The Forgotten Battle

If I asked you to name the largest battle in American history, what would you say? The usual answer I get is The Battle of the Bulge. Sometimes someone will say D-Day, or one of the great battles of the American Civil War like Gettysburg. Once or twice I've had people guess an American Revolutionary battle. These are all wrong. 

September 26, 2018 marks the 100th anniversary of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. If you're an American there's a good chance that you've never heard about; outside of a couple of military history courses it wasn't even discussed in US history courses I took in college. Which is strange, because it's the largest battle in American history. In general we don't talk about the First World War in the United States; we came in at the end and while most of us are aware Americans fought there, we don't actually know that much about what they did. 

In terms of numbers the battle was massive; more than 1.2 million Americans assisted by a like number of French troops and smaller numbers of other allied armies took part (as opposed to between 700,000 and 800,000 in the Battle of the Bulge). Casualties were massive too, and the Meuse-Argonne cost more American lives than any other battle in the country's history (26,277 Americans died on the Meuse-Argonne as opposed to 19,276 during the Bulge). More than 2,700 pieces of artillery were used by the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) alone, and the battle saw America's first large scale armored deployment with over 380 French and British built tanks being used by American units. It helped establish America's strategic preference for air superiority with the deployment of over 850 American-crewed aircraft. 

The Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery 

The battle itself was important. American divisions arrived fresh to a sector of the Western Front largely occupied by under-strength, exhausted French, British, and German units. Since 1914 the area had been a meatgrinder between the opposing sides, and the influx of over a million Americans suddenly swayed the balance on the Western Front. At first American units took terrible casualties as troops inexperienced in trench warfare made mistakes, but assisted by French allies they soon began to take ground. In just 47 days the Western Front collapsed and Germany surrendered, ending the First World War. It had an impact in America too; thousands would never come home and many that did were affected by the Spanish Flu which had led to so many military deaths on the Meuse-Argonne, helping to spread the global pandemic to North America. 

During the battle Alvin York became America's first modern war hero when he captured 132 Germans - he was awarded the Medal of Honor and songs and movies were written about him. Future President Harry S. Truman commanded an artillery battle in a desperate defensive action, becoming a minor celebrity which he would leverage into a successful political career. Future general George S. Patton commanded a tank brigade at the Meuse-Argonne, where he was wounded in combat. The experience helped him to shape his armored warfare theories which would be successfully implemented in the Second World War. 

Harry S. Truman in WWI Uniform

African American units, like the 369th Infantry Regiment fought in the battle, despite being put under French command because of American racism. They proved invaluable, moving so quickly and covering so much ground they were nearly cut off as they left flanking French units behind. Other units became famous too: the Lost Battalion, 9 companies of the 77th Division, were cut off for nearly a week and repulsed attack after attack by German forces. While 554 men were with the group who were cut off, only 194 were rescued days later. The unit was rescued thanks to the heroism of a carrier pigeon, Cher Ami, who delivered a message which stopped allied artillery from wiping the battalion out. 

The stuffed Cher Ami is now in the care of the Smithsonian

The First World War was extremely important, something I have argued time and again. Despite this most Americans know very little about it, which is especially shocking when you learn all of this. The centenary events will soon be drawing to a close, but these were events that should not be forgotten. If you'd like to learn more, as always, a few sources are posted below. As always, Amazon links are provided below for convenience (I receive no money or similar if you use these!). 

General WWI History

The First World War by John Keegan

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War, 1914 to 1918 by G.J. Meyer

American WWI History
The World Remade: America in World War I by G.J. Meyer

The Harlem Hellfighters: When Pride Met Courage by Walter Dean Myers

Meuse-Argonne Offensive History
America's Deadliest Battle: Meuse-Argonne, 1918 by Robert H. Ferrell

Forty-Seven Days:How Pershing's Warriors Came of Age to Defeat the German Army in World War I by Mitchell Yockelson

Finding the Lost Battalion: Beyond the Rumors, Myths, and Legends of America's Famous WW1 Epic by Robert Laplander

Random Facts: Literacy, Language, and the Reformation

Today marks 500 years since the start of the Protestant Reformation, and I thought I'd take a few lines to talk about the importance of that event from a historical perspective. Just to get the bias question out of the way: I am a practicing Lutheran after spending a decade away from the faith, and was raised in that faith as a child. That said, I currently live in a predominantly Catholic city (seriously, four of the five nearest churches are Catholic!) and teach at a Catholic university, so hopefully I can remain objective!

The Reformation is one of those rare, single events in history upon which everything that would come after hinged on to some degree. In European history there aren't that many of them, though I have talked about another (the Battle of Hastings) on this blog before. The reformation brought about too many changes for me to count, so today I am only going to discuss one in brief.

Let's Get the Myth Out of the Way

There is no evidence that Martin Luther ever actually nailed his 95 Theses to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg (then part of the Electorate of Saxony in the Holy Roman Empire and now in the state of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany). What we know for sure (because Doctor Luther discussed it at length in his writings) is that after writing his Theses he submitted them to the staff of Wittenberg University and to the Archbishop of Mainz by mail. The 95 Theses were a series of arguments designed to spark academic debate and internal reform, and such lists of arguments were common among academics like Doctor Luther. He never mentioned nailing the Theses to the door, and the story doesn't appear to have popped up until years after the fact.

It IS true that the door of All Saint's served as a sort of university and town billboard at Wittenberg, Students and staff at the school would often post debate topics (and other notices) on the door, but Luther at the time of the posting was a relatively senior lecturer at the university and no contemporaries mention the theologian taking part in the practice.

So moving on to why the Reformation was such an important event...

The Reformation Popularized Literacy and Created Modern Language
At the time of Doctor Luther's Theses-writing, the literacy rate in the Holy Roman Empire was only around 11%. The majority of literate people were clergy and theologians, but a large portion of the merchant and noble classes were likely at least semi-literate. These rates varied based on demographics, the average city probably had a literacy rate of around 30%, while it wouldn't have been unusual for there to be no literate people in a small village.

Around 1440 the Printing Press had been invented by Gutenberg which greatly reduced the cost to produce and purchase books and allowed publishers to go into business for the first time. However, it was Luther and his Biblia: das ist die Gantze Heilige Schrift Deutsche (The Bible: That is the Whole Holy Book in German) that sparked the need for literacy. Luther, after the publication of his 95 Theses, became the best-selling author in Europe, and his writings accounted for nearly 20% of all purchased publications in Europe during his lifetime (by the way, this makes him the best-selling single author per capita in western history).


Luther's argument was that Christians should read and study the bible. For the first time people had a real need to learn how to read, as legal documents and the like among the poor were still relatively rare. The average farmer or soldier was more concerned with mere survival, and the time which it would take to learn to read was better spent working. Books had become more affordable, but until the Reformation there was little urge among the lower class to learn the skill.

Within a century of Doctor Luther's death literacy rates in Europe rose from perhaps 5-10% throughout Europe to around 60% in Protestant countries (with Catholic countries catching up not long after). This is especially impressive when you realize that there was little available in the way of an organized educational system. Instead, people were taught to read largely using vernacular bibles.

The development of a national languages is another major accomplishment of the Reformation. In Luther's time language was a diverse thing; spelling was often non-standard and dialects were extremely regional. In the Holy Roman Empire the type of German spoken in each state was wildly different to the point of often being mutually unintelligible. Likewise in places like England or France regional dialects were so strong that provincial people living in those kingdoms had a difficult time communicating with people in the centers of power.

The introduction of Bibles in common languages changed that. In Germany the type of German used to write Doctor Luther's bible became the basis for Hochdeutsch, modern standardized High German. In England the Tyndale Bible had a similar impact on the English language. The establishment of national churches and common vernacular liturgies would continue the cementing of standardized language throughout the Protestant world.

Random Facts #7: Oktoberfest

It is September now, and that means Oktoberfest! I get a lot of questions about this particular event, not because of my historical training,  but because I was raised in Germany. I thought it'd be fun to write a quick history of this event, some of the customs surrounding, and a few fun facts!

The History

In 1810 heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Bavaria, Crown Prince Ludwig married Princess Therese of Saxony-Hildburghausen. Therese was quite a catch; Therese was from an ancient family and considered quite beautiful and she'd been one of Napoleon's prospects for marriage . A royal marriage was always a great event, and celebrations were held on the fields near the city gates of Munich. Big public gatherings like these (Volksfest) were common in Germany on feast days or during celebrations, and the citizens of the city happily ventured into the fields to drink, feast, and be entertained on the King's dime. In honor of the new bride, the field was named Theresienwiese, Therese's field. 

The festival ran for several days, starting the day after the royal wedding (on October 12, 1810). One of the final events was a horse race to be held on October 18. According to legend the race was organized by a Major in the army, but the details remain hazy. What is certain is that the Theresienwiese was the ideal place for such an event; the field itself was large but right next to the city, and a large hill located at its edge could serve as seating for tens of thousands of race spectators. A royal pavilion was set on top of this hill, so the newlyweds and the Monarch would have a fine view of the upcoming race. To entertain the royal guests, local wines and beers were sampled, and children put on shows for them. The race itself was a wild event, and ultimately a horse belonging to a Franz Baumgartner (possibly another founder of the event) won. 

The race proved so popular that in 1811 it was decided to repeat the event. Knowing that thousands from across Europe would attend, the Bavarian government decided to host an agricultural show in the week before the race. Bavarian trade goods could be shown off, adding an economic element to the festivities. The agricultural show remains a part of Oktoberfest (it's held every third Oktoberfest)  and the economic and advertising element would later be adopted by the famous Bavarian breweries. 

The festival continued to grow; in 1813 it was cancelled thanks to Napoleon, but afterwards it exploded in popularity as Europeans began to celebrate and take life easy after decades of war. In 1818 the first "carnival" entertainments, such as simple rides and games, started appearing alongside the rapidly growing number of beer tents, and the next year it was decided to officially make the October Festival a yearly event. In 1850 a statue of Bavaria, the personification of the kingdom, was erected over the field and in 1853 the Rumshalle, a large classical style building was constructed nearby to serve as a focal point of festivities. 

Rumshalle and Bavaria

In the early days small stands built by local brewers were erected to serve beer to thirsty guests, but as time went on the number of these booths expanded and the festival took on more and more of a public drinking aspect. Finally, in 1896 large tents and beer halls began to be built by the Munich's largest breweries; the idea was to have everything a festival patron might want under one roof. Around this time the date of the event was also pushed up to mid-September; foul October weather had dampened events in some prior years and pushing the event to late summer would guarantee better weather. 

The Beer

As mentioned above, originally beer was sold to guests as an afterthought, but as the Munich breweries grew it became the main attraction. A number of strict rules and traditions have grown around the beers served at Oktoberfest, mostly dictated by the Club of Munich Brewers, a trade organization of the city's breweries. 

A Maß is quite large. Extra head is there to make carrying the glass without spillage easier. 

All "official" beers served at Oktoberfest are Marzen, a type of German lager. It has to conform to the rules set down in the Bavarian Beer Purity Law (Reinheitsgebot) which states the only ingredients used in the brewing are water, hops, and barley. This "Oktoberfestbier" is specially brewed for the event, and it is allowed to be stronger than normal, usually around 2% stronger than the beer normally produced by a given brewery. This means the beer served at Oktoberfest is around 6% abv. It is always served by the "Maß", which means of mug of exactly 1 litre (about 33 ounces) of beer. 

Officially only 6 breweries have the right to produce Oktoberfest Marzen; Augustiner-Bräu, Hacker-Pschorr-Bräu, Löwenbräu, Paulaner, Spatenbräu, and Staatliches Hofbräu-München. Each of the 6 runs one of the main beer tents, and while craftbrews and foreign beers have become available outside of the main event, these 6 still dominate throughout Munich during Oktoberfest. 

Some Facts

-Oktoberfest has been cancelled on numerous occassions, usually during war or as a result of a public health crisis. In several instances (in the years after both World Wars) a smaller event, the kleineres Herbstfest (Smaller Fall Festival) was held to save money. 

-While a parade was held at the first Oktoberfest in 1810, the tradition of the modern annual parade started in 1887. This event celebrated the staff of the local breweries and festivals, and the garish decorations of the wagons and later floats built by the breweries serve as a lure to bring guests to their beer tents. The parade is always held the first Saturday of Oktoberfest and serves as the event's official kickoff. 

-The festival was one of the first in Europe to be lit electrically in 1880. 

-Originally, beer was drunk out of ceramic mugs, usually brought to the event by guests. In 1892 breweries instead started serving the beer in glass mugs so that they could better control portions served to guests. 

-About 75% of attendees are Bavarians or Austrians. Another 15% are foreigners from outside of Europe. The event annually brings about 6 million visitors in. 

-"Drunk Watching" is a favorite past time of many Munich residents during the event; many visitors overindulge and this, combined with the heat and extremely cramped conditions makes many sick. The issue is so common that this year Adidas released a shoe which is "puke resistant". Pleasant, no?

-Oktoberfest is extremely crowded; locals make reservations for tables inside of the big beer tents up to a year in advance, and many foreigners find themselves shut out of the most desirable tents by throngs of Germans with reservations. 

Oktoberfest waitresses can carry over a dozen  beers, and use whistles to get the crowds to move out of their way!

-There are rides and games at Oktoberfest, and efforts continue to be made to make the event more family friendly. 

-Oktoberfest isn't really an event outside of Munich, contrary to popular thought in America. Most towns and cities have their own fall festivals. Many Germans are aware of Oktoberfest but have never been, and the event holds a similar place in many German minds to the one held for Mardi Gras by many Americans outside of the Gulf coast. 

-The second largest Oktoberfest in the world is held right here in Cincinnati, Ohio! It starts today!

Historical Misconceptions 2: Viking Warrior Women

Woo boy, this one is going to generate some anger I suspect, so let me start by saying the following. It is extremely disingenuous and dangerous to the study of history to project modern beliefs and desires on people of the past. Here in the United States in 2017 we live in one of the most socially progressive, open-minded societies in human history. While we still have a long way to go on many fronts, more people enjoy more freedoms, protections, and social mobility here and now than at almost any other point in the last 10,000 years. Assuming that people of the past thought the way we do isn't just detrimental to discovering the truth, it is unfair to those people of the past who didn't enjoy the same levels of education and development that we do today.

There's a news story going around right now, talking about how DNA evidence has "proven" the existence of female viking fighters. To quickly summarize, a grave was found in Scandinavia where the person had been buried with items usually associated with male burials; weapons and a military-themed board game. As a result, most scholars assumed it was a male, but a recent DNA test showed the person to have been a woman. As a result, we're seeing headlines like "scholars proven wrong about warrior women!". What?

For the last 20 years or so there's been a trope in Norse studies of trying to prove that the vikings (that is, early medieval Scandinavians from modern Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) were somehow an extremely liberal, tolerant society focused on trade. The massive documentary and archaeological record of the victims of their raids of course disprove that to some extent. It IS good that we are trying to look at groups like the vikings with a more open, even-minded and open view, but in my mind this has gone way too far; instead of viewing them only as barbaric raiders some have begun to regard them (as the Victorians did before us) as some sort of nearly Utopian society.

The concept of viking warrior women is old; the Sagas themselves after all discuss the Valkyries, angelic female warriors of the gods. The Sagas also mention Shield-Maidens, women who have forsaken a "normal" life to fight as warriors. It's a concept that many modern historians are attracted to; after all, if the vikings who were feared across the world had many female fighters, it clearly says something about how wrong some peoples' views about the traditional role of women are.

The problem is, a lot of this is wishful thinking, backed up by very scant evidence which itself is still heavily debated among scholars of Norse history. Were there perhaps SOME women who fought alongside men on raids and invasions? Possibly. Were they common? Certainly not. The evidence for women taking part as warriors is extremely scant. The Sagas mention shield maidens, and a handful of graves of women with weapons have been discovered. There have also been Scandinavian women buried in places the Vikings invaded, like northern England.

Obviously, these few bits of evidence aren't at all conclusive. People are often buried with items they may not have used in life; think about all of the people you know who are buried in suits but never wore one while they were living! Overseas burials were scant, and can easily be chalked up to the women simply immigrating with their male kinfolk, as we know they did in Iceland and North America. The Great Heathen Army's invasion of England was after all to conquer territory and not just a great raid, and it makes sense men may have brought mothers, wives, or daughters with them. In short, the archaeological record is sparse and open to interpretation at best.

Viking women also enjoyed more rights than women in other areas of Europe in the Early Middle Ages, suggesting perhaps they had greater roles in society as well. Viking women had the right to divorce their husbands, own land and other property, choose their husbands, and act as political and religious leaders. With that said, greater social liberty doesn't always equate to greater social influence. Take American women in the 1930's; they had the right of divorce, the right to vote and hold political office, the right to property, and more, but their social opportunities were (compared to today) not quite there yet to say the least. There were some very powerful, influential women at this time of course, but this doesn't mean that it was common yet, and it'd take things like women entering the male-dominated workforce as a result of the Second World War to really get the ball rolling.  So that there were some exceptional viking women doesn't indicate it was common.

That leaves the Saga evidence which I feel to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, the Sagas often exaggerate or flat-out lie, but many of them do hold many kernels of truth. The Sagas were mostly recorded after the Viking golden-age by Christian priests or monks, and they'd have had no reason to include women that hadn't been in the original orally-transmitted tales. With that said, when shield-maidens to appear in sagas, they're always being described as exceptional to some degree, which would indicate they weren't exactly a common thing.

The evidence against women regularly fighting alongside men in viking armies and warbands is extensive though. Or at least, the lack of things we SHOULD find showing they regularly took part in warfare is telling. The first are clear battlefield casualties. A skeleton of a person killed in combat is pretty distinctive, as the wounds given to a person fighting defensively are much different from the wounds of a person simply hacked down with little or no resistance. As of the time of writing, I am aware of no female viking bodies ever discovered showing any of these kinds of wounds.

Then there's the almost complete lack of literary evidence. In Scandinavia, runestones were large carved rocks which commemorated a great person or event. Only a few mention women at all, and in every case only as great wives or servants. Take the Odendisa runestone, the ONLY such runestone ever discovered in all of Sweden to mention a woman. it reads:

Boandi goðr Holmgautr let ræisa æftiʀ Oðindisu, kunu sina. Kumbʀ hifrøya til Hasvimyra æigi bætri, þan byi raðr. Rauð-Balliʀ risti runiʀ þessaʀ. Sigmundaʀ vaʀ [Oðindisa] systiʀ goð

The good husband Holmgautr had this stone raised in memory of Odendisa, his wife. There will come to Hassmyra no better housewife, who arranges the estate. Red-Ball carved these runes. Odendisa was a good sister to Sigmundr. 

You would think that if there were many women holding great positions of power or military ability in viking society, the runestones would have indicated that, but none that have been discovered show any evidence of that. 

Now the argument can be made that runestones are somewhat rare, and the vikings weren't known for a strong written literary tradition, which is fair. So lets look at the many, many literate people who had contact with viking raiders or traders and wrote about their interactions. The four obvious ones are the Franks, the Anglo-Saxons of England, the Byzantine Empire, and several Arab Caliphates and Emirates. All four of these groups were deeply religious, extremely patriarchal by modern standards, and produced rich sources of documentary evidence.

None of these groups ever really describe women fighting alongside men. Saxo Grammaticus, an Anglo Saxon chronicler, does transcribe a legendary story about a battle involving several female war-leaders from a Saga, but Saxo Grammaticus himself seems to have taken this story as legend. The Anglo-Saxons in particular are telling here; they've been described as perhaps the most patriarchal group of people in early medieval Europe (which is saying something!) and they also wrote heavily and in great detail about the viking invasions of Britain. These writers went to great lengths to describe all of the terrible things the vikings did, down to hygienic and domestic practices  the Anglo Saxons found distasteful. You would think that had women been fighting against this patriarchal society, the Anglo Saxon chronicles would have mentioned them with horror, but they're nowhere to be found. I am not as familiar with Byzantine or Arab sources, but here again there is a near-total dearth of documentary evidence supporting women fighters. 

Another obvious place where viking women should have appeared but don't was within the Byzantine military. The Byzantine emperors were protected by a group called the Varangian guard, drawn originally from vikings from Rus and Scandinavia. Several prominent vikings did a tour with the guard because the job promised great wealth, but there is no evidence of a woman ever serving with the Varangians, or even applying to join their ranks. 

Viking Graffiti in Constantinople's Hagia Sophia

This evidence all indicates to me that there may have been some women who fought regularly alongside men, but it seems more likely that when most women did fight it was out of necessity. A great example of this is Leif Erikson's sister Freydis; the story goes that while in North America her settlement was attacked by a group of natives. The women and children fled, but because she was pregnant Freydis fell behind. When the natives caught up with her, she took the sword from a dead man (possibly one of her retainers) and beat it against her breasts, challenging the natives to fight her. Out of fear or respect they fell back and the day was saved. She wasn't a "warrior", and fighting was not her job, but she showed great bravery at a desperate moment. 

A warrior is someone whose primary job it is to fight. They occupy a distinct place in their society. A person picking up a spear to defend their home is brave and desperate, but they aren't a warrior. They're heroic, sure, but they don't spend their lives training to fight, they are expected to fight except under exceptional circumstances, and given any other option they probably wouldn't fight. The evidence showing that women routinely held this role in Norse society is lacking and open to debate at best. 

What bothers me about all of this viking warrior women talk is that it ignores the many truly exceptional women throughout history. Shows like History Channel's Vikings portrays the legendary Lagertha as leading a band of all-female warriors, leading many with the false assumption that this is historically accurate. When these people learn it's at best a partial-truth, it leaves them questioning what to believe. Let's talk about Aethelflaed, an Anglo-Saxon daughter of Alfred the Great who inspired the Mercians to drive off the Vikings and dressed as a warrior. Let's focus on the amazing women throughout history, and not discuss theoretical narratives based on scant evidence and wishful thinking. It cheapens the field of research and diminishes and dilutes the stories of people we know who existed. 

We need to keep an open mind. Evidence may be found that conclusively proves women routinely fought alongside men in Norse society, and we need to be ready to accept it if we find it. Until that time (if it ever comes) we need to not project modern sensibilities and desires on the past. Does it matter one way or the other to modern discussions about gender and women's roles in society? Not really. 

Historical Misconceptions 1: Late Medieval European Armor

I see a lot of misconceptions about history out there. Some of them are small and some more important and well known, but everyone (myself included) falls prey to them from time to time. I started really thinking about this after reading through the book I've been assigned to use for a survey-level college history course I'm teaching in the fall. Multiple times throughout the book, especially when discussing non-European history or military history in general it makes claims which are simple repeats of misconceptions which history students the world over have been taught for one reason or another. I thought it might be fun to do posts on these misconceptions!

Artists depiction of an English knight in full combat gear

Today I'm going to be talking about a few misconceptions about armor, particularly in Europe in the late middle ages and renaissance. Much of this applies to earlier periods and other geographic regions, but for simplicity's sake I am going to stick to plate-type armors. I am not going to do an in-depth study of this kind of armor, as numerous books are available on the subject. Instead, I am just going to briefly discusses a few misconceptions about it. If you like this format, or have any constructive criticism, let me know!

16th Century Maximilian Armor. You can see from this
image that the wearer was relatively thin, and the armor fitted
closely to his body.

1. It was heavy 
This is pretty much entirely false. Weight depended upon the height of the wearer, level of decoration, and level of protection afforded, but in general combat armor weighed between 40 and 60 pounds, including helmet, with another few pounds added for weapons. At first glance this may seem like a lot, but remember that it was worn with weight evenly distributed across the body. Individual pieces were were held in place with small  loops called arming points worn on the under padding and clothing of the wearer. This meant that each pieces was carried on a different part of the body, instead of all of the weight being on the wearer's back or shoulders as you might expect. Also keep in mind that this total weight isn't bad; modern American infantryman are expected to carry around 80 pounds of gear each, and sometimes much more. Firemen, hikers, and even some long-suffering college students all routinely carry as much weight or more than a medieval knight in a full suit of plate armor. When I backpack overnight, I am usually carrying a 40 pound pack, plus at least several more pounds of clothing including my boots.

Modern servicemen are expected to be able to carry around 80 pounds of gear while on the march in all weathers.

2. It limited mobility
I see this a lot, and the misconception ranges from knights being unable to get up after being knocked down to men in armor having to be lifted onto horses with cranes. In movies and tv armored men are often seen widely slashing with weapons and unable to keep up with more lightly armored opponents. This is a big plot point in both the Game of Thrones television series and the book series which it is based on, where smaller, lightly armored opponents outmaneuver plate-armored knights who are quickly exhausted by their armor.

Plate rerebrace (upper arm armor) being attached to an arming point.

Think about this for a second; a man going into combat might be expected to fight mounted or on foot, may expect to be knocked down, might have to retreat (on foot or mounted) quickly, and more. Would any person willingly put themselves in any of these situations wearing a bulky suit that keeps them from moving easily?. Full suits of plate were usually made custom for the wearer, and could be tailored (with time) for the wearer just like clothing. Due to their mountings to arming points, each piece of armor moved like the body part of the wearer underneath. Late period plate armor acted like a second skin. It allowed a full range of movement, and wasn't particularly tiring to wear, especially considering that most of the men wearing it had been trained at least since their early teens to wear it on a daily basis. See the video below to see the range of movement available to a plate armored fighter.

3. Armor disappeared because it could be easily pierced by gunfire

This is mostly false. It is true that as firearms became more advanced they could pierce armor more and more easily, reducing its effectiveness. That said, it wasn't until the 19th century that guns were created that were both accurate and powerful enough to pierce armor plate reliably. Medieval and Renaissance firearms had a comparatively lower piercing capability, and medium to long range shots and even close range glancing hits could be deflected by the best suits of plate. Cavalry in the British army continued to wear steel breastplates until after the Napoleonic period, and some French and German units actually took their armor with them to battle in 1914. Ballistic steel plates were reintroduced towards the end of the First World War, and the armor worn by American and other NATO forces overseas are essentially breastplates made with modern materials.

Reenactors dressed as French cuirassiers as they would have appeared in 1815

What really led to the demise of plate was a combination of economy, social changes, and changes to army organization. Full plate suits were expensive, and required to wearer to have a large income to purchase and maintain. As the knightly and lower noble classes declined, the ability to buy expensive armor became rarer. Alongside this, armies were becoming larger and more professional. For the cost of hiring or equipping a plate-armored heavy cavalryman who took years to train effectively, commanders could train many pike or musket men relatively cheaply in just a few weeks. Had firearms totally wiped out armor, cavaliers in the English Civil War (1642 - 1651) wouldn't have worn it, as musket-equipped infantry made up the bulk of the armies fighting one another even at this relatively early date.

Armor pieces worn during the English Civil War

And that's it for today! If you liked this short article and want to see more like it, please let me know!

A Quick Review of Dunkirk

Hello all! I apologize for the lack of updates lately and, unfortunately, there will be even fewer in the coming months. In addition to my normal day job and writing, I've also accepted a university lecturer position so my hands are pretty well tied for the moment!

I saw Christopher Nolan's new film, Dunkirk, on Friday night, and I enjoyed it so much that I felt that I should put my feelings into words. a fair warning to those of you who haven't seen it; there will be a few minor spoilers below, but I am going to try to keep any major plot points from slipping in. That said, beware if you haven't seen it yet!

Just in case you're impatient, I'll get straight to the point by saying I loved the film. It might (I say might because so far I've only seen it once) might be in my top five war films of all time. I am putting it up there with classics like Zulu and The Longest Day. What really sets this movie apart, especially apart from my other all-time greatest war films, is that it does not rely on action to create the drama. Instead the film managed to be dramatic simply through the character's emotions, which is even more impressive when you consider the fact that there are only a few hundred lines of dialogue in the entire 2-hour film.

Nearly everything portrayed in the film happened during the actual Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of Allied forces at Dunkirk. Most of the lines spoken in the movie are either paraphrased or taken word-for-word from actual quotes from participants in the operation. Most of the major plot points also come directly from real life, and the main characters all seem to be composites of multiple real-life people involved in one way or another with the 1940 evacuation.

BEF soldiers qeueing up to evacuate. Many are wearing gas capes.

I won't mince words; I cried during this film, and it got me to tear up, either with sadness or pride, more than once. Most war films fall into one of two tropes; being overly dark and gritty to criticize war, or overly glorious and patriotic. Dunkirk manages to avoid both, and all of the feelings a viewer experiences are similar to those of the real people being caricatured on-screen. The movie is stressful, sad, patriotic, glorious, heroic, and more besides. There are heroic characters, cowards, and, mostly, just a lot of frightened young men handling stress that none of us can imagine in their own way.

 One of my favorite things about the film is that the Germans are never really seen in the film. Their aircraft are viewed, and we hear their gunfire, and at the end a blurry squad of soldiers is seen in the background, but otherwise the Germans remain, for the most part, an unseen but constantly felt threat. This achieves two goals: the movie becomes about the characters and their feelings, not an us vs. them plot, and it helps us feel the constant background stress and fear that our characters (and the men at Dunkirk) are experiencing. When are the Germans coming? What can we do to get away?

Harry Styles

The acting is fantastic throughout. Harry Styles, famous mostly among teenage girls as a member of the boyband One Direction, did a great job in his debut. This is even more impressive when you consider that, as noted above, he has very little dialogue and had to convey emotions solely through physical acting. Kenneth Branagh plays a Royal Navy Commander based on several characters, particularly Commander James Campbell Clouston, a Canadian who acted as the pier-master during the evacuation and was killed while being evacuated near the end of the operation. His character (and those he interacts with) serve as our sort of narrators, and the plans for the evacuation are explained to the audience mostly through their dialogue.

Cillian Murphy plays a BEF soldier suffering from PTSD, and he did a great job. He managed to be sympathetic and realistic, and didn't ham it up in a way I've seen many other actors portray the condition. Mark Rylance plays a civilian piloting once of the civilian "little ships" which took part in the evacuation, and as always he was great. The real standout was Tom Hardy, who portrays an RAF Spitfire pilot. He looked, acted, and spoke exactly the way that real RAF aviators did, and I applaud his casting.

Tom Hardy as RAF Pilot Farrier

In terms of historical accuracy and realism, the movie did a superb job. As noted above, many of the incidents that actually took place are shown in the film, although being experienced by just our main cast instead of the diverse group of people in reality. The inaccuracies are mostly done for plot reasons. At the very beginning of the film we find one of our main characters under fire from Germans in the town of Dunkirk itself. He escapes, and makes it to a perimeter being manned by a French Army unit. In reality the Germans didn't have ground forces enter Dunkirk proper until the final day of the evacuation. They were held off by BEF and French forces in a wide perimeter around Dunkirk until the rearguards began their own evacuation. This was done to increase the drama, and helps to remind the audience of the men (mainly French) who heroically stayed behind to protect the evacuations, so I am ok with it. There are similar changes in terms of timeline and other details, but again, all of these are for dramatic or clarity reasons and even the most nitpicky historian should be ok with them.

The real Dunkirk Perimeter on May 26, 1940. This perimeter held more or less intact until June 2-3, when the final rearguard units began to disengage.

Artist depiction of the "melee" fought over Dunkirk on May 27, 1940,
between 48 RAF Spitfires and a large Luftwaffe formation.

The main inaccuracy is the way in which the RAF is portrayed. Many people, mostly because of eye witnesses on the beaches who saw few friendly planes, think that the RAF had little role in Dynamo, but this wasn't the case. Most of the RAF aircraft that took part in the operation were operating deep into France and Belgium, covering still-retreating units and trying to stop Luftwaffe aircraft from making it the the beaches and boats in the first place. There were aircraft working over the ocean, but they were few in number. Mostly they flew high above, attempting to intercept dive-bombers before they could begin attack runs or fighting bomber escorts. Some RAF aircraft were operating at the very low altitudes portrayed in the film, but again, this was rare. While not necessary an inaccuracy per se, I note it because many viewers may be under the false impression that the RAF routinely operated in a manner similar to the one shown in the film.

My biggest criticism is that the films starts as the evacuations are going on. I understand why this is done, but for those not familiar with the history behind the evacuations I feel it takes some of their impact away. By the time evacuations started many of the British units escaping had been fighting for a week straight while withdrawing from the Germans. They were dirty, exhausted, and out of supplies, and knowing this would have heightened the drama for viewers. There's a brief written explanation of what is going on at the start of the film, but being shown some of the retreat may have been good.

The props and such are mostly very accurate. The troops mostly looked too prim and clean; as noted above, the BEF and French forces had been in a fighting retreat for a week. Most of them were exhausted, out of supplies, and wearing tattered dirty uniforms. Many of the characters are a bit too clean to be really accurate. Related to this, I'd like to take just a second to talk about hair. At least since Band of Brothers, I've noticed a trend of actors wearing haircut that is way too long to be accurate. They're usually in 1940s style, but not at military regulation length. Of course many soldiers grew their hair out, particularly in combat, but it's still common enough in film to be worth noting. I bring it up here because a soldier ( 2nd Lieutenant William Lawson, Royal Artillery) at Dunkirk actually did have to get a haircut after receiving a chewing out by his father, a brigadier general for having hair longer than regulation!

I should also note that, similar to the criticism about uniforms above, the beach in the film is far cleaner than how it actually looked during the evacuations, at least by the end of the operation. The British abandoned most of their gear and baggage on the beach, and several survivors noted how cluttered it looked in the final hours of the operation. You see vestiges of this in the move (like thousands of rifles piled against a wall in one scene), and I guess Nolan didn't want to or couldn't litter up the beach too badly (Dunkirk was filmed on-location in Dunkirk, France). I simply note it here for completions sake!

Some of the prop inaccuracies are understandable. The German fighter planes in the film, which are supposed to be Messerschmitt Bf 109s, are portrayed by a Spanish Hispano Buchon. This aircraft was a Spanish copy of the Bf 109, but had some notable differences. I am ok with this; flying 109s are kind of rare, and the Buchon has been used regularly as a Bf 109 stand in in many films and TV shows because it's "close enough" to the casual viewer.

Comparison of the Hispano Buchon (Above) and Bf 109 (Below). Note the radically different nose shapes. 

The British destroyers in the film (6 British and 3 French were sunk during the actual evacuations and dozens took part) are clearly newer vessels that have been dolled up to look like older ships. I wasn't sure what they were, but after looking it up it turns out that the Destroyers in the film were portrayed by a late 1950's French destroyer, Maillé-Brézé, or by retired Dutch vessels. Again, I am ok with this, as there aren't any surviving 1930's British destroyers of the type common at Dunkirk. There are the usual occasional anachronisms and minor errors (I am not positive, but I think a few of the background buildings in the town of Dunkirk are post-war structures), but nobody is perfect and none of them are bad enough to be detracting, even for the serious historian.

The French vessel used as an H-Class Destroyer in the film.

One of the coolest things to note about props in this film is that several of the little ships seen in the movie are antiques, and actually took part in the real evacuations in 1940. This wasn't necessary, but it was a great little detail for Nolan to add and was a good way for these little vessels and their crews to get some of the recognition they deserve. 

Sundowner, a yacht used during the Dunkirk Evacuations. While not used for the film, the boat featured in the film, Moonstone, seems to have been inspired by this boat. Famously, Sundowner was owned and operated by the former Second Mate on the titanic, who made a trip to save stranded soldiers during Operation Dynamo. 

I urge anyone reading this to see the film. It's an important story, and one that many people especially in the United States aren't aware of. It's also one of my new favorite historical films, and that itself should be recommendation enough for anyone who knows me! If you'd like to learn more about the 1940 Battle of France or Operation Dynamo, I have a couple of reading recommendations below. That's it for today!


 Further Reading
The Miracle of Dunkirk: The True Story of Operation Dynamo By Walter Lord. This is the go-to book on Dynamo, and it was the book I re-read to brush up on the operation before I went to see the film. Written in the 1980's, Lord spoke to numerous survivors (British, French, German, Belgian, and civilian) of the evacuations and it's written in a style similar to other great Second World War works like The Longest Day. So many of the incidents and quotes in this book are used in the film that I am positive it was Nolan's primary reference during filming. 

Air Battle for Dunkirk: 26 May - 3 June 1940, by Norman Franks. First published in 1983, this work is getting ready to be reprinted for the first time in 20 years. It's an in-depth look at RAF operations during Dynamo, and is important because of the common myth that the Royal Air Force weren't very involved in Dynamo. 

To Lose a Battle: France 1940, by Alistair Horne. There are a number of works on the fall of France in 1940, but I chose this one mostly because I really enjoy Horne's writing style. 

Why It's Important: The First World War

I am a couple of days late because of some things going on in my personal life, but I have been working on this post for a bit now. I was really hoping to get it up on April 6, the 100th anniversary of America's entry into the First World War. Many people, especially the media, seem to love big anniversaries, and I was shocked by the lack of coverage I saw in American media about this commemoration. Many of the major media and news sites didn't mention it, and many of those that did carried only a short story or focused on the events going on down at the National WWI Museum in Kansas City (a museum i love, by the way!). However, it received decent press overseas in Europe, where the war is much better remembered. In America, many people simply consider the war as WWII's smaller brother, but it was extremely important. Here's just a few reasons why.

Delegates to the Paris Peace Conference at Versailles, 1919

It Drew the Map of the World We Have Today

Ever wonder why nations like Iraq or Jordan have long, straight borders passing through the middle of deserts? Confused about the complex borders in the Balkans? Curious as to where and why extremely culturally, religiously, and ethnically complex populations in African were just lumped into seemingly arbitrary nations together? It all comes back to World War I. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire led Europe to split the Middle East among themselves, leading to the borders we have today; men were literally just drawing lines on maps to make things even without regard to conditions on the ground. Which leads us into another point...

Original plans to partition the Middle East, 1916

It Helped Many Modern Nations Find Their Identity

After the war was over, some nations found an identity as a result of borders being redrawn. But many of them found themselves defined DURING the war. Nations like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada first started to see themselves as fully independent nations while fighting together in the war, instead of simply as members of a greater British Empire. Ethnic groups in the Balkans banded together to defend themselves, or were forced to fight in units together as part of the Austro-Hungarian Army, giving them a shared sense of identity. Unfortunately in many cases, this had an unforeseen at the time consequence...

Australian Propaganda Poster from the War

It Caused WWII

World War II is the big one, both in terms of numbers and terms of attention. But it may have never happened without WWI. The brutal treatment of the defeated powers led some, like extreme right-win nationalists in Germany, to hunger for revenge. The nationalism which had been stoked before and during WWI was harnessed by many dictators and thinkers in nations like Italy, Japan, Romania, and Hungary. And more directly...

Most of WWII's Leaders Came to Prominence During WWI

Winston Churchill became famous and then nearly lost his career as a politician while serving as First Lord of the Admiralty during the war. Hitler, as most of you first know, became a minor war hero, was gassed in combat, and was heavily influenced by his war experiences. Mussolini served with distinction, and his participation on the Italian Front helped in his rapid transition from his belief in socialism to being a major leader and thinker in fascism and nationalism. Albert Lebrun and Franklin D. Roosevelt both fulfilled important political roles in their countries during WWI. Finally, nearly every general or admiral famous in WWII gained their first major combat experience in WWII; Rommel, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, Montgomery, De Gaulle, Zhukov, Tito, and more all served in the First World War, where their experiences had a major effect on their tactics and strategies during the later war. Which meant...

Adolf Hitler in Imperial German Uniform

WWI Was Perhaps the Greatest Single Influence on Modern Military Tactics

Modern military tactics and strategy for conventional war were first created and tested on the battlefields of the First World War. The use of small, independent infantry units to secure objectives using speed and surprise grew out of German storm trooper tactics invented to capture trenches. The importance of air power, bombing, and reconnaissance all first saw major use in the WWI. Tanks used as engines to create a break in an enemy line which could then be exploited by infantry. The heavy reliance on artillery as weapons to indirectly support an attack. The formation of dedicated machine gun sections to support infantry. A reliance on hand grenades and similar weapons to act as area of denial weapons to force enemies out of cover. The creation of large dedicated field hospitals close to battle areas to quickly treat the wounded. The need to win a quick, decisive victory before an enemy can fortify himself. All of these tactics were created, refined, or at least found new importance during the war. Of course, none of this would been possible without...

August 1914, French cavalry in armor ride out of Paris

Early 1919, French Tanks in Victory Parade in Paris

WWI Was a Major Influence on Technology

Before WWI, most flight was achieved by multi-winged airplanes made of wood and canvas, by the end of the war there were monoplanes made of metal or otherwise armored. Seaplane carriers found their first major use in the war, paving the way for the development of aircraft carriers. At the start of the war French Cavalry units left Paris wearing armor and uniforms their ancestors had worn under Napoleon, but returned to the city in 1918 riding in tanks. Cars, trucks, and tractors became rapidly improved to contend with extreme war conditions, and the war saw the first major use of motorized ambulances similar to the ones we would recognize today. Nearly every field of technology or science was advanced in some way because of the war. 

It Gave People a Voice

Many social movements, especially in America, had their origins in or became more popular because of the war. When African Americans arrived in Europe, particularly France, they were stunned at the great treatment they received from the locals who had for more enlightened ideas on race, at least compared to Americans of the time. As repression against blacks increased in the south, many sought an escape which they simply lacked the economic means to carry out, but the war changed that. As factories and mines in the north pumped out higher and higher volumes of goods over the course of the war (early on to fill gaps left by the converting of European production to war material, then to sell materials to resource-strapped warring nations, and finally to support the American effort itself) they required more employees. This problem was exacerbated as men began to leave factories to go fight. This created huge numbers of unskilled but relatively well-paying jobs, giving the economic chance for African Americans to escape the south, which they did to the number of 5 million people during the first "great migration". Women going to work for the first time or acting as the heads of a household or community leaders began to question more and more their lack of rights, and the war is frequently seen as having been the final blow against those opposing women's suffrage. 

It Shook The International Stage and Broke the Great Powers

Before WWI, the great powers of the world were the same as those at the end of the Napoleonic Wars one hundred years earlier; France, Germany, Britain, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. The war changed that; by the end France had suffered massively in terms of a loss of men of all classes, England began experiencing its first major imperial problems they were forced to weaken their presence in colonies while simultaneously exploiting them more, and Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary would all have their governments broken or cease to exist at war's end. Britain and France remained powers, but rapidly declining ones, and this opened the door for...

It Created New Great Powers We Still Have Today

Before the war, the United States had been an economically powerful nation, but one with little major influence abroad. With the notable exception of the Teddy Roosevelt presidency (when Teddy for instance helped mediate negotiations during the Russo-Japanese War) America had mostly been an insular, isolationist country considered by many in Europe to still be something of a backwater. Japan, despite its successes against Russia in the previously mentioned war, was still seen as a regional power in Asia but no more. The war created the great powers and super powers we all know today. Japan created her empire and laid the groundwork for the successful modern country she is today. The Soviet Union was created and modernized Russia from a large but backwards nation into a new super power. And America became a de facto world leader, capable of almost single-handedly ending a war which had dragged on for years. From then on, every nation had to factor in the American response when engaging in diplomacy and acts of aggression, even in the old world. 

It Created Modern International Diplomacy

Woodrow Wilson's creation of the League of Nations after the war directly set the groundwork for modern international relations. Without WWI or America's intervention in it, there would be no UN, no treaties banning the use of poison gas in combat, and probably far fewer international treaties. (Some, like the Geneva Conventions were created before the war, but they became far, far more numerous and popular after the war's conclusion in an effort to prevent another major world war). This, of course, wasn't a good thing in every respect...

It Laid the Ground for the Cold War and Modern system of Super Powers. 

With no WWI, and without Germany sending Lenin to Moscow secretly near the end of the war, there would have been no Soviet Union, making a cold war between east and west, communism and capitalism, much less likely. The creation of the Soviet state helped to polarize the world between three ideologies; western democracy championed by France, England, and the US, Fascism championed by Germany, Italy, Spain, and others, and Communism championed by the Soviets and revolutionary groups around the world. WWII broke the fascists, but the last two paved the way for our current system, with America (democracy) and the EU (democracy), contending against the Russians (former Communists) and Chinese (communists) for power on the world stage. Currently the balance of power is maintained, but for how long nobody knows. 

Honestly at this point I could go on and on; the creation of politically-influential veterans movements in the United States and the creation of the VA, massive loss of life triggering major population and demographic changes, the influences in the arts, and a nearly infinite list of things came from WWI. But I think I have made my point; World War One was extremely important, and you should learn more about it if you can. It'll help give you some perspective on the current situation the world finds itself in, and give you respect for how important single events, even very large ones can be. 

That's it for today, see you next time!