Category: History

Witness the transformation across time and interpret the past of human societies while shedding light on the most prominent events.

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Author of the Social Contract

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Author of the Social Contract

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a young man, fled to Switzerland with his French Protestant family to escape religious persecution. He was born in Geneva on June 28, 1712. A few days after he was born, his mother passed away. His father, a watchmaker who was not very wealthy, gave him the best education he could but left the family in 1722. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was placed in the care of his uncle Bernard and sent to a boarding school in Bossey run by pastor Lambercier when he was ten years old. The years that he spent with his relatives in nature were the ones he remembered as most joyful. The next step was an apprenticeship under a very strict master engraver. Rousseau, at the age of 16, escaped from Geneva and began a life on the run.

    During the year 1731, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was introduced to Madame de Warens. In order to meet with the catechumen, the baroness sent him to Turin. Even though he had just converted to Catholicism, he still felt out of place in his new environment. The Confessions provided a not-so-pretty picture of the hospice’s environment. So, he ran away and joined Françoise-Louise de Warens at Les Charmettes, a little village close to Chambéry, where he resided until 1742.

    Again, the Charmettes was significant because Rousseau recognized nature’s allure and praised it for pages. Louise de Warens assumed responsibility for educating the young man more formally. However, the nature of the connection between the two characters remained unclear. Even though she was 13 years older than Rousseau, the age difference didn’t stop the two from having an affair.

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau moved to Paris in 1742 with the goal of becoming famous there as a musical genius. He had a rocky start, but eventually, he befriended Diderot. Both men learned that they were from the tiny bourgeoisie and that their lifestyles were quite modest.

    It won’t be long until they are contributing to the Encyclopedia (“Encyclopédie”), with Rousseau heading up the music section. During this time, he also began to develop a friendship with Louise d’Épinay. Moreover, in 1745, he married Thérèse Levasseur, a linen servant. They planned to have five children and then relied on government aid since they wouldn’t afford to raise them. Although this was commonplace at the time, it would come back to haunt Rousseau in the form of vicious criticism.

    Discourse on the Arts and Sciences

    doi rousseau 1

    Diderot was imprisoned in 1749 because his works were considered subversive by the government. But it was while paying a friend a visit that Jean-Jacques Rousseau came upon the topic of the competition of the Academy of Dijon: “If the re-establishment of sciences and arts has aided to cleanse the morality.” For him, it was a true epiphany. After devoting his life to music up until that point, he found this philosophical topic fascinating and entered the contest.

    In his reply, he elaborated on a conception of man as being naturally good but tainted by modernity. In July of 1750, Paul found out that his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences had earned him the award. Within that time frame, he gained notoriety among academics and the general public alike.

    The “Second Discourse,” or “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men,” written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau five years after the first, elaborates on these ideas and provides more evidence for them. Every time something good happens, something bad also happens. His beliefs go counter to the widely held view at the time, which emphasized development at every turn. He bases his argument on a picture of man as he was in the Christian Garden of Eden, which is to say, in a state of nature, prior to the establishment of society and the beginning of history.

    However, Rousseau fails to identify a concept analogous to original sin, and instead only suggests that man was compelled to join with his fellow men in order to build society. At that time, he was corrupted by a nefarious group. Contrast this with Hobbes, who believed that “man is a wolf to man,” in his own thesis.

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s books

    Thus, it was not the music in which Jean-Jacques Rousseau put his expectations but rather the revolutionary views that brought him to prominence. His opera, however, Le devin du village, was presented to the king in 1752 and was a smashing success. Rousseau’s participation in the “Querelle des Bouffons” didn’t help his musical career.

    Instead, it is the book Julie; or, The New Heloise, in which the protagonists’ trip demonstrates the advantages of living in harmony with the laws of nature, that has been widely read and acclaimed. Clearly, we are not arguing for a return to savagery, but for a life guided by reason and morals.

    With the publication of Emile, or On Education and the Social contract the following year, he provided more explanations of his ideas. His ideology rests on the twin pillars of freedom and equality. If Rousseau is to be believed, Rousseau believes that only equality can guarantee safety, and that no fair society can be founded through force. Moreover, in the The Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar which accompanies the Social Contract, he defends a religion based on heart and reason and rejects writings and institutions.

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s social contract

    The political and social philosophy book “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law” was published in 1762. Jean-Jacques Rousseau advocates for ideas like popular sovereignty, individual liberties, and social equality. The book was promptly restricted after its publication in both Geneva and France. In this essay, he expands on his previous theses on man’s inherent freedom and social contract, and he seeks to find a middle ground between the two.

    In a fair society, everyone has the right to vote and hold public office. Therefore, the contract must be a reflection of the popular will, and Rousseau is really advocating for some kind of participatory democracy. The ideas of Rousseau’s “Social Contract” formed the bedrock of contemporary politics, even if they were never implemented exactly as he described them.

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s condemnation and wandering

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau spent a year composing a scathing critique of the current educational system and the authoritarianism of instructors. Also, he cast doubt on the political system by saying that the cornerstones of a fair and happy society are freedom and equality. Finally, he railed against the Church by declaring that religion need not have it. Such writings, however, cannot be released without consequence. Paris’s parliament slammed them, and afterward, Geneva, the Netherlands, and Bern (the de facto capital of Switzerland) also banned them.

    This meant that Rousseau would have to spend the rest of his life on the run from the law. Furthermore, near the end of the 1750s, he clashed with Diderot and Louise d’Épinay over his anti-theatrical ideas. After losing all of his backing, he fled to Switzerland but was met by a mandate instead. At long last, he arrived in Motiers, the capital of Frederick II‘s Prussia.

    The ideal society that Rousseau proposed, however, also had its supporters. In fact, he was asked to assist in the constitution-writing processes in both Poland and Corsica. However, the big European powers would make it so that these two weaker governments almost never got a chance to put them into practice.

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau facing Voltaire

    Voltaire’s anonymous assault against Jean-Jacques Rousseau, titled “Le sentiment des citoyens” (The Sentiment of the Citizens) was published in 1764. The next year, the people of Motiers, influenced by the town pastor, pelted his home with rocks. Later, he ran away to a little island in Lake Bienne. Once again evading, he accepted David Hume, the philosopher, in England. The men quickly disagreed, however, and Rousseau went back to Europe.

    Feelings of persecution soon began to consume Rousseau. His detractors did not hold back in their assaults on him, but he still thinks the whole human race is plotting against him. In The Confessions and Rousseau, Judge of Jean-Jacques, he tries to make his case and clear his name. He eventually leaves Paris for the little town of Ermenonville in Picardy, where he lives out the rest of his days in relative poverty and quiet. His primary interests shifted to botany and walking, and he even wrote an incomplete book on them called “Reveries of the Solitary Walker” (Les Rêveries du promeneur solitaire).

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s death and lasting impact

    On July 2, 1778, Jean-Jacques Rousseau passed away at Ermenonville. He died nine years before the Revolution, yet he left behind not just a new political theory but also The Confessions and the Reveries. So influential was The Social Contract to German idealism that Kant dubbed Rousseau the “Newton of the moral world.”

    The revolutionary crowd admired his view of universal sovereignty as based on the common good rather than the sum of individual wills. By having his ashes placed in the Pantheon in 1798, Rousseau was elevated to national hero status. Beyond his political legacy, however, Rousseau also left a literary one; the lyricism and emphasis on nature and reflection in his later writings, particularly the Reveries, anticipate romanticism.

    Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    “I would rather be a man of paradoxes than a man of prejudices,” Jean-Jacques Rousseau said in Emile. Many facets of his philosophy and life serve to highlight this principle, whether via his own actions or those of others. The Confessions provide a detailed account of a life lived in isolation and the fear of being persecuted. The work’s paradoxes are reflected in its structure: in his quest to explain “a man in all the reality of his nature,” Rousseau makes some concessions to his own view of man, who is good by nature but corrupted by civil society, religion, authority, and artifice.

    However, it was inside this community that Rousseau found fame; he was honored by the Academy, and he made friends among the encyclopedists. But as swiftly as he had risen to prominence, Rousseau plummeted back down to earth when he realized that the Enlightenment’s progressive aspirations were at odds with his own adoration of nature. His detractors were quick to point out the obvious: a man who has abandoned his five children is hardly someone who should write a book on education. The Revolution, however, lionized him, and history would remember him as a major Enlightenment thinker. Even while his criticisms of representative democracy were usually polemical, he still remained an important point of reference for those who did.

    TIMELINE OF JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born in Geneva on June 28th, 1712

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau came from a line of watchmakers in Geneva, where he was born. “I cost my mother her life, and my birth was the first of my misfortunes,” Rousseau says in the “Confessions” after his mother does not survive delivery and passes away a few days later.

    In 1722, Rousseau’s father abandons the family

    After leaving Geneva with Rousseau in the care of his brother-in-law, Rousseau’s father eventually abandons the family. Jean-Jacques stays with his uncle’s pastor, Lambercier, for boarding school. Rousseau remembers those times fondly.

    March 1728: Rousseau flees Geneva

    After a difficult apprenticeship with the dictatorial engraver Ducommun, Jean-Jacques Rousseau moves on from Geneva. The boy, being 16, goes to live with Madame de Warens in Sardinia. She converted him and sent him to Turin, since she was a contemporary Catholic.

    In the year 1732, Staying at Charmettes

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau moves in with Madame de Warens at Les Charmettes after spending some time at the seminary in Paris. He makes a living teaching music, a skill he honed in Annecy. After leaving in 1737, he came back in 1742.

    Rousseau moves to Paris in 1743

    As a result, Jean-Jacques Rousseau made his home there. He rapidly became friends with Diderot and Madame d’Epinay. He corresponded with his future adversary, Voltaire, and contributed to the encyclopedia.

    His wedding to Thérèse Levasseur took place in 1745

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau married the uneducated Thérèse Levasseur, a linen servant. It was very unusual for people of different social classes to be married without regard to social standing.

    July 1752: Rousseau wins the competition at the Academy of Dijon

    In his first major public address, “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences,” Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains how social stratification came to be. The prize catapulted him into the Parisian intellectual elite within the next six months.

    August 1752: The Querelle des Bouffons breaks out in Paris

    The Querelle des Bouffons had been simmering for a while, especially after an essay was written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but things really heated up when an Italian touring group showed up. The troupe’s performance of Pergolesi’s “La Serva Padrona,” which looked far from the French reference of the moment, Rameau, was a huge hit.

    His scientific understanding of music’s underlying harmony put him at odds with arguments for melody’s greater significance. This dispute is emblematic of the intellectual shifts taking place at the time in France; it lasted for two years and pitted Rameau’s baroque traditionalism against the views of the encyclopedists and, most prominently, against those of Rousseau, the forerunner of Romanticism.

    October 18, 1752: Le devin du village is performed before the king

    The opera “Le devin du village,” (The Village Soothsayer) written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, premiered in front of the king at Fontainebleau and was his sole major musical triumph. Rousseau’s beliefs, which confirmed the superiority of melody over harmony, seemed to gain traction in the middle of the Querelle des Bouffons. Though he excelled at philosophy, Rousseau, like Nietzsche a century later, would be remembered mostly as a minor musician.

    The “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men” was published in March 1755

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau writes his first substantial philosophical paper for an Academy of Dijon contest. He derives his new theory of the natural state and the social compact from the question, “What is the genesis of inequality among men, and is it sanctioned by natural law?” Instead of seeing the social compact as a force for peace, as Hobbes did, he sees it as a way to maintain unequal power structures.

    Rousseau’s “Social Contract” was published in 1761

    In an attempt to have his book “Social Contract” published, Jean-Jacques Rousseau is met with rapid censorship.

    The initial release of Julie; or, The New Heloise, 1761

    A book titled “Julie, or, the New Heloise,” was written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and released in 1762. He writes letters to further the romance between Julie and her instructor, Saint-Preux. Beyond the tone and subject matter that fit the criteria of the sensitive book, Rousseau examines the literary medium of his fetish topics: social connections, relationships with nature, morality, virtue, etc.

    1765: Victim of persecution in Motiers

    Angry locals in Motiers attack the home of philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau with rocks. Worried and more paranoid, Rousseau finally fled the country the following year, when he was met with open arms by Hume in England.

    At last, in 1766, Rousseau finished his Confessions

    After authoring “Confessions,” Jean-Jacques Rousseau finally put pen to paper. Three years before the release of the booklet “Citizens’ Sentiment” (Le sentiment des citoyens) he began writing this autobiography. This anonymously published work by Voltaire was a scathing critique of Rousseau, focusing particularly on his treatment of his children after his desertion.

    After being challenged, Rousseau decided to risk it all by engaging in “an endeavor that has never had an example and whose execution would have no imitator.” There would be no reverberation from Rousseau’s readings of the work before it was published after his death, but it would go on to become a classic of French literature.

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, died on July 2, 1778

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau passed away alone in the Marquis de Girardin’s house in Ermenonville. From the next day on, though, he was treated with respect, if not outright reverence. While his corpse was being laid to rest on the “Île des Peupliers,” (Poplar Island) a burial monument was being cast in the likeness of his death mask so that it could be constructed two years later.

    It was on October 11, 1794, when Rousseau’s remains were brought to the Pantheon

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was unfairly used by both revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries, was given a national monument and could at last rest in peace in the Pantheon. Beyond their obvious political applications, Rousseau’s theses, and especially the “Social Contract,” had a significant impact on contemporary political discourse.

    Indeed, Rousseau’s concept of common interest is often at the core of republican concerns. His ideas, like those of any other philosopher, defy neat classification. Even today, Rousseau’s ideas continue to spark heated debate, with some even going so far as to make the (hotly contested) connection between Rousseau and tyranny.


    Sources:

    1. Israel, Jonathan I. (2002). Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity. Oxford University Press.
    2. Li, Hansong (2020). “Timing the Laws: Rousseau’s Theory of Development in Corsica”. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought29 (4): 648 679. doi:10.1080/09672567.2022.2063357. S2CID 251137139.
    3. Damrosch, Leo (2005). Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Restless Genius. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 566.
    4. Cooper, Laurence (1999). Rousseau, Nature and the Problem of the Good Life. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press
  • Role of Women in World War I and World War II

    Role of Women in World War I and World War II

    In favor of the struggles of men, chronicled in many books and bibliographies, history chose to ignore the individual merits and hardships of women during the 1914–1918 conflict. But the role of women throughout World War II from 1939 to 1945 continues to provide new avenues of inquiry. At the front, they were resistance fighters, spies, journalists, munitionists, nurses, and heroes of everyday survival.

    Women in World War I (1914–1918)

    Manufacturing grenades. 165-WW-593-A61
    Manufacturing grenades. 165-WW-593-A61.

    There were two main responses from women when war broke out in World War I: either they wanted to serve in their own manner as near to the front as possible, or they wanted to make up for the shortage of males. The rural population that makes up the bulk of Europe’s population pushes women to take on the responsibility of managing the family’s wealth.

    Whether in the city or the rural area, for every male recruited, a woman takes on the role of a spouse or father. Since female factory workers were paid just half as much as the males they replaced, they were seen as a source of inexpensive labor. These ladies worked up to eleven hours a day without proper safety precautions in place, leaving them vulnerable to illness, overwork, starvation, and exhaustion. Each shell weighed 15 pounds (7 kilograms), and the factory worker had to carry each machine twice a day for a total of 25,000 shells and 77,000 pounds (35,000 kilograms), which rapidly took a toll on her health.

    The Status of Women

    Some people think that women who enter the traditionally male-dominated workforce threaten the status quo and pervert traditional notions of femininity. As a result, women were expected to play supporting roles in the war effort, such as nurses and secretaries, rather than managers and workers.

    This ensures that men will always be seen as superior. Women were limited to two stereotypes: the nurse, who was referred to as “the white angel” because she exemplified dedication, self-sacrifice, and appreciation for the soldiers’ sacrifice. The second symbol is the worker, a maid with a masculine gaze because the language of war trivializes and feminizes every task associated with the conflict.

    Researchers and publishers did not start taking an interest in the enormous contributions women made during the conflict until the 1980s. English nurse Vera Brittain (1893–1971), a pacifist and a nurse in the front, has provided eyewitness accounts in which she details the horrors she and her fellow workers endured. These ladies had significant challenges readjusting to civilian life upon their return since they were not celebrated as heroes and their stories were not widely shared.

    The Exploitation of Sexuality

    The army views the gratification of sexual instincts as important to optimum performance on the battlefield; therefore, the state of war and the prostitutes recruited by the intelligence agencies instrumentalize sexuality. The clap, or pox, was dreaded by military health officials because they said it might kill more troops than the enemy, which meant that the warrior’s right to rest was balanced by the danger of the clap. It was an attempt to put women (whether for selfish reasons or not) at the center of the threat facing the country. In 1918, BMCs (military field brothels) were established by the French army in the cantonments.

    Women for Peace

    Women opposed to the war existed, most notably the devoted pacifist campaigner Jeanne Alexandre (1890–1981). She participated in groups that helped the jobless and refugees, like many other activists. Madeleine Vernet (1918–1949) wrote the review “La mère éducatrice” (Motherhood and Education) in 1917, citing Rousseau and Michelet in its reasoning: “I appeal to you all, oh mothers! Wives! Lovers! Sisters! That war has bruised yesterday and that it will bruise again tomorrow… It is up to us women to be redemptive. For we are the mothers, the creators of life.”

    Women in World War II (1939–1945)

    Survival, struggle, and resistance are different for women in civil life and family, whether in prison or an internment camp, and this was especially true during World War II, when the population of the occupied countries was thrown into more violent and extreme emergency situations for the categories that were being hunted.

    In concentration camps, men’s capacity for pain was lower because they were deprived of food, while women were more acutely aware of the cruelty of the water shortage, which made it hard for them to maintain personal cleanliness. For a long time, the official history of the resistance failed to recognize the contributions of these women because they were devoted by habit and remained modest without seeking preeminence.

    Without a doubt, the Jewish mothers who were forced to see the torture and murder of their small children in the extermination camps were the absolute victims of this war against women and endured the most anguish. When it came to providing for their families, women in civilian life on both the occupied and German sides had to constantly make concessions in accordance with a wide variety of constraints. Young moms were pressured to undergo an abortion (which was forbidden at the time) so that they wouldn’t have to bring an additional child into the world.

    Women’s Emancipation, Inversion of Values

    However, for many young women in this traditional community, the option to join the war effort represents the chance to leave home and liberate themselves from limitations. A large number of women take part in the conflict, even if they primarily identify with the clichés of the nurturing mother, the rest of the warrior, or the actual mother of “cannon fodder” able to revenge their fathers. This assistance, whether in uniform or overalls, was valued but still considered secondary.

    The norms and values of that society were upside down. Under German influence, treason became praiseworthy in the occupied countries; denunciation was seen as a patriotic act that could earn a lot of money; looting, swindling, and even murdering Jewish citizens, resistance fighters, or other undesirables (the disabled, the elderly, communists, mongols, homosexuals, maladjusted people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Gypsies) was permitted and even encouraged.

    By establishing youth groups, the German government usurped the role of the family’s father figure and pushed itself on families. Teens who fought against the brainwashing were dealt with harshly. Moringen for boys and Uckemark for females were constructed as internment camps for German adolescents beginning in 1941 (neither Jews nor Gypsies were included). Mistreatment was the leading cause of death for most of these children (this chapter of Nazi history has not yet been the subject of extensive research).

    To meet the quota of Jews that the German authorities demanded, Pierre Laval proposed deporting infants and toddlers to France. From July 1942 forward, when Adolf Hitler intervened during the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup, the Nazis had no qualms about establishing death camps for young children in Poland.

    Forced Breeding Centers

    A Lebensborn birth house
    Lebensborn birth house, Bild 146-1973-010-11.

    Concurrently, maternity facilities of the “lebensborn” type were established throughout the occupied territories of Northern Europe (France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, and Poland) to carry out the scheme of forced reproduction. Young women with certain ethnic characteristics (blond hair, blue eyes) were forced to labor in these facilities for the duration of their reproductive lives. Their infants were subsequently placed with German families or in government-run boarding schools, where they were subjected to rigorous training.

    The Child Between the Wars

    Which infant best represents the prewar era? Let the kid scream, don’t rock him, bind his hands so he can’t suck his thumb, space out the feedings, teach him that he is not in command, and start him using the toilet at an early age—all things that Gilberte Bodson de Muyser recommended in her 1936 book on child-rearing. Imagine a “little monster” that, from infancy, must be conditioned to submit and obey, especially in matters of hygiene, at the cost of systematically rejecting any emotional demands. Could Hitler and his colleagues have experienced such childhood cruelty?

    Can we somehow link the docility, mindless obedience, and normalization of brutality that this education fostered in the middle of the 20th century to the acceptance of Nazism (in Germany and France)? The sadistic infantilization of the camp inmates by their captors is brought to mind by Austrian psychologist Bruno Bettelheim’s “Individual and Mass Behavior in Extreme Situations,” which describes how the inmates were treated like helpless children and abused like sadistic fathers. Dysentery sufferers were shot down by the Gestapo (as if they were learning to clean themselves again). “The infantilization of the prisoners and the regression that followed are erected as a technique of submission and humiliation of the most powerful,” said Primo Levi (1919–1987).

    The Issue of Rape

    Warrior rest has traditionally been seen as culturally acceptable as a time for soldiers to indulge in sexual activity, particularly with enemy women (thus discredited). The sexual act of rape itself is not punishable in Germany, but the act of having sexual contact between an Aryan and a member of a racially or ethnically inferior community is. Roughly half of the women who were tortured died as a direct result of being raped in the torture chambers.

    Between 1942 and 1945, American troops raped about 17,000 women. 64% of the women raped by American forces during the war years were in Germany, 22% were in France, and 14% were in England. A total of two million rapes committed against German women by Soviet troops were documented in the years after the war. When an unrelenting insult to a person exacerbates the horrors of war, how does one find the words to describe the indescribable and move on with life? And that’s not even taking into account all the suicides and abortions that followed this shame!

    In the Aftermath of the War

    After World War II, women just wanted to go back to where they were before the conflict, if not better off after all their efforts. However, the schisms were more severe than they were in 1918; incarceration, deportation, exile, emigration, and the shipping of children to other countries tore families apart and caused agonizing searches. The pain was born of the happiness of freedom. Those who made it through the deportation process but lost all of their relatives felt an overwhelming sense of remorse and isolation.

    After the war, Resistance member Lucie Aubrac published “La Femme,” a journal for women that included a report from fellow deportee Simone Saint-Clair on conditions in the Ravensbrück women’s camp. It is one of the very first accounts of life in a concentration camp to be made public.

    She inserted in her review this conclusion: “This bloody and happy peace as a new birth, we will care for, strengthen and love it. Love him so much with our toil and joyful desires that the little children of London, Rouen, Berlin, Leningrad, or Shanghai will never recognize the horror of the cellars under the bombings, the murdered parents, the hunger, the filth, all the warlike and imbecile fury of fascism.”

  • Differences Between a Manor House and a Castle

    Differences Between a Manor House and a Castle

    The term “manor house” or “castle” is often reserved for large, elaborate homes made of fine materials like stone and typically adorned with sculptural details. As such, several of them have been designated as national landmarks.

    online pharmacy order lopressor online with best prices today in the USA

    People of means or prominence reside inside.
    buy doxycycline online https://nsstulsa.com/mt-content/uploads/2021/08/png/doxycycline.html no prescription pharmacy

    Then, what are the differences between a manor house and a castle?

    The Latin “castellum” refers to a fortified military structure, which is where we get our term “castle.” “Seigneurial or royal dwelling; a large and beautiful house,” as defined by the dictionaries.

    So, it’s a fort that civilians had been living in for some time. They date back to the Roman Empire (27 BC–476 AD), but the shape we are familiar with today emerged throughout the Middle Ages (5th–15th century AD).

    The Latin term “maner,” from which our English word “manor” is derived, refers to a house or residence. It is the dwelling of a fief owner who did not have the right to build a castle with towers and a keep.

    online pharmacy order aurogra online with best prices today in the USA

    In the 14th century, when land defense was less of a priority, the first manor houses made their debut.

    A historical difference

    Aerial view of the Eltz Castle; seen from the south
    Aerial image of the Eltz Castle (view from the south). Image: Wikimedia.

    As the defensive aspects of castles became obsolete and the feudal structure of the Middle Ages crumbled, the line between a castle and a manor house blurred. In times past, castles were built in the middle of towns to protect the locals from any potential invaders. Fortresses were fortified with moats, walls, a keep, ditches, and drawbridges.

    All on a grand scale, with features like great defenses and towering structures that conveyed an advanced architectural style that spoke to the wealth and influence of the owner.

    buy periactin online https://nsstulsa.com/mt-content/uploads/2021/08/png/periactin.html no prescription pharmacy

    From the time of the Renaissance forward, these fortresses were renovated into elegant mansions complete with gardens, turrets, and other architectural flourishes. However, these features were removed over time by the previous owners, so their existence now is not sufficient to warrant the label “castle.

    buy trazodone online https://nsstulsa.com/mt-content/uploads/2021/08/png/trazodone.html no prescription pharmacy

    A big difference

    As opposed to the massive castle, the manor house is much more modest. “Gentilhommière” (which means “small manor house” in English) meant that it belonged to a “gentil” in French. Since the nobleman who lived there oversaw the village’s farms, his residence had the highest status in the community. But cheesemaking, livestock breeding, and winemaking were all viable possibilities on these sites.

    The owner had to beg the lord to defend him from invasion and conflict, but unlike city rulers, the owner couldn’t build a keep or towers to assert his/her independence. Even now, a manor conjures up images of a stately rural home, one whose grand size is not out of scale with the rest of the property.

  • What treasures were found in Tutankhamun’s tomb?

    What treasures were found in Tutankhamun’s tomb?

    Without a doubt, Tutankhamun is one of the most well-known pharaohs in history. The king, who was likely born about 1340 B.C., only ruled for a decade at most. The British archaeologist Howard Carter and his colleagues discovered the tomb of Pharaoh Tutankhamun in Egypt’s Valley of the Kings on November 4, 1922. With its four separate rooms along with an entry hall and stairs, the tomb is still regarded as one of the greatest archaeological finds ever discovered. The reason for this is the astonishing vast array of artifacts that the British explorer Howard Carter and his team discovered in the tomb. Over the course of three millennia, over 5,000 objects were preserved, providing a priceless look into the arts and culture of the pharaohs. As we celebrate 200 years since the discovery, here is a look at six artifacts unearthed from Tutankhamun’s tomb.

    The mask of Tutankhamun

    treasures found in Tutankhamuns tomb 7

    The burial mask of Tutankhamun is, without a doubt, the most well-known artifact in the world. Even though the tomb was initially discovered in November 1922, this artifact wasn’t discovered until October 1925, when investigators unsealed the last sarcophagus guarding the mummy of the king. The mask stands around 20 inches (50 cm) tall, 16 inches (40 cm) broad, and 20 inches (50 cm) deep, and it weighs just over 22 pounds (10 kg), making it a magnificent masterpiece of Egyptian goldsmithing.

    It is composed of two gold plates that have been combined and adorned with several semiprecious stones, including lapis lazuli, quartz (for the eyes), and obsidian. Despite a reconstruction suggesting that Tutankhamun was not as handsome as this masterpiece claims, his face is shown on a headpiece that is topped by two significant animals: the vulture and the cobra.


    More than that, there is a theory that the mask was not intended for the emperor who died so suddenly and abruptly, much like his grave.

    The meteorite iron dagger

    treasures found in Tutankhamuns tomb 1
    Tutankhamun’s meteorite-iron dagger.

    A wide variety of weapons, such as arrows, shields, and swords are among the more than 5,000 items found in Tutankhamun’s tomb. A dagger with an iron blade and a gold sheath set with beautiful stones stood out among the weapons available. Experts paid attention to it since ironwork in Egypt was still in its infancy during the reign of Tutankhamun (during the 18th dynasty, between 1332 and 1323 BC), when the art was only being developed.

    The unique history of the item, which would have begun outside the kingdom of the pharaohs, has been uncovered via studies, the most recent of which was published in February 2022.


    It has been suggested that King Tushratta of Mitani (whose capital was located in modern-day Syria) presented the weapon to Amenhotep III (the father of Akhenaten and the grandfather of Tutankhamun) as a gift between 1380 and 1350 BC. The item is even more valuable since the investigation of its composition revealed that its metal was not of earthly origin; rather, it would have originated from an iron meteorite.

    Tutankhamun’s mannequin

    treasures found in Tutankhamuns tomb 2
    An Egyptian carrying the “mannequin” bust of Tutankhamun found in the tomb unearthed in 1922.

    Among the many statues and paintings depicting the pharaoh found in his tomb, the one that was found half-hidden in the pre-chamber stood out. An unfinished wooden bust with a snake on its head. The face is identical to those seen in previous three-dimensional depictions of Tutankhamun, and the skin is painted dark red, the hue commonly employed by ancient Egyptian artists to portray males. The sculpture’s usefulness is its defining characteristic.

    Howard Carter believes the statue to be a mannequin used to try on Tutankhamun’s attire and jewels. For instance, the bust has markings that are consistent with a corselet having been worn, much like the one discovered in the tomb. Gold sandals are only one example of the many articles of clothing and accessories that have been discovered in the different rooms, all of which point to the pharaoh having a sizable wardrobe to the end of time and beyond

    A pair of trumpets

    treasures found in Tutankhamuns tomb 3
    Put on display the silver trumpet and its wooden mute.

    Musical instruments were among the hundreds of artifacts discovered in King Tut’s tomb, with a particularly impressive pair of trumpets being located in two separate chambers. The length of one silver one is around 20 inches or 50 cm. The second one is made of bronze and is a touch smaller. However, both have engravings of several deities, including Amun and Ra. These are the earliest known working trumpets and the only ones known from ancient Egypt.

    A musician named James Tappern performed with one of them on a BBC broadcast in 1939, bringing their music back into the world after more than 3,000 years of obscurity. These days, it’s not acceptable to handle relics because of how delicate they are. While the bronze trumpet was taken from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in 2011, it turned up missing just weeks later.

    The sanctuary of Anubis

    treasures found in Tutankhamuns tomb 4
    The Anubis figure on the shrine at Tutankhamun’s tomb.

    The ancient Egyptian tombs often include depictions of the deity Anubis. Tutankhamun’s tomb was no different. Howard Carter and his crew, when investigating the tomb, came upon a statue of the god with a jackal’s body. The animal is lying down on a bed of black painted wood, and it has silver claws and gold ears.

    It was located on top of a shrine that had suddenly materialized next to Tutankhamun’s tomb, just over a chest that held the King Tut’s canopic vases. Jewelry, amulets, and other trinkets were stored in the trapezoidal compartment. It has been acquired by the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and is on permanent exhibit.

    The throne of Tutankhamun

    treasures found in Tutankhamuns tomb 5
    Tutankhamun’s golden throne, included statues of both him and his queen.

    Several artifacts unearthed inside the pharaoh’s tomb demonstrate the ancient Egyptians’ level of sophistication.


    This is the situation with Tutankhamun’s golden throne. The royal chair is a work of art, crafted from wood and gilded with precious metals. Colored glass and semiprecious stones are used for ornamentation. In the shape of winged snakes adorned with the double crown of the pharaohs, two lion heads guard the ends of the armrests.

    Tutankhamun and his wife, Ankhesenamun, are shown on the backrest. However, the throne’s inscriptions suggest it was created while the pair was still known as Tutankhaton and Ankhesenaton, after the deity Aten. In addition to its display in the Louvre, this object is also housed in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.

    The hundreds of artifacts that were discovered in Tutankhamun’s tomb include a number of extraordinary items. Another is the king’s coffin and mummy, both of which have provided significant insight into the life and times of the young man who reigned from the ages of 9 to 19.

    Tutankhamun’s tomb in the Valley of the Kings had the bulk of its contents initially removed, but the remaining items were later brought back and are currently kept within. Even yet, the pharaoh’s tomb still holds some mysteries despite the amazing burial collection. It keeps prompting more and more curiosity. A considerable portion of Tutankhamun’s wealth may not be his, as shown by objects that have displayed traces of re-engraving. After his tragic death, it was probably meant for someone else and credited to him.

  • Agriculture, population and peasant life in the 18th century

    Agriculture, population and peasant life in the 18th century

    When it comes to agriculture, demography and peasant life. Significant changes and advances occurred in the 18th century, after what has been called a “miserable 17th century,” defined by many economic challenges and social conflicts. Faith in the advancement of reason and technology won out during the Age of Enlightenment and was used as a rallying cry for those who wanted social change. Despite the fact that civilization had been defined for many centuries by three extremely powerful limits (biological, nutritional, and material), the 18th century undoubtedly exhibited a more favorable condition that would progressively tear these barriers down. Population growth and significant changes in agriculture’s technological, structural, and cultural aspects provide striking examples of this trend.

    Population surge in the 18th century

    Throughout the modern century, France had been Europe’s most populous country, but its population of 20–22 million people appeared to be its limit. This was a significant gap from the 7 million in England, the 13 million in Germany and Italy, and the 8 million in Spain. There was widespread population expansion throughout Europe around the turn of the 18th century; by 1725, France had 25 million residents, and by 1770, it had 28 million.

    A dramatic drop in death rates was mostly responsible for this development since it affected natural growth. During the Ancien Régime, a high birth rate (40 per 1000) was cruelly regulated by a high mortality rate (30 per 1000), especially among young children; one in two did not reach adulthood; life expectancy did not exceed 30 years, and the population ultimately did not grow very much. Death rates dropped (particularly among young people), while birth rates stayed about the same, leading to a rise in the proportion of males in the population beginning in the 18th century.

    The general improvement in biological circumstances was the main reason for this decrease in mortality. The conquest, war, hunger, and death, a.k.a. the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” at the root of the severe population decline, were now less frequent. But poor harvests due to unfavorable meteorological conditions contributed to rising grain prices across Europe, especially as a recurring theme in the Ancien Régime crises in France.

    Since the majority of the peasant’s income was going toward bread at the time, they found themselves in a difficult position as prices continued to rise, especially during the time just before the harvest when grain was at a premium. Disputes erupted as a result, especially since some people stocked up on grain and then sold it at a higher price, intending to make a profit.

    Droughts, of which contemporary observers were well aware, tended to be followed by other droughts. Not because there wasn’t enough food, but because it was too costly to buy. People got hungry because they didn’t have enough money to buy food, and they frequently died after eating disgusting things like bran bread, nettle soup, animal viscera collected from slaughterhouses, etc.

    According to historians, rotting food was the leading cause of death worldwide. As a result of this general decline in organism strength, deadly epidemics broke out, sometimes wiping out entire villages (as happened with the plague and smallpox), wreaking havoc on the most vulnerable members of society (including children and the elderly), and driving mortality rates through the roof, as happened in Marseilles during the plague epidemic of 1750, when 50,000 people lost their lives.

    These catastrophic outbreaks ended when people began eating a more diversified and regular diet in the 18th century. Crop failures became less frequent as the climate warmed up from the harsh conditions of the Little Ice Age, which had lasted for the preceding century. The introduction of potatoes and corn (5 times more nutritious than wheat), as well as the development of vegetable crops, allowed everyone to better resist epidemics and very frequent and symptomatic deficiencies (large bellies, teeth problems, etc.) People were generally better nourished and healthier.

    In the 18th century, basic hygiene practices improved, which helped keep infants and mothers healthy. But the well water was often tainted by the manure at the peasants’ doorstep. In the realm of birthing, which had hitherto been the domain of matrons with only empirical knowledge and no consideration for cleanliness, significant strides were achieved. With the advent of more sophisticated infrastructure and educated staff, medicalized births became the norm.

    The midwife Angélique du Coudray, who in 1756 was granted a royal patent allowing her to teach the art of delivery in the provinces, or the “surgeon man-midwife” Mauquest de La Motte, who in 1715 produced a treatise on natural and unnatural childbirth. Because of the shocking death rate among young children, attitudes about children were shifting worldwide, and more and more individuals were diligent about placing youngsters in foster homes.

    The number of wars that occurred outside of the kingdoms likewise decreased in the 18th century. Previously, many lives were lost on the front lines because of war. Yet its repercussions were as devastating: damage, fires, theft of food and cattle, etc., happened all along the route of the soldiers, who brought a lot of illnesses to their countries. Therefore, the significance of peace was evident but still limited to far-off lands like the War of the Austrian Succession, for example.

    As a result, in the 18th century, the population increased dramatically around the world due to the favorable biological circumstances brought on by the peace.

    Changing agriculture

    800px pieter brueghel de jonge zomer oogster 3
    Summer, Brueghel the Younger. (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

    To meet the food needs of a growing population, agriculture also progressed, undergoing significant changes during the same period. The first was the development of more efficient tools. Since the last 1000 years, it had changed very little. It was mainly constructed of wood, yet it was fitted to the farming methods of the period and still resulted in subpar harvests. The technological systems, however, progressed in the 18th century.

    The historian Bertrand Gille introduced this concept which outlines a cohesive group of technologies that together represent a distinct epoch in the development of both technology and society. When the peasants began to access better tools, the resulting increase in revenue was substantial in the 18th century. So, a bigger plow was accomplished by developing a plow with more iron and using the third horse for the carriage. At this time, the scythe replaced the sickle.

    In this period, the constraining crop rotation systems started to change, demanding that farmers observe certain planting and harvesting cycles, as well as rest intervals in between harvests. A quadrennial rotation, also known as the “Norfolk rotation” or “Norfolk four-course system,” was actually first adopted in England in the 17th century, evolving from the bi-annual rotation (alternating a cultivated plot with a fallow plot) and the tri-annual rotation (a plot of winter wheat, a plot of spring wheat, and a fallow plot). An example of the Norfolk rotation was the plot of wheat, the plot of fodder turnip, the plot of barley, and the plot of clover. 

    This rotation had the advantage of eliminating fallow land and promoting livestock. By including animal grazing on clover plots as part of the rotation, a significantly more efficient source of nitrogen was made available compared to the conventional manuring methods of using ashes and manure.

    As a result of this boost in output, individual vineyard sites became more highly specialized. Large swaths of land across Europe were now devoted to grain monoculture, whereas the poorer soil was more likely to be used for market gardening. These places honed their craft and were dedicated to producing only the highest quality crops, such as wine.

    More grains also implied more straw and other feed for cattle. Livestock had traditionally been relied upon as a safety net in times of need; however, because of the prevalence of feed crises, these animals were generally of low quality and quantity. Increased cattle productivity throughout time improved soil fertilization methods.

    Manure was formerly only accessible in limited amounts, was easily spoiled, and allowed for only average soil preparation, but now some farmers were able to trade straw for it. In addition, the gradual elimination of grazing and the enclosure of land, both of which were already practiced in England and which gradually saw the emergence of private property and facilitated the implementation of the new techniques mentioned above, resulted from the improved availability of fodder.

    New crop species, such as potatoes and corn, were developed in the 18th century after being transported from the Americas towards the end of the 16th century. With corn’s greater yield than wheat, inexpensive flour could be produced, making it a viable alternative to more costly grains like rye, barley, and buckwheat. After being put to use as fodder for cattle to help with the perennial issue of cow feeding, it found its way into the diets of the impoverished as a supplement. Even though wheat was considered a staple food, potatoes were five times more nutritious.

    Clearly, agriculture was flourishing, as shown by the plethora of agronomy books. In the wake of the Enlightenment and the ideas of the physiocrats around the year 1750, led by François Quesnay, agriculture was seen as the sole productive sector of the economy. A large portion of the nobility and wealthy landowners were swayed by the physiocrats’ ideas. They tried growing several kinds of plants, using crop rotation strategies, etc. Lavoisier, a scientist, professor, and farmer-general, was actively engaged in this movement.

    The agricultural sector, which accounted for three-quarters of the physical product in the 18th century, saw significant improvement due to the convergence of a number of factors (tools, new crops, physiocrats, etc.). This allowed the sector to increase its yield and its production, thereby supporting the rising population.

    Peasant life in the 18th century

    Even with the observed population improvement, stark differences were present. The first was the inevitability of death. Infant mortality had gone down, but it was still terrible since advancement was gradual, hygiene standards hadn’t improved much, people lived in crowded, unsanitary conditions, and animals were close by, all of which contributed to the spread of illness. Education in general and literacy specifically were both on the rise. However, ignorance persisted, particularly in rural areas.

    Some scholars started to believe that a significant number of fatalities could be attributed to the lack of education among mothers. As if that weren’t enough, there was also the burden of tradition and superstition, both of which were condemned by Erasmus, for instance, in the 16th century. Most moderns were aware of this condition of widespread belief and recognized it for the constraining force that it was. As a preventative measure against rabies, local farmers traditionally took their animals to churches to be blessed.

    Most people, especially farmers (who made up the vast majority of the population), still lived in abject poverty. Even though the number of crises was decreasing, people were still vulnerable to epidemics like the one in Marseille in 1750 and natural disasters like the Great Frost in 1709. In addition, each crisis was accompanied by the phenomenon of wandering as people tried to escape their current situation in the hopes of finding a better one elsewhere. Those living in dire circumstances typically took on debt well in excess of their property’s worth to cover costs like taxes, seeds, and farm equipment.

    Even though there were more people to feed as a result of the population boom, and this boosted agricultural output to some extent, the reality was that the influx of people led to a fragmentation of land and estates, worsening the already precarious situation of the peasants, especially as rent rose and the owners became wealthier and more able to exploit them.

    Persistently traditional

    There had been development in agriculture, to be sure, but by no means can we call it a revolution. The rate of development varied widely from one state to the next. As a result of a number of incremental improvements, a step forward was made, albeit only in a certain area. In this mostly wooden society, iron tools were still a rarity, and the transmission of information from generation to generation within the agricultural community was not conducive to technological advancement.

    Farmers in regions where life was based primarily on cereal monoculture were much more vulnerable to the effects of a bad harvest than their counterparts in other regions where a more diverse culture was possible thanks to favorable climate and soil conditions, even if bread continued to form the basis of the food bowl.

    The new crops were met with stiff opposition. Corn and potatoes, despite their numerous benefits, continued to be utilized primarily as livestock feed and as emergency food sources. Despite the favorable attitude toward corn in certain lands, these plants were having a hard time breaking through. This opposition existed in part because local farmers feared economic ruin if they “missed” a harvest of a plant they had never cultivated before. In 1840, around one-third of most European agricultural lands were still considered fallow.

    After all that, the English enclosure system, popular since the 17th century, was seen as a threat to communal farms. A sizable portion of the peasant population had their access to resources cut off as a result of these field enclosures and grazing prohibitions.

    Efforts in the field of hygiene were the cause of the population boom, although advancement was modest and uneven across urban and rural areas. Due to widespread hostility against change, conventional farming practices persisted during the 18th century.

  • Battle of Trafalgar: The Story of How Admiral Nelson Defended Britain Against Invasion

    Battle of Trafalgar: The Story of How Admiral Nelson Defended Britain Against Invasion

    The Battle of Trafalgar took place on October 21, 1805, between the French and Spanish fleets commanded by Vice Admiral Villeneuve and the British fleet commanded by Vice Admiral Nelson. While Vice Admiral Nelson was killed, the British were able to prevail despite being outnumbered. After the Battle of Trafalgar, Napoleon abandoned his plans to conquer Britain, and the British Navy established its dominance over the oceans. Following this decisive victory, England performed a number of symbolic acts to honor the occasion.

    —>Admiral Nelson employed a bold and aggressive tactic known as the “Nelson Touch,” where he divided the British fleet into two columns and aimed to break through the Franco-Spanish line. This tactic allowed the British to engage the enemy fleet more effectively.

    Why Was the Battle of Trafalgar Fought?

    Napoleon defeating Austrian General Mack while Nelson seizes French ships, colonies, and trade, British cartoon by Isaac Cruikshank, November 19, 1805.
    Napoleon defeating Austrian General Mack while Nelson seizes French ships, colonies, and trade, British cartoon by Isaac Cruikshank, November 19, 1805.

    After the short Peace of Amiens, hostilities between the United Kingdom and France resumed on May 18. Napoleon Bonaparte‘s goal of invading and conquering Britain remained steadfast despite his extensive travels throughout Europe. In order to vanquish his most formidable foe, he mustered an army in the Boulogne camp.

    When the French monarch dared to challenge the British, he had to do so with a fleet that could compete with and hopefully defeat the British navy. Conquering the landmass without first dominating the waters around the island was an absurd idea. So he gave Vice Admiral Villeneuve the job of assembling a fleet.

    Who Fought in the Battle of Trafalgar?

    Death of Nelson on the deck of the HMS Victory.
    Death of Nelson on the deck of the HMS Victory.

    At the Battle of Trafalgar, Vice Admiral Villeneuve led the Franco-Spanish fleet against Vice Admiral Nelson’s British fleet. It was Napoleon himself who gave Villeneuve, the military leader, the responsibility of assembling a navy strong enough to confront and destroy the British. On the other hand, the British government chose Vice Admiral Nelson because of the creative ways in which he deviated from conventional military strategy.

    Nelson was able to think on his feet and take swift action, allowing him to consistently outmaneuver his superiors. Even though he was killed in action at Trafalgar, his efforts set him apart from the competition and helped secure victory for an outnumbered British force. And whereas the Franco-Spanish fleet had 33 ships of the line, six frigates, and two brigs, the British fleet only had 27.

    The victory was thus rather favorable to the Franco-Spanish troops, who, sure of Nelson’s strategy, let themselves be trapped. During the conflict, Nelson told his troops, “England expects that every man will do his duty,” a phrase that has since been ingrained in the language of the English-speaking world.

    The Victory, Royal Sovereign, Temeraire, Neptune, and Britannia were the primary ships representing Britain in the conflict. The French and Spanish fleets included such ships as the Neptuno, the Principe de Asturias, the Indomptable, the Santa Anna, the Rayo, and the Santisima Trinidad.

    —>Admiral Nelson, full name Horatio Nelson, was a British naval officer who led the Royal Navy at the Battle of Trafalgar. He devised innovative naval tactics and strategies that contributed to the British victory, although he lost his life during the battle.

    Who Won the Battle of Trafalgar?

    Horatio Nelson,
    Horatio Nelson.

    British forces, under the command of Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, prevailed in the Battle of Trafalgar on October 21, 1805. Though outnumbered, they had much more battlefield experience than their French and Spanish counterparts. Nonetheless, the British owe their success, in all likelihood, to the strategies Nelson used. The later plan included a perpendicular rather than a frontal assault, cutting the defensive line of the Franco-Spanish fleet.

    The British plan worked, as Villeneuve was captured and 23 of the French and Spanish fleet’s 33 ships were destroyed. More than 7,000 people were killed, 2,500 were injured, and hundreds of detainees were taken. The British navy suffered significantly less damage; they lost no vessels and just 400 men.

    While the French celebrated the capture of the ship Le Redoutable, the British forces were still mourning the loss of their vice admiral, Nelson, who was killed by a sharpshooter. Within hours of being shot, he was dead because the bullet had entered his spine, lung, and left shoulder. Despite this significant loss, the British were still able to gain undeniable maritime supremacy.

    What Were the Results of the Battle of Trafalgar?

    Trafalgar Square in London
    Trafalgar Square in London was named to commemorate the Battle of Trafalgar. The square features Nelson’s Column, a monument dedicated to Admiral Nelson, and has become a symbolic location honoring British naval victories. Dietmar Rabich / Wikimedia Commons / “London, Trafalgar Square, Nelson’s Column — 2016 — 4851” / CC BY-SA 4.0.

    Napoleon gave up on his intentions to attack England after losing at Trafalgar and instead turned his attention to the rest of Europe. The French navy never again made an effort to attack Britain through the sea after this victory solidified British maritime superiority. The French navy continued its operations despite the country’s loss. In contrast, the Spanish fleet suffered heavy losses at the hands of the British during the Battle of Trafalgar.

    There are several symbolic remnants from the Battle of Trafalgar that are still there today. In the Royal Navy, for instance, you may see HMS Victory, the ship that Admiral Nelson used. Also, the British instituted a holiday called Trafalgar Day to commemorate the victory, although hardly anyone seems to remember it now.

    Last but not least, we must not overlook Trafalgar Square, one of the British memorials to the success of the Battle of Trafalgar. There is a statue of Admiral Nelson atop a tall column in this plaza in the heart of London, which bears the name of the epic fight.

    The State of the Forces at War

    The British advanced in two parallel columns, some distance apart: In the north, the 12-ship line led by Horatio Nelson himself consisted of the following ships:

    • HMS Africa (two-decker of 64 guns, crew of 498 men under the command of Captain Henry Digby), charged with attacking the head of the Franco-Spanish fleet
    • HMS Victory (flagship, three-decker of 104 guns, crew of 821 men under the command of Captain Thomas Masterman Hardy), with Vice Admiral Lord Nelson on board, commander in chief of the fleet
    • HMS Temeraire (three-decker of 98 guns, crew of 718 men under the command of Captain Eliab Harvey)
    • HMS Neptune (three-decks of 98 guns, crew of 741 men under the command of Captain Thomas Francis Fremantle)
    • HMS Leviathan (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 623 men under the command of Captain Henry William Bayntun)
    • HMS Conqueror (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 573 men under the command of Captain Israel Pellew)
    • HMS Britannia (three-decks of 100 guns, crew of 854 men under the command of Rear-Admiral William Carnegie, 7th Earl of Northesk)
    • HMS Spartan (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 620 men under the command of Captain Sir Francis Laforey)
    • HMS Minotaur (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 625 men under the command of Captain Charles John Moore Mansfield)
    • HMS Ajax (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 702 men under the command of Lieutenant John Pilford)
    • HMS Agamemnon (two-decks of 64 guns, crew of 498 men under the command of Captain Sir Edward Berry)
    • HMS Orion (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 541 men under the command of Captain Edward Codrington)

    A leeward column, composed of the following 15 vessels (Vice-Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood’s division):

    • HMS Royal Sovereign (three-decks of 100 guns, crew of 826 men under the command of Captain Edward Rotheram, with on board Vice-Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood)
    • HMS Belleisle (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 728 men under the command of Captain William Hargood)
    • HMS Mars (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 615 men under the command of Captain George Duff and Lieutenant William Hennah)
    • HMS Tonnant (two-decks of 80 guns, crew of 688 men under the command of Captain Charles Tyler)
    • HMS Bellerophon (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 522 men under the command of Captain John Cooke then Lieutenant William Pryce Cumby)
    • HMS Colossus (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 571 men under the command of Captain James Nicoll Morris)
    • HMS Achilles (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 619 men under the command of Captain Richard King)
    • HMS Defence (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 599 men under the command of Captain George Hope)
    • HMS Defiance (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 577 men under the command of Captain Philip Charles Durham)
    • HMS Prince (three-decks of 98 guns, crew of 735 men under the command of Captain Richard Grindall)
    • HMS Dreadnought (three-decks of 98 guns, crew of 725 men under the command of Captain John Conn)
    • HMS Revenge (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 598 men under the command of Captain Robert Moorsom)
    • HMS Swiftsure (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 570 men under the command of Captain William Gordon Rutherfurd)
    • HMS Thunderer (two-decks of 74 guns, crew of 611 men under the command of Lieutenant John Stockham)
    • HMS Polyphemus (two-decks of 64 guns, crew of 484 men under the command of Captain Robert Redmill).

    An attached fleet is also composed of the following vessels:

    • HMS Euryalus (frigate of 36 guns, crew of 262 men under the command of Captain The Honourable Henry Blackwood)
    • HMS Naiad (36-gun frigate, crew of 333 under the command of Captain Thomas Dundas)
    • HMS Phoebe (36-gun frigate, crew of 256 men under the command of Captain The Honourable Thomas Bladen Capel)
    • HMS Sirius (36-gun frigate, crew of 273 under the command of Captain William Prowse)
    • HMS Pickle (schooner of 8 guns, crew of 42 men under the command of Lieutenant John Richards La Penotière)
    • HMS Entreprenante (10-gun cutter, crew of 41 men under the command of Lieutenant Robert Benjamin Young).

    The French and Spanish fleet sailed in a circle with a concave side toward the enemy, spanning three nautical miles. The allied ships did not move forward in a single, continuous line, but rather in five different groups, each of which followed a roughly linear path but was severely isolated from the others.

    These 33 vessels were arranged from north to south as follows:

    • Spain’s Neptuno, the two-decker with 80 cannons, crew of 800 men, and Captain Don Cayetano Cayetano Valdés y Flores in charge.
    • France’s Scipion, a two-decked gunboat with 74 cannons and 755 men serving under the command of Captain Charles Berrenger
    • France’s Intrépide was a two-decker gunboat with 74 cannons and had a crew of 745 men working under the direction of Captain Louis-Antoine-Cyprien Infernet.
    • France’s Formidable, two decks with 80 guns, crew of 840 men, commanded by Rear Admiral Pierre-Etienne-René-Marie Dumanoir Le Pelley and Captain Jean-Marie Letellier.
    • France’s Duguay-Trouin, the two-decker had 74 cannons and carried a crew of 755 men. Captain Claude Touffet was in charge of the vessel.
    • France’s Mont-Blanc was a ship with two decks and 74 guns, and it had a crew of 755 men who were commanded by Guillaume-Jean-Noel de Lavillegris.
    • Spain’s Rayo was a three-decker warship with a total of 100 cannons. It had a crew of 830 men and was commanded by Don Enrique MacDonnell.
    • Spain’s San Francisco de Ass, a two-decker with 74 guns and a crew of 657 men, was commanded by Captain Don Luis de Florès.
    • France’s Héros had 74 guns and a crew of 690 men. Corvette captain Jean-Baptiste-Joseph-René Poulain and subsequently lieutenant Jean-Louis Conor were in charge of the two-decker ship at various times.
    • Spain’s San Agustin was a two-decker warship with 74 guns and 711 men serving under the leadership of Captain Don Felipe Jado Cajigal.
    • Spain’s Santisima Trinidad was a 136-gun four-decker with a crew of 1,048 men. Rear Admiral Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros y de la Torre and Captain Francisco Javier de Uriarte y Borja were in charge of the ship.
    • France’s Bucentaure, the flagship was a two-decker with 80 cannons and had a crew of 888 men under the command of Captain Jean-Jacques Magendie. Vice Admiral Pierre-Charles-Jean-Baptiste-Silvestre de Villeneuve was also present on board.
    • France’s Redoutable, a two-decker with 74 guns and 643 men serving under the command of Captain Jean Jacques Étienne Lucas.
    • Spain’s San Justo was a ship with two decks and a total of 74 cannons. It had a crew of 694 men and was commanded by Don Francisco Javier Garstón.
    • France’s Neptune, two decks with 80 guns, and 888 men serving as crew under the direction of the captain of ship 1st class Esprit-Tranquille Maistral.
    • Spain’s San Leandro with two decks and 64 cannons, and a crew of 606 men, all under the direction of the ship’s captain, Don José Quevedo.
    • Spain’s Santa Ana was a three-decker warship with a total of 112 cannons and a crew of 1189 men. She was commanded by Vice Admiral Ignacio Mara de Llava y Sáenz de Navarrete and Captain Don José Ramón de Gardoqui y Jaraveitia. Santa Ana was in service during the Spanish American War.
    • France’s L’Indomptable was a two-decker battleship equipped with 80 cannons and boasting an 887-man crew that was led by Captain Jean-Joseph Hubert.
    • France’s Le Fougueux was a two-decker gunboat with 74 cannons and had a crew of 755 men under the leadership of Captain Louis Alexis Baudouin.
    • France’s Pluton, a two-decker with 74 cannons and a crew of 755 men, was commanded by Captain of the First Class Julien Julien Cosmao.
    • Spain’s Monarca was a warship with two decks and 74 guns, and it had a crew of 667 men who were commanded by Don Teodoro de Argumosa Bourke, the captain of the ship.
    • France’s Algeciras had a total of 74 cannons between her two bridges and a crew of 755 men. Rear Admiral Charles René Magon de Médine and afterwards Commander Laurent Tourneur were in charge of the vessel.
    • Spain’s Bahama was a two-decker ship of 74 guns and a crew of 690 men. Commodore Dionisio Alcalá Galiano y Pinedo was in charge of the vessel.
    • France’s L’Aigle was a two-decker gunboat with 74 cannons and a crew of 755 men. Captain Pierre-Paulin Gourrège was in command.
    • Spain’s Montaés, a two-decker with 74 guns and 715 men serving under the command of Captain Francisco Alcedo y Bustamante.
    • France’s Swiftsure was a two-decker with 74 guns and a crew of 755 men. Captain Charles-Eusèbe Lhospitalier de Villemadrin was in command.
    • France’s Argonaute was a naval force consisting of two 74-gun warships, a total crew of 755 men, with Captain Jacques Épron-Desjardins in charge.
    • Spain’s Argonauta was a two-decker warship equipped with 80 cannons and boasting a crew of 798 men who were led by Captain Don José Antonio de Pareja y Mariscal.
    • Spain’s San Ildefonso was a two-decker warship with 74 cannons. It had a crew of 716 men and was commanded by Captain Don José Ramón de Vargas y Varáez.
    • France’s Achille was a two-decker ship with 74 cannons and had 755 men working for her under the command of Captain Louis Gabriel Deniéport.
    • Spain’s Príncipe de Asturias, three-decker of 112 guns, crew of 1113 men under the direction of Commodore Rafael de Hore, having on board Admiral Don Federico Carlos Gravina and Rear Admiral Don Antonio de Escaño y García de Cáceres
    • France’s Berwick, two-decker with 74 cannons, crew of 755 men, and Captain Jean-Gilles Filhol de Camas in command.
    • Spain’s San Juan Nepomuceno was a two-decker warship with 74 guns and a crew of 693 men. Commodore Don Cosme Damián Churruca y Elorza was in charge of the ship’s crew.

    An attached fleet included the following vessels, all French:

    • Cornélie was a frigate with 40 guns and was commanded by André-Juls-Francois de Martineng.
    • Hermione is a forty-gun frigate that is commanded by Captain Jean-Michel Mahé.
    • Hortense was a forty-gun frigate that was commanded by Louis-Charles-Auguste Delamarre de Lamellerie.
    • Rhin was a frigate with 40 guns and was commanded by Captain Michel Chesneau.
    • Thémis, Captain Nicolas-Joseph-Pierre Jugan was in charge of the 40-gun frigate, which was named after him.
    • Furet, a brig armed with 18 cannons and with a crew of 130 men, it was commanded by Lieutenant Pierre-Antoine-Toussaint Dumay.
    • Argus was a 16-gun brig with 110 men on board and was commanded by Lieutenant Yves-Francois Taillard.

    Together, the Allies’ 33 warships and 7 frigates sported 2,856 cannons. Only 27 ships and 6 frigates or corvettes were available to the English, together with 2,314 cannons. Their ships were typically quicker, more nimble, better directed, and served by commanders and sailors who were more experienced and more educated, and they had 7 three-deck ships versus the allies’ four (all Spanish).

    Damage Report of the Battle of Trafalgar

    The Allies suffered a crushing loss. The English were successful in seizing 17 vessels out of a total of 33 that were involved in the battle. Eighteenth went down in the water. Four of the fifteen survivors, commanded by Dumanoir, made their way to the open sea, while the other eleven sought sanctuary in Cadiz with Gravina. Around 6,500 people were killed or injured, among them were 3,000 French and over 1,000 French wounded. Nine ship captains, including Rear Admiral Magon, perished. Ten others were wounded, as well as Rear Admirals Gravina, Álava and Báltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros. A large number of Villeneuve’s soldiers, numbering in the thousands, also became prisoners.

    Here are the details of the fate of each ship:

    • Neptuno: Recaptured by the allies and then failed before Cadiz
    • Scipion: Taken on November 4
    • Intrepid: Voluntarily burned by the English after its capture
    • Formidable: Taken on November 4
    • Duguay-Trouin: Taken on November 4
    • Mont-Blanc: Taken on November 4
    • Rayo: Burned by the English before Cadiz after its stranding
    • San Francisco de Asís: Rescued
    • Hero: Rescued
    • San Agustín: Voluntarily burned by the English after its capture
    • Santísima Trinidad: Scuttled by the English after its capture
    • Bucentaure: Recaptured by its crew then wrecked
    • Redoubtable: Scuttled by the English after its capture
    • San Justo: Rescued
    • Neptune: Rescued
    • San Leandro: Rescued
    • Santa Ana: Recaptured by the Allies in front of Cadiz
    • The Indomitable: Rescued
    • The Fiery: Abandoned by the English after its capture and then wrecked
    • Pluto: Rescued
    • Monarca: Abandoned by the English after its capture and then wrecked
    • Algeciras: Recaptured by her crew
    • Bahama: Sunk
    • L’Aigle: Abandoned by the English after its capture then wrecked
    • Montañés: Rescued
    • Swiftsure: Taken to Gibraltar then destroyed
    • Argonaut: Rescued
    • Argonauta: Scuttled by the English after its capture
    • San Ildefonso: Taken to Gibraltar and destroyed
    • Achilles: Burned and sunk
    • Príncipe de Asturias: Rescued
    • Berwick: Abandoned by the English after its capture and wrecked
    • San Juan Nepomuceno: Rescued.

    In all, 449 British sailors were killed, including Admiral Horatio Nelson, and 1,214 were injured. Of the ships involved, the HMS Colossus suffered the most casualties (40), while 13 others had fewer than 10, and one had none (the HMS Prince). Despite the relatively low number of casualties, the damage was so severe that half of the fleet had to seek shelter in Gibraltar.

    Map of the Battle of Trafalgar

    Trafalgar aufstellung

    Period representation of the battle: the British ships are in red, the French in green and the Spanish in yellow. The British ship furthest north is the Africa, not the Neptune.

    References

    • Best, Nicholas (2005). Trafalgar. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-84622-1.
    • Corbett, Sir Julian Stafford (1919). The campaign of Trafalgar. Vol. 2. Longmans, Green, and company. p. 538. URL.
    • Lavery, Brian (2009). Empire of the Seas. London: Conway Publishing. ISBN 9781844861095.
    • Lee, Christopher (2005). Nelson and Napoleon. London: Headline Book Publishing. ISBN 0-7553-1041-1.
    • A. Thomazi, Trafalgar, Payot, 1932, 199 p.
    • Danielle et Bernard Quintin, Dictionnaire des capitaines de vaisseau de Napoléon, collection Kronos, Paris 2003.
  • Boxer Rebellion: How China Fought Imperialism

    Boxer Rebellion: How China Fought Imperialism

    When the twentieth century began, China was suffocating beneath the weight of the major Western powers. To be sure, the nation was compelled to open up economically, politically, and spiritually to other countries following the Opium Wars and the Sino-Japanese War. In addition, a secret organization, whose members were termed “Boxers” by Europeans, revolted in 1899 in an effort to free the nation. The growth of Chinese nationalism would hasten the fall of the Qing dynasty’s Manchu monarchy and bring about more foreign involvement in China.

    Why Did the Boxer Rebellion Break Out?

    The Manchu Empire’s economy went into a deep slump in the middle of the nineteenth century, mostly because its administration had not kept up with the changing demographics and had instead stuck to its old ways.

    As the rest of the world was swiftly modernizing, China retreated inside, clinging to practices and institutions that were hundreds, if not thousands, of years old. Canton was the only place in China where trading with other nations was legal, and even then only if a Chinese firm was involved.

    What Were the Causes of the Boxer Rebellion?
    buy zydena online https://gaetzpharmacy.com/buy-zydena.html no prescription pharmacy

    After fifty years of unfair treaties between the Chinese Empire and foreign countries, the Boxer Rebellion broke out. In 1839, the emperor of China was so concerned about the impact of opium on his country’s people that he had British supplies in Canton destroyed. As a direct result, the British immediately began attacking, setting off the First Opium War.

    China was ultimately defeated in the war, and as part of the Treaty of Nanking, five of its ports were opened to international commerce, and Hong Kong was ceded to the enemy. However, despite these benefits, the British were not content, and thus the Second Opium War erupted in 1856.

    After being beaten this time, China agreed to let Christian missionaries and international delegations set up shop in 11 previously closed ports. As a result, a war was being planned against Japan while China, already weakened by the Taiping Rebellion (1851–1864), found itself more influenced by the West. As expected, Japan has progressed and become more advanced.

    Thus, it did not think twice before attacking its neighbor to assert its supremacy over Korea. In April 1895, China signed the unfavorable Treaty of Shimonoseki, ceding even more territory to its enemies. The Movement of the Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists, or the Boxer Rebellion, emerged from this time of crisis, submission, and discontent among the Chinese people.

    Why Did the Hundred Days’ Reform Fail?

    At the conclusion of these wars, the Russians, the French, the Germans, and the English split up China into spheres of influence.

    buy doxycycline online https://cphia2023.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/doxycycline.html no prescription pharmacy

    In light of this embarrassment, the youthful emperor Guangxu surrounded himself with reformist intellectuals.

    They convinced him that the only way the Empire could survive was to modernize. Although their changes were based on Western ideals, they were not well received by Empress Cixi or many other court officials.

    They were set in their ways and would have none of the Western ways imposed upon them. Cixi staged a coup d’état and had the emperor locked up to put a stop to the uprising. This period is called the Hundred’ Days Reform. Guangxu was imprisoned at the Summer Palace when the empress took over the regency, and he died there in 1908.

    How Does the Boxer Rebellion Start?

    The empress’s actions and the ensuing outrage at the nation’s collapse served as the catalyst for the Boxer uprising. Members of the Yihetuan, a covert organization known as the “Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists,” were known as boxers by Westerners due to their involvement in holy boxing. Invading foreign delegations and missions at Cixi’s covert request, they murdered clergymen and ultimately the German envoy, Clemens von Ketteler, in June of 1900. The imperial authority soon declared war on the Westerners and publicly backed the uprising.

    What Was the Reaction of the Western Powers to the Boxer Rebellion?

    Germans, Italians, French, English, Austrians, Russians, Americans, and Japanese quickly assembled an invasion force.

    buy singulair online https://cphia2023.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/singulair.html no prescription pharmacy

    The forces, led by the German von Waldersee, recaptured Tianjin with relative ease and then marched on to seize Peking on August 14, 1900. The insurrection was put down after 55 days, and the empress and her court departed the city.

    What Were the Results of the Boxer Rebellion?

    On September 7, 1901, the imperial government signed the Peking Protocol, agreeing to compensate the Western countries to the tune of 450 million taels (about 1.6 billion gold francs) for their involvement in the revolt. The popular Boxer insurrection, which had its roots in resistance to Western economic colonialism, ultimately failed.

    For China, whose economy became more dependent on Western aid, the consequences were disastrous. The Qing dynasty’s reputation was damaged even more as a result of this occurrence. All the government changes that followed were too little, too late for China, and the traditionalists and the conservatives who had been the backbone of the country’s politics for so long. It was 1911, and the revolution was about to begin.

    TIMELINE OF THE BOXER REBELLION

    17 April 1895 – Treaty of Shimonoseki

    In the Treaty of Shimonoseki (Japan), China accepted defeat after a short war with Japan. As a result of this pact, China gave up some territory in South Manchuria, the Pescadores, and the island of Formosa (later called Taiwan). In addition, it acknowledged Japan’s de facto rule over Korea and paid hefty indemnities to the defeated nation.

    At the time, Japan was planning an assault on Russia in retaliation for Russia’s obstruction of Japan’s colonial ambitions. The stage for the twentieth century’s major conflicts was set in Asia. Starting next year, the area would be divided into zones of influence by the big powers (France, Russia, the UK, and Germany).

    June 11, 1898 – Beginning of the Hundred Days’ Reform

    Throughout his reign as China’s emperor, Guangxu was advised by a group of reform-minded scholars and intellectuals. In an effort to fight European countries’ attempts to divide China into zones of influence, these reformers overhauled the country’s government, schools, and economy.

    buy bactrim online https://gaetzpharmacy.com/buy-bactrim.html no prescription pharmacy

    These changes, which took their cue from Europe, were a huge snub to Empress Cixi, who saw them as too conventional and anti-Western.

    buy buspar online https://gaetzpharmacy.com/buy-buspar.html no prescription pharmacy

    With her considerable court power, she stymied her nephew and emperor’s initiatives while secretly supporting the work of groups like the Yihetuan, or “Boxers.”

    June 20, 1900 – Boxer Rebellion in Beijing

    As a result of the presence of foreigners in China, members of the secret organization Yihetuan, “Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists,” also known as “Boxers,” rose up in rebellion. Invading Catholic missions, besieging embassies, murdering priests, and ultimately taking the life of the German envoy, von Ketteler, were all tactics used by these men.

    The colonial powers that had been in China since the Opium War of 1840 responded swiftly, prompting the departure of Empress Dowager Cixi from the capital.

    July 14, 1900 – The Western army recaptured Tianjin

    When the Boxer Rebellion broke out, the world powers with economic ties to China banded together to send an expeditionary force led by the German General von Waldersee to put down the uprising.

    French, American, British, Russian, Austrian, German, Italian, and Japanese soldiers were also there. As an added bonus, the alliance faced little resistance when they invaded Tianjin on July 14, 1900. A month later, it would invade Beijing and put a stop to the uprising.

    August 14, 1900 – End of the Boxer Rebellion

    A multinational expeditionary army led by German commander Alfred von Waldersee landed in Tianjin and eventually captured the Chinese capital. After 55 days, it ended the siege of the European embassies in China by the Chinese nationalists.

    The uprising that had begun against the alien presence two months earlier had finally come to an end. Cixi, the imperial grandmother, and her entourage escaped. However, a massive war indemnity was imposed on the imperial administration.

    September 7, 1901 – China must compensate foreign powers

    After the Boxer Rebellion gained momentum, the imperial government of China was pressured into accepting the terms of the Peking Protocol.

    It had to make hefty compensation payments to hostile governments.

    buy bactrim online https://cphia2023.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/bactrim.html no prescription pharmacy

    Overall, the Boxer Rebellion hastened the downfall of the Manchu monarchy and increased China’s reliance on Western powers.

    Links: Révolte des Boxers (1899-1901) : Soulèvement Nationaliste en Chine

  • History of Industrial Revolution

    History of Industrial Revolution

    The shift from an agricultural-based economy to one based on automated, mass production of manufactured products began around the close of the 18th century with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Innovations in technology and the availability of alternative energies aided this process. The phenomenon of the Industrial Revolution happened at various periods in each nation, marking the beginning of a significant social mutation and the emergence of a working class. Unlike England, Germany, and the United States, France’s industrial development in the 19th century was steady and significant rather than spectacular and marked by a period of abrupt acceleration.

    The Industrial Revolution saw a multitude of technological innovations, including the steam engine, spinning jenny, power loom, telegraph, and the railroad. These inventions transformed various industries and modes of communication.

    England: The Pioneer

    james watt Industrial Revolution
    James Watt. Image: Malevus.

    Beginning in late 18th-century Britain, the first industrial revolution spread around the world. Both the British economy and social structure were drastically altered. The most noticeable changes occurred in production’s basic characteristics, as well as its mode and location. The primary product sector lost workers to the manufactured goods and services sectors. The creation of more sophisticated and productive machinery, like James Watt‘s steam engine, greatly boosted the output of produced goods.

    The systematic incorporation of both theoretical and empirical understanding of the manufacturing process also contributed to the productivity increase. Finally, it was found that concentrations of businesses in small areas were more productive. Thus, rural-to-urban migration and transnational movement from rural to urban places were connected to the industrial revolution.

    Some of the most noticeable shifts occurred in how labor is structured. The organization grew and added new capabilities. Instead of doing so within the context of a lord’s realm or by specific family members, the company now handled production. Regularity and specialization increased as the workload increased. The utilization of capital increased dramatically in industrial output. Workers were able to crank out far more products because of the advent of cutting equipment and mechanized assembly lines. This tendency toward specialization was bolstered by the benefits of expertise in a certain activity (the production of a specific component or instrument).

    Additional divisions between social classes emerged as a result of the Industrial Revolution’s increased reliance on specialized labor and massive capital investments. A large industrial and possessing bourgeoisie, owner of the means of production, whose members became known as “capitalists,” and a class of workers concentrated in manufacturing and heavy industries, who quickly formed a very homogeneous social class, brought the “social question” to the forefront of political debate at the end of the 19th century.

    Prosperous Growth in the Economy

    Britain was the experimental ground for a major economic and social shift since it was where the first industrial revolution took place. London was the hub of a global commercial network that facilitated the growing export of industrialization-era commodities for the majority of the 18th and 19th centuries. Exports, capitalizing on the reach of the British Empire, were critical to supporting the booming textile and industrial sectors driven by technological advances.

    Exports from Britain grew rapidly after 1780, according to available statistics, and the economy did well overall. Increasing exports and access to global markets benefited the economy in two ways: first, manufacturers were able to afford the low-cost raw materials (obtained from the colonies) they needed to launch their industries, and second, export merchants gained knowledge that was instrumental in fostering the growth of domestic trade.

    The “economic take-off,” as described by economist W.W. Rostow, occurred when industrialization progressed slowly over Europe. This period, which was characterized by an increase in GDP, household consumption, savings capacity, and investment, did not occur simultaneously everywhere.

    In England between 1780 and 1820, in France between 1830 and 1870, and in Germany between 1850 and 1880, the population “took off,” following a period of rapid population growth due to lower mortality. Sweden and Japan experienced it at the very end of the 19th century, Russia and Canada in the early twentieth century, Latin America and Asia in the 1950s, and several regions of Africa and the Middle East decades later.

    The Industrial Revolution in France

    In this regard, France was in an unusual situation. From 1815 to 1860, France grew steadily but never had a true “take-off” in the 19th century. Historically, agriculture has played a larger role in the French economy than in other nations, which helps to explain why France is so far ahead of the rest of the pack. Iron output in France was obviously larger than in all of the German states combined by 1860, as the significance of industry in the growth of the industrial revolution increased from 1830 onwards.

    The growth of the French railroad network from 3,000 km in 1850 to 17,500 km in 1870 and 50,000 km in 1913 was indicative of the country’s increasing industrialization. The expansion of related sectors like textiles, mining, and steel is further proof; the latter two greatly benefited from the advent of these transportation innovations, as they have been able to bring in new sources of energy, rails, wagons, etc. Thus, the French “performance” is not inconsequential, although it lagged behind England’s throughout the first two-thirds of the century and the United States and Germany’s for the final third.

    The Role of the Other Countries in the Industrial Revolution

    Both France and Germany faced competition from Britain as they launched industrialization, and the two countries reaped unequal benefits from the latter’s expertise. Free trade agreements between France and Britain were signed in 1860, which coincided with the slowing of the first industrial revolution in France. Due to inadequate industrialization, the French economy suffered as a result of this liberalization of trade (imports tripled, and industrial exports weakened).

    Instead, the cards were reshuffled at this time, with Germany benefiting more than England as the latter country lagged behind the fast industrialization that was taking place over the Rhine (creation of large businesses, etc.). The Mediterranean region of Europe, on the other hand, was largely left out of the industrial revolution until the 20th century.

    Although the British government had a significant role in fostering industrialization, it played an even larger role in Germany, Japan, Russia, and almost all other 20th-century industrializers. From this point on, the French government also started to meddle more obviously in the economy.

    The Consequences of the Industrial Revolution

    Heavy industry and emerging industrial sectors, like the car industry, wreaked havoc on the economies of Europe and North America. For the economy to continue operating normally, manufacturers developed modern manufacturing and administrative techniques. Fordism and Taylorism were management philosophies that emerged at the turn of the 20th century. Trusts, cartels, and an increase in the number of stockholders all contributed to a new look for the economy.

    Increases in national income per capita, GNP, and GDP are the hallmarks of successful industrialization (GDP). It alters not just how resources are divided but also how people live, work, and interact with one another. Workers’ buying power and living circumstances declined during the outset of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, as they did everywhere, but ultimately improved as a consequence of general enrichment and workers’ fights.

    The rise of trade unionism and Marxist socialist ideas at the century’s end led to these developments. However, the Industrial Revolution’s successful social group was the bourgeoisie, which tended to homogenize its way of life across the board, from the upper and lower classes that dominated finance and industry to the middle class that remained the norm despite its diversity.

    The Industrial Revolution in a Nutshell

    The advent of the new industrial age usually represents a watershed moment in human development. The effects initially appeared in England. The Industrial Revolution catapulted the nation to the position of leading economic power based on new sources of energy (coal), new materials (iron, steel), and advances (textiles, steam engines). However, a worldwide economic slump hit with the Vienna stock exchange crash of 1873.

    It wasn’t until 1896 that the second Industrial Revolution, which used electricity, oil, and chemicals, began. The Great Depression of 1929 put an end to the new economy it had helped shape. To all appearances, the 20th century saw a third revolution, one that was mostly driven by technological advancements in areas such as computing, transportation, energy production, and, most notably, communication. But experts believe that it’s too early to judge it at this point.

    TIMELINE OF INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

    Newcomen's steam engine

    1705: Thomas Newcomen builds a steam engine

    British engineer Thomas Newcomen, in collaboration with engineer Thomas Savery, developed the first industrially usable steam engine. A few years earlier, Thomas Savery had already invented a steam engine used for pumping water. The collaboration of these two individuals led to the improvement of this device through an atmospheric engine system, or “fire pump.” Newcomen first employed it in 1712 in a mine to operate water pumps. Despite its impracticality and low efficiency, it will be significantly enhanced by engineer James Watt in the coming years.

    1709: First use of coke in metallurgy

    Abraham Darby, located in the English village of Coalbrookdale, succeeds in melting iron ore using coke. Coke is produced by distilling coal. The long-standing use of coal as an energy source for smelting has led to deforestation in certain European countries. Consequently, new combustion methods needed to be developed. The iron produced by Darby initially lacks quality, but over the following decades, he and his family will refine the process.

    1733: John Kay perfects weaving

    British inventor John Kay developed the “flying shuttle” to enhance weaving speed. This new mechanical system enables the weaving of threads at a considerable speed and in much wider fabrics, requiring less manual labor. However, the thread production rate becomes insufficient, leading engineers to seek improvements in spinning as well.

    1767: The first spinning machine designed by Hargreaves

    British weaver James Hargreaves invented the “Spinning jenny,” a spinning frame capable of producing eight threads simultaneously with the effort of a single person. Hargreaves patented it in 1770, leading to an increase in woven threads. However, this system requires human intervention and does not find widespread industrial use.

    1769: Richard Arkwright invents the mechanical weaving machine

    Richard Arkwright patents his “water frame,” a weaving machine inspired by Hargreaves but powered by a hydraulic engine. This marks the birth of the first mechanical weaving machine, signaling the end of home-based weaving. Factories must now employ personnel to operate the machines. Arkwright himself established a factory in the early 1770s.

    1769: James Watt improves the steam engine

    James Watt, a Scottish engineer, patented improvements to the steam engine that Newcomen and Savery created. These enhancements include a separate chamber for condensing steam to generate more energy, a double-acting system where steam itself drives the piston, and a flywheel and ball governor to adjust machine speed. Watt continued refining these improvements into the 1780s, collaborating with Matthew Boulton to mass-produce the steam engine. After 1800, further engineers contributed to enhancing the system. The steam engine, powerful and capable of significant energy production, sees increasing use in industry.

    1779: Samuel Crompton perfects the weaving machine

    Samuel Crompton draws inspiration from Hargreaves and Arkwright to develop his “mule-jenny,” a mechanical weaving machine capable of producing a considerable quantity of threads for all types of fibers. However, this leads to a situation where weavers struggle to keep up with production, resulting in surplus raw materials.

    February 13, 1784: Henri Cort invents puddling

    British inventor Henri Cort devised the puddling process, refining cast iron—reducing its carbon content—to obtain higher-quality iron or steel. In a high-temperature furnace, cast iron is stirred using a hook and oxidizing slag. This invention represents a significant advancement in metallurgy during the British Industrial Revolution.

    1785: Cartwright invents the first mechanical loom

    The British inventor Edmund Cartwright developed the first mechanical loom. Since Crompton’s spinning machine, thread production has far outpaced the capabilities of weavers. Cartwright’s system harmonizes raw material production with weaving.

    1801: The British Parliament enacts the “General Enclosure Act”

    Great Britain established a law definitively instituting enclosure in agriculture. From now on, all agricultural plots will be enclosed and private. Enclosure, implemented since the 13th century, involves fencing off land. This system began developing in the 15th century, leading to large landowners displacing peasants from commons and wastelands, ending communal agricultural exploitation in favor of individualistic production. The expelled, facing ruin, turned to other sectors of production. In the following centuries, the system expanded and, after 1760, spread throughout the country. Enclosure paved the way for commercial agriculture and resulted in the British Agricultural Revolution.

    February 21, 1804: First steam locomotive trial

    Richard Trevithick set the first steam locomotive in motion in England, and it eventually reached a speed of 8 km/h. Twenty years later, a passenger-carrying line opened. Rapid transportation of significant quantities of goods between different economic zones played a fundamental role in the Industrial Revolution in England.

    September 28, 1825: First passenger train transport

    The English mechanic and true inventor of the locomotive, George Stephenson, established the first public railway line, connecting Stockton to Darlington. England became the first country to adopt railway lines. In 1829, George Stephenson developed a locomotive that set speed records, named “the Rocket.”

    August 27, 1859: Oil gushes in Pennsylvania

    American Colonel Edwin Drake constructed the first oil derrick in Titusville, Pennsylvania. Precious liquid emerges when the well reaches a depth of 23 meters. Initially used for oil lamps, petroleum is also distilled for fuel. The oil boom began, leading to the emergence of desert towns and the discovery of new oil fields.

    March 6, 1869: Chemistry: Mendeleev presents his periodic table of elements

    Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev introduced his “periodic classification of elements” to the Russian Chemical Society. His classification of the 63 known chemical elements reveals that the chemical properties of each element repeat at regular intervals. In his table, elements in the same column exhibit comparable properties. Mendeleev’s invention revolutionized the field of chemistry, accommodating newly discovered elements in his periodic table.

    May 9, 1873: Vienna stock market crash

    The Vienna stock market collapsed, quickly affecting Germany and then the United States. This marks the beginning of a stagnation or economic crisis lasting until 1896. Europe and North America eventually recovered economic growth, notably due to the oil, electricity, and chemical industries. This period is referred to as the “Second Industrial Revolution.”

    October 21, 1879: Edison invents the incandescent lamp

    Thomas Alva Edison activated the first incandescent light bulb in his New Jersey laboratory in Melo Park. Edison’s invention uses a Japanese bamboo filament in a vacuum-sealed bulb with low voltages to produce electric light when the bamboo carbonizes. The American inventor was only 29 years old at the time. The public was amazed when his invention was presented on January 1, 1880.

    January 29, 1886: Carl Benz patents the first automobile

    Installing an internal combustion engine on a tricycle equipped with a gearbox and differential, Carl Benz (or Karl Benz) built what is considered the first automobile. While motorized vehicles had been constructed before, such as Joseph Cugnot’s steam farrier, Benz’s tricycle was the first complete automobile capable of commercialization and industrial production. Soon, the automobile industry will flourish, giving rise to numerous brands and models. Carl Benz will become the head of a thriving company that, through mergers, continues today under the name DaimlerChrysler.

    1911: Taylor publishes “The Principles of Scientific Management”

    Frederick Winslow Taylor, a German-born engineer, published a work outlining his organizational system of work. Later called “Taylorism,” it relied on the scientific organization of labor, aiming to improve the speed of employees’ execution and production. After years of analysis at his company, the Midvale Steel Corporation, he initially advocated for the separation of tasks. Managers design and schedule, while workers limit themselves to execution in assigned positions. This new method yields positive results but is not appreciated by workers, who feel transformed into mere machines.

    January 14, 1914: Birth of “Fordism”

    American automobile manufacturer Henry Ford introduced an innovative method of assembly line work: the assembly line. With this innovation, the Ford Model T‘s construction time dropped from 6 hours to 1.5 hours, and factory productivity increased by a factor of 4. The static worker now assembles parts passing in front of them. This marks the birth of Fordism.

    October 24, 1929: Black Thursday on Wall Street

    On this day, the New York Stock Exchange collapsed. In just a few hours, 12 million shares were sold on the market. Seeing the decline in prices, speculators try to quickly get rid of all their stocks. Prices plummet by 30%. The “crash” will be confirmed on Tuesday, October 29. “Black Thursday” initiated the most severe economic crisis in history, the “Great Depression” of 1929. The United States is left in ruins, and the world is impacted both politically and economically.