Saturday, 4 January 2014

Happy New Year!

I know it's the 4th of January, but it's better late than never!
It's a good job that this blog is mostly for my own private amusement, because it has been considerably neglected over the past few months - one essay or another has always managed to take priority. I'd love to say that I'll be a better blogger this year and keep this up to date, but that would be no more than wishful thinking.

As no post would be complete without some historical insight, here are some interesting facts relating to the New Year...

  • Around the world, New Year celebrations have been undertaken for at least 4 millenia, with the earliest being around 2000BC. However, at this time, the New Year was marked by the first new moon following the vernal equinox (a day in late March with equal sunlight and darkness).
  • It is believed that the custom of making New Year's resolutions was first done by the Ancient Babylonians, who made promises in order to gain the favour of the Gods.
  • Throughout antiquity, calendars became sophisticated and complicated, with the New Year often linked to agricultural or astronomical events. In Ancient Egypt, the New Year was marked by the annual flooding of the Nile, which coincided with the rising of the star Sirius.
  • The early Roman calendar had 10 months and a total of 304 days, with the New Year still marked by the vernal equinox.
  • Over the centuries, this calendar fell out of synch with the sun; in order to realign the Roman calendar, Julius Caesar had to add 90 extra days to the year 46BC, when he introduced the new Julian calendar.
  • As part of his reform, January 1st became New Year under the Julius calendar, which bears close resemblance to the Gregorian calendar which is used by most countries today (some countries still choose to celebrate New Year in connection with agricultural/astronomical events).
  • The month of January is named after the Roman God of beginnings, Janus, whose two faces allowed him to look back on the past and forwards into the future.
  • Since then, Christian leaders have temporarily replaced January 1st with more significant dates, including December 25th, the birth of Christ. Pope Gregory XIII re-instigated January 1st as New Year in 1582, under the Gregorian calendar, which is still used today.
  • The song 'Auld Lang Syne' was written by Robert Burns in 1700, a Scottish song which literally means 'the good old days'. It is sung to remember friends, old and new.
  • In the Netherlands, ring shaped cakes and pastries are eating, believed to symbolise that the year has come full circle.
  • A Spanish tradition is to eat 12 grapes at midnight, believed to bring good luck for the coming 12 months.
  • Many traditional New Year dishes also include legumes (eg. lentils in Italy), which are considered to be a symbol of good luck.
I'm sure there are many more weird and wonderful facts and traditions surrounding New Year celebrations, but I wouldn't want to bore you too much with an exhaustive list of every single tradition that exists. If you have any more facts which I haven't included, don't hesitate to drop me a comment!

I hope that everybody had a wonderful New Year and that 2014 is all that you wish it to be.


Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Spanish Empire - asset or liability?

Was the Spanish Empire an asset or liability?

Voyages of Christopher Columbus
The rise of the Spanish Empire began in 1492, with Columbus’ discovery of the New World. In many ways it became a huge asset to Spain – in particular the ruling classes – boosting her reputation to become the richest and [perceived] most powerful country in Europe. However, liabilities must also be acknowledged when studying the Spanish Empire; the rapid rise to power led Philip II to declare bankruptcy on three occasions, whilst the rise of empire essentially amounted to the genocide of millions of natives, who saw no real benefit of Spain’s empire.

The Spanish Empire boosted Spain’s reputation – internal and external – as it grew
throughout the 16th century. Spain appeared increasingly strong and religiously united, whilst Europe was wracked with heresy and civil war[1], such as the French wars of religion, lasting from 1562-1598. In conquering Granada and establishing the Spanish Inquisition, Ferdinand and Isabella had laid down the path to Spanish greatness, by beginning to unify a single religion across Spain. Furthermore, Ferdinand and Isabella had the Pope issue a special Bull Inter Caetera which laid claim to the title of any lands which may be discovered, to ensure superiority over Portugal. Whilst this encouraged the expansion of the Spanish empire, it did not act entirely as an asset; the wording of the bull was too vague and threatening towards Portugal[2]. Thus, the Treaty of Torsedillas was negotiated in 1494 and ended up giving Portugal claim to Brazil.

This aside, empire made Spain the richest country in Europe by 1598, with world wealth pouring into Spanish hands[3], hugely benefiting the monarchy and ruling classes. The discovery of gold and silver brought huge wealth to Spain, with 63 million ducats (a high value, Venetian coin), coming into Spain from 1555-1600. The physical environment of the New World was such that gold and silver were discovered in abundance beneath the ground; this had remained largely untouched by natives, who had no concept or understanding of monetary value. This hugely increased interest in the New World, motivating the Spaniards to extend their empire to the point that ‘the world is not enough’ for Philip II and providing hope for the discovery of El Dorado. As claimed by Bernal Diaz[4], they came ‘to serve God and his majesty…and also to get rich’. From the early years of the empire’s emergence, Ferdinand had labelled it a crusade (claiming that they were conquering the New World to spread Christianity, which many natives were totally unfamiliar with), making them eligible to raise the cruzada tax, which aided them in funding the expansion of their empire. Profits from local taxes within colonies passed through the Casa de Contratacion in Seville, giving the Crown strong control over money from the New World. Additionally, the monarch(s) were entitled to the royal 5th and by the time taxation had been added to this, the monarchy inherited approximately 40% of all money entering Spain from the New World. It is certainly arguable that Ferdinand and Isabella laid the roots for the Golden Age of Spain, whilst it is equally debatable that the Spanish Empire began as a predominantly Castilian feat; the Pope deemed the New World as belonging to Ferninand and Isabella until their deaths, when it would revert to a Castilian land[5].

The empire became an enormous source of resources, along with being a means of great wealth for Spain. Products such as sugar, spices, cotton, chocolate and tobacco were introduced to Spain as a result of its empire. This allowed Spain to enjoy an increased range of imports and the similar climate in Spain and some of its colonies enabled new produce to be grown in Spain, saving time and money on imports. As with money, imports passed through the Casa de Contratacion, ensuring strong control over imports. Nonetheless, wealth became so great that Philip II took advantage of his riches with extravagant spending, and was forced to declare bankruptcy on three occasions during his rule, whilst wealth from the empire created greater class divisions in Spain[6]; even the acquisition of wealth was not entirely an asset.

Despite the seemingly abundant assets of the Spanish empire, its liabilities must not be ignored. Natives in the New World were affected adversely by the Spanish Empire and the ruthless behaviour of conquerors, with millions being killed essentially through genocide. When Pizarro conquered the Inca Empire of Peru in 1531-1535, his fleet of around 180 Spaniards successfully defeated 100,000 Incas; Spaniards were technologically advanced with guns, which the Incas had no access to. Cortes had a similar advantage when he overthrew Aztec rule in Mexico in 1519-1521. Natives also died as a result of famine, when their lands were seized for new crops, cattle ranches etc., and were killed by diseases introduced by Spanish settlers, against which natives had no immunity. This was a huge liability for natives who lived nomadically and had no understanding of ownership. Perhaps the most enduring liability of the Spanish Empire was its introduction of the slave trade. The high death rate amongst natives led to labour shortages, forcing Spaniards to import slaves from elsewhere, notably from Africa. Francis Drake, an English privateer, took a cargo of black Africans into a Spanish port and forced them to buy slaves; this essentially established the 3-way slave trade, which was not abolished until the 19th century.

The Spanish Empire was also difficult to govern, as it was spread over such a vast distance. It was not easy for Spanish monarchs to visit the colonies they visited (although Charles V spent a large amount of time out of Spain, including two visits to North Africa), forcing them to rely on viceroys to govern on their behalf. This prevented anarchy and disorder from becoming widespread problems across the colonies of the Spanish Empire, but meant that the monarch was often forced to rely on an inaccurate view of the empire. Philip II had no first-hand evidence of his empire and its progress, relying solely on what he was told; the time delay on communication means that much of Philip’s knowledge is likely to have been out-of-date by the time it reached him.

The Spanish Empire paved the way to the country’s greatness. Spain became the most powerful country in Europe, its empire feared by other states. However, its assets must not be over-credited.  Undoubtedly, empire was a huge asset to the monarchy and ruling classes, as long as it was not over-estimated, nor taken advantage of. However, the extent of asset is restricted largely to these upper classes – the bourgeoise, as adopted by Marx. The Spanish Empire was a huge liability to the natives (particularly the millions who were killed at the hands of the empire), and made little difference to the working classes. Thus, the extent to which the Spanish Empire was an asset/liability depends entirely on social rank.

[1] Pendrill – Spain 1474-1700
[2] Kamen – Spain 1469-1714
[3] Hunt – Spain 1474-1598
[4] Bernal Diaz – Conquest of New Spain
[5] Elliot – Imperial Spain
[6] Pendrill

Monday, 19 August 2013

Why study history? Part 1

History: a ground for endless argument and debate, lending itself to wide, varied interpretation and opinion, based on the same range of evidence.

I was introduced to the question of 'why study history?' in a history extension class at college. Initially, this question seemed pointless, with no real value to me; I already knew that I enjoyed history, so why did I need to search for further reasons as to why I had chosen to study history? Despite my scepticism, this question has become invaluable, particularly in the historical exploration I do besides my A-Level studies.

This single question has indirectly led me to the main reason for which I have chosen to study history. I am an argumentative person, relishing the scope to disagree with other opinions, whilst still retaining validity and credibility. Historians must study various factors which led to/contributed to a specific event, often unable to seek certainty or reach a solid, definite conclusion. The lack of solid evidence, particularly spanning from prehistory to the early modern period, allows historians to take entirely opposing slants on one subject and completely disagree with one another, whilst holding equal amounts of credibility and esteem. In particular, this idea has been presented to me in my study of the Wars of the Roses; Shakespeare famously dubbed Margaret of Anjou as the 'she wolf of France', which has had a lasting effect throughout history. Some historians choose to agree with Shakespeare (at least to some extent, taking into consideration Shakespeare's position as a court playwright, suiting the interests of Elizabeth I/James I), for instance Alison Weir presents Queen Margaret in a somewhat cruel light in 'Lancaster and York: The Wars of the Roses', suggesting that she was more interested in promoting her own position than focusing on the political agenda and order across England. Weir also focuses largely on action taken by Margaret against the Yorkists, presenting a matriarchal monarchy, whereby the Queen possessed more power than her husband, King Henry VI. Naturally, we cannot forget that Henry VI's rule was, at points, taken over by his bouts of mental illness, making him unfit to rule. In contrast, Helen Castor criticises the lasting influence which Shakespeare has had on the portrayal of Margaret of Anjou, describing the judgement of this queen as being 'through the wrong end of the historical microscope'; Castor addresses the fact that historians must consider all available evidence, before jumping to potentially non-credible conclusions. As an argumentative person, I relish the constant debate which ensues in history.

However, it must be recognised that historical debate and disagreement does not always allow historians to retain/hold credibility; evidence must all be considered and assessed in a realistic manner, without taking innate hatred or extreme emotions (without historical value), into account. Spanning to modern history, the Holocaust has also become subject to much debate and disagreement, although many Holocaust deniers (particularly extreme Hitler sympathisers, eg. David Irving), have totally lost credibility with their views. Whilst reading an article by lecturer Roni Stauber, I was horrified to discover that Irving claimed, at a time, that Dachau was nothing but a myth and that the infamous gas chambers never existed, being installed later by Americans. Irving's opinions completely destroyed the credibility and reputation which he had previously possessed. He was given a 10 year ban from Germany for his denial of the Holocaust and was forced to retract his sweeping conclusions. On this ground, I believe that history is often not a ground for presenting opinions of huge extremity; as in the case of Irving, these conclusions may be based too widely on sheer opinion, without sufficient evidence as backing. 

It fascinates me that two different historians can study the same documents, yet reach opposing conclusions on their meaning. The ever-changing face of history provides us with a range of opinion and viewpoints on all aspects and events in history, often reflecting political or social interests, but also evoking the historical debate which I relish.

In part two (which I will try to publish soon - I'm currently working on my personal statement and an endless pile of essays), I'll explore comparative history, and assess the importance of history as a ground of learning from mistakes.

Saturday, 17 August 2013

First post...

I've always wanted to start my own blog, but I guess I've just never been pro-active enough to do it, or I've just never had the guts to do so. Everyone who knows me will be aware of my historical passion, which is why I've finally decided to start my own history blog. I'm hoping to go on to study history at university, after completing my A levels next year. Hopefully, this space will be hugely useful for my enjoyment of the subject, improving my written history and my confidence in my own opinions; any comments will be hugely appreciated!

I hope you enjoy my blog, I'll post what I can whenever I get the time!

Nikki x