The Paris Commune

So for our final delve in to the violence of March’s long and bloody past, we have witnessed Caesar’s murder; the Albigensian crusade; and the natural disasters that have happened in March, all of which have had a great impact on their respective contemporary cultures; history and life today. Now it is time to turn to our final event the La Commune in Paris, France. The Paris Commune is name that was given to the events surrounding the end of the war between France and Prussia and other Germany States and extends to include the massacre that put down the revolutionary movement at the end of May 1871.

Firstly we have to look at the build up to the commune as revolutions, as we know does not occur spontaneously, the events and actions might, but there are usually some underlying factors that ignite the flame of revolution. Since 1870 France, under Napoleon III had been involved in the Franco-Prussian war, the war itself was the combination of ongoing tensions between the two countries that had finally come to fruition over the La ‘revolución gloriosa’, (translation the glorious revolution) in Spain as a result of the deposition of Isabella II and also the controversial Ems Telegram in which Otto Von Bismarck is said to have altered the message from the Prussian leader Wilhelm I to the French ambassador, in order to goad the French into war. Needless to say the telegram had the desired effect and soon enough both countries were at war. The Prussian and German forces were superior and at the battle of Sedan they had captured Napoleon III with the whole of his army. However this didn’t end the war and the 3rd republic declared on the 4th of September they continued the war. With the capture of Paris and ceremonial occupation by the Prussians; the disaster of the war and growing worker discontent the Parisians had enough.

On March 26 1871 after five long, hard months for the Parisians enduring the Prussian siege and also refusing the terms of surrender as negotiated by the national assembly the citizens of Paris voted for self-government. Perhaps one of the earliest examples of class solidarity as the citizens elected their own government with people from various backgrounds with both working and middle class members. The commune mainly wanted the ability to self govern Paris, right that existed in some other French towns and also it was linked to a desire for a more ‘just’ way of dealing with the economy. This ‘just’ economy is suggested to be based upon a socialist ideology.

The Commune continued to run Paris successfully for the next two months. As a governing body it abolishes conscription and the standing army leaving the National Guard as the sole armed force. On April 1st the Commune declares the highest salary received by any member would not exceed 6,000 Francs. In addition the Commune decreed the separation of church and state; with the abolition all state payments for the church; turning all private church property in to national property and finally declaring that religion was a private matter. Along with publically burning the guillotine to large public rejoicing; reorganising the manufacturing factories turning them into co-operative societies, to an extent owned and worked by the workers and abolishing night work for bakers. The changes made show a very socialist, maybe even communist element to the revolutionary government as the majority of the changes seem to be made with the people in mind.

However, where is the violence I hear you cry if March is the month of violence where is it in this case? The answer comes as usual with the bloody end, of the Commune. Known as La Semaine Sanglante, the blood soaked week, 21st -28th May, troops from Versailles finally defeated the commune rebels, massacring them as they went. A weak defence was put up in the west of Paris and grew stronger as the Versailles Army came nearer, before deciding to attack the east of Paris… the workers district. Over the following week workers and civilians were massacred on sight. Some estimates suggest that there was between 17,000- 30,000 fatalities during that week alone, an extremely heavy loss considering that during the French Revolution and Terror approximately 19,000 died within a year and a half. A further 50,000 Communards were arrested after the Communes suppression with some escaping and 4,500-7,000 forcibly exiled to New Caledonia in the South Pacific.

So, the commune was defeated, that is an understatement, it was slaughtered and so ends the violence of March. Given our overall theme I guess it would be hard, for me to end this post on a happy note but I’m going to try. This movement la commune is an example, perhaps a discouraging one, but an example nonetheless of people taking a stand and taking matters into their own hands. Something that we still see today with our own protests which admittedly are a lot less bloody, but it the idea remains, to stand up together and be counted when enough is enough. Ok we may not win all the time, the Commune certainly didn’t, but it lasted two months. So I guess what I’m trying to say is I think it is better to try and fail than to not try at all and in the case of la commune they tried and failed in the battle but perhaps in the war they lasted as a popular example of a popular class movement ‘marching forward to conquer their rights.’

By Sophie

Sources

http://www.paris.org/Kiosque/may01/commune.html

http://www.marxists.org/history/france/paris-commune/timeline.htm

http://www.paris.org/Kiosque/may01/commune.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

 

P.S: Again, we would like to thank Josema and Rubyces for the image!

The Boston Massacre?

The Webster dictionary defines a massacre as “ the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty”. So, historically, that is what happened on March 5, 1770, in Boston, thus triggering a chain of consequences that sparked the American Revolution. But, what really happened?

First of all, what happened was that there was a Government, a colonial one in this case but it could have been any kind of uncompromising Government, anxious to get a firm control of what it saw as a bunch of not specially law abiding citizens…particularly in what was related to taxes. So it created the Townshend Acts to enforce its taxing powers over the Colonies, which in turn was seen as an act of utmost agression by the politically aware citizens of those Thirteen Colonies which were to achieve eternal fame.

Then you have to put some soldiers in the equation. You cannot possibly enforce anything without some good ol’ redcoats. So from 1768 on, Boston was in fact an occupied city with a force mounting from two to four regiments and a fifty cannon vessel to control it and its apparently seditious population. As it is been happening, to no surprise except to those in power. throughout History, these measures lead to a constant growing of petty incidents, tension and animosity between civilians and the military. And the spark, eventually, started a fire somewhere…

Apparently, all was just a bad prank or joke, maybe just a cocky young man playing the braggart a bit too far. A wigmaker’s apprentice by the name of Edward Gerrish accused loudly and publicly some Captain Goldfinch of not being able to pay his bills, which, not being true, the officer let drop without a comment. It seems that, not getting the attention he was seeking, the young agitator kept complaining and insulting the officer in front of a sentry private, in the company of some sidekicks. A couple of hours later, patience gone, the sentry, Private White, gave the boy a wallop. This means war, man, or somethimg of the kind was said, and with all the crying out, soon the street was crowded with angry Bostonians looking for a good brawl.

Finally, the Officer of the Day, Captain Preston, dispatched a relief column, an outstanding redcoat tradition, to help White and Goldfinch control the demonstration, now numbering some three to four hundred people. This was the moment, so familiar now through CNN and BBCWORLD, for stones, snowballs, and some other debris launched against the soldiers. One of them was hit with a club by a tavernkeeper in a very Scorsesian way, and that was it. He recovered, got on his feet and repelled the agression firing his musket. No order was given by the officers, but surrounded, outnumbered and under pressure, some other soldiers opened fire, with the result of eleven hits. Three of the rioters were shot dead: Samuel Gray, James Caldwell and Crispus Attucks. Sam Maverick and Patrick Carr died in the aftermath. No soldier gave his life for king and country, though. Obviously, outrage ensued.

But now, let’s go back to the dictionary. According to it, a massacre involves the killing of unresisting or helpless people. Was that a massacre, then? Or an act of self-defense? Most probably the facts are that a somewhat, even rudimentary, armed mob surrounded, threatened and finally began to assault a much minor armed military force in the grounds of a lesser offence sparkled for what we can surely consider an act of provocation. The result of it, as the soldiers saw their lifes at risk, was a non purposeful firing, aiming more to stop the assault than to exterminate an enemy.which, at the moment, looked wild and dangerous.

Then, as we are always told, History is always written by the victors. And this incident was turned into a Massacre of civilians by a bloodthirsty army. Which probably was not. Anyway, that is the way reality is made, and the way History is presented sometimes and strucks definitely the imagination of people, and the hidden revolutionary forces had now their first martyrs and a just cause to fight their cruel opressors. Even in the case, as it was, that the soldiers had to stand trial and were mostly acquitted, with the exception of two who were found guilty of manslaughter in the event of having shot directly at the crowd.

Interestingly enough, what today would be tantamount to a declaration of war, as we can see in the news while the Governments in Europe and EEUU cry for the breaking up of the Gadaffi Government after its armed forces killed an stillunknown number of civilians amidst the fighting against the uprising forces, was then just another nail for the coffin. No International Community was in the position to ask for responsibilities to His Gratious Majesty’s Government; no oil supply was at risk, no cruel dictator was abusing his own people with the weapons we have sold…That was then, the Revolutionary elites were not comfortable with this behaviour, even if it was obviously beneficial for the cause; they were a bunch of educated leaders not willing to take the risk of being overwhelmed by the rabble. So that was it. A crying out, a provocation…and three more years of piling up resentment till Boston Tea Party. To those non familiar to historical affairs and their political treatment it could look as if American elites were far more worried about taxes than human lives, specially, if the mentioned human lives were, as John Adams, later a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the second President of the United States, put it during the trial as defender of the English soldiers: “a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes, and molattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jack tarrs”.

But that is sometimes the problem with History: it is not always a black and white subject. The repercussions of a simple act could, on the long run, alter our perspective or notion of that same act till finally distorting it utterly. Hence the necessity of careful research, reading and the use of different points of view, lest we forget what happened…

From 1669 to 2011: March=Natural Disaster

March brought with it one of the most terrible volcanic eruption of the early modern period. It happened around the 8th of March, 1669, in the lands of Sicily, terrorized by their eventually active phoenix: Mount Etna.

“Multiple eruptions over the next few weeks killed more than 20,000 people and left thousands more homeless. Most of the victims could have saved themselves by fleeing, but stayed, in a vain attempt to save their city”[1]. For those that might not know the circumstances of the events, let me introduce you quickly to the topic.

 

During the muslim occupation of Sicily, between the 9th and 11th century, this place used to be called Gibel Uttamat, which means mountain of fire [2]. The people from medieval times clearly knew about the dangers of living in that area, and still they did not move away. Why? Well, there is a clear reason. It happens that the area of the alluvial soils near by this mountain, in the Plain of Catania and near by the mouth of the River Alcantara, are one of the most fertile of the whole region[3]. And we all know how important is agriculture today…Imagine in the pre-industrial times! It was something vital.

Thus, the people from these lands co-exist with the threat of rivers of lava and ash clouds…Thus, when the Etna started to make the earth move, people did not leave. The village of Nicolosi was soon covered by tones of lava[4] making its way to a bigger town: Catania. Knowing about the fate of Nicolosi and smaller communities, a group of citizens leaded by a man called Diego de Pappalardo, decided to go up to the volcano and try to divert the flow of lava[5]. In relation to this, there is some controversy about the conflict with the people from the area of Palermo.It is believe that the people from the southwest area knew about the movements up at the Etna and noticed that the changes on the lava-river flow would lead the deadly substance to their fields. Thus, the citizens of this area “literally fought back the Catanians, while the lava break hardened and filled again”[6].

After this issue, a law was established in Italy forbidding the interference with natural flow of lava, that lasted for over hundred years [7]. And this, you would think, is the end of the story. However, I am afraid to say that it is not. The Etna has erupted several other times before and after this, and the reaction towards this events have not being precisely giggles. But this is not the reason why I am talking today about the Etna, or why I think it is relevant.

As I am sure you all know, the 11th of March this year, a terrible earthquake and tsunami have made the Japanese population being scared. It was the 11th of March of 1669 when the Sicilian people could see with their own eyes that the signs the full-of-liquid-anger mountain had been sending, were quite real. I have to say that when we were planning the updates for this month the Etna was on our list…but this was on February, and there was no possible way to know this horrible thing would be happening on the other side of the world…

With this post, me, and the whole team, want to send our support to our Japanese friends here in England, that are so far away from home and are grieving for their relatives and friends. But also to every single human being affected by these events, wherever they are.

And for those of you that are reading this, please think about what I am going to send next. Nature, as history, repeats itself. Sometimes even at the same time of the year, or place…Sometimes not. But it is there. We should not try to play God, as the people of Catania did, because we do not know the consequences it might have. It might save us, but it might kill others. Nonetheless…We can learn a lesson from the past, be aware of the terrible catastrophes that have already occurred and be ready for the ones that surely will come.

Because, as long as the planet exists and we populate it, things will happen…And so history will be written. The worst we can do is decide that both nature and history simply does not happen…

 

*COURAGE!*

 

Bibliography & References:

1. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mount-etna-erupts
2. D.K Chester, Mount Etna: the Anatomy of a Volcano (Stanford, Cal., 1985) 38
3. D.K Chester, Mount Etna: the Anatomy of a Volcano (Stanford, Cal., 1985) 50
4. http://halconesenlahistoria.blogspot.com/2009/03/7-de-marzo-de-1669-el-volcan-etna-entra.html
5. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mount-etna-erupts
6. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mount-etna-erupts
7. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mount-etna-erupts

For those that like to have some sort of visual references of historical events, I recommend to take a look at this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/etnaboris/520372570/

It is a flickr photo gallery with a section on the fresco attributed to Giacinto Platania, in the Cathedral of Catania, in which the events that took place in March, 1669, are represented.

 

 

 

Bex Lewis’s Interview!!

Finally, after the several technical problems we had editing the video and uploading…IT IS DONE!

So here we leave you this interesting 20 minutes interview with Dr. Bex Lewis, lecturer of History at the University of Winchester (and Durham). We would like to say a big THANKS YOU for the interview and, also for all the help and support with our blog.

If you would like to know more about Dr. Bex Lewis we recommend you her websites!:

http://drbexl.co.uk/

http://paper.li/drbexl

http://ww2poster.co.uk/

The Albigensian Crusade

The Albigensian Crusade was the Holy War undertaken against the Cathars in the early thirteenth century which was launched by Pope Innocent III. It lasted for twenty years and aimed to drive out the ‘heretics’ from the Languedoc region in Southern France.

So, what were the beliefs of the Cathars? And why were they considered to be heretics by the Catholic Church? Catharism was a branch of Christianity that incorporated a duelist sect with Gnostic elements. They were critical of the Catholic Church, claiming that it had corrupted the original message given to the Church and had led the people astray through its teachings. They believed in living lives of frugality and simplicity, which contrasted with the ceremonial and often elaborate sacraments which made up the liturgy of the Catholic Church. Conflict also came from the fact that they believed that the God of the Old Testament was different from the ‘God of Love’ from the New Testament, even going as far to say that the Old Testament God had created the world as a prison for humankind and that he was an agent of the Devil. This branch of Christianity was slowly gaining followers, particularly in the Languedoc region, and when peaceful attempts at converting the people did not work, this acted as an impetus to justify launching the crusade. Moreover, the 1179 Third Lateran Council decreed that the heretics’ ‘goods are to be confiscated and princes free to subject them to slavery’[1] and also urged that it was the duty of the princes to fight against this heresy.

The March on Beziers in 1209 is one of the best examples that illustrates the degree of violence that happened during the crusade. As the crusader army advanced on the city, the citizens of Beziers attacked the crusaders and their men, which led to the camp followers retaliating against them, having being told that the people in the town were the ‘instruments of Satan’[2] as justification for the crusade. The inhabitants of the town who didn’t have time to hide were killed immediately and indiscriminately. Even those who had tried to take sanctuary within the churches were killed, whether they were priests, women or children. Out of those who had tried to take shelter in churches or at the cathedral, there were no survivors. After the massacre, they burned down the town and set fire to the cathedral, only stopping their rampage when the flames meant that they could no longer go on. Estimates of how many people were killed range between 7,000 and 20,000. In the middle of the carnage, when asked how the crusaders were meant to distinguish between who was catholic and who was a heretic, Arnald Amaury, a papal legate, is quoted as saying ‘kill them all; God will recognise his own’[3]. Despite whether or not he actually made the comment, it has become interlinked with the remembrance of the Albigensian crusade and the violence against the Cathars.

This act of violence acted as an example to the rest of the south, and meant that other towns and cities such as Narbonne surrendered much more easily. Narbonne for example, surrendered all of the heretics within its walls and also offered other placatory methods such as offering the property owned by them and the Jewish population to them, as well as providing the army with food and paying a tax of a sixtieth on their possessions in order to help finance and supply the army[4]. Although the tactic was doubtlessly brutal, it served its purpose of creating an atmosphere of fear throughout Languedoc which allowed the crusade to advance even further.

Other notable acts of violence during the Albigensian crusade include the events in Lavaur where similar events to what happened in Beizers took place. The townspeople were made to pay for the earlier massacre at Montgey against the crusaders, and ‘unarmed men [were] brutally cut to pieces, priests killed with axes at the alters of nearby churches’[5] and 300 to 400 heretics were burned altogether in a nearby meadow.

Malcolm Barber provides an apt summary why the Albigensian crusade and the events at Beziers deserves to be a part of our March Month of Violence:

‘The Albigensian crusades went far beyond the normal conventions of early thirteenth-century warfare, in the scale of the slaughter… in the mutilation of prisoners, in the humiliation and shaming of the defeated, and in the quite overt use of terror as a method of achieving one’s goals’[6].

[1] Third Lateran Council (1179), http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM11.HTM

[2] J. Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade (London, 1978), 93.

[3] Ibid., 94.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 131.

[6] M. Barber, ‘The Albigensian Crusades: Wars Like Any Other?‘ in Dei gesta per Francos: Etudes sur les croisades deditees a Jean Richard, ed. M. Balard, B. Z. Kedar and J. Riley-Smith (Aldershot, 2001).

Et tu, Brute?

Everyone knows Julius Caesar. The most famous of emperors and, most importantly, arch-villain extraordinaire in the Asterix comics. He was also an orator and a general, an invader, a high priest and the first man in the Republic to aspire to being King of Rome. Julius Caesar is the layman’s ‘perfect Roman’. Many people think of him as being the greatest ruler Rome had (personally, I think it’s Augustus, but let’s not be picky), and he is famed for having an affair with Cleopatra, invading Britain (twice) and taking his soldiers into the Senate.

What he Is most famous for, though, is being murdered.

Julius Caesar was born to a rich family, groomed to be a senator, maybe even consul one day. His oratory and political skills won him status and promotions through the rigid political system. Also placed in charge of several legions, he conquered Gaul and is well-known for dragging the chieftain Vercingetorix through Rome behind his chariot. It was these achievements that began his rise to power.

He became consul young, helped by the fact that his legions were fiercely loyal to him and the senators were presented with little choice but to raise the hero of Rome to a position more suited to him. It was when he began to claim more and more power for himself that problems arose. The final straw came when he attended the Senate dressed in purple – the colour of kings. The last king of Rome, Tarquin, had been thrown out by the people for his cruelty and there was no way the Roman Republic intended to bow to another ruler like him.

On the 15th of March, Caesar was hailed by a soothsayer as he made his way through to the Theatre of Pompey, and was told that harm would come to him no later than the Ides of March – that very day. Though he laughed this off and continued on his way, Caesar could not avoid the fate awaiting him. A group of senators, led by his protegé Brutus, stabbed him to death in the theatre.

Caesar’s bloody death is undoubtedly one of the best known events in March – one that definitely marks this month as a month of violence. As a general, he was a violent man, leading legions against the ill-trained and ill-equipped people of first Gaul, then Britain. Perhaps we can take some solace in the memory that the British tribes defeated him not once, but twice. However, this does not change the number of lives that were lost at the behest of this man.

Whatever arguments are made about Caesar – most notably the claim that the evidence of his existence is less than that proving the life of Jesus – no one can deny the fact that he is, and will probably always be a key figure in the history of the Western world.

You don’t believe me? Well, I suppose that someone who has lived under a rock their entire life might not know who he is. But I only have one more thing to say about my argument. Something that everyone knows. Something that I feel proves my point that Julius Caesar is a fundamental figure in our history.

‘Veni, vidi, vici’

 

 

(W.U Team Note: we would like to thank you our colaborators Rubén (rubyces) and ‘Josema’ for the production of this awesome art work!!)

3/03/2011 Trussel’s Benefactors of Winchester, By Robert Smith

The third of March we attended to the Hampshire Record Office. We got there without even knowing who the so-called Trussel was, or what was the talk about. The mystery was though revealed Robert Smith, who introduced us to an unknown aspect of the history of our own city. Robert Smith is currently at the University of Southampton doing an MRes course under Ros King. He is currently working towards upgrading this interest in Trussel into a PhD.

For many of us, the figure of John Trussel  might be unfamiliar. Trussel was an antiquarian and an important figure in Winchester between 1600 and 1648, although little of him is now remembered. His work ‘the Benefactors of Winchester’ was the most important document that he wrote and one of the main sources that R. Smith has used whilst undertaking his research. Despite of the fact that he is not a well-known figure, some people have studied him before. The most relevant, and who produced more useful material about him was Thomas Atkinson. 

John Trussel was originally born in London and lived between 1575 and 1648. He might have been a scholar at Westminster. He was a poet that especially wrote ‘old fashion love’ verses. We know that he came to Winchester before 1603 and was recorded in 1606 in the civic records as being a freeman of the city. The evidence suggests that he was a Roman Catholic, since he attacked Puritanism in his work and was a Royalist during the English Civil War. In one of his longer declaration poems, the city of Winchester narrates the horrible damage which has been done to her during the Civil War. This reflects Trussel’s own anger about the fact that the city was sacked two times and the extensive damage done to the cathedral such as destruction of saint’s relics and the stained glass window in the West of the building. There are also references to doing good works in some of his poems, which plays a part in the Catholic faith, as well as pointed silence over executions of Catholics who were locally executed in 1603. However, it is hard to verify this as he would not be able to overtly make this clear in his work; in fact he tends to avoid religious issues, and could just have been a High Anglican instead. He served as a bailiff in 1616-7 and was elected as mayor of Winchester in 1624 at Michaelmas and again in 1633-4 before later being debarred from standing for office again in 1646. It was the fact that he was from an old gentry family and married into the Colley family, who were among the social elites of Winchester, that he was able to come into these positions of power. As well as being a history enthusiast and a civil servant, Trussel also wrote poetry such as ‘The First Rape of Fair Helen’ as well as longer poems that reflected his sentiments about political ongoing circumstances.

Trussel & The City

For us it is interesting and quite remarkable the love that Trussel seem to have towards the city of Winchester. This could be identified as some sort of patriotism or romanticism ‘avant la lettre’. Winchester, although it was not his motherland, was his home. In his writings about the city some influences from Virgil could be found. This is shown by the way in which he sees the city from the point of view of the past, of the days of glory before this terrible decadence. The way it refers and describes the details embrace the classical style from the Aeneid.

In fact Winchester was “an ancient city, like a body without a soul”.When Trussel came to Winchester, the city was in a diminished state, its population only numbering about 3,120 in 1904 and many of its areas going back to nature; gardens and orchards being prominent. This meant that there was a significant need for poor relief, which included poor relief and charitable donations.

Trussel & Charity

Fitting into a trend of Christian charity at the moment, despite the fact that good works were no longer officially needed, it still meant that people were still able to try to curry favour with the divine. The kinds of people who made these charitable donations were varied; from noblemen to people from more modest backgrounds who just paid what they could. Some were given to provide people with certain things, while others were an annual sum that was paid for a certain period of time. Some of these alms were to be delivered in the public eye or sermons were said on a certain day, and R. Smith suggested that this served as a way wherein their names and acts could be recorded and remembered. However, this generosity could ultimately give rise to jealously and have other political consequences. 

Trussel & Political Issues 

Trussel wrote letters concerned with who politics should be conducted, and it is likely that they were meant to be read aloud to a combined audience or were in circulation. They detailed complaints about how people were not observing the proper hierarchy as well as touching on the issue of corruption. He seems to have been in an intellectual conflict with his fellowmen. He had one idea in mind, that contrasts with this environment of corruption: the Public Good, following the steps of Cicero. In addition, poems were written, in an often sharp and formulaic manner, sometimes being in rhyming couplets, and effectively put forward the point that Trussel was trying to make. These included observations about local well-known figures in Winchester such as Edward White, but there is also one that Trussel has addressed to himself, which demonstrates a certain sense of humour. He demand general higher standards of the conduct of the Corporation (to which R.Smith refers as a ‘mafia/mob alike institution’), and thought that advice that he had given on this subject was not properly realised until it was too late for it to be taken. Apparently, he thought about himself as a victim. He had the feeling that the whole world was against him. This paranoid attitude was not totally wrong; the people did not understand completely his way of doing and seeing things.

Trussel & History

Trussel was considered to be the last of a dying breed of historians by the 1640s, and is described by R.Smith as being ‘combative, crotchety [and a] loner’ and who was also not afraid to rock the boat and try to make his opinion about this subject known. He was a defender of older historical thought, such as the myth that England was formed by Brutus. Trussel can also be identified as belonging to an older school of antiquarians, due to the fact that he did not recognise that historical thought that progressed, and equating myth and popular thought on the same level as modern research that had been carried out. Furthermore, he also put undue weight on older sources which other historians at the time were rejecting or criticising. He also had a narrative conception of history, believing that historians would continue to write out the story of history without analysing it further or rewriting it in light of new sources which have been found.

Conclusion

Trussel was a proud resident of Winchester who, as he stated in a letter written in 1636, wished write something that would prove as a monument to Winchester itself and to preserve the names of the Christian benefactors who provided some much-needed aid in the city. Nonetheless, this seems to mean nothing nowadays. We have indications and details about his life and his career, and his connection and importance in Winchester. But it seems that he did not have any sort of impact, that he did not make a difference. Is this true? Maybe he has this recognition but in a more local or regional way? Whatever the answer is, he though deserves all our respect. He might not have been a very important man in the making of history…But R.Smith has made him some justice by telling us the story of his battle. And he has also remind us the importance of the lost causes in history. History is written by the winners, it is popularly said. But we cannot forget, that those that failed, those that had not been recorded are ALSO part of history…And maybe without them History would not be the same.

Caroline, Sophie, Lillian and Scott

Along Came March

Along came March, then.

There is something special with this month; it could be something related to the fact that the long winter is ending, at well last, and new life is finally awaken. There is even something compelling in the very name, a somewhat martial quality: March! It talks about movement, about development, not necessarily about careful planning though, but there’s a force arising in that name. March.

Then you have the origin of the name, back to the Romans and their gods. There was this god of war, Mars, to whom the first month of spring, hence the first in the campaigning season, was consecrated.

Well. Up till now we have a god of war, the surging of a new life, something on the move; but, what’s all this to do with History? Let’s go back again to the Romans. There was a ruler there, once. Popular. A military genius. Probably loved by his peace hungry people. He was having second thoughts on the idea of becoming a sort of king; some of his closest associates were having their own thoughts about not having a king whatsoever. The Ides of March, 44 B.C, precisely the commemoration of the god Mars was the chosen date for the assassination of Julius Caesar, and the beginning of a chain of events wich, in turn, lead to the advent of the Empire.

March had its comings and its goings through History.; Augustus became Pontifex Maximus; The Royal Canadian Mounted Police was formed; Germany occupied Austria; The Babylonians captured Jerusalem; yet another eruption of Mount Etna in 1699 killed over 20000 people. Business as usual for Mother Nature…That is a relevant point, a path. March is a bloody month. It’s not only that little incident with Caesar, Let’s see…

In the first day of March, 1244, the so-called crusaders finally took the Albigensian fortress of Montsegur. It was not as if it had been a clean war with all that fuss about God recognising Thy people amidst the corpses, but the final episode was surely amongst the more bitter moments of a war fought not only nor mainly for religious reasons, as we will see.

There must be something in the air, something in the promise of a new hope that makes March so apt for revolutions. Or maybe it’s just the desperation piling up during the long dark hours of winter, waiting the flimsiest opportunity to explode. What was it in Boston 1770? Hunger for freedom? Or just was it a braggart gone too far? Whatever happened, blood lead the way to a new world era. And the romantic streets of Paris, so often plenty of barricades astride XVIII and XIX centuries, were really in need of yet another bloodbath during the events known as La Comune? Was it the best of times for the people to try and grab the power just when their country was under control of Prussia and a cruel war was recently lost? Would ever be enough blood shed to quench Mars eternal thirst?

Or it’s just that the new sprouts need all that blood to grow strong and create the spring of History? Keep on reading, and you may get to know.