The Significance of the Execution of Charles I

 Generally British monarchs are remember for their prowess in international battles. However Charles I will always be remembered as the first monarch to be put on trial for treason – which led to his subsequent execution. Nowadays the monarch has little power all thanks to the actions of King Charles. In the last 3 centuries parliament has dominated domestic and international policies and that is a result of Charles' trial in 1649.

Charles I - The First Monarch to be charged for treason.

 Charles' beliefs were very traditional; he believed he was chosen by god to rule the nation and parliament was surplus to requirement. Thus began the infamous 'eleven year tyranny' which resulted in the civil war and his beheading. The actions of Parliament in 1628 justified his reasoning, after the 'petition of right' was passed – limiting the King's spending. Parliament was dissolved on March 2 giving Charles complete control over the nation.

 The four major problems from 1629-40 were: The Kings Advisers, The Church, Scotland and The Finances. The King's personal advisers were all royalists or former rivals who had made peace with the king. Britain was a protestant country, however, and many suspected of Charles wishing to return it to Roman Catholicism. The appointment of William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury did not help his case. He wished to restore the wealth of the church, including the reintroduction of the tithe, the dismissal of non conformist ministers and suppression of puritan ideologists.

 Charles was crowned King of Scotland in 1633, yet his unpopularity in England was equally as bad for their Northern neighbours. His decision to introduce a long and complex prayer book in Scottish services led to a rebellion against the King, starting of with an invasion of Newcastle and Durham. This resulted in the recalling of parliament or the 'short parliament' however Charles at that point (1640) had undoubtedly lost control of the nation.

 Yet his financial reforms are arguably the largest reason for the civilian unrest and consequently the civil war. His lust for money was apparent in 1628, so it seemed inevitably that he created ridiculous taxes. An example is the 'Distraint of Knighthood' – forcing anyone with land worth over £40 to attend his coronation or face a fine. Not only that, but they had to pay for their knighthoods as well as face extra dues. The Court of Wards was also exploited, as well as people inhabited within royal forests being fined and the granting of monopolies.

 Albeit unjust, these measures were not the main reason for the Kings unpopularity. England had always utilised it's status as an island with a large population living in coastal cities. Therefore the reintroduction of ship-money took a turn for the worst. Civilians found themselves paying for the upkeep of England's naval fleet. To rub salt into the wounds the King moved this tax inland making the entire country pay. The reason for the outrage was due to the absence of parliament in this move. Although the people were heavily exploited before, that was simply the king abusing his prerogative. The king passing a law without the judgement of parliament, however, showed he was moving toward the way of a dictator and destroying all senses of democracy in Britain.

 January 30 1649: The King is executed. So where does that leave England? 20 years of Cromwell following the return to the throne. James II also attempted to abuse the divine rights of kings and being dismissed. It is apparent that the result of Charles' actions and defeat in the civil war reduced the power of the monarch severely. Parliament now had a significant role in the running of the country although it is arguable that the monarchy still had a prominent role up until the death of Queen Victoria.

The Execution of Charles I - It is believed there was a large groan throughout
the crowd following his execution.

 Despite the crown regaining power in Britain, the falling of rulers throughout Europe was soon to follow such as the French revolution, although the bulk of monarchs fell 200 years later however the spirit of the English fight was arguably a motivational tool. As well as that, the American fight for independence was arguably a result of the Civil War, with the nation filled with anti-royalists who came to America to escape the tyrant British rulers. It is undoubted, however, that the execution of King Charles I was a key event in both English and global history.  

Why Franz Ferdinand Was Assassinated

 100 years ago on 4 August, Britain declared war against Germany –initiating the heavy British involvement in the Great War. Some people may find it hard to believe that the assassination of the Archduke resulted in a war which cost the lives of 16 million people. However, the event in the current capital of Bosnia & Herzegovina – Sarajevo – is widely though of as the event which sparked World War I.

 The questions that have to be asked are why Franz Ferdinand? And why did Austria-Hungary react by declaring war on Serbia?

Archduke Franz Ferdinand: 1863-1914

 Historically – there have always been tensions between the Serbians and the Austro-Hungarians. A prime example is the Bosnian Crisis of 1908, where Serbia responded with hostility towards the annexation of their neighbours – which had been “occupied and administered” by Austria-Hungary following the demise of the Ottoman rule in Bosnia. The Serbs did not agree the annexation of their Slav brothers thus responded by mobilizing their army. Yet 6 years later and Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pasic did not want war with their them, however his hands were tied once finding out about the Black Hand's plan to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand. Not telling the Austro-Hungarian government would result in immediate blame, telling them would result in his name being tarnished in Serbia. In the end he opted with the former but Jovan Jovanovic's warning to Dr Leon von Bilinski were not taken seriously, allowing the Black Hand to continue it's operation.

Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914

 Serbia was always an easy target for the Austro-Hungarians. Being a small nation beside their vast empire – alongside the many trouble's it had been attempting to cause in Bosnia. The assassination gave them an excuse to take over their rivals – and gave the Germans an excuse to invade France. The Austro-Hungarian government knew they could beat Serbia on their own – however Russian support was inevitable due to them being “Protector of the Slavic People”. Therefore the help of Kaizer Wilhem II's Germany was successfully requested, resulting in the Schlieffen Plan being written up by the German Army to avoid fighting a war on two fronts. The basis of this was that the Russian army would take 6 weeks to fully mobilize – and in that time they could go through Belgium to outflank the French army thus avoiding this problem. However the British had a 75 year guarantee with Belgium about an invasion as such – and the rest is history.

 On July 28 1914, there were a couple of attempts on Archduke Ferdinand's life which shows clear intent from the Black Hand that they wanted him dead. Of course the actual incident happened because of unfortunate timing – the driver of the car happened to turn into the wrong road which contained Gavrilo Princip – however it is presumable that there were members of the Black Hand stationed throughout Sarajevo. One way of looking at the assassination is that it was a statement of intent against the Austro-Hungarian rule of the Serbs. However with the dire repercussions being fairly obvious I highly doubt that would be their reasoning. In fact the true reasoning was entirely political.

 Ferdinand was due to rule the Austro-Hungarian empire following the death of his Uncle – Franz Joseph I and his plans for the empire conflicted with both Russian and Serbian views. Ferdinand wished to make concessions towards the Slavs, allowing them to have sovereignty and an impact in the empire. Of course that would make unification much harder – which the patriotic Black Hand would not stand by. The assassination would have to take place before he took over the throne.

 There was clearly conflicting objectives between the two largest European countries at the time, and the Serbian actions were clearly applauded by the Russians and detested by the Austro-Hungarians. Russia had no problem turning a blind eye to the incident nor supporting the Serbians who's act undeniably sparked the Great War, prevented a Greater Austria-Hungary and led to the demise of the ever flourishing empire.  

The Secrets to the Nazi Economic Success

 The Nazi rule is undoubtedly one of the most brutal governments to ever surface the world. However the reason for their popularity and success was due to Hitler's ability to act on his political promises, following an unsuccessful decade under the failing eyes of the Weimar Republic. Hitler seized the opportunity taking the German Workers Party from a minor political group to the feared Nazi in under 15 years.

The Weimar Republic were never popular following the Treat of Versailles, and hyperinflation occurring simply 4 years after it's formation didn't help the hostility. Prices shot up at a ridiculous rate, meaning people on fixed incomes and pensions were badly hit. A perfect opportunity for the National Socialists to stir up a rebellion amongst the working class. Although the Munich Putsch was crushed, and hyperinflation was followed by 5 years of prosperity, it was clear from the beginning that the government was destined for failure.

The main problems of the Weimar Republic were the standard of living and the unemployment rate, which were raised by the Great Depression which badly affected Germany – as they found themselves owing the USA in particular a lot of money for war reparations. Although Germany wasn't the only European country to suffer, their economy was in a particularly poor state, giving Hitler the opportunity he needed to take control.

Hitler's main aims for Germany were set straight in Mein Kampf, a prosperous Germany with plenty of Lebensraum, alongside a fully Aryan race. This coincided with the extermination of Jews, the homeless, Gypsies, women, homosexuals and disabled people. Not only were they exterminated, sent to concentration camps or arrested – but the Jews also lost German citizenship in the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. That shows how the number was easily manipulated by the Nazis, to show both the world and their own people how effective their methods were for unemployment. Of course that was not all they did. They created jobs for unemployed men planting trees, creating new travel routes and farm work plus those who were deemed 'work shy' (refused work) were simply sent to concentration camps. And to combat the amount of young people without a job, well they reintroduced conscription – which of course broke Versailles however all of the major powers were wary of the rise of the Soviet Union, whilst also believing they were treated too harshly (apart from France). Germany's unemployment fell from 6 million to around 300,000 in 6 years – although it is quite clear the statistics released do not show the full picture.

Mein Kampf - Written by Hitler in prison
setting forth his Nazi ideologies

A major victory for Germany's economy was the Saar plebiscite in 1935 which was the first territorial gain of the Nazis and completely legal. The hope for the French was that as a neutral zone for 15 years, the locals opinion would sway away from Germany – particularly with the state of the economy. However a majority of the population were still German and a staggering 90.8% of the votes were to rejoin their homeland. This was an extremely important victory for Nazi Germany, as the Saar contained many coal mines allowing the Germans to once again prosper in a trade which had struggled to break through during the rule of the Weimar Republic.

Hjalmar Schacht was a well renown economist
and Reich Minister of Economics between 1934-7.

One of the reasons the Nazis were so effective all round is due to their unbelievably skilled professionals – and one of them was Dr Hjalmar Schacht – world renown economist. He devised a 'neuer plan' for the Nazis which could put Germany in a position of power once again. This involved a lot of industrial changes, including limiting imports – presumably to either prevent inflation, keep international spending down or to keep goods German fitting Hitler's patriotic philosophy. Despite losing his job over a dispute with Hitler over the readiness of the military (and claiming he was sent to a concentration camp in the Nuremberg Trials) – he set the stage for Göring's 'four year plan' which simply just added military and agricultural policies to what he'd already written, as well as more refineries, aluminium plants and factories also being created.

The Nazi economy was undeniably better than the previous governments, and allowed them to threaten the worlds major powers after just 6 years. Had they listened to Schacht, kept producing goods and developed even further, then who knows there could have been a different outcome to the war. Nonetheless they made the best out of a bad situation, and delivered on their promise to the Germans who weren't affected by their manifesto of ethnic cleansing.

How Tostig Godwinson Influenced William The Conqueror's Victory in The Battle of Hastings

Tostig Godwinson – third son of Godwin – was thought of as a brutal tyrant in Northumbria who abused his power, so his banishment from the country by Edward the Confessor was not unexpected. Yet this wasn't the first time King Edward had expelled him from the country. Following the Godwins inability to deal with a fight between Edward's Norman visitors and locals to Dover. However the Godwins managed to force their way back into the country, and merely four years after their expulsion Tostig was appointed as Earl of Northumbria – which was no surprise as the King seemed to look favourably towards Tostig throughout his reign.

Tostig's main problem was that when put in a position of power – he completely abused it – causing mayhem for his subjects. His reign of terror in the North included raising taxes, implementing new laws with harsh punishments, as well as involvement with the murders of leading families in Northumbria who potentially rivalled him. Unfortunately for him – like most tyrants – the discontent amongst his people led to his overthrowing thanks to the thegns of York murdering Tostig's assistants and outlawing him on 3 October 1065.

The man sent to try and fix the broken relationship between Tostig and the people of Northumbria was his older brother – Harold Godwinson (later King Harold II). However he could not find a compromise with the rebels which involved reinstating Tostig. Therefore – with the fear of a Norman invasion and a potential civil war at the back of his mind – Harold advised that the rebels demands should be met, meaning Tostig was to be banished from Northumbria. Of course he felt betrayed by his brother more than anyone – the King reluctantly accepted the disposition but Harold was the one who pushed for it. Regardless of how Harold felt about the situation, Tostig felt as though he had been stabbed in the back and soon after he left the country with the remaining of his loyal men and family and set course for Flanders where they stayed with his brother-in-law Count Baldwin V whilst he plotted his revenge.

Whether or not the events of October 1065 were the main reason for Harold's downfall at Hastings is fairly disputable. Edward the Confessor died around two months after Tostig's dismissal, and had they gone the other way the country would either have been wrecked by civil war or still fighting each other. Either way it would have left England in a weak position on January the 4^th, when Edward broke his fifteen year promise to William the Conqueror and proclaimed Harold the next king of England.

Painting of The Battle Of Stamford
Bridge by Peter Nicolai

So it can be argued that perhaps Harold's decision prolonged a Norman invasion. It was clearly inevitable – the only way to avoid it was by naming William as the new King of England. It is arguable that Harold could have lied in order to fulfil his fathers (and personal) wishes of the Godwins finally obtaining the English throne, however he had sworn his support to William just two years before following the incident at Ponthieu. However this broken promise along with a seemingly broken promise from Edward the Confessor meant Harold new that William was coming.

Duke William and Tostig Godwinson – both full of hatred for Harold. It seemed written in the stars that shortly after Harold's coronation Tostig went to Normandy to offer aid in the invasion of England. But of course William wasn't the only ruler who believed the throne belonged to them. Harald Hadrada of Norway was the cousin of Edward's predecessor Cnut the Great and was also preparing his army for a Viking invasion of England. It clearly wasn't going to be an easy first year as King for Harold, particularly with his brothers impatience with William, leading to an invasion of the North easily swept away by Harold. However Tostig still had a fleet of men given to him by the Count of Flanders. With them he could offer Harald support for his invasion of the north...

Harold's focus was completely on Duke William in September 1066. It's arguable that his lack of preparation for an invasion by Cnut's relatives is a highly important reason for his downfall. Hindsight is a funny thing, and something which probably haunted Harold as he marched around 15,000 of his men from London to Yorkshire (around 184 miles) in merely 4 days. Harald's men were vastly outnumbered – by roughly 6,000 men. It was shown too, as they were absolutely crushed by the Kings army losing two thirds of their men along with leaders Tostig and Harald. Despite a morale boosting victory for the Englishmen, around 5,000 of their men had perished in the bloody battle and they suddenly found themselves horribly out of position.

The Bayeux Tapestry showing the arrow
which hit Harold's eye - arguably killing
the King.

It is highly likely that when William was informed of Hardrada's invasion of England that he waited for Harold's army to travel North before launching his invasion. There was only nineteen days between Harold's victory at Stamford Bridge and death at Hastings, but what cannot be argued is that the Viking invasion of the north left Harold's army overstretched and unprepared for the Norman invasion. It is estimated that William had 10,000 men in comparison to 7,000 for Harold – The men who battled at Stamford Bridge were resting in London during the Battle of Hastings. So it is irrefutable that the English stood a better chance without having to deal with Harald.

Tostig's desire for revenge managed to aid both of Harold's rivals for the monarchy, along with Harold losing a valuable ally. He became a niggling itch which just simply won't go away, and his involvement with Harald Hardrada simply opened the doors for William and left the door wide open for the English crown. As to whether the outcome would have been different without Tostig as a rival – it's impossible to tell – but it is undeniable he was an important factor.

The Origins of Terrorism - Zealotry and The Jewish Struggle Against Rome

 In modern times, terrorism is a term not taken lightly. It has resulted in maximum security and a highly guarded prison specifically for terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. And terrorism is not new in society, during the course of world history there have been a few famous terrorist organisations, including the Boston Tea Party, Al Qaeda and the IRA.

Over the years, the definition of terrorism has been distorted, nevertheless the Oxford dictionary defines it as “The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”. This explains how we can trace terrorism back to both the mid 20^th century, and before the USA's independence. It is, however, indisputable that following the collapse of the Soviet Union a larger focus has been aimed towards containing terrorism, particularly after the horrifying events of 9/11.

This all brings about a strongly debated question among historians – where did terrorism originate? As terrorism is an ideology, it is impossible to argue who created it, as there will always be unrest among civilians – particularly those under cruel dictatorships. One of the earliest recorded acts of terrorism takes us back to the biblical times, known as The 'Great' Revolt Against Rome. The revolt was partaken by Jewish people tired of the Roman rule in Judea, with the most well known groups involved referred to as the 'Zealots' and 'Sicarii'.

The name 'Sicarii' originates from 'dagger-men' in Latin which is self explanatory as to how they operated. They would strategically hide their daggers underneath their cloaks and use them to kill their enemies at public gatherings. This helped them protect their identity and carry out their activities as being found guilty for such crimes would result in the death penalty. However some high profile assassinations were undertook by the group - including Jonathon the High Priest in 56 CE (10 years before the first Jewish-Roman war broke out). The group was not unrecognised by the Roman rulers, and some attacks resulted in a widespread massacre towards the Jewish civilians. However they were also feared and negotiated with among some, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus noted that Governor of the Temple – Eleazar – traded 10 captured assassins for his secretary.

A common argument which is still disputed, is whether or not the Sicarii are a branch of a wider terrorists organisation (the Zealots) or were an original organisation with the same objective as those involved in Zealotry. The main piece of evidence towards the Sicarii potentially being an original group is shown by Josephus, as he describes the Zealots and Sicarii as separate organisations. Although it is unclear as to whether or not this is because his work was specific to the Sicarii.

Josephus - A Jewish Historian as well as head
    of Jewish forces in Galilee

Following Greek merchants sacrificing of a bird in front of a Synagogue, the Jewish freedom fighters retaliated, both against the Greeks whom they had fierce tensions with but mainly the Roman rule – whose lack of support in the matter provided a spark for a Zealot revolution. The downfall of the Zealots was unfortunately their highest point. The rebels seized Masada – a major Israeli fort – as well as the successful murder of the high priest and capturing the Roman Garrison at the Antonia Fortress. This led to false hopes circulating the Zealots minds that they could defeat Rome, but the dire consequences were soon unearthed as the Roman empire retaliated by sending in 60,000 troops who wiped out the rebels, with 100,000 Galileans being killed or sold to slavery. The repercussions did not end there. Despite Jewish leaders in Jerusalem offering no support to the Zealots, the Roman's still had their eyes on destroying the historic city. In the summer of 70, Roman troops breached the walls of Jerusalem, desecrating the second temple whilst showing no mercy to the civilians, heavily contributing to the death count of Jewish people during the 7 years of war being around one million.

Arch Of Titus - Showing the victorious Roman soldiers taking
their Jewish Slaves

The defeat of the Jewish people was inevitable and one victory seemed to make them over-confident of their chances. The next two years saw the Romans swipe through the last couple of Jewish strongholds, including Masada in Judea. After all this – two questions can be asked: Were the Zealots the original terrorists? And should they have left the Roman rulers alone? After all the death tally counts to one of the largest Jewish bloodbaths in history.

Deciding whether or not they should have left the Romans alone is tricky. The Jewish people were used to suppression, despite believing that Israel was the holy land – which God had intended for the Jews to live in. Therefore there were clearly traditional values which were in place, along with the disrespect of both the Greeks and the Romans going a step too far. However the results were horrific and totally avoidable, although it seemed like war would inevitably break out between the two at some point.

As to whether the Zealots were terrorists, it is clear there are two sides to the argument. The Sicarii were clearly a terrorist organisation, with their methods clearly fulfilling the definition mentioned earlier on. It's hard to argue against the Zealots being terrorists as well – especially if you consider the Sicarii to be part of them. Yet it can also be argued that terrorism has changed over the years, and now is used mainly to cause mass hysteria – particularly with the media dominating our every day lives. Despite this, it doesn't change the meaning of the word, and the Zealots objectives were clearly political, making them arguably one of the first recorded terrorists groups.