizens. It is no coincidence that Augustus received the title pater patriae, “Father of the Fatherland”, the same year the temple was dedicated.

Specifically dedicated to his victory over his adopted father’s killers, and of the Parthians, a historic enemy of Rome, the temple represented the cult of Mars with his new title of “Ultor”, the avenger.

This temple celebrated the ideal of just war as the basis of Rome’s imperial dominion.      

References: Newland C.E. (1985) ‘The Temple of Mars Ultor’ in Playing with Time: Ovid and the Fasti, Cornell University Press.

Title Image Credit: DannyBoy7783 / Commons

He lived through one of the greatest American crises, and some credit his presidency with helping to reconcile America after the Civil War.

Here are 10 facts about him.

1. His name was picked out of a hat

Jesse and Hannah Grant, Ulysses’ parents.

The name “Ulysses” was the victor drawn from ballots in a hat. Apparently Grants father, Jesse, wanted to honour his father-in-law who had suggested the name “Hiram”, and so he was named “Hiram Ulysses Grant”.

On his recommendation to the United States Military Academy at West Point, Congressman Thomas Hamer wrote “Ulysses S. Grant”, thinking that Ulysses was his first name, and Simpson (his mother’s maiden name) was his middle name.

When Grant tried to correct the mistake, he was told that he could either accept the changed name, or return again next year. He kept the name.

2. He was especially gifted with horses

Three of Grant’s horses during the Overland Campaign (Cold Harbor, Virginia), from left to right: Egypt, Cincinnati, and Jeff Davis.

In his Memoirs he mentions that by the time he was eleven, he was doing all the work on his father’s farm that required horses. This interest continued in West Point, where he even set a high jump record.

3. Grant was an accomplished artist

During his time at West Point, he studied under the Professor of Drawing, Robert Weir. Many of his paintings and sketches still survive, and demonstrate his ability. Grant himself said that he liked painting and drawing whilst at West Point.

4. He hadn’t wanted to be a soldier

Whilst some biographers claim Grant chose to attend West Point, his Memoirs indicate that he had no desire for a military career, and was surprised when his father informed him that his application was successful. After leaving West Point, he apparently only intended to serve his four year commission and then retire.

Second lieutenant Grant in full dress uniform in 1843.

Indeed he later wrote a letter to a friend saying that leaving both the Academy and the presidency were amongst the best days of his life. However he also wrote of military life that: “there is much to dislike, but more to like”.

He eventually stayed on after four years, in part to support his wife and family. 

5. He has a reputation as a drunk

Both in contemporary and modern media, Grant has been stereotyped as a drunkard. It is true that he resigned from the army in 1854, and Grant himself said that: “intemperance” was a cause.

During the Civil War newspapers often reported on his drinking, though the reliability of these sources is unknown. It is likely that he did indeed have a problem, but managed it enough that it did not affect his duties. He wrote to his wife swearing that he had been sober when allegations arose of him being drunk during the Battle of Shiloh.

There are no reported occurrences of him drinking inappropriately during his presidency and world tour, and scholars generally agree that he never made any major decisions whilst drunk. 

Grant and his family.

6. Grant briefly owned a slave before freeing him

During his time living with his father-in-law’s family, who were slave owners, Grant came into possession of a man named William Jones. After a year he freed him, for no recompense even though Grant was in dire financial straits.

Coming from an abolitionist family, his father didn’t approve of Grant’s slave owning in-laws. Grant’s own views on slavery were more complex. Initially more ambivalent he wrote in 1863: “I never was an abolitionist, not even what could be called anti-slavery…”.

Even when working on his father-in-law’s farm and owning William, it was said:

“He couldn’t force them to do anything. He wouldn’t whip them. He was too gentle and good tempered and besides he was not a slavery man.”

During the Civil War his views evolved, and in his Memoirs he stated:

“As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man.”

Grant working on his memoirs in June 1885, less than a month before his death.

7. He accepted Robert E. Lee’s surrender to end the American Civil War

Lee Surrendering to Grant at Appomattox.

As Commanding General of the United States, he accepted Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 9 1865. By May 9 the war had ended.

Reportedly sad at the end of a “foe who had fought so long and valiantly”, he granted generous terms to Lee and the Confederates and stopped celebrations amongst his men.

“The Confederates were now our countrymen, and we did not want to exult over their downfall”.

Lee said these actions would do much toward reconciling the country.

8. He became the youngest-yet President of the United States in 1868

Grant (center left) next to Lincoln with General Sherman (far left) and Admiral Porter (right) – The Peacemakers.

Standing for the Republic party with a platform of equal civil rights for all and African-American enfranchisement, his campaign slogan was: “Let us have peace”. Winning by 214 to 80 in the Electoral College, with 52.7% of the popular vote, he became the USA’s youngest president yet elected at 46 years old.

9. He went on a world tour after his second term presidency in 1877

Ulysses S. Grant and Governor-General Li Hongzhang. Photographer: Liang, Shitai, 1879.

This world tour lasted two-and-a-half years and included meeting people such as Queen Victoria, Pope Leo XIII, Otto von Bismarck, and Emperor Meiji.

Encouraged by his successor President Hayes to act in an unofficial diplomatic capacity, he was involved in resolving some international disputes. This tour served to increase the international reputation of America, as well as his own.

10. He has had a controversial and varied legacy

Grant’s tomb. Image Credit Ellen Bryan / Commons.

His Presidency was marred with corruption scandals, and has been commonly ranked among the worst. However, during his lifetime he remained popular, seen as a national hero.

It was during the early 20th century that certain schools of history began to regard him negatively, portraying him as a good general but poor statesman. Some even maligned his military prowess, rendering him an uninspired “butcher”.

However during the 21st century his reputation has been rehabilitated, with many historians viewing him in a positive light.

Of course Egyptian civilisation lasted for over three thousand years, and in that time their approach to death was not static. And whilst we immediately picture the elaborate tombs of the Pharaohs, not everyone could afford such an elaborate burial. The Egyptians had many different burial rites, which changed both over time and for different strata of society. 

Here are 5 of these practices.

1. The pot burial

Perhaps the oldest form of ritualistic burial discovered in Egypt, pot burials simply consisted of an individual buried within a burial pot. The earliest examples date from the Predynastic Period, before the reigns of the Pharaohs.

There is some debate concerning pot burials after the Old Kingdom, with some scholars arguing that they were only used for infants and the poorest from then on.

Pot that contained the body of a ten year old. Image Credit akhenatenator / Commons

Others maintain that pot burials were a common mode of burial regardless of wealth right through to the Coptic period. It is even reported that some Egyptian rural communities use pot burials in the present day. 

The symbolism of the pot burial is also disputed, partially due to a lack of evidence from so long ago. Common theories posit the pot as a metaphorical womb, symbolising rebirth. Another theory suggests that the pot represented the womb of the sky goddess, through whose body the soul of the deceased would have to travel to reach the afterlife.

Yet another scholar argues that there is no symbolism, and that such theories are over-thinking it. Ultimately there is not enough evidence to truly know, though the idea of a symbolic womb does seem plausible.

2. Mummification

Mummy of an upper-class Egyptian male from the Saite period. Image Credit Keith Schengili-Roberts / Commons

The most famous funerary custom is of course mummification. The aim of mummification was to preserve the body, in order to house the ba and ka, two aspects of the Egyptian soul. The earliest attempts at mummification that we know of are from the Naqada II period, when the formation of states began to occur.

These mummies are unlike the traditional idea we have of them, which mainly come from the New Kingdom some one and a half millennia later. During this long time, the process of mummification evolved. 

The New Kingdom form of mummification involved removing the internal organs and preserving them in canopic jars. The brain was liquefied using a rod, and then removed via the nose. The body was dried using natron (a type of salt) for 40 days, and bandaged for 30.

During the bandaging oils and resins were applied, and amulets were placed in various places. The word “mummy” comes from the Arabic word for bitumen, which European explorers thought was used to preserve the body. 

There were variations on this procedure, and different styles of mummification. These were often chosen for economic reasons, or simply to due to popular trends. Instead of choosing an Apple or Android phone, the Egyptians chose different ways to mummify their dead. The poor couldn’t afford the full process, but often made some attempt at preserving the body. 

3. Tomb reliefs

Procession of figures with offerings; part of a wall-painting from the tenth tomb at Gourna, Thebes. Image Credit British Library / Commons

Tomb reliefs are one of the major sources of knowledge about Egyptian society. We can all picture the weird full body depictions of the Egyptian, with their heads and legs turned sideways. The reason for this, however, is that the Egyptians understood images to have power.

They were representations of reality, endowed with the essence of the real thing. Tomb reliefs showed everything a person might need in the afterlife, as the images would act as the real objects or people in the afterlife. This is why all parts of the body were shown, so that a person would retain all parts of their body.

Later tombs contained physical objects, so they could quite literally be taken to the afterlife. This is the reason for the lavish tombs of pharaohs such as King Tut. Some early kings even had their servants sacrificed and buried with them. This practice would soon be replaced by shabti, small statues that would act as representations of servants. 

4. Inscriptions

The walls of tombs weren’t solely decorated with pictures, but with inscriptions as well. These inscriptions often contained incantations to aid the deceased through his journey to the afterlife, which was full of perils. A famous early example are the Pyramid texts.

Pyramid text from the pyramid of Unas. Image Credit Brooklyn Museum / Commons

Inscribed on the sarcophagi and inner walls of pyramids, these texts were without images, and in the Old Kingdom, reserved solely for Pharaoh (and for some queens). Primarily concerned with the transformation into an akh, one of the forms of the soul, they consisted of spells to aid the deceased.

Later the texts were also used by nobles, and other forms such as the Coffin texts and Book of the Dead became popular. These latter versions are notable as they were also available to commoners and supposedly removed access to the afterlife as a solely royal privilege.

This so-called “democratisation of the afterlife” model is sometimes disputed. As common in ancient history, we do not have enough evidence to definitively prove that in the Old Kingdom, the afterlife was a purely royal privilege. It is likely that non-elites believed in some form of afterlife that they could access. 

5. Rituals

The Opening of the Mouth ceremony being performed on a mummy before the tomb

Just as the texts contained magic spells for the deceased to use, so too were spells and rituals carried out by the living during the process of embalmment and burial. There were rituals for all stages between death and internment in the tomb.

As with all the above burial rites, the specifics varied over time and from place to place. Again there was an element of choice and ‘fashionability’.

The rituals often required specialised equipment, some of which would be buried with the deceased. They generally concerned the proper transformation of the soul, so that it may journey to the afterlife.

One particular example is the “Opening of the Mouth” ceremony. As the name suggests, this involved symbolically opening the mouth of the deceased to allow him to defend him/herself before the judgement of the gods.

The Egyptians constructed a sophisticated and involved approach to death. Whilst the time and resources dedicated to the afterlife may be difficult for us to understand, it may be endemic of a society in which death was commonplace and medicine was ineffective.

It is perhaps fitting that the material remnants of this culture that have immortalised them in our imagination, were designed to grant them a life after death.

Some historians class it as part of a European Civil War that lasted from 1936-45, however most reject that view as ignoring the nuances of Spanish history. Regardless the international interest in this conflict was endemic of the growing tensions of 1930’s Europe.

Here are 10 facts about the war.

1. The war had many different factions loosely grouped into two sides

There were many different reasons the war was fought, including over class struggle, religion, republicanism, monarchism, fascism, and communism.

The Republican government billed the war as a struggle between tyranny and freedom, whilst the Nationalist rebels were based around law, order and Christian values standing against communism and anarchism. The factions within these two sides often had conflicting aims and ideologies.

2. The war generated an intense propaganda struggle

Propaganda posters. Image credit Andrzej Otrębski / Creative commons

Both sides appealed to both internal factions, and international opinion. Whilst the left may have won the opinions of posterity, as their’s was the version often touted in later years, the Nationalists actually influenced contemporary, international political opinion by appealing to conservative and religious elements. 

3. Many countries officially promised non-intervention, but covertly supported one of the sides

Non-intervention, led by France and Britain, was promised, either officially or unofficially, by all the major powers. A committee was even established to enforce this, however it soon became apparent that several countries had ignored this.

Germany and Italy provided troops and arms to the Nationalists, whilst the USSR did the same for the Republicans. 

4. Individual citizens of various countries often volunteered to fight

A unit of the Bulgarian International Brigade, 1937

Around 32,000 volunteers joined the “International Brigades” on behalf of the Republicans. Drawn from countries including France, Germany, Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, the US, Canada, Hungary, and Mexico, the Republican cause was seen as a beacon for left-leaning intelligentsia and workers. The Nationalists also drew their fair share of volunteers, from many of the same countries. 

5. George Orwell was one of those fighting for the Republicans

One of the more famous volunteers, he came to “fight against Fascism”. After being shot in the throat by a sniper and barely surviving, Orwell and his wife came under threat from the Communists during factional in-fighting. After escaping he wrote Homage to Catalonia (1938), detailing his experiences in the war.

6. Religion was a major issue in the war

Preceding the war, outbreaks of anti-clerical violence occurred. The Republican government promoted a secularising ideology, which was deeply troubling to large numbers of devout Spaniards.  

The Nationalists’ array of diverse and sometimes opposing factions were united by both their anti-communism and their Catholic convictions. This spread to international propaganda, with the Vatican covertly supporting them, along with many Catholic intellectuals like Evelyn Waugh, Carl Schmitt, and J. R. R. Tolkien.

7. The Nationalists were lead by General Franco, who would become a dictator upon their victory

General Franco. Image credit Iker rubí / Creative commons

The war started on 17 July 1936 with a military coup in Morocco planned by General José Sanjurjo, which seized around one third of the country as well as Morocco. He died in a plane accident on 20 July, leaving Franco in charge.

To establish his control over the army, Franco executed 200 senior officers loyal to the Republic. One of them was his cousin. After the war he became the dictator of Spain until his death in 1975.

8. The Battle of Brunete was a decisive clash where the side with 100 tanks lost 

After an initial impasse, the Republicans launched a major offensive where they were able to take Brunete. However the overall strategy failed and so the offensive was halted around Brunete. Franco launched a counter-attack, and managed to retake Brunete. Around 17,000 Nationalists and and 23,000 Republicans became casualties.

Though neither side could claim a decisive victory, Republican morale was shaken and equipment was lost. The Nationalists were able to regain a strategic initiative.

9. Pablo Picasso’s Guernica was based on an event during the war

Guernica by Pablo Picasso. Image credit Laura Estefania Lopez / Creative commons

Guernica was a major Republican stronghold in the north. In 1937 the German Condor unit bombed the town. As most of the men were away fighting, the victims were mainly women and children. Picasso reflected this in the painting.

10. The death toll estimates range from 1,000,000 to 150,000

The death toll remains uncertain and controversial. The war took a toll on both fighters and civilians, and indirect deaths caused by disease and malnutrition remain unknown. Additionally the Spanish economy took decades to recover and Spain remained isolationist until the 1950s.

Featured image credit: Al pie del cañón”, sobre la batalla de Belchite. Painting by Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau / Commons.