Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast
Who were the Illuminati – and how can you join them?
Who were the Illuminati, and do they really control the world? Here's what we know about one of history's most alluring secret societies, including how you became a member...
What is the Illuminati? The Illuminati is a name given to both a real secret society and a fictitious one. The latter has fuelled conspiracy theories for years, described as a secretive and mysterious worldwide organisation intent on world domination – as well as being behind some of history’s greatest revolutions and assassinations. The original Illuminati was a secret society formed in Bavaria (now part of modern-day Germany) that existed from 1776 to 1785. Its members originally referred to themselves as Perfectibilists. The group was inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment and founded by professor of canon law Adam Weishaupt, who wanted to promote the education of reason and philanthropy and oppose superstition and religious influence in society. Weishaupt sought to change the way states in Europe were run, removing the influence of religion from government and giving people a new source of ‘illumination’. It’s believed that the Bavarian Illuminati’s first meeting was held in a forest near Ingolstadt on 1 May 1776. Here, five men set out the rules that would govern the secret order. Eventually the group’s aims focused on influencing political decisions and disrupting institutions like the monarchy and the Church. How could you join the Illuminati? To join the Illuminati, you had to have full consent from the other members, possess wealth, and have a good reputation within a suitable family. There was also a hierarchical system to Illuminati membership. After entering as a ‘novice’, you graduated to a ‘minerval’ and then an ‘illuminated minerval’, although this structure later became more complicated, with 13 degrees of initiation required in order to become a member. The term minerval was linked to the ‘owl of Minerva’ (Minerva being the ancient Roman goddess of wisdom), and the bird eventually became the group's main symbol. Illuminati members didn't use their real names – pseudonyms were used to keep their identities of members a secret. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2021/06/GettyImages_188003212-6aa6cf1.jpg" width="620" height="413" alt="A 19th-century depiction of an Illuminati initiation ritual. In reality, scant details about the true nature of the ceremony remain" title="A 19th-century depiction of an Illuminati initiation ritual. In reality, scant details about the true nature of the ceremony remain (Photo by: Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)" /> How is the Illuminati connected to the Freemasons? Some members of the Illuminati joined the Freemasons in order to recruit new members. The Freemasons are a fraternal order that evolved from the guilds of stonemasons and cathedral builders of the Middle Ages. In some countries, especially the US, there has historically been a lot of paranoia about the Freemasons – in 1828, a single-issue political movement known as the Anti-Masonic Party was even established. Due to the original Illuminati recruitment of Freemasons, the two groups have often been confused for each other. What were the Illuminati's rituals? The Illuminati did use rituals, but most remain unknown . Those that we do know about (found in seized, secret papers) explain how novices could move to a higher level within the Illuminati’s hierarchy. To do so, they had to compile a report on all the books they owned, write a list of their weaknesses, and reveal the names of any enemies they had. The novice would then promise to sacrifice personal interests for the good of the society. Is the all-seeing eye linked to the Illumnati? The ‘Eye of Providence’ – a symbol resembling an eye inside a triangle – appears on churches around the globe, as well as on Masonic buildings and the US one-dollar bill. In addition to being associated with Freemasonry, it has also been linked with the Illuminati as a symbol of the group’s control and surveillance of the world. Originally a Christian emblem, the all-seeing eye has been used in paintings to represent God’s watchfulness over humanity. In the 18th century, it began to be used in new ways – for example, in Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier’s The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, an illustrated version of the human rights document adopted by France’s National Constituent Assembly in 1789. Here, it is depicted as an instrument of paternalistic reason, keeping a watchful eye over the newly democratic nation. There is no official link between the all-seeing eye and the Illuminati – the proposed connection probably stems from the fact that the original group shared similarities with the Freemasons, who used the image as a symbol of God. Were there any famous members Illuminati? By 1782, the Illuminati had grown to around 600 members – these included German nobles such as Baron Adolph von Knigge who, as a former Freemason, helped shape the group’s organisation and expansion. Initially, Weishaupt’s students were the only members, but soon, doctors, lawyers and intellectuals joined. There were between 2,000 and 3,000 Illuminati members by 1784. Some sources say that renowned writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe also joined, but this is disputed. Why did the Illuminati disappear? In 1784, Karl Theodor, Duke of Bavaria, banned the creation of any kind of society not previously authorised by law and the following year he passed a second edict, which expressly banned the Illuminati. During the arrest of suspected Illuminati members, compromising documents (defending ideas such as atheism and suicide) were found in their possession, as well as instructions for carrying out abortions. This cemented the belief that the group was a threat to both the state and the Church. The Illuminati then seems to have disappeared, with some people believing that it continued underground. Adam Weishaupt was eventually stripped of his post at the University of Ingolstadt. After being exiled from Bavaria, he spent the remainder of his life in Gotha, Thuringia, dying in 1830. Did the Illuminati succeed in world domination? Some people believe that the Illuminati controls the world today, suggesting that they are so secretive that few are aware of it. From the moment they disbanded, conspiracy theories about the Illuminati began to take hold. In 1797, French publicist and Jesuit priest Abbé Augustin Barruel suggested that secret societies like the Illuminati had spearheaded the French Revolution. First president of the US, George Washington, then wrote a letter the following year in which he stated that he believed the threat of the Illuminati had been avoided, adding further fuel to the idea that the order still existed. Books and sermons condemning the group later sprung up, and third US president, Thomas Jefferson, was falsely accused of being a member. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/04/GettyImages-514901450-b2df122-e1744284143723.jpg" width="620" height="414" alt="Three piles of newspapers on the ground, with headlines about US President John F Kennedy's assassination" title="Conspiracy theorists have accused the Illuminati of being the culprits behind numerous assassinations, including that of John F Kennedy (Photo via Getty)" /> The idea of a world-dominating Illuminati has never really left people’s minds, and still infiltrates popular culture today. In 1963, a text called the Principia Discordia was published, promoting an alternative belief system known as ‘Discordianism’. Calling for anarchism and civil disobedience by perpetrating hoaxes, its adherents included writer Robert Anton Wilson. Some followers of Discordianism sent fake letters into magazines claiming that events such as the assassination of US president John F Kennedy were all the work of the Illuminati. Wilson later published a book with Robert Shea, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, which became a cult success and inspired a new genre of conspiracy fiction, including Dan Brown’s novel (and subsequent film) Angels & Demons. The Illuminati also became connected with Satanism and other ideals that were far removed from those associated with the original 18th-century Bavarian group. As many members of the Illuminati infiltrated the Freemasons and vice versa, it’s difficult to judge the Illuminati’s success, but most historians believe the original group only gained moderate influence. History's Greatest Conspiracy Theories Member exclusive | Was the moon landing faked? Did Shakespeare actually write his plays? Were the pyramids built by aliens? Expert historians offer their perspectives on history's biggest conspiracy theories. Listen to all episodes now
"An enlightened turn": how medicine (and the vaccination) developed in Victorian Britain
With industrialisation making living conditions worse in the cities, the improvements to hospital provision, surgery and the care of the poor needed to gain apace. Emma Slattery Williams explores how healthcare in 18th-century Britain changed, and the pioneering preventative treatments that helped combat a killer disease
By the late 18th century, Britain was seeing the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, a process that eventually led to a huge migration of people to industrial cities, with widespread overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions. Drinking water was often contaminated with raw sewage, rubbish rotted in the streets, and crowded living conditions meant disease could easily spread. As many as one in five children died before their second birthday. There was, however, growing institutional provision for curing the sick and the number of hospitals grew in Britain – some of these were run by local parishes, while others were founded by philanthropists wishing to help the poor and perhaps improve their own social position in the process. In return for an annual contribution, a benefactor could recommend a sick person for admission to hospital. “The notion was that you could intervene and save working class people who might otherwise die for lack of healthcare,” explains Mary Fissell, professor of the history of medicine at Johns Hopkins University. “It was part of a larger, almost mercantilist, view of the health of the population being a significant variable for government.” Read more | The history of vaccination: from Edward Jenner to anti-vaxxers The 18th century also saw improvements in surgery. Surgeons such as William Cheselden, Percival Pott, and John Hunter delved into anatomical studies, diagnosing new diseases, and inventing new procedures. In 1745, the Company of Barber Surgeons was divided into two separate bodies by an act of Parliament, thus forming the Company of Surgeons, a body that formalised the training and licensing of surgeons and which today is known as the Royal College of Surgeons. Dispensaries began to be established – these provided what we might today class as outpatient medical treatment and advice, solely for the poor and free of charge. By 1800, about 40 dispensaries had been founded across Britain. Professor Fissell explains: “In 18th-century Britain, we see a growth in the institutional provision of healthcare that simply hadn't been seen before. For the first time, working people who could never have afforded healthcare previously could now access it in a new way. We can also see something similar in the workhouse infirmaries of the Old Poor Law at this time.” Read more | John Hunter and the horrors of 18th-century surgery It is this preventative rather than reactive approach to healthcare that remains a legacy of 18th-century medicine, Professor Fissell continues. “I see this as part of an enlightened turn towards the belief that things could be made better. It was a realisation that it was possible to prevent people from dying of disease and illness, and that's really radical.” One of the deadly diseases that was rife in the early 18th century was smallpox, characterised by its distinctive, progressive skin rash; outbreaks killed millions of people all over the globe. In 1715, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu – one of the most celebrated aristocratic women of the time – caught smallpox but survived, although the disease left her scarred. Her brother William had died from the disease in 1713, aged just 20. The following year, Lady Mary and her husband, Britain's new ambassador to the Ottoman empire, moved to Constantinople. On the podcast | Gareth Williams explores efforts to combat lethal diseases, from smallpox to polio There, she discovered the widespread use of variolation (inoculation): individuals were deliberately infected with smallpox (often by blowing dried smallpox scabs into the nose) after which they contracted a mild form of the disease. After recovering, the individual would usually be immune to smallpox – some estimates state that 1–2 per cent of those inoculated died, compared to 30 per cent who died after contracting the disease naturally. Lady Mary's children were inoculated and once back in England, in 1721, she publicised the benefits, facing resistance and scepticism. Undaunted, she convinced Caroline, then Princess of Wales, of the value of inoculation and it was tested on prisoners, all of whom survived. Physicians began to inoculate their patients, but devised elaborate and costly procedures to make sure the body was prepared, ensuring that only the well-to-do were protected. By the late 18th century, mass inoculations with no preparation were on offer, and ultimately Lady Mary's efforts paved the way for the work of Edward Jenner. Edward Jenner and the world's first vaccine As a child, Edward Jenner (1749-1823) was inoculated against smallpox thanks to the work of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and at 14 was apprenticed as a surgeon. In 1770, Jenner moved to London to train under renowned surgeon John Hunter before returning home to Gloucestershire and becoming a local practitioner. Growing up in the country, Jenner was aware of an old wives' tale that said people who caught cowpox – a mild infection caught from cows – never caught smallpox. Inoculation, which Jenner carried out on his patients, still posed a risk, so he began to research alternatives. In 1796, Jenner inoculated eight year-old James Phipps with pus from a cowpox sore; a few weeks later, he infected him with matter from smallpox pustules, but Phipps never went on to develop the disease. The following year, Jenner submitted his findings to the Royal Society, but his ideas were rejected as too radical. After experimenting on other children, including his own infant son, Jenner published his findings in 1798. Jenner's methods were initially ridiculed and criticised, and his initial tests would be considered unethical today, but it soon became hard for anyone to deny the obvious protection vaccination offered. Nearly 200 years later, in 1980, smallpox was declared officially eradicated by the World Health Organization. This article was first published in the February 2021 issue of BBC History Revealed
Your guide to the Pankhursts, the pioneering family who fought for Votes for Women
One family, led by Emmeline Pankhurst, would lead the charge towards equality and votes for women. Find out more about the accomplishments of the founder and leader of the WSPU, and her pioneering daughters
Who was Emmeline Pankhurst? Emmeline Goulden was born in 1858 to parents who fiercely supported reform and activism. She accompanied her mother to suffrage meetings and her grandfather had witnessed the Peterloo Massacre of 1819. Emmeline attended schools in both Manchester and Paris and soon noticed the stark differences between her education and that of her brothers – they studied business, the sciences and mathematics, while she was taught how to cook and look after the home. This would light a fire within her; a burning desire to one day see women treated as equal to men. Emmeline married likeminded lawyer Dr Richard Pankhurst in 1879 – he was a radical and a supporter of women’s rights, free speech and educational reform. Together they had five children: Christabel, Sylvia, Adela, Henry Francis Robert (Frank) and Henry Francis (Harry). The younger brother was named after the elder, who died of diphtheria at the age of four. The Pankhursts moved from Manchester to London in 1886, and it was while there that Emmeline became interested in the experiences of working-class women. She followed with great interest the Match Girls’ strike of 1888. Girls and women worked up to 14 hours a day in match factories for low pay, suffered ill health caused by the chemicals they used, and were threatened with fines for talking or going to the toilet without permission. More than a thousand women walked out on a strike that lasted for three weeks – the protest was one of several that inspired Emmeline. By 1889, Emmeline had helped to form the Women’s Franchise League in London – its main goal was to secure married women’s right to vote in local elections. The Pankhursts returned to Manchester in 1893 and it was then that Emmeline began establishing herself as an activist. Deeds not Words: the suffragette story Member exclusive | With their radical demands for votes for women, the suffragettes shook up Edwardian Britain. Their campaign for equal rights would see them not just rallying crowds with speeches and marching on the streets, but setting fire to politicians’ homes and planting bombs in public places. Find out more in our podcast series: Deeds Not Words. Listen to all episodes now When did Emmeline Pankhurst set up the WSPU? She set up the WSPU, the Women’s Social and Political Union, (often called the suffragettes) in 1903 with her daughters Christabel and Sylvia, and from 1908 they were using militant tactics to garner support and attention. Emmeline was imprisoned several times, including for the charges of striking a police officer, damaging property and conspiracy to incite violence; she undertook hunger strikes to improve conditions in prison for herself and others. When World War I began, Emmeline put her support behind the war effort, organising rallies and encouraging the government to allow women to enter the workforce, taking the places of the men who had gone to fight. The more violent actions against the government by the WSPU were halted in favour of the war effort. Read more | Sisters in arms: women at war during WW1 A devoted anti-communist, Emmeline joined the Conservative Party in 1926 and was chosen as a prospective parliamentary candidate. She died in June 1928 – just a few weeks before all women gained the same voting rights as men. Did you know? In 1913, Emmeline Pankhurst starred in a silent movie alongside American activist Harriot Stanton Blatch. What 80 Million Want saw the protagonist foil would-be assassins and take down corrupt politicians while fighting for women’s suffrage. Who was Christabel Pankhurst? The eldest daughter of Emmeline and Richard Pankhurst, Christabel was born in 1880. She was educated in Southport and Manchester and briefly lived in Geneva, but returned home with Emmeline after Richard died in 1898. She had a particularly close relationship with her mother, and played a key role in founding the WSPU. After relatively peaceful beginnings, the WSPU evolved into a militant movement and gained national attention when, in 1905, Christabel and fellow WSPU member Annie Kenney disrupted a Liberal Party meeting in Manchester. The following year, Christabel became the WSPU’s ‘chief organiser’ and used her skills as a law graduate to deliver informed and impassioned speeches and arguments – even though, as a woman, she wasn’t allowed to practise as a lawyer. In March 1912, a warrant was issued for Christabel’s arrest on a charge of conspiracy to commit damage. She went on the run and escaped to France, where she remained until the outbreak of World War I, continuing to manage the WSPU and edit its newspaper from overseas. In September 1914, Christabel returned to London and threw herself into the war effort, encouraging women to engage in war work as a way to win their enfranchisement. In the 1918 general election, Christabel stood as a candidate for the Women’s Party but narrowly missed her chance of becoming an MP by 775 votes. She left England for the US in 1921 and there became heavily involved with the Second Adventist movement – a Protestant denomination that believed in the imminent Second Coming of Christ – and adopted a daughter, Betty. After returning to the UK in the 1930s, she left for the US again in 1940 where she remained until her death. Made DBE (Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) in 1936, Christabel died in California in 1958, aged 77. Who was Sylvia Pankhurst? Born in 1882, Emmeline and Richard’s second daughter was also active in the WSPU. A graduate of the Royal College of Art, Sylvia created the WSPU’s distinctive ‘look’ and was imprisoned numerous times for her suffrage activities. Notably, she also spearheaded the WSPU’s campaigns in East London, witnessing the dire poverty of women in the local slums. Eventually, Sylvia’s views on militant action began to diverge from those of her mother and sister Christabel, and she founded the East London Federation of Suffragettes – initially part of the WSPU. When Britain went to war in 1914 – a conflict she vehemently opposed – she set up several mother and baby clinics in the capital to offer support as supplies ran short. A passionate left-winger, Sylvia went on to host the inaugural meeting of the British Communist Party in 1920. In 1927, aged 45, she gave birth to a son but refused to name or marry his father. Her refusal saw Emmeline break ties with her daughter and the pair never spoke again. Sylvia continued to rally against fascism and colonialism, moving to Ethiopia to continue her activism. She died there in 1960. Who was Adela Pankhurst? The youngest Pankhurst daughter, Adela (b1885), shared her family’s views regarding women’s rights but, like her sister Sylvia, disagreed with the violence advocated by the WSPU. After becoming estranged from the rest of the Pankhursts – her socialist and pacifist beliefs were deemed a ‘risk’ to the WSPU’s success – she was given a one-way ticket to Australia by her mother, along with £20 and a bundle of clothes. She would never see her mother or sisters again. In Australia, Adela married trade unionist Tom Walsh and together they founded the Australian Communist Party. Later, however, she moved away from communism and abandoned left-wing politics altogether. In the late 1920s, she formed the Women’s Guild of Empire – a Christian group against communism that sought to preserve Australia’s place within the British empire. After spending a portion of World War II in prison for supporting the Japanese, she died in Sydney in 1961. This article was first published in BBC History Revealed
National Service: here's what you need to know about the history of Brits being conscripted into the Armed Forces
When and why were Britons conscripted into the Armed Forces, and what were national servicemen expected to do? Find out more about the system that saw more than two million men were conscripted into the British Armed forces…
What was National Service, and when was it in effect in Britain? National Service was the peacetime conscription of British men into the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. During the years National Service was active – between 1949 and 1963 – more than two million men were conscripted into the British Armed forces. Why was National Service introduced? During the Second World War, the British Armed Forces needed to use conscription in order to fill its ranks – but after the war had ended, the government decided to continue conscription in peacetime. The idea was to ensure that Britain’s overseas military commitments were fulfilled, and to maintain the dwindling British empire. Men were needed for the ongoing miltary occupations of Germany and Japan, which began with the end of the Second World War. Tensions between the US and Russia during the Cold War also put pressure on Britain’s military, while Indian independence in 1947 had removed a large source of previously relied-upon manpower. Who was exempt from National Service? All able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 30 were liable to be called up, but there were exceptions: the blind and mentally ill clergymen men who worked in government positions overseas. Black and Asian British men were also unofficially excluded – in 1946 there were concerns that commissions given to non-white officers could affect the well-being and discipline of the army. Due to the tensions in Northern Ireland, Northern Irish men were also excluded. Students could defer the call-up until their studies had been completed, while conscientious objectors had to undergo a tribunal test to prove their beliefs. What was National Service like? New recruits were given six weeks’ basic military training and had to undertake a regime of cleaning equipment and drills. For some this was boring, but for others it gave stability, discipline and the chance to bond with their comrades, as well as an opportunity to learn new skills and languages. National Service also offered travel to far-flung destinations such as Egypt or Borneo – new opportunities for those who otherwise would not have had the means to venture beyond Britain. How long did National Service last? The initial period of National Service was 18 months, but during the Korean War (1950-53) this was extended to two years; everyone was liable to be called up at any time in the four years after their training. National Service soldiers kept the peace during periods of civil unrest and, in some cases, were at the front line when other countries fought for independence from the British empire. Service wasn’t risk-free, either: 395 national servicemen were killed while on active duty. Read more | Forging alliances: Britain and the US in the Korean War Were men paid for National Service? Yes. In 1948, a basic soldier was paid 28 shillings a week (equivalent to about £50 today). By 1960, this had risen to 38 shillings. However, in comparison to the average weekly wage in Britain (15 pounds, 10 shillings) this was poor. When was National Service abolished? As the British empire dwindled in size, Britain had less of a need for large armed forces to protect its overseas territories. A review of Britain’s defence resources in 1957 reassessed the need for conscripts and, taking into account advances in nuclear warfare, large armies were deemed ineffective compared to modern weapons. The changing nature of war meant that professional soldiers were now needed, and the training of large numbers of national servicemen took away these experienced men – not to mention depleted British workforces. The last national serviceman – Second Lieutenant Richard Vaughan of the Royal Army Pay Corps – was demobbed in May 1963. Read more | How have nuclear weapons shaped global politics? 10 key moments in the post-war atomic world Do other countries still have National Service? Yes, in many countries across the world – and in some cases for women as well as men. These include South Korea, Eritrea, Switzerland, Brazil, Israel and Syria. North Korea has the longest compulsory national service: 11 years for men and seven for women. Countries such as the US use a Selective Service where almost all men aged 18 must register in case a need for conscription should arise. More from our explainer series... What happened to the city of Babylon and the Tower of Babel The Great Depression – why did it happen, and how long did it last? The Spanish Inquisition – was it as brutal as it is popularly believed to be? This article was first published in the March 2020 edition of BBC History Revealed
The Evil May Day Riots of 1517: what happened?
In 1517, a mob terrorised the streets of London and took up arms against foreigners. Why did they turn to violence? And what happened in the so-called Evil May Day Riots?
What were the Evil May Day Riots? The Evil May Day Riots (also known as the Ill May Day Riots) were violent disturbances that took place in London during the evening of 30 April 1517 and early hours of 1 May against foreigners living in the city. It is considered to be one of the earliest race riots in the world and early modern London’s largest outbreak of violence against immigrants. What were relations like between immigrants and the English residents of London beforehand? As a thriving port and international city, London was home to people from many nations, including Italy, the Netherlands and France. The capital’s thriving economy attracted merchants and artisans from all over Europe. It’s thought that around two per cent of early 16th-century London’s population came from overseas. While relations were cordial on the whole, some Londoners complained of being cheated by ‘foreigners’, people they claimed received protection from their nations’ ambassadors, instead of facing the punishments that English citizens would receive. London was also suffering from an economic downturn. The previous winter had been tough, with prices rising and wages decreasing after a difficult harvest, and some blamed foreigners for their troubles. What caused the riots? According to Edward Hall, a lawyer and historian who chronicled English life during these years, a preacher called Dr Bell (or Beal) gave a xenophobic speech in mid-April 1517. Bell, who had been persuaded to give his speech by a broker, John Lincoln, accused immigrants of taking jobs from English workers. Read more | The Gordon Riots: how an anti-Catholic petition escalated into the most destructive riots in London’s history “The aliens and strangers eat the bread from the poor fatherless children, and take the living from all the artificers, and the intercourse from all merchants, whereby poverty is so much increased that every man bewaileth the misery,” said Bell. He declared the land they were on was given by God to Englishmen and therefore they “ought to cherish and defend themselves, and to hurt and grieve aliens for the common weal”. Over the following days, arrests were made after several random attacks against immigrants. Rumours began to spread that May Day would see a citywide ‘rebellion’ against foreigners. The Venetian ambassador, Sebastian Giustinian, described the events that led to the riots a few days after they happened: “After Easter, a certain preacher, at the instigation of a citizen of London, preached as usual in the fields, where the whole city was in the habit of assembling with the magistrates. He abused the strangers in the town, and their manner and customs, alleging that they not only deprived the English of their industry, and of the profits arising therefrom, but dishonoured their dwellings by taking their wives and daughters. With this exasperating language and much more besides, he so irritated the populace, that they threatened to cut the strangers to pieces and sack their houses on the first of May.” Concerned about these rumours, the ambassador had visited Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, the lord chancellor, as well as King Henry VIII, who assured Giustinian that no harm would come to any foreigner in London. How did the riots unfold? On the evening of 30 April, the mayor of London announced a 9pm curfew. This was done at the behest of Wolsey, who was wary of trouble in the city. That same evening, two young men were spotted by John Mundy, an alderman (a government official). He tried to enforce the curfew, but soon Mundy was surrounded by many men intent on causing him harm and he swiftly fled. Eventually, about a thousand male apprentices gathered in Cheapside in the heart of the city, no doubt helped along by alcohol after the holiday celebrations. Storming Newgate, the city’s largest prison, they freed all the incarcerated prisoners. They then proceeded to St Martin Le Grand, an area north of Old St Paul’s Cathedral and home to many immigrants. Thomas More, under-sheriff of London and advisor to the king, met the rowdy mob and tried to persuade them to disperse and return home. However, the terrified inhabitants of St Martin Le Grand, afraid of what might happen, began to throw stones and boiling water on the crowd. Panic ensued. The mob began looting and attacking homes and businesses. City officials tried to calm the crowds, but they were overwhelmed. For five hours, between 1,000 and 2,000 people – mostly men – terrorised London. Possessions were thrown into the street, livelihoods were destroyed, and many people were injured. Those who were targeted included merchants from the Hanseatic League (a confederation of merchant guilds from northern Europe), bankers who worked around Lombard Street, and foreign courtiers, although it’s not thought anyone was killed. May Day was possibly chosen as the day for the revolt as many people, including apprentices, had the day off work. The national holiday was celebrated by journeying into the fields to collect branches and flowers to decorate the home and commemorate the arrival of spring, so it was perhaps thought that these festivities would conceal the planned violence. What was the response to the riots? During the early hours of 1 May, the earls of Shrewsbury and Surrey led the king’s forces into the city in a bid to control the violence, and soon, around 5,000 troops had descended on the capital. By around 3am, peace had been restored to the streets and over 300 people were arrested for their part in the disturbances – some as young as 13. Giustinian suggested that many would have been killed had the troops not arrived in time: “Greater mischief and bloodshed would have taken place, had not the Cardinal, being forewarned, taken precautionary measures. He and other lords on that night came with considerable forces to the city by several roads. Six Wives: A HistoryExtra podcast series Member exclusive | In this six-part podcast series, we’ll be peeling back the layers of mythmaking to take another look at these fascinating women, who shaped the course of Henry’s reign – and the history of England. Listen to all episodes now Meanwhile, Edward Hall blamed immigrants for the riots. He claimed they had been goading and mocking Englishmen, and boasting of their closeness and favour with the king: “The multitude of strangers was so great about London that the poor English could get any living... The foreigners... were so proud that they disdained, mocked, and oppressed the Englishmen, which was the beginning of the grudge... The Genoans, Frenchmen, and other strangers said and boasted themselves to be in such favour with the king and his council that they set naught by the rulers of the city... How miserably the common artificers lived, and scarcely could get any work to find them, their wives, and children, for there were such a number of artificers strangers that took away all the living in manner.” What happened to the rioters who were arrested? John Lincoln, who instigated the riots, was arrested for treason and disturbing the peace. He was hanged, drawn and quartered for his actions, and his head was put on display as a warning. As he was being carried through the streets to meet his end, he still proclaimed his view that foreigners posed a threat to England: “My lords, I meant well, for and you knew, the mischief that is ensued in this realm by strangers.” Thirteen other rioters were executed, and countless others were supposed to suffer the same fate. However, upon being brought to Westminster to face the king, Queen Catherine publicly pleaded for their lives and Henry duly pardoned them, sparking much celebration among the gathered crowds. How have the Evil May Day riots been remembered? While few today have even heard of the Evil May Day Riots, this wasn’t the case in the century that followed. In the 1590s, the riots played a prominent role in Sir Thomas More by Anthony Munday and Henry Chettle, a biographical play thought to have been revised by William Shakespeare, among others. The late 16th century saw a new wave of immigrants to England – many of them Protestants fleeing religious persecution in France and the Netherlands – and there were concerns that another anti-immigration riot was looming. It is no coincidence, then, that the play sees More make an impassioned plea for a sympathetic refugee policy while trying to quash the unrest – something he calls “the strangers’ case” against “mountainish inhumanity”.
The Russian Revolution was one of the most dramatic and explosive periods of the 20th century, a series of events that paved the way for the world's first constitutionally communist state. But, as Emma Slattery-Williams explains, the new regime would not survive the 20th century...
In 1922, under Lenin’s rule, Russia became the dominant constituent part of a new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) – the world’s first constitutionally socialist state. It was comprised of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. The civil war had greatly damaged the Russian economy, and this – combined with severe droughts, failed harvests, economic blockades, the requisition of grain and seed-grain from peasants and a disrupted transport system – culminated in a terrible famine between 1921 and 1922. Although Lenin did eventually accept international aid, more than five million people are thought to have died, either through starvation or associated diseases. Millions also fled the new USSR, in particular those who had supported the Whites during the civil war. Known as ‘White émigrés’, they included members of the imperial government, businessmen, monarchists and officers, as well as poets and writers. Read more | Your guide to the USSR No political parties other than the ruling Communist Party of the Soviet Union were allowed within the USSR, and soon Lenin held power at least as great as any tsar. With complete control over government and the media, the USSR was in effect a totalitarian dictatorship. The Bolshevik secret police that Lenin had established in 1917 was replaced by the State Political Directorate (known as the GPU) and the Gulag system of forced labour camps was introduced. Around 18 million people – including dissenters, criminals and prosperous peasants, known as ‘kulaks’ – are thought to have been incarcerated in the camps between their introduction in 1919 and Stalin’s death in 1953. Hundreds of thousands of these prisoners died of starvation, disease, exhaustion or execution. Exit Lenin, enter Stalin Lenin, who had been increasingly unwell since 1921, suffered his first stroke in May 1922. Fearing imminent death, he dictated a letter now known as Lenin’s Testament, in which he pointed out the dangers of a split within the party and outlined the strengths and weaknesses of its leaders, without specifying who should succeed him. He did, however, recommend that Stalin be removed from his position as general secretary. The full content of Lenin’s Testament was kept a secret from most of the Soviet Congress, however, and would not be shared for many decades. After Lenin died on 21 January 1924, the Soviets created a Leninist cult of the personality that promoted the dead leader as a saint-like figure in the fight for a communist state. Religious imagery was replaced with images of Lenin, and his body – embalmed and kept on permanent display in a mausoleum in Moscow, where it remains today – became a site of pilgrimage. Petrograd was renamed Leningrad in his honour, a change that persisted until a public referendum in 1991 returned it to its pre-World War I name of St Petersburg. There was now a power vacuum in the USSR. As the mastermind behind the Bolshevik seizure of power, as well as the Red Army’s success during the Russian Civil War, Leon Trotsky was seen as an obvious choice of leader for many. He was seen by some, however, as a more ‘Westernised’ member of the party, due to his time spent in exile, and many resented the trust Lenin had placed in him. On the podcast | Life of the Week: Stalin Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, had played a less prominent role than Trotsky in the Bolshevik takeover, but his position as general secretary of the Communist Party had allowed him to accrue great influence and power, and Lenin himself had relied on Stalin’s administrative ability, before becoming critical of him. Three other members – Nikolay Bukharin, Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev – were also contenders for leadership. A power struggle ensued, but Stalin’s nationalistic brand of Marxism – ‘socialism in one country’ – and his focus on strengthening the USSR appealed to many in the Communist Party, and by 1929 he had become dictator of the USSR. Trotsky, a critic of Stalin’s plans, was demonised, expelled from the Communist Party, and exiled. He was assassinated in 1940, on Stalin’s orders, in Mexico. But Trotsky was far from the only victim of Stalin’s bloodlust: between August 1936 and March 1938, Stalin carried out a ‘Great Purge’ to calm conflicts within the party. Thousands were killed, including those suspected of attempting coups. Under Stalin’s rule, the USSR would become a world superpower, and play a major role within the Allied victory over Nazi Germany in World War II – though at a cost, as the USSR suffered more losses in the conflict than any other combatant. After 1945, Stalin would subsequently gain control over much of Eastern Europe, creating a ‘buffer zone’ of Soviet satellite states intended to shield the USSR from the West. The scene for the lengthy Cold War, which lasted four decades, was set. Stalin died in 1953. His successor, Nikita Khrushchev, would condemn him for perverting communism, and claim that Lenin had never wanted him in power. The Soviet government would also later admit the huge scale of atrocities committed under Stalin’s rule. The USSR eventually collapsed on 25 December 1991 – the regime that had seized power in the Russian Revolution and ruled for 74 years was no more.
After 99 days at sea and nearly 16,000 nautical miles, the winner of the Great Tea Race was to be determined by mere minutes. Emma Slattery Williams explores its thrilling end on 6 September 1866...
Captain John Keay desperately waited for a tugboat to take his ship, the high-speed clipper Ariel, up the Thames and into dock at London. Victory in that year’s tea race, and the prize money that went with it, was within his grasp, but a rival had been in sight not far behind for hours now. Even after 99 days at sea and nearly 16,000 nautical miles, the winner was going to be determined by mere minutes, and good luck, on 6 September 1866. For just over a decade, clipper captains like Keay had competed in an unofficial annual race: to load the first crop of tea in China and sail as quickly as possible to be the first to unload it in Britain, where thirsty tea drinkers were waiting to have their cups filled with the freshest leaves. Originally introduced to the British en masse in the mid-17th century, tea had grown into one of the nation’s biggest imports by the 1800s. The hot drink was beloved at all levels of society and tea houses had proliferated, partly thanks to members of the temperance movement who encouraged the beverage as a healthy alternative to alcohol. Read more | What was the Boston Tea Party and why did it happen? Such was the demand for tea that once the East India Company’s monopoly on the trade ended in the 1830s, competition among merchants got heated. They developed and refined designs for faster ships able to handle the conditions on the voyage between Britain and China. Clippers were the elegant result. Slim, streamlined and with a huge number of sails across their three masts to catch every gust of wind, they could reach high speeds even when laden with goods, making them ideal for transporting tea (as well as the opium being sold to China). Merchants began racing their clippers to ensure their cargo would be first on the market in Britain each year. To up the ante, a financial incentive was introduced so that by the mid-1850s, the winner received a premium price of 10 shillings per tonne. There was also prestige to be won as the ‘tea races’ were covered in newspapers and bets made on the result. The race is on The most dramatic and closely contested race would take place in the summer of 1866. Of the nine clippers that gathered at the Pagoda Anchorage on the Min River, near Foochow (Fuzhou) in southeastern China, there were five with the best chance of winning. The recently launched Ariel, captained by John Keay, was the fastest – despite also being the heaviest – able to reach 16 knots due to more than 2,400 square metres of sail canvas. But it had to contend with fellow newcomer Taitsing; the proven speedster Taeping; the 1864 winner Serica, which, unlike the other wood-and-iron-framed clippers, was only built of wood and thus light; and Fiery Cross. Captained by Richard Robinson, the latter had won four of the last five races. Ariel got the better start, loading and stowing its 12,000 tea chests – overall, totalling 560,000kg – the quickest and being ready to depart by the evening of 28 May. But the tugboat assigned to tow it across the river was not powerful and Keay was forced to drop anchor and wait for high tide. On the Fiery Cross, Robinson had been so concerned about Ariel’s speed that he had set off as soon as the cargo was loaded, without clearing customs or completing the relevant paperwork. The other captains were furious, but his clipper opened up a 14-hour head start. Ariel could not get to sea until the morning of 30 May, with Taeping and Serica close behind. The race was on. While ship records do not reveal much about life onboard, the need to maintain speed would have made for exhausting work. The captains would have driven them hard, regardless of the weather, and the cargo would be carefully shifted to optimise weight distribution. Just 20 days in, Fiery Cross left the China Sea still in the lead. From there the route went across the Indian Ocean, around the Cape of Good Hope and up Africa’s western coast. Yet despite the distances covered, the clippers were occasionally so close that the crews could see each other. Taitsing had ended up departing a day too late to be in contention, especially as the other four made such good time. There were some days when they logged more than 300 miles. The weeks passed and the lead changed several times. With each fresh sighting and report in the newspapers, it was increasingly clear that this year’s race was going to be extremely tight. After three months at sea, all four clippers passed the Azores – a group of Atlantic islands west of Portugal – on the same day, 29 August. Fierce pursuit By the time England was sighted after 97 days at sea, the race could still have been won by anyone, as they approached the Channel practically in a line. At the front was Ariel, with Taeping in fierce pursuit. Throughout the day of 5 September, both logged speeds of 14 knots as they raced with all sails, aided by a strong wind. The unofficial finish line they aimed for was Deal, on the Kent coast, as that was where they had to signal for a tugboat to guide them into the Thames. It was early the next morning that Ariel got there, just minutes ahead of Taeping. Captain Keay was thrilled, but knew the race was not finished. The clippers needed to reach their respective docks. And much like at the start of the race, Ariel lost out by being towed by a weak tugboat and getting caught up in low tide, and it cost Keay and his crew the victory. While Taeping had further to go to reach London Docks, its shallower draft and more powerful tug meant it got there at 9.47pm on 6 September – just 28 minutes before Ariel completed its voyage at 10.15pm at East India Dock. Serica arrived under two hours later and Fiery Cross, unluckily held up by the tide, showed up on 8 September. On the podcast | The Age of Sail: everything you wanted to know The race had taken 99 days, a week shorter than the previous year. No other race would be as hotly contested either. Taeping pipped Ariel to the docks, but Ariel had reached the point of calling in tugboats first. It was therefore agreed the prize premium would be split. As it turned out, the 1866 thriller race was the last time the premium was given, and although the clippers performed superbly, their days were numbered. For Taeping and Ariel did not bring the first cargo of tea to Britain that year: an auxiliary steamship named Erl King had left China after the beginning of the race but took just 77 days to make the voyage. Soon, even new clippers could not keep up in the age of steam. In 1869 – the same year the last great tea clipper, the 17-knot Cutty Sark launched – the Suez Canal opened, slashing the journey between Asia and Europe by thousands of miles. But the route was unsuitable for the famous, and now obsolete, three-masted sail ships, and while the British love of tea continued to grow, they never again went to such lengths for a cuppa as the Great Tea Race of 1866. This article was first published in the September 2022 issue of BBC History Revealed
What was the Peace People movement in Northern Ireland?
The Peace People began in 1976 as a grassroots movement to protest the ongoing violence in Northern Ireland…
On a bright and sunny summer day in Belfast in 1976, a large crowd of women and children are making their way through the suburb of Andersonstown. People have been basking in a heatwave for the last few months, but the women in this 10,000-strong gathering are not out to make the most of the sun, and, despite their number, they move in near silence. The mood is sombre, only occasionally punctuated by an outburst of singing from the group of nuns that join the throng. Most striking – in a religiously divided Northern Ireland – is the presence of both Protestants and Catholics; marching side-by-side and carrying banners calling for peace. The crowd moves down Finaghy Road North, a location that now holds a deep and tragic significance, on their way to Milltown Cemetery. There, they will mourn three newly buried children: the latest victims of sectarian violence. The 1970s were a dangerous time in Northern Ireland, when the tensions that had divided the people for decades spilled over into a bloody period of unrest called the Troubles. Protestants and Catholics lived side-by-side in disharmony. Politically and economically, Northern Ireland was dominated by Protestant loyalists who wished to remain part of the UK. The state police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was overwhelmingly Protestant too. But Catholic nationalists wanted to end British rule and see Ireland unified. Protests, rioting and attacks, including bombings, were common on both sides. Read about the battle of the Bogside In August 1969, after days of fighting across a number of towns and cities, the British government took the decision to send in troops to restore law and order. Instead, this emboldened the Irish Republican Army (IRA), especially a splinter faction called the Provisional IRA (or Provos), who were willing to use violence in their guerrilla campaign to get rid of the British. Over the years, innocent people were constantly caught in the crossfire, such as the victims on Finaghy Road North in 1976. The tragedy that sparked the Peace People movement On the afternoon of 10 August 1976, British troops engaged in a high-speed chase with a young member of the IRA, Danny Lennon. He had been seen driving through Andersonstown, with a passenger, and supposedly pointed a gun in the direction of the soldiers, who set off in pursuit in their Land Rover. At the same time, a young mother named Anne Maguire and her four children, aged between six weeks and eight years old, were walking down the same road. The British soldiers opened fire and shot Lennon dead, causing the car to swerve and mount the pavement – right into the path of the Maguire family. The infant Andrew in his pram and eight-year-old Joanne, who was riding her bicycle, were killed instantly, while two-year-old John died the following day. Only seven-year-old Mark was unhurt as he had been further along the pavement. Anne was severely injured and remained unconscious for several days, awakening to hear of the unbearable loss of three of her children. She would take her own life a few years later. The tragedy was a stark demonstration of how the conflict in Northern Ireland was needlessly killing innocent civilians, with no sign of stopping. While there was fury in the community with some blaming the soldiers and others the republicans, most were too heartbroken to be angry at any particular side. They were just tired of the bloodshed. The following day, dozens of women from local republican neighbourhoods marched in protest against IRA violence, symbolically pushing prams as they went. Churches were flooded with those offering prayers for the Maguire family, spontaneous marches took place across Northern Ireland, and the site of the crash on Finaghy Road North became a flower-adorned shrine. Who was behind the formation of Peace People? Anne Maguire’s sister, Máiread Corrigan, having had to formally identify the children, went on television and called for an end to the violence. Her appeal spoke to all in the grieving community. Among them was Betty Williams, who had been one of the first on the scene of the tragedy and who began going door-to-door with a petition for peace in Northern Ireland. Within two days, she had gathered 6,000 signatures. The Maguire children’s funeral took place on 13 August, and the next day Corrigan and Williams helped organise a march of 10,000 people – Catholics, Protestants, republicans and loyalists alike, putting differences aside – through Andersonstown to the site of the tragedy and the cemetery where the children were now buried. By then, the two women had also met Ciaran McKeown, a Belfast-based journalist and a nonviolent activist, and the trio emerged as leaders of a new grassroots peace movement. An even larger rally followed on 21 August, where around 20,000 supporters gathered at Ormeau Park and McKeown read out a declaration setting out the aims of the movement, which had been named Peace People. “We have a simple message to the world from this movement for peace. We want to live and love and build a just and peaceful society. We want for our children, as we want for ourselves, our lives at home, at work, and at play to be lives of joy and peace,” it began. “We reject the use of the bomb and the bullet and all the techniques of violence. We dedicate ourselves to working with our neighbours, near and far, day in and day out, to building that peaceful society in which the tragedies we have known are a bad memory and a continuing warning.” In the following months, over 100,000 put their names to the declaration and mass Peace People rallies were held across Northern Ireland and Britain. Unlike other calls for peace, this was a large-scale movement where Protestants and Catholics came together. At one march on Belfast’s Shankill Road – a Protestant heartland – Catholics were welcomed over the ‘peace lines’, the walls separating neighbourhoods. But peace was never going to be an easy aim. Members of the movement were regularly subjected to stone-throwing at rallies, death threats and even petrol bombings. Despite a commitment to nonviolence and inclusivity, some opponents accused Peace People of being pro-British, while others disliked the idea of the two religious groups mixing at all. The IRA saw it as a threat to their aims of a united Ireland. Undeterred, Peace People continued to organise rallies, including in November 1976 when more than 10,000 people marched to London’s Trafalgar Square, where American folk singer Joan Baez sang We Shall Overcome. What was the impact of the Peace People movement? In the first six months after Peace People was established, Northern Ireland saw a 70 per cent drop in the rate of violence, calculated by the number of fatalities, and it would never return to the levels experienced at the height of the Troubles. For their tireless efforts, both Williams and Corrigan were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (the latter, at 32, became the youngest recipient of the laureate until Malala Yousafzai in 2014). Not long afterwards, McKeown became the first person from Northern Ireland to make a speech at the General Assembly of the United Nations. It would be another two decades until peace was finally achieved in Northern Ireland with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Today, Peace People still works at maintaining peace in Northern Ireland, as well as across the globe. This article first appeared in the August 2022 issue of BBC History Revealed
What was the Children’s Crusade, and did it actually happen?
Inspired by the crusaders heading to the Holy Land, children and young adults rose up in early 13th-century France and Germany and launched their own bid to recapture Jerusalem. Or did they? Emma Slattery Williams explains the story behind the Children's Crusade and its leaders – and what it has to do with the Pied Piper...
What was the Children’s Crusade? The Children’s Crusade is said to have been a failed popular (meaning not sanctioned by the Pope) crusade of 1212, mainly made up of children, with the intent of taking back Jerusalem. It is said to have been inspired by the crusades of Western European Christians to reclaim the Holy Land between the 11th and 13th centuries. The tale of the Children’s Crusade is one that is caught between fact and fiction, though. There are few first-hand sources to attest to this particular crusade, and those we do have may have been written well after the event or embellished. What were the Crusades? Between 1096 and 1291, there were a number of Crusades by European Christians to reclaim the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim control, and solidify and expand their control of the region. A holy city for Christians, Jews and Muslims alike, Jerusalem would be visited by Christian pilgrims wishing to worship at the site of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. As various Muslim groups struggled for power, it became harder for Christians to visit Jerusalem, and, in 1095, Pope Urban II urged Christians to launch an expedition to free Jerusalem by force – resulting in the First Crusade. After three years of intense fighting, Jerusalem was captured, and several Crusader states established. In 1147, another crusade began in response to the fall of the first crusader kingdom of Edessa, followed by a third expedition to retake Jerusalem, which had been captured by Muslim leader Saladin in 1187 – many more crusades followed over the next century. Past historians have estimated that anywhere between one and nine million people, on both sides, lost their lives in these holy wars. How did the Children’s Crusade start? Inspired by the faith-filled warriors of earlier crusades, spontaneous outbursts of piety are said to have occurred in children and young adults in France and Germany. They believed that, in supporting the crusader spirit, God would aid them in recapturing Jerusalem, and many began to march towards the Mediterranean. Who led the the children on their crusade? Stephen of Cloyes in France, thought to have been a 12-year-old shepherd, and Nicholas of Cologne in Germany, about whom even less is known. Between Easter and Pentecost of 1212, Nicholas is believed to have inspired thousands of followers – men and women, as well as children – to flock to him in Cologne after he claimed he had received orders from Jesus to retake the Holy Land. Nicholas, it is said, believed that the sea would part as the Red Sea had done for Moses, allowing the crusaders to safely reach Jerusalem. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2023/06/GettyImages599958631-037cbc1.png" width="620" height="410" alt="Muslim leader Saladin, shown capturing the True Cross at the battle of Hattin, in the chronicles of 13th-century monk Matthew Paris (Photo by Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images)" title="Muslim leader Saladin, shown capturing the True Cross at the battle of Hattin, in the chronicles of 13th-century monk Matthew Paris (Photo by Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images)" /> The 13th-century Chronicon universale anonymi Laudunensi, written by an anonymous monk, claimed that Stephen of Cloyes saw a vision of Jesus who tasked him with leading a crusade and delivering a letter to the French king, Philip II. It’s possible that Stephen may have heard of Pope Innocent III’s visit to nearby Chartres to gather support for his own crusading plans. According to the chronicle, Stephen gathered followers in June 1212 and travelled to Paris for an audience with Philip, to ask for his blessing to launch a crusade. His arrival may have coincided with a fair that attracted merchants from across Europe, and as many as 30,000 people allegedly flocked to Stephen’s side. Another chronicler stated that the intentions of these crusaders was not for war, but to recover the true cross on which Jesus was crucified; the holy relic had been lost 25 years earlier at the battle of Hattin against Saladin. Who joined Stephen and Nicholas? Unlike those who had joined the papal-sanctioned crusades, these were not mercenaries or soldiers, but mainly children and young people. They were called pueri by 13th-century chroniclers, a term that meant children (specifically boys), which led people to call the movement the Children’s Crusade – several chroniclers even note that some parents imprisoned their children in their homes to prevent them from joining. This doesn’t mean that the whole army was necessarily made up of children, as pueri may have also have referred to young peasants or those without land. The religious fervour that both Stephen and Nicholas inspired in their followers was seen as a threat to the established church. Local clergy were afraid that they were losing control of their congregations. Did Stephen make it to the Holy Land? <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2023/06/GettyImages51241664-cda41bc.png" width="620" height="413" alt="Illustration of a group of children, later known as the Cockhorse regiment, during the Children’s Crusade (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" title="Illustration of a group of children, later known as the Cockhorse regiment, during the Children’s Crusade (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" /> Philip II, concerned that Stephen’s large group of followers could cause civil unrest demanded that the would-be crusaders return to their homes. The Children’s Crusade had ended before it had even begun. Or had it? The chronicler, Cistercian monk Alberic de Trois-Fontaines, extends Stephen’s story further and suggests that he led some of his followers to Marseilles. Here, the crusaders are said to have been tricked by merchants and taken aboard their ships where some died when the ships sank, and others were taken as slaves to northern Africa. Those that survived were sold to Muslim slavers. Attempts were made to force the children to renounce Christianity, but they stayed true to their faith and were killed “in various types of martyrdom” – apart from one who escaped to tell the story. Most historians, however, question the accuracy of Alberic’s writings. And what about Nicholas? Contemporary sources record that Nicholas’s group reached Speyer in southwestern Germany on 25 July 1212 whereupon they took the dangerous route south across the Alps. Hungry, cold and exhausted, many would have died on this journey or given up and returned home. Those who persisted are said to have reached Piacenza in Italy on 20 or 21 August, having travelled 400 miles in just a month. Thousands more continued onwards to Genoa where they are said to have disbanded after the Mediterranean failed to part for them, as Nicholas had promised. Although both crusades failed, they inspired many chroniclers to record their achievements of inspiring people to take on the holy cause, even without the Pope’s urging or approval. The Fifth Crusade, which set out for the Holy Land in 1217, is said to have been partly inspired by the religious fervour of the Children’s Crusade. What does the Pied Piper have to do with the Children’s Crusade? In the German town of Hamelin, a folktale persists that, in 1284, more than a hundred of the town’s children were taken away and never seen again. As the tale goes, a piper solved the town’s rat problem by playing music and luring the rats away to a river (where they drowned), but when he came to claim his payment he was refused. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2023/06/GettyImages517200886-3a6c461.png" width="620" height="414" alt="Illustration of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, seen by some as a metaphor for death, while others suggest it is one for the Children’s Crusade (Photo by Bettmann/Contributor/Getty Images)" title="Illustration of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, seen by some as a metaphor for death, while others suggest it is one for the Children’s Crusade (Photo by Bettmann/Contributor/Getty Images)" /> He took up his pipe again and this time it was the children who were seduced by his music. Several theories exist as to what happened to the children of Hamelin, including one that suggests they left to embark on a holy crusade. Were there other popular crusades? In 1096, before the First Crusade had set out, a group of peasants and minor nobles marched across Germany and Hungary. On their journey towards Jerusalem, they committed massacres against Jews, especially in the Rhineland. They eventually reached Constantinople to aid the Byzantine empire against the Seljuk Turks. Many were captured or killed in the fighting that ensued. In 1251, another popular crusade was launched, from northern France with the intention of rescuing Louis IX, who had been captured during the Seventh Crusade. Thousands of peasants marched to Paris and some carried out attacks on monasteries and the clergy before eventually disbanding. This article was first published in the January 2021 issue of BBC History Revealed
From the home front to the front line: what were the roles of women in the Civil War?
The Civil Wars were not an exclusively male domain, as women from all social spheres became embroiled in the clashes or voluntarily threw themselves into the conflict. Emma Slattery Williams explores the warrior women committed to doing their bit, if even in disguise...
Arguably the most important woman of the Civil War was the wife of King Charles I, Henrietta Maria. Although the French-born queen has sometimes been overlooked, Professor Mark Stoyle argues that she was a far more pivotal figure in the conflict than is usually recognised. He even suggests that the king’s declaration of war may have been partly prompted out of concern for her: “Charles’s attempt to arrest five MPs in January 1642 was, I think, partly prompted by rumours beginning to circulate that MPs were about to impeach Henrietta Maria and even, perhaps, to execute her.” Browse | Expert articles, podcasts and video on the Civil War Sent to the continent for her safety, the queen continued to support the royalists from across the Channel, sending supplies and money, and later gathering an army to join her husband. Aside from Henrietta Maria, women from all classes of society played a role during the Civil War. “There were some great noblewomen who defended their houses against the other side,” says Professor Stoyle. “The most famous of these were Lady Brilliana Harley, who defended her castle on the Welsh Marches, and Lady Banks, who defended her castle in Dorset." Bankes famously held Corfe Castle for the king, withstanding two sieges. When the Parliamentarians tried to climb the walls, Lady Mary, her daughters and her female servants helped drive them off by raining hot coals and stones down upon their heads. “But women all over Britain fought to protect their homes against the rampaging armies. During the eight-week siege of Lyme Regis in 1644, women helped to dig fortifications and bring out supplies to the men in the trenches. Some even fired muskets and cannons”. When the Royalists temporarily withdrew, the women ran out with picks and shovels and levelled the enemy earthworks. Did women fight in the Civil War? Some women took desperate measures to be near their loved ones or to get a slice of the action For those women for whom becoming a camp follower wasn’t enough to feel like they were contributing to the war effort, the only option was to pull on a pair of breeches and join the army. While some women donned men’s clothes so they could accompany their husbands, others actually wanted to get on the battlefield itself. Both the Bible and the king took a dim view of this practice, and those who were discovered could face public whipping. The actual number of women who crossdressed is unknown, but the problem was significant enough that a draft proclamation of 1643, which set out required standards of behaviour in the army, contained a hand-written memo from Charles I forbidding women from wearing men’s clothes. Read more about the women who swapped dresses for breeches Despite this measure, a small number of women do seem to have taken part in combat. One famous example is Jane Ingleby of Ripley Castle, who reputedly charged with the King’s cavalry at Marston Moor, while many other women travelled with the armies as camp followers. In terms of the home front of the Civil War, women took on important jobs while men were off fighting. These included civic duties, such as parish constables. With the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, women returned to their normal household roles – but there were shifts. Radical religious sects began to pop up allowing female preachers, and some women became published authors for the first time. Overall, Professor Stoyle claims that the Civil War had a significant impact on the dynamics of society: “I would argue that women’s lives changed just as much as men’s did.” This article was first published in the January 2021 issue of BBC History Revealed