In 1902, the Lodge Committee in the US Senate held hearings on alleged American war crimes during the counterinsurgency in the Philippines. While these hearings did not lead to major prosecutions, they did help convince the American government to wind down the war effort and set a precedent in Congressional oversight.

The American Occupation of the Philippines

From 1898 to 1902, American forces were locked in a brutal counterinsurgency against the Philippine revolutionaries led by Emilio Aguinaldo. For years, the Filipinos had fought against Spain and were happy to have American support when the United States offered to kick the Spanish out during the Spanish-American War. However, Aguinaldo and his allies underestimated the American desire to occupy the islands themselves. When talks between both parties broke down, American forces took advantage of a clash on the outskirts of Manila to launch an offensive against Aguinaldo’s forces. In a series of battles, American forces overwhelmed their smaller, weaker Filipino opponents.

As American forces advanced out of Manila, they found themselves fighting in difficult terrain against an enemy supported by much of the civilian population. This became a major issue for American troops and led Washington to deploy more men to help control the ground the American VIII Corps had taken. American commanders quickly learned that the fighting was similar to what many of them had experienced when fighting Native American tribes in the Wild West. As a result, the campaign became less of a conventional military offensive and more of an occupation and a counterinsurgency.

At the height of the war in 1900, the United States had just over 74,000 men stationed on the islands, not including naval and marine contingents supporting ground operations. Around 30,000 to 40,000 men were engaged in patrolling the islands to fight the rebels, while the remainder were engaged in garrison and reconstruction duties. Against this force were 80,000 to 100,000 men and women, although the Filipinos were very disorganized after the capture of Aguinaldo and the deaths of many of his subordinates.

The Culture in the US Military

The tactics employed by American forces to crush the Filipinos were brutal and enabled by their commanders. At the start of the war, 26 out of 30 American general officers who deployed to the Philippines had experience fighting the indigenous peoples in the American West. They brought with them a mindset that insurgents like the Filipinos were “savages” that needed to be crushed by brute force. Some American veterans even referred to the Filipinos as Indians. The United States, at the time facing enormous racial tensions and violence at home, saw the conflict largely through a racial prism that infected the mindset of its troops.

The US Army often had difficulty identifying who was an insurgent versus a civilian. They began using the practice of the “water cure,” today known as waterboarding, on random Filipinos suspected of supporting the guerrillas. Additionally, they burned down villages suspected of supplying the guerrillas. These incidents were not random; they were approved by American commanders, who hoped that ruthless force could end the revolt. Because the United States never recognized the independence of the Philippines, the US military did not treat Filipino prisoners as POWs but as detainees that could be abused and mistreated.

The scale of the abuse and ill-treatment came to a head with the Samar campaign in 1901-1902. After an ambush on American troops in the village of Balangiga, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the US to “pacify” the island. Brigadier General Jacob Smith ordered his subordinates to torch every village they could and said he considered everyone over 10 years old a combatant. After a series of atrocities, the general and Marine Major Littleton Waller were put on trial for misconduct and murder. While Waller’s acquittal caused an outcry, there had been an attempt to hold them to account, while other American officers who committed the same atrocities evaded scrutiny.

The Anti-Imperialist League and Opposition Within Congress

In June 1898, a coalition of American politicians, businessmen, and academics formed the American Anti-Imperialist League. Their purpose was initially to oppose the American annexation of the islands, but soon evolved to demanding a full American withdrawal and recognition of Philippine independence.

Among their members were the author Mark Twain, businessman Andrew Carnegie, and former president Grover Cleveland. Their motives for opposing the war differed. In some instances, members opposed the war on moral grounds, claiming that America’s annexation of the islands was against the values of the country. Others, especially southern politicians, feared that the war would lead to an influx of Filipinos to the US and sought to pander to nativist attitudes.

When news of the atrocities began to reach American newspapers, the League pounced on the Roosevelt administration. Handing out leaflets and organizing protests, the League convinced a significant number of members of Congress to declare their opposition to the war. Even some supporters of the war and administration officials were concerned about the optics of American war crimes making it to the newspapers. Increasingly, members of the public began demanding accountability for American actions overseas.

Leading the charge was Senator George Frisbie Hoar. When news of Smith and Waller’s actions began to reach the US, he convinced Republican senator Henry Cabot Lodge to hold hearings through the US Select Committee on the Philippines. Lodge, an ally of President Roosevelt, hoped that these hearings would dispel any notions that the US was committing war crimes on a systemic level. Membership of the committee included seven supporters of the administration and six opponents, and the hearings began in January 1902.

The Start of the Hearings

As soon as the hearings began, it became clear that Senator Lodge was attempting to limit the damage they could do to the administration. Witnesses being called were supposed to be from a “safe” list provided by Secretary of War Elihu Root. Attempts by some anti-war Democrats to call Filipino leaders like Aguinaldo and Apolinario Mabini as witnesses were shut down by Lodge and his allies. Lodge initially held the hearings behind closed doors. He only allowed representatives from three major press associations to attend, citing inadequate space as a justification.

However, these efforts failed. Future president William Howard Taft, then the governor of the Philippines, tried to downplay the atrocities committed by American forces. However, in the course of the questioning, he admitted that the use of torture (especially the “water-cure”) was widespread. His attempt to claim that the Filipinos were the main actors behind the war’s atrocities led to accusations of perjury. Additionally, his admission of the use of torture led to mockery of his other claims that the US presence on the islands benefited the Filipinos.

Subsequently, Lodge called General Robert Hughes, David Barrows, a school director on the islands, and General Elwell Otis, who commanded the VIII Corps for a period of time. Hughes admitted that American troops burned down villages and homes as a way of collectively punishing the islands. Otis openly claimed that there was no state of war, something even Lodge’s allies on the committee found unbelievable. As the hearings continued, it became clear that the administration was losing the narrative.

Testimony From US Troops and Commanders

Committee members insisted on having some members of the military testify before the committee to discuss American troop conduct. The press began receiving letters from American troops describing what they witnessed in the Philippines. The Anti-Imperialist League published many of them in case they weren’t exposed in the hearings. A captain from Kansas wrote: “Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native.” Others exposed the rampant racism that was pervasive among American ranks.

Major Cornelius Gardner, who was the provincial governor of Tayabas, the province next to Batangas, submitted a report which Lodge laid before the committee on April 10. The report indicated that American commanders were encouraging their men to burn villages and torture locals for information. He claimed that he was very concerned that these atrocities would only cause more attacks from the locals on American troops. The military actively tried to discredit him and even announced an investigation into his conduct. Even though Lodge agreed to allow his letter to be read in public, he was not allowed to testify in person at the committee.

Other American soldiers testified that they witnessed atrocities, including the future actor Richard Garrick, then a soldier stationed in the Philippines. General Arthur MacArthur was brought to testify, where he distanced himself from General Jacob Smith’s orders to kill everyone over ten years old on Samar. Other American officers claimed that the use of concentration camps was normal and that conditions in the camps were better than those in the villages around them. As testimony went on, Lodge’s allies routinely feuded with Hoar’s allies, engaging in shouting matches over the rules set by Lodge.

The Legacy of the Hearings

On June 28, 1902, the committee concluded its hearings on atrocities in the Philippines and published a 3,000-page report on what it uncovered. However, because there was no consensus on what the hearings actually proved, it was written to reflect the administration’s line, leading it to whitewash much of the testimony that exposed wrongdoing. Excepting those against Smith and Waller, no further criminal charges were filed and the media turned its attention elsewhere.

Hoping to turn the page and take advantage of the weakness of the Filipinos, President Roosevelt announced a general amnesty for everyone in the conflict and an end to major military operations. This meant that, while no Filipino would be tried for taking part in the insurrection, no American would be tried for involvement in war crimes committed there. Hostilities did not totally end; Muslim rebels in the southern islands continued fighting the Americans until 1913. American forces committed additional atrocities there, such as the Bud Dajo Massacre. Attention in the US turned elsewhere: the war in Europe, the invasion of Mexico, and growing labor tensions at home. While Congress debated the future status of the Philippines, few Americans thought about what happened there.

The hearings did set a precedent. Never before had the US Congress held an extended hearing on alleged atrocities committed by American forces during a war. The brutality of the American crushing of the rebellion meant that many Americans were unwilling to control the islands for a long time and supported efforts by Congress to recognize Philippine independence. Additionally, the taboo of Congress addressing American troop conduct was shattered.

In 1971, Senator J. William Fulbright chaired hearings that exposed American troop misconduct towards Vietnamese civilians. These hearings, like the Lodge Committee, did not lead to serious prosecutions, but they helped turn the American public against the war.

In 1899, Winston Churchill managed to sneak out of a schoolhouse being used as a prison by the Boers. He managed to travel 300 miles to freedom with limited supplies and no knowledge of local languages. This event helped catapult him to fame and launched his political career.

Why Was Churchill in South Africa?

The Great Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 attracted an enormous press contingent, making it one of the most covered conflicts up to that point. Journalists could telegraph their dispatches to their newsrooms rapidly. The British Education Act of 1870 helped increase literacy in Britain drastically, creating a desire for up-to-date coverage. Portable cameras became more widespread as well, making it easier for reporters to take photographs without having to carry heavy equipment. Since South Africa had already attracted a lot of media attention even before the outbreak of war, it was no surprise that a lot of journalists wanted to witness the coming storm. Several hundred reporters from around the world covered both sides of the war.

Enter Winston Churchill. In October 1899, he arrived in Cape Town as a war correspondent for The Morning Post. Britain was preparing for hostilities with the semi-independent Boer (AKA Afrikaners) Republics. A military man, Churchill viewed war and the resulting fame as a necessary springboard for his political career. He had unsuccessfully run for Parliament in July 1899 and believed that war heroism would make him a more attractive candidate in the next election. His late father Lord Randolph Churchill had significant experience of the region and Winston himself hoped to get himself as close to the fighting as possible.

In November, he convinced his friend Captain Aylmer Haldane to take him on a reconnaissance mission. Haldane consented, bringing him on board an armored train headed north from the town of Estcourt. At the time, British forces were preparing to launch a relief operation to save the besieged garrison of Ladysmith. Like Churchill, British commanders underestimated the Boers, assuming that they were a group of ill-equipped farmers. They were in for a rude shock.

The Seizure of Churchill’s Train

On November 15, 1899, Boer commandos led by the future South African statesman (and, ironically, future friend) Louis Botha ambushed Churchill’s train. On board were detachments of the Dublin Fusiliers and Durham Light Infantry. Near the Blaauwkrantz River, Boer riflemen hit the engine and forced the train to reverse onto rocks which they had placed on the tracks to stop the train. Churchill, Haldane, and the other soldiers disembarked and began firing towards the Boers. The engineer was hit and panicked, hoping to flee. Churchill kept him on the locomotive and helped get the rest of the contingent organized. However, the Boer riflemen were lethal shots and killed and wounded several soldiers before they could react.

About 40 to 50 wounded men were crammed into the train’s locomotive before it steamed off as the unwounded soldiers ran beside it, using the locomotive to block Boer fire. However, several men remained on the track, Churchill and Haldane included. The fighting was brutal and four men were killed, and 30 wounded. The British stretched themselves thin on the tracks, hoping to present a smaller target. They took cover behind several train cars, though they proved little impediment to the projectiles fired by the Boers. Churchill himself got separated at one point from the men when he tried clearing some of the debris off the tracks.

When he returned to join Haldane and the stranded soldiers, he ran into a detachment of Boer commandos that were lying in wait. One of them, Field Kornet (commander) Sarel Oosthuizen, ordered him to surrender. Since Churchill left his revolver on the train, he had no choice but to be taken prisoner. Haldane and 56 others were captured, many of them wounded. Churchill had witnessed conflict before as a reporter and in his prior years as a soldier. However, this was the first time he came face-to-face with soldiers from an enemy army.

Prison in Staats Model School

Churchill was lucky that his captors treated him as a normal prisoner. Because he was technically a civilian with a weapon, they could have shot him out of hand. However, he wore army khaki and had one of the helmets of the Fusiliers. Even though he pleaded to be let go on account of his status as a journalist, the Boers knew who he was and figured that the British would offer a good deal of money to ransom him. Therefore, they sent him along into captivity with the rest of the captured Brits. Despite his bravery, some British officers thought he was too reckless.

After briefly being held in an armory, Churchill was taken to the city of Pretoria, then the capital of the Transvaal, one of the two Boer Republics. He was sent to a school where the Boers kept British officers as prisoners. This school, the Staats Model School, was a single-story brick building, divided into five sections. The building was surrounded by a ten-foot-high iron fence and was located in the central part of Pretoria. By the time the British liberated the prison, they found around 160 prisoners were held there, mostly officers.

Unlike conditions for enlisted men in squalid camps, the Staats Model School proved to be nicer for officer prisoners. They had access to a library and could receive news from sympathetic locals, such as a man nicknamed the “Dog Man” who whispered updates while walking his St. Bernard. There was a garden and playground area where Churchill and others spent their nights plotting escapes. He was miserable and angry, often arguing with his captors over the righteousness of the war. It wasn’t long before he began to execute a plan to break out.

The Daring Escape

After four weeks in captivity, Churchill managed to make his escape. He spoke with Captain Haldane and a sergeant named Brockie and they agreed to sneak out through a gap in the fence near the latrine. On December 12, Churchill made it out and waited an hour near the compound until it became clear that his comrades could not follow. His decision to continue was risky; he didn’t have many rations, a map, or a compass. He also didn’t speak Dutch, Afrikaans, or any native African languages.

Wearing civilian clothing, he snuck through the streets of Pretoria at night past several policemen who were supposed to be watching for saboteurs and spies. Many people were out and about, but few paid him any mind. Churchill did not attempt to linger for long; he knew that the Boers would discover his absence and begin to hunt him down. He didn’t have a map, but he could use the stars to navigate and he also knew that Pretoria had a railway headed for Delagoa Bay in the Portuguese colony of Mozambique. He began walking down the track for the long trek east.

The next morning, the Boer guards at the school realized that he was missing during the morning roll call. He had stuffed his bed with items he didn’t want to bring because he wanted the guards to assume he was still in bed. He even left a note taunting the Boers. The Transvaal government issued warnings to its border posts and police stations that they needed to search for him. A £25 reward was issued for his arrest and hundreds of people were involved in searching for him.

Hundreds of Miles Through the Veldt

The initial walk was very difficult. He stumbled through the veldt (plain) and almost drowned in a river. However, he managed to sneak aboard a coal train headed to Mozambique, covering himself with coal to hide from any observers. When the train had to stop at a station, he jumped off before the police could find him. He knew that there was a reward for him and a lot of people were involved in trying to arrest him. Search parties were systematically checking farmhouses and outbuildings, assuming that he was hiding in one.

His lack of rations became a real problem. Any farmer that he wanted to ask for food from could turn him over to the police. He walked for several nights, drinking any water he could obtain and stealing food from local farms. One night, he almost collapsed due to exhaustion. When he came upon a coal mine near the town of Witbank, he knocked on the door, fearing that he would die without getting help. To his surprise, an Englishman named John Howard answered. He was the manager of the Transvaal and Delagoa Bay Colliery. Howard and his colleagues, Charles Burnham and an engineer named Dewsnap, agreed to hide Churchill at the bottom of the mine. They slipped him food and water in a tin and plotted to get him to the border. He waited at the mine for six days until the Boer patrols stopped coming around the area.

At approximately 2:00 a.m. on December 19, Howard and Burnham smuggled Churchill onto a freight train at the Witbank siding. Burnham had arranged for a train to carry wool and cotton bales to Delagoa Bay and Churchill was to be transported on it. They carved out a small cavity in the center of a rail truck, where Churchill was “bundled” with a few provisions, including a pistol and some whiskey. For 60 hours, he waited motionless while the train thundered towards the border.

Freedom in Lourenço Marques

At last, on December 21, his train crossed the border to Mozambique. After the train pulled into the station at Lourenço Marques, Churchill jumped out, filthy and covered in wool fibers. He walked straight to the British Consulate, where the Union Jack was flying. When the staff tried to turn him away, he yelled, “I am Winston Bloody Churchill! Come down here at once!” The staff got his story and gave him a room so he could clean up. He took the next steamship headed for the South African port of Durban so that he could get back to reporting on the war. Having been out of touch with much of the outside world, he was stunned to learn of the international attention paid to his story of escaping Pretoria.

When his ship docked in Durban on December 23, he was met with a reception usually reserved for conquering generals, as his escape had become a rare spot of good news for a British public reeling from early war defeats. Almost every British colonial official and military officer in the city wanted to meet with him. He was lifted onto the shoulders of the crowd and carried in a jubilant procession through the streets of Durban to the steps of the Town Hall. There, he gave a speech predicting victory over the Boers and decided to run for Parliament again.

Churchill still hoped to cover the war from up close. While still on contract with The Morning Post, he joined a newly-created cavalry regiment called the South African Light Horse. He witnessed some of the worst fighting of the war at the Tugela River and at Spion Kop. In a stunning turn, he even personally rode to the Staats Model School to liberate his old comrades. When Britain had its so-called “Khaki Election” in 1900, he won a seat in Oldham for the Conservative Party. His exploits in South Africa were just one chapter in his journey to fame.

Defeated exiles wandered into Texas, but could find no home there. Despite this, an indigenous Confederacy headed by the Cherokee Chief Di’wali established itself in northeastern Texas as it gained independence from Mexico. Like their kinsmen in the United States, the leaders of the nascent Texan Republic did not take kindly to the Native Americans within their midst and would launch a brutal war of extermination to expel them.

Texas’s Shifting Indian Policy

Texas’s first president was a Cherokee citizen who wanted no trouble between his new country and his adopted nation. Sam Houston spoke Cherokee and knew their customs well. He had both lived amongst them and fought at their side, and had married one of their own. Who better than him to negotiate with Di’wali for his people’s neutrality during Texas’s struggle with Mexico, a neutrality faithfully maintained throughout the dire early months of 1836. It was something Sam Houston would not forget and through his first term as president of the Republic of Texas he forbade the more expansionist minded of his fellow Texians to harass their neighbors.

But in the ascension of Mirabeau B. Lamar to the presidency in 1838 those tendencies were unleashed with a fury. Whereas Houston proclaimed the Texians only wanted Di’wali and his people to live in peace, Lamar, born of Georgia slaveholders with a romantic’s penchant for poetry, abjectly refused to condone such coexistence within the confines of the Republic of Texas. It was the culmination of a 25-year struggle for tribal recognition in Texas.

The Origins of an Indigenous Confederacy

By 1820, the Indian peoples east of the Mississippi were beset. Expansion westward was the name of the American game, and through war and broken treaty they had left many indigenous peoples bereft of the lands of their ancestors. Many resisted and all were ultimately crushed. Those who sought to assimilate by adopting American ways of dress, government, and social graces, suffered a similar fate and were forced westward on what would become universally known as the Trail of Tears.

But there were many such trails. Beyond the Sabine river Texas beckoned. Tens of thousands of acres of fertile country sparsely populated by a frontier community of hardy Tejanos, prone to the raids of Comanches and Apaches from the west, were opened to a select few colonists by the Mexican authorities. Amongst the would-be settlers was a man known to future Texians as Chief Bowles, but to his own people as Di’wali.

Born in the mid-18th century when the Cherokee could still claim to control a vast stretch of territory from the Ohio River to northern Georgia, Di’wali had been a migrant for decades, carrying his people ever westward to avoid the encroachments of the Americans. In Texas he hoped to achieve what American empresarios achieved, and gain land recognition for his people from the Mexican government. But the Mexicans dithered, and Di’wali’s band began to morph into something bigger: an independent confederacy.

After uniting several Cherokee villages into a council with himself at its head, Di’wali began to attract the refugees of a dozen other tribes throughout the 1820s and 1830s. These decades witnessed the height of tribal evictions, forcible removals of entire nations at the barrel end of American muskets dispatching tens of thousands of native peoples from the lands of their birth.

In northeastern Texas elements of the Cherokee, Shawnee, Kickapoo, Delaware, Alabama, Quapaw, Choctaw, Coushatta, Caddo of the Neches, Biloxi, Ioni, Mataquo, and Tahocullake, banded together in a loose alliance based on mutual support under the wide authority of Di’wali. Such was their growing presence that by the mid-1830s Mexican authorities were at last making overtures towards recognition when the Texas Revolution got in the way. A revolution that would forge a nation bent ultimately upon the ruin of Di’wali.

An Intolerant Republic

Di’wali’s confederacy was powerful enough to worry the Texians in the midst of their war with Mexico and prompted them to send Sam Houston to negotiate a treaty with Di’wali at the dawn of 1836. The agreement recognized the confederacy’s existence and defined its territorial boundaries. But Houston’s word was not good enough, for the Texian government rendered the treaty null and void after the threat of Mexico had passed.

For the next two years Houston strove manfully to honor his agreements. In February 1836 he wrote to Di’wali, “All the good men [of Texas] wish you to have no trouble…and live upon your lands in peace.” (The Writings of Sam Houston 1813–1863: Volume I 1813–1836, pp. 355-356). But what of the bad men of Texas?

The Texas that emerged from 1836 was vulnerable from both within and without. Its borders were ill defined and easily penetrated. From the west, Comanche and Apache raiders could strike as deep as the streets of Houston, and retire just as quickly. From the south, Mexico was desperate to reverse the humiliation of San Jacinto. Rumors of Mexican agents seeking to rouse rebellion amongst the Tejanos were rampant. With threats on two fronts, the presence of Di’wali’s people within Texas was not to be tolerated, and in 1839 that toleration came to an end.

The Ruin of Di’wali at the Battle of the Neches

The accommodative policy towards Di’wali came to an end as Mirabeau B. Lamar assumed the presidency of Texas. He inherited a land rife with intrigue. The year 1838 had seen open conflict between Texian and Tejano communities near Nacogdoches as rifts began to develop amongst the Republic’s own citizenry. Operating under the belief that the Tejanos were secretly being incited to rebel by Mexican agents when a group of Nacogdochens went looking for a lost horse, they came upon a group of Tejanos armed and in league with warriors from Di’wali’s Confederacy.

Houston, then still president, and present in the town at the time, forbade any confrontation, but he could not prevent the continued violation by Texian settlers of the frontiers demarcated in his treaty with Di’wali. The following spring, Lamar unleashed Texian troops to deal with any Tejanos sympathetic to Mexico. This minor rebellion, known as the Cordova rebellion, was short lived, but documents discovered upon Mexican agents pointed to correspondence between the rebels and Di’wali.

This was all the excuse Lamar needed to declare war. At the end of May he issued an ultimatum to Di’wali, declaring “the people of Texas can recognize no alien political power within their borders” (The Papers of Mirabeau B. Lamar. Volume II, p. 593). The fact the Cherokee had resided in Texas for 20 years mattered not. Initially willing to compensate Di’wali for their lands, Lamar sang a different tune when his letter went unanswered.

By July he had assembled over 500 volunteers to press the issue by force if necessary. On July 12, a meeting between the Texians and Di’wali yielded no results other than confirmation of the imminent outbreak of hostilities. Di’wali’s tragic plight was remembered in Texian accounts as consisting of two impossible options. Should he seek to fight the Texians would kill him, but if he submitted his own warriors would slay him. At the age of 83, a wanderer without a home and the threat of violence before him, Di’wali turned away from the council, his fate sealed.

On July 15, the Texians under Brigadier General Thomas Jefferson Rusk, a hero of San Jacinto, advanced across the Neches River. Retreating before the oncoming Texians, the old warrior lured them along the riverbank until settling in a dry creek bed anchored upon its banks. The Texians faced an uphill fight but were assailed by their adversaries in a rush that was swept back in a blaze of gunfire. The running fight that followed carried on for miles, burning through most of the daylight. Di’wali himself was resplendent upon a white horse in the very midst of the battle, “a magnificent picture of barbaric manhood,” one Texian remembered (Reagan, p. 32).

That night the Cherokee withdrew, and again the Texians took up the chase. Come dawn, Di’wali was brought to bear once more near the headwaters of the Neches. Pinned by Texian fire whose intensity increased as the fighting progressed, Di’wali remained in the saddle before a bullet tore through his thigh. As he dismounted, a second ball slammed into his back. The aged warrior was finally finished off by a bullet to the head at point-blank range as he rested against a tree.

With his demise came the turning of the tide. Unable to withstand the Texian onslaught with their chieftain shot through before their very eyes and some 100 warriors already reddening the soil, the surviving Cherokee, Delaware, Shawnee and Kickapoo took to their heels. With them went the last hope of a Cherokee Texas. The Texians admitted to the low cost of five dead and three dozen wounded for their victory.

The Legacy of the Cherokee War

The Battle of the Neches established a pattern that was to be maintained by the Lone Star Republic throughout its independent existence: Indian removal was the law of the land. This is not surprising given the climate of the 1830s when Jacksonian policies of removal swept thousands upon thousands of native peoples westward to what is now Oklahoma. As the Texas Republic was effectively a satellite of the United States, its civilian and military leadership naturally carried the same prejudices.

This included the doctrine of manifest destiny. Texas may have been wrestled from the Mexicans by force but it was to be a republic for only a select few, and a republic which was hellbent upon expansion. Lured on by the rapidity of their victory over Di’wali in the summer of 1839, Lamar would embroil Texas in ever more devastating Indian wars. But in pursuit of this policy he greatly misstepped.

Unlike Di’wali’s rather sedentary confederacy, a numerically finite polity whose villages were easily assailed by the Texians, the Comanche were to be an altogether different story. They were far-reaching horsemen who could project their power into the very heart of Texas, indeed Mexico, if they felt like it. Lamar sought to curb that power by striking the head from the snake the year following his destruction of the Cherokee.

The resultant war saw one of the largest Comanche raids in history, one that carried itself all the way to the Gulf coast with the Texians able only to hit the withdrawing Comanche on their route homeward. The running fight that followed could hardly be called a Texian success and exposed the wider military weaknesses of a young republic overplaying its hand.

Yet Lamar remained heedless of the consequences. Expeditions launched towards Santa Fe and the goading of Mexico upon the seas by the minuscule Texian navy would send Texas down a path of near bankruptcy and war. A war that Lamar neatly sidestepped when his term of office ended in 1841, and Sam Houston once again stepped forward to deal with its consequences.

Texas may have won its independence from Mexico, but it was hardly a republic of liberty. The new Texan state reflected larger American societal trends especially as they related to American Indians.

Sources

• The Writings of Sam Houston 1813–1863: Volume I 1813–1836, eds. Amerilia W. Williams and Eugene C. Barker. (Austin: University of Austin Press, 1938).
• The Papers of Mirabeau B. Lamar. Volume II, eds. Charles Adams Gulick Jr. and Katherine Elliot. (Austin: A.C. Baldwin and Sons, 1922).
• Reagan, John H. Memoirs, with special Reference to Secession and Civil War. (New York: The Neale Publishing Company, 1906).

In a mere matter of months in 1898, the United States managed to destroy what remained of the Spanish Empire. The American siege of Santiago in Cuba was a textbook assault by a joint army-navy force and it presaged America’s use of amphibious assaults in later wars.

How Did the Sinking of the USS Maine Trigger the Cuban Campaign?

For decades following the Civil War, American political leaders had their eyes on Cuba as a strategically valuable piece of territory to control. Spain had ruled the island since Christopher Columbus claimed it for the Spanish crown in 1492. After the loss of continental Latin America, Cuba became the main Spanish possession in the Americas. Its sugar plantations and ports made it a tantalizing target for American policymakers who hoped to establish some form of control over the island. When Cuban rebels rose up under the leadership of José Marti in 1895, American hawks found an opportunity to assist the rebels. Spain’s ruthlessness in attempting to crush the Cuban rebels encouraged the American public to offer the Cubans further support.

In January 1898, Spanish loyalists in Havana rioted due to fears that the liberal government in Madrid would give Cuba independence. These disturbances led to the US consulate in Havana demanding American protection for US citizens in the city. The Navy Department agreed to send the USS Maine to Havana harbor in case Americans in Cuba needed to be evacuated. At this point, the administration of William McKinley was opposed to going to war with Spain, though public pressure in America was increasing.

In February, the Maine was docked in the harbor when the ship exploded and hundreds of men died. A navy investigation claimed that a Spanish naval mine destroyed the ship, though most historians believe it was an internal explosion. In April, the US Congress issued a demand that Spain evacuate Cuba. When Madrid refused, the Americans declared war and began mobilizing forces to fight.

Why Was Santiago de Cuba the Primary Target of the 1898 Invasion?

The American plan at the onset of the Spanish-American War was to blockade Cuba and send weapons to the revolutionaries, with the aim of toppling Spanish rule without introducing any army personnel. This came alongside additional operations to seize Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. The administration had more faith in the navy than it did in the army and believed that Spain would sue for peace if its navy was destroyed and its ground forces in Cuba were cut off. The plan was based on years of intelligence gathering by the US and claims made by Cuban revolutionary leaders then in talks with the United States government.

However, the Spanish Caribbean Squadron under Rear Admiral Pascual Cervera y Topete went into the harbor of Santiago, where they were protected by earthworks dug by the Spanish garrison. The US Navy could not enter the harbor without risking its warships. Therefore, the plan changed. American forces would land near the city of Santiago and besiege the fortifications. In doing so, they would drive the Spanish fleet out of the harbor, where it could be destroyed by the Americans at sea.

To land in Cuba, the US military assembled a formidable force. The V Corps, commanded by Maj. Gen. William Shafter, had around 20,000 men in its ranks. It contained two infantry divisions, a cavalry division, and a large artillery train. It was supported by Cuban General Calixto Garcia and his force of some 5,000 men. The Spanish commander Gen. Arsenio Linares had a force of 10,000-12,000 men available to defend the city, composed of a mixture of Spanish regulars and loyal Cubans. They occupied formidable positions around the city and sought to hold off an American advance. The fighting in Santiago became the focal point of fighting for the entire war.

Who Were the Rough Riders and Buffalo Soldiers at San Juan Hill?

After US forces landed in Cuba, they drove through several Spanish blocking forces and arrived at the outskirts of the defenses of Santiago. One of the hills the Spanish controlled was called San Juan Hill, and its seizure would allow American artillery to place guns directly targeting Santiago. General Shafter ordered men of the Cavalry Division to dismount and seize the hill on foot. Concurrently, American forces were to take El Caney village and Kettle Hill (connected to San Juan Hill). The Spanish, composed of 750 men in several different battalions on the hills, were very well fortified, but outnumbered and outgunned by the Americans.

Three regiments played a crucial role in taking both hills. Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, who had resigned as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to serve in the war, was temporarily in command of the 1st Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, nicknamed the Rough Riders. His men were joined by the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments, both of which were majority-Black units (Buffalo Soldiers). These three units stormed up Kettle Hill under a maelstrom of fire to seize Spanish trench lines in advance of a larger American assault on San Juan Hill. Roosevelt gained a lot of sympathetic press due to his heroics. The Buffalo Soldier regiments did not, a reflection of the hostility Black men in the military faced at the time.

Elements of the 1st Infantry Division marched up San Juan Hill. They were supported by Lt. John Henry Parker and his detachment of Gatling Guns, which laid down suppressing fire to assist the infantrymen’s advance. After several hours, the Americans took the rest of the Spanish positions and El Caney, dooming the Spanish inside the city. General Linares began to prepare negotiations for the surrender of the city when it became clear that Spanish troops elsewhere were not coming to his aid.

What Role Did Cuban Insurgents Play in the American Victory?

The American offensive would have been much more difficult to execute without the support of the Cuban Liberation Army under General Calixto Garcia. Around 5,000 Cubans helped shield the flank of the American advance and cleared the beaches before the Americans landed on the island. Garcia’s men had plenty of battle experience against Spanish forces. They also knew the terrain and were prepared to help the Americans avoid the worst effects of yellow fever and malaria, historically rampant in Cuba.

Elsewhere on the island, Cuban insurgents attacked Spanish garrisons relentlessly. They aimed to keep the Spanish from reinforcing the defenses of Santiago and to keep the defenders guessing where the Americans might land, in addition to Siboney. The American War Department happily provided humanitarian and military aid to the Cubans, intending to turn them into a formidable guerrilla force.

Armed with Winchesters and Krag-Jorgensen rifles, they happily hunted down Spanish troops all throughout the island and withstood Spanish counter-insurgency sweeps. Even when Spain began transferring the Cubans into concentration camps, the insurgents maintained control over large swaths of the countryside and developed a political infrastructure to assume control once the Spanish were driven out.

Despite American sympathy for the Cubans, many American officers and politicians denigrated the Cuban rebels. They were regarded as savages who could not fight a conventional battle. When US forces took control of Santiago, the Cubans were prohibited from taking part in the surrender ceremony. General Garcia fiercely protested, but to no avail. Even when Cuba formally gained independence in 1902, the US still sought to influence Cuban domestic politics, which played a role in Cuba’s turn towards Communism in 1959.

Why Did the Battle of Santiago Mark the End of the Spanish Empire?

Once the Americans began fortifying the heights around Santiago, Admiral Cervera took his squadron of six ships out to sea. He feared that American artillery would destroy his ships at anchor. The poorly maintained Spanish ships proved sluggish and were prone to catching fire. Commodore Winfield Scott Schley led an American squadron of six to eight ships blockading the harbor and began to chase the Spanish down.

The American ships were better built and their crews better trained. Over the next couple of hours, Commodore Schley’s ships hammered the Spanish at very low cost to themselves. Cervera’s flagship, Infanta Maria Teresa, was destroyed and the Americans captured the Spanish admiral at sea. Every Spanish ship burned easily and the Americans won a victory as lopsided as the Naval Battle of Manila Bay. 323 Spaniards died, 151 were wounded, and roughly 1,700 were taken prisoner. Remarkably, American casualties amounted to one dead and one wounded.

The destruction of the Spanish fleet proved fatal for Spanish forces in the Caribbean. Hundreds of thousands of troops were stationed in Cuba and Puerto Rico, but their continued presence was only tenable if they could be supplied and reinforced by Spanish ships. Once Admiral Cervera’s ships were sunk, Madrid could not send supplies across the Atlantic, dooming its overseas garrisons. They had no choice but to sue for a peace that would mark the end of their overseas empire.

How 1898 Transformed the United States Into a Global Empire

Victory over Spain enabled the United States to become a major power in the Americas and the Pacific. The United States acquired territories covering over 115,000 square miles and displayed a knack for expeditionary warfare. On the other hand, Spanish power was degraded and the ensuing political instability in Madrid led indirectly to the Spanish Civil War. Gaining control over Guam and the Philippines (along with Hawaii in a separate process) enabled the United States to project its naval power across the Pacific. Even though the United States got stuck in an insurgency in the Philippines, few observers around the world doubted that America was a global power.

By removing the last vestiges of the Spanish Empire, the US effectively turned the Caribbean into an American lake, clearing the way for the eventual construction of the Panama Canal and ensuring American strategic dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

Since President Monroe formulated the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the United States always sought to assert its influence over the whole American continent, and it now had a free hand to do so while Europe competed over control of Africa and Asia. The United States took control of Guantanamo Bay and established a naval base and a prison, which it still controls to this day. Additionally, the United States began deploying troops and ships to several Central American and Caribbean countries as part of its efforts to protect American property and business. While this strategy did backfire at times (the insurgency in Haiti and the Cuban Revolution of 1959), it affirmed the power that the United States continues to have over the region.

One of the most successful US military campaigns at the end of the 19th century was the conquest of Puerto Rico. Unlike the other battles to conquer Spanish-controlled territory, the seizure of Puerto Rico came at a low cost in lives and led to the US gaining control over a strategically significant territory.

Why Did the United States Invade Puerto Rico in 1898?

After the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana in February 1898, the United States declared war on Spain, taking the opportunity to occupy as many Spanish colonies as possible. Washington hoped to establish itself as a dominant force in the Western Hemisphere and to show Europe that its military was a force to be reckoned with. Its main targets were Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam.

Puerto Rico was a Spanish-controlled island that had long been on the radar of American policymakers as a strategic base. Unlike Cuba, it did not have an active revolution taking place there when the US invaded. In 1897, Spain decided to grant the island a degree of autonomy to avoid a repeat of the revolutions then convulsing what remained of the ailing Spanish empire.

The locals were divided: some wanted more autonomy or full independence, others supported the status quo. The economy was based almost entirely on agro-exports and life was difficult for most of the one million-or-so inhabitants. The population was a mix of Spanish-born peninsulares, island-born criollos, and a significant population of African descent, with slavery having been abolished only 25 years earlier in 1873.

The influential naval theorist Alfred Thayer Mahan argued for years that American control over Puerto Rico was crucial for American power projection. The Office of Naval Intelligence had been gathering information on Spanish defenses on the island since 1896. As early as 1894, the college began formulating plans for a war with Spain including an invasion of Puerto Rico. In the months before the landings, American spies traipsed the island to gather intelligence about Spanish manpower on the island.

How Did General Nelson A. Miles Execute the Guánica Landing?

After the American declaration of war, the US Navy began bombarding Spanish ports in Puerto Rico to prevent Spanish ships from attacking American transport ships heading for Cuba and Puerto Rico. From May to August, American warships launched salvos at the fortifications of San Juan, the island’s capital. Additionally, the US Navy devastated Spanish vessels sailing to intercept them. Over several months, two warships and several smaller steamships were sunk by the blockading American forces.

These successes enabled the Americans to prepare an amphibious assault against Spanish positions. The grizzled combat veteran Major General Nelson Miles was assigned command of an American force numbering around 16,000 men. He planned to land the vanguard of his forces on the southern part of the island in Guánica Bay.

Afterwards, he would launch a multi-pronged assault on San Juan. His force consisted of two divisions and several independent brigades of regulars and volunteers. The Spanish under Governor-General Manuel Macías y Casado had a similar number of men stationed all over the island, but many of their best troops had been sent to Cuba.

On July 25, a detachment of American sailors and marines seized the Guánica Lighthouse. American troops began to pour ashore, helped by the fact that most Spanish troops were on the northern part of the island. General Miles had disregarded his orders and his landing on the southern shore surprised both the Spanish and his own superiors. He advanced quickly towards the city of Ponce and continued to attack Spanish positions in southern Puerto Rico.

What Role Did Puerto Rican Civilians Play in the American Advance?

American forces were pleasantly surprised to be welcomed by the locals. Many Puerto Ricans had a poor standard of living and resented the declaration of martial law issued in 1898. While Spain had conceded autonomy and many Puerto Ricans served in Spanish uniform, Madrid never truly commanded the respect of the masses, while America was seen as a more successful, industrialized nation than Spain. The Cuban Revolutionary Party had a Puerto Rican section that encouraged pro-American sentiment on the island before the invasion.

After the occupation of Ponce, General Miles issued his “Proclamation to the Inhabitants of Porto Rico.” He declared that the United States was a liberating force that would protect local property and rights. Additionally, he promised that US forces would treat the civilian population well. Its benevolent tone and the correct behavior of US troops encouraged large numbers of locals to provide intelligence to the Americans. No major insurgency developed in the rear of General Miles’s forces. US troops found themselves liberally supplied with food and other necessities by gracious Puerto Ricans.

General Miles did face some challenges from the locals. A minority of islanders remained in Spanish ranks, either fighting pitched battles against the Americans or staging ambushes. Additionally, bands of peasants known as “Partidas Sediciosas” attacked major farms and stores due to the collapse of law and order. While these bands technically “helped” the Americans, they caused a problem because Miles did not want chaos to engulf the island while he seized it. He was forced to deploy troops to suppress these bands.

What Were the Major Battles of the Puerto Rican Campaign?

General Miles brought reinforcements ashore soon after seizing Ponce and divided his force into four columns. He planned to exploit the Spaniards’ confusion and use speed as a strategic weapon. All four columns were to unite outside San Juan for the final assault on the capital. Over the next several weeks, American and Spanish forces fought a series of engagements that led to the American conquest of the island.

On August 5, Brigadier General Peter C. Hains’s column moved east from Ponce to capture the port of Guayama. His men trounced a smaller Spanish force, but halted before formidable fortifications on Guamaní Heights. A couple of days later, Major General James H. Wilson fought one of the most intense engagements of the campaign when he conducted a multi-front offensive against Spanish positions at Coamo. Notwithstanding a slight failure to seize the lighthouse at Fajardo, American forces made steady progress towards San Juan.

As the US columns converged on the central mountain range, they faced their toughest test at Asomante, near Aibonito. For several days, American troops conducted reconnaissance of Spanish positions, aided by Puerto Rican scouts. On the morning of August 12, American troops under Colonel Samuel Reber attempted to storm Spanish artillery positions on the high ground. However, Spanish forces and local auxiliaries poured fire into the American attackers, forcing them to withdraw. Later that day, retreating Spanish forces were attacked on the Guacio River, leading to hundreds of casualties. On August 13th, a ceasefire was declared between both countries and Miles ordered his forces to halt before they could take control over San Juan.

How Did the Treaty of Paris Solidify American Control?

After conducting negotiations in France, American and Spanish diplomats made a peace agreement. On December 8, 1898, the Treaty of Paris was signed, ratifying a major victory for the United States. Spain was not only stripped of most of its overseas possessions, it also lost control over the Caribbean markets. The negotiations primarily concerned the future of Cuba and the Philippines, but the treaty’s provisions concerning Puerto Rico turned out to be very important for the island’s future.

Under Article II of the treaty, Spain officially ceded Puerto Rico to the United States. The US was granted full ownership of all former Spanish military installations and approximately 120,000 acres of public land previously owned by the Spanish Crown.

Crucially, Article IX of the treaty specified that the “civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants… shall be determined by the Congress.” This allowed the US to rule the island as an unincorporated territory indefinitely. This ambiguity caused significant problems because it allowed the United States to defer the decision on whether the island should be granted independence or statehood.

For the next couple of years, the US maintained a military occupation of the island. The US implemented freedom of speech, press, and religion, established an eight-hour workday for government employees, and abolished the government lottery. However, a major hurricane devastated the island, killing thousands and causing a mass exodus of islanders. The US passed the Foraker Act in 1900, transferring the island to civilian control. However, the Supreme Court ruled in the “Insular Cases” that Puerto Rico was a territory that could not be granted full statehood. These decisions polarized Puerto Rican opinion and led to campaigns to change Puerto Rico’s status.

The Legacy of the Puerto Rican Campaign

The invasion of Puerto Rico was a textbook amphibious assault by the United States that secured the island at minimal cost. General Nelson Miles highlighted his military competence by exploiting Spanish weaknesses and driving the enemy back repeatedly. He did this without the customary 3-to-1 numerical advantage that an attacker usually requires when assaulting a defending force. In doing so, he secured control over an island that still plays a crucial role in US defense policy.

Decisions by the United States over the following decades did not endear Washington to many Puerto Ricans. Despite American promises of liberty and economic advancement, much of the island’s public remained in poverty for decades, thanks to poor decisions from the island’s administrators and the wreckage from the hurricane. The “Insular Cases” made many islanders feel like second-class citizens. Additionally, much of the American public held deeply racist views towards Puerto Ricans.

In the decades that followed, the islanders made gains to reverse some of the decisions made by the US in the aftermath of the war. The Jones Act of 1917 granted Puerto Ricans US citizenship. In 1948, Luis Muñoz Marín became the first locally-elected governor. However, many hardliners continued demanding independence through force. The 1950s saw several terror attacks, including an attempted assassination of President Harry Truman.

Since the 1960s, Puerto Rican politics has been dominated by the rivalry between the PPD (pro-commonwealth) and the PNP (pro-statehood), with multiple non-binding referendums consistently showing a population deeply divided over its future. The US may have occupied the island in an efficient manner, but it has failed to identify a sustainable path forward for its residents.

Mexico never forgot the stain of 1836, but internal strife held back its hand from immediate reconquest. But Mexico never forgot, and in 1842 its armies once again marched over the Rio Grande in an effort to reclaim possession of Texas. The Texians, however, had something to say on that account.

The Renewed Mexican Threat

The fateful year of 1836 was on Sam Houston’s mind when he stood before the Congress of Texas as the Republic’s President. It had been an eventful one for him after all, crowned in glory with his victory over the Mexicans at San Jacinto, and the captivity of that nation’s political and military leader, Generalissimo Santa Anna. The geopolitical implications of his capture were monumental. At a stroke, Texas was hacked from the body of Mexico, its border pushed southward to encompass the northern banks of the Rio Grande. A national humiliation for the Mexican nation, and one Santa Anna himself would never forget.

But revenge would have to wait. Santa Anna’s was a Mexico in turmoil. The old Federal Republic had bound them together, but the growing authority of the militarists in Mexico City left many inclined to secede. The flames of rebellion spread far and wide as several states formed their own republics. On top of this, Mexico suffered the sting of foreign military interventions. Insults to French citizens, for example, led to a naval expedition descending upon Vera Cruz in 1838. In the subsequent fighting, Santa Anna, given command over Mexican forces, was blown from his horse. The loss of a leg led to his return to politics at a time when tensions with Texas began rising again.

Indeed, in addressing his fellow Texians in the last month of 1841, Houston warned that “Mexico…has, at no time since 1836, been in a position so favorable for annoying our country as at the present moment.” (Houston, p. 415).

Santa Anna’s return to power south of the Rio Grande was not the main reason. Instead, his cause for war rested largely upon the shoulders of the Texians. In the five years since its independence, the Lone Star Republic strutted about like a conqueror, for conquest was on its mind.

Grandiosely claiming lands as far afield as California, the Texians spent a considerable amount of time and effort in pursuit of a foreign policy that was questionable to say the least. With its modest navy, the Texians harassed Mexico’s coasts and shipping, backing separatists’ movements against Mexico City, whilst simultaneously attempting to gobble up Mexican territory in New Mexico. The final straw from the Mexican standpoint came in 1841, when an expedition a few hundred men strong under the auspices of Texas’s President Mirabeau B. Lamar attempted to take Santa Fe.

Marching hundreds of miles through the summer heat, poorly supplied, the Texians managed to reach Santa Fe before surrendering without firing a shot. They were lucky to be spared by their captors, but the entire episode illustrated the idiocy of the strategic overreach so common to the Lamar administration.

It was an overreach that now goaded Santa Anna to send an army north in an invasion that Sam Houston, duly reelected to a second term as Texas’s chief executive, had to deal with. And knowing the temperament of the average Texian in the field, it was enough to give him cause to shudder.

The Mexican Invasions of 1842

The United States Marine Corps prides itself on the notion that every Marine is a rifleman. The same could be said of the Texians in 1842. As a frontier region vulnerable to attack from Native Americans and Mexicans, the Republic of Texas could look nowhere else but to its own citizens in times of war.

Hailing overwhelmingly from the United States, Texians carried American traditions of civic militarism, enshrined in the Republic’s Constitution that called for all male citizens between the ages of 17 and 55 to be enrolled in the militia, and have himself armed and supplied for at least ten days’ service if necessary.

Like the minutemen who fought the British at Lexington and Concord, the Texians were citizen soldiers and prone to all the limitations that status entailed. Officers were elected, and the independent minded Texians baulked at military discipline. Their forces were accordingly varied in quality but capable of fighting with great ferocity.

Houston knew these limitations well. The San Jacinto campaign had shown him firsthand the lack of discipline so common to these citizen soldiers. Luck and bravery won the day then, but with the country imperiled, Houston urged upon his commanders that “proper respect to discipline will ensure to Texas a speedy riddance of our invaders,” (Houston, p. 491) regardless of how strong the Mexican forces may be.

In March 1842, 700 men under General Rafael Vasquez, arrived before San Antonio. Their arrival was enough to send its citizenry fleeing eastward, whilst Texian reinforcements were too late to assist the town’s garrison, who voted to withdraw rather than fight. But Vasquez’s foothold was given up just as quickly, and within days he had turned back south since he was too weak to retain San Antonio should the Texians appear in force.

While no more than a raid, it illustrated the ease with which Mexico could project power northward and the difficulties faced by the Texians in formulating a response. With no real standing army to hand, Texian volunteers could only be called up after the fact and rush to the frontier to do battle. This could take considerable time depending on where they were raised and where they had to go, and all without the benefit of modern transportation.

Yet Vasquez’s March assault thoroughly roused the Texians from their stupor. Having been unprepared in the spring, they would remain on the alert in the coming months. The big problem for Houston now became one of restraining his people’s warlike urges to go on the counterattack. Mexico had invaded their soil, occupied one of their towns, and sent their people fleeing in fear. Such an insult had to be met with force.

Houston sought no such offensive action, but bowed before the mounting public pressure to beg the United States for volunteers and money to assist in a limited offensive towards Corpus Christi. Gathering an army under James Davis, Adjutant General of the Army of Texas, the Texians occupied Fort Lipantitlan on the Nueces River. There, on July 7, 1842, Davis encountered a second Mexican invasion force.

Outnumbered three to one, the Texians stood firm, repulsing the invaders in a sharp action that many thereafter believed had ended Mexican incursions for good. Houston himself was amongst those lulled into a false sense of security and ordered the disbanding of the field army. But events were to prove this decision to be premature.

Salado Creek

Mid-September brought a surprise to the people of San Antonio. It came in the form of an army led by a general who had once fought in French uniform against Napoleon. After leaving his native France, Adrian Woll went to Mexico and served under Santa Anna in the 1836 campaign. In late August 1842, he was ordered to launch another campaign against Texas. Crossing the Rio Grande at Presidio, Woll marched a division of 1,400 men through the hills west of San Antonio and descended upon the startled town on September 11.

Once again San Antonio had fallen. But Woll made no real attempt to move beyond it in strength. For a week he held the town while Texians volunteers scrambled to respond. Chief respondent was Colonel Matthew Caldwell, veteran of Comanche raids and 1836, who mustered some two hundred men on Salado Creek, about seven miles distant from San Antonio.

Joining a handful of Texas Rangers under their leader, John Coffee Hays, Caldwell understood that his meager force could not hope to storm San Antonio in the face of Woll’s much larger army. However, he hoped to even the odds by luring them out to battle on the open prairie fronting the tree-lined creek.

Hays took up the task with another 20 riders. Their purpose was to ride up to the Mexican lines and goad their cavalry into a chase where an ambush lay in wait. Hays’s goading had the desired effect, and he found himself chased by most of Woll’s cavalry. This forced the Mexican general into an action he did not necessarily want yet was obliged to fight by his undisciplined horsemen.

Hays’s horsemen were almost ridden down by the Mexican cavalry, but they managed to rejoin Caldwell’s men, who were cooking beef when their exhausted comrades crashed in amongst them with half the Mexican army at their backs. Opening fire, Caldwell’s Texians drove the Mexican cavalry back just as Woll’s infantry appeared on the scene. Forming his men in line of battle, Woll answered Caldwell’s fusillades with musketry of his own, but his men proved largely unwilling to close upon the Texian position.

When he eventually managed to cajole them forward, the Mexican advance stalled in the face of Caldwell’s fire. Under cover as they were, the Texian rifles easily outdistanced the muskets of their foes. Caldwell didn’t have to move a muscle to inflict damage whilst Woll’s command either had to advance or withdraw from the exposed prairie. When his attack failed, Woll decided to disengage and withdrew back into San Antonio.

But things had not all gone Caldwell’s way. Whilst his main force was engaging Woll, a company of volunteers hurrying to join him were caught out in the open by Mexican cavalry and promptly slaughtered. Known as the Dawson Massacre, it is often treated as a separate event from the Battle of Salado Creek, but the two are inextricably linked. Even so, Woll’s losses, close to 60 men killed or wounded, was enough to spoil the general’s taste for further fighting.

In a matter of days, he evacuated San Antonio for good. For the third time that year, a Mexican army retreated southward.

Consequences

The various raids into Texas in the year of 1842 were to be Mexico’s last against the Republic of Texas, but the Texians would have the last say. Encouraged by their victory at Salado, the public once again demanded Houston go on the offensive. Forced to oblige, the President raised a force to march on the Rio Grande and show the flag. Stepping beyond its waters was not in the President’s plan.

The men on the ground did so anyway, carrying the war into Mexico itself. These men, operating outside of Houston’s authority, were ultimately brought to bear in the town of Mier, where after a fierce action they surrendered. The Texians in captivity were forced to draw beans from a sack, and those who drew black ones were shot by Mexican firing squads in a notorious episode known forevermore as the black bean incident.

The incident showed there was no love lost between the two republics. But within three years, the conflict changed irrevocably as Texas was annexed by the United States, bringing its land dispute with Mexico to the very halls of Congress in Washington. These halls brimmed with the spirit of Manifest Destiny, a spirit that was to soon annex all of Mexico’s territory north of the Rio Grande at the point of the sword.

Source

• The Writings of Sam Houston 1813-1863: Volume II, July 16, 1814 – March 31, 1842, eds. Amelia W. Williams and Eugene C. Baker. (Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1939).

Special weapons are a common element in ancient myths and legends, often wielded by a hero or a deity. Most famous mythical weapons featured in stories retold today are swords. The sword has a reputation for heroic mystique stemming from stories of Excalibur, Zulfiqar, and other weapons. However, there are just as many divine weapons that are not swords, for various reasons that the tale-tellers of the time felt appropriate.

If you want to learn the values that a culture cherishes, be it ancient or modern, look to the heroes of its stories and how they are depicted. A spear might represent discipline or martial skill, a club might represent raw ferocity, and a bow might denote calmness under pressure, or a regal demeanor.

1. Sharur

The god Ninurta, son of Enlil and Ninlil, one day was in celebration of a festival honoring him and the other gods. As he was feasting and drinking, the lion-headed mace Sharur, which belonged to Ninurta, flew and kept watch over the world. It spoke, warning Ninurta of the primordial demon Asag, born of the earth itself, who commanded the stones, and his aim of usurping Ninurta’s rule.

The storm god went forth with Sharur and other weapons at his side and fought with the demon, their battle wreaking havoc upon the land and upon the peoples of the area. Sharur took the form of a winged lion and devoured his enemies. Ninurta went on to dictate the uses of the different types of rock that Asag had raised in rebellion.

The above is documented in Lugal-e, a Sumerian praise poem dedicated to Ninurta, who was said to have dominion over agriculture, storms, and war. Such a diverse portfolio is common amongst earlier polytheistic deities. The weapon Sharur (said to mean “smasher of thousands”) symbolizes the wrath of thunderstorms, a motif common for war deities. The weapon also possesses sentience and the ability to speak and move independently, acting as a valued counsel to Ninurta.

2. Gandiva

Long ago in India, two factions of a family warred for power: the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The third of the five Pandavas, named Arjuna, was said to be the mightiest and most devoted warrior. He was said to have the aspect of Indra, the god of war and the sky. After his youth spent learning the arts of war, Arjuna is said to have gone into exile for twelve years for breaking a covenant with his other two brothers. During this time, he refined his skills and received several celestial weapons, one of which was the bow Gandiva.

It was given to him by the water goddess Varuna at the request of the fire god Agni for burning down the Khandava Forest and killing all the living beings in it for the god to eat, replenishing his power so that the forest could be cleared away for new growth. This is, by modern standards, a horrific act, but what must be remembered about myths and legends is that they are often allegories for natural phenomena and historical occurrences. In this case, Arjuna, as a member of the kshatriya, was bound by oaths of fealty to the gods.

Arjuna’s exploits are recorded in the Mahabharata, one of the two epic poems of India. The bow Gandiva has 108 strings, one of which is made of indestructible celestial sinew, and two quivers that contain an infinite supply of arrows. The bow is so heavy and so hard to draw that only Arjuna among half-mortals was able to use it. This is a common motif among divine weapons, wherein only a certain entity can wield it.

Gandiva was created by Brahma for use against those who would defy the cosmic order, and passed down through several owners before Arjuna. He later used it to slay much of the opposing army in the Kurukshetra War.

3. Pelian Spear

Near the top of Mount Pelion in Thessaly grew a forest of ash. Made from one of these trees, possibly by the centaur Chiron, was a sacred spear destined to be used by the greatest heroes of Greek myth. Chiron presented the spear as a gift at the wedding between Peleus and Thetis.

The divine essence of the weapon showed in its point, which was described as having an appearance of divine sunlight or fire. Given the time period, the spear likely would have had a bronze tip, and its appearance could be attributed to being exceptionally polished. It was also extremely heavy, to the point that only Peleus could wield it, but perfectly balanced in his hands.

Peleus passed the weapon down to Achilles, who bore it across the Aegean Sea to fight in the Trojan War. One seldom-mentioned myth about the Pelian Spear was its supposed healing abilities. After a duel with Telephus, the king of Mysia, Achilles was said to have let a few droplets of rust fall into the wound, causing it to heal almost instantly.

4. Ame-no-Nuboko

Before the universe was created, all of existence was a dark, cold, jellylike mass of roiling chaos, the raw energy of creation. Looking down from the Floating Bridge of Heaven, the kami Izanagi-no-Mikoto took the sacred spear Ame-no-Nuboko, which was given to him by the elder kami, and dipped the point into the ocean. When he withdrew it, droplets of water fell and coalesced and became the islands of Japan. So it is written in the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki, the two foundational texts of Shinto.

Ame-no-Nuboko is most often drawn as a yari, one of the most basic spear designs. Sometimes, though, it is depicted as a naginata, with sacred magatama jewels hanging from it.

Unusually, this weapon has little confirmed role beyond the creation of the Japanese islands, but sometimes it is said to be the weapon that Izanagi used to kill the fire kami Kagutsuchi upon his birth.

5. Ruyi Jingu Bang

The story of the Monkey King, Sun Wukong, resonates throughout Chinese literary culture and has been retold a number of times. One of the most persistent aspects of the story is the Ruyi Jingu Bang, Sun Wukong’s staff. Unlike many of the other examples we’ve listed, this weapon doesn’t come from Chinese mythology, but is rather a literary invention. In the novel Journey to the West, the staff is said to have originally been used by Yu the Engineer, or Yu the Great, to measure the depths of rivers and lakes to combat floods.

Sun Wukong is said to have retrieved the Ruyi Jingu Bang from the Undersea Dragon King’s palace, where it was a support pillar. The name of the staff means something akin to “compliant golden-ringed rod,” and it has the ability to change its size to whatever the user wants it to be.

The staff was said to be made of celestial black iron and weigh 17,000 lbs (exact translations vary), obviously far too heavy for anyone else to lift. The theme of a weapon being too heavy or unwieldy for any but its chosen warrior is a common theme amongst mythologies around the world.

6. Mjolnir

Mjolnir hardly needs an introduction. The hammer of Thor, forged by the dwarves Brokr and Eitri/Sindri, is perhaps the second most well-known weapon in mythology, aside from Excalibur. The name “Mjolnir” means “crusher” and is derived from a proto-Indo-European word for “lightning.” Like lightning, Mjolnir could be thrown at a target at blinding speeds and made to instantly return to Thor’s hand. He used it this way frequently to slay jotnar, one of his most common foes.

Unlike in the Marvel depiction, Mjolnir had no discrimination of so-called “worthiness.” It was simply a matter of strength, and even Thor himself needed to wear magical gloves and a belt to grant him enough strength to wield it. In the Prose Edda, Thor’s greatest feat with Mjolnir will occur during Ragnarok, the end of the world. He will use it to slay the World Serpent, Jormundgandr, in a mutual kill.

Mjolnir has more than just a destructive, violent background: it was often used, or represented, in many consecration and healing rituals. Although Thor is considered a warrior deity, he is also a protector. Mjolnir was seen as a tool of protection and, strangely, fertility. This could tie into the symbolism of lightning clearing the way for new growth from fertile soil.

7. Gae Bolg

The spear Gae Bolg, made from the bones of a sea monster, is perhaps the most recognized weapon in Irish mythology. It was used mainly by Cu Chulainn, but passed through many hands throughout its existence, such as those of Scathach, who also taught Cu Chulainn how to fight.

There are several different interpretations of its name, such as “belly spear,” “barbed spear,” or “grievous death.” It is one of the more brutal weapons on this list. Upon being thrust into an enemy, the spear would erupt a series of barbs in all directions, making the spear impossible to pull out without the barbs breaking off inside the victim.

One of the most unusual properties of Gae Bolg is its method of wielding: it could be used as a normal spear, or it could be thrown by being gripped in between the big and second toes.

When Brazil formally entered the Second World War in 1942, it was a very unexpected decision. President Getúlio Vargas was an autocratic strongman with close ties to all the major Axis powers. Brazil seemingly had no real reason to enter the war and its territory was not violated by any Axis member state. Nonetheless, it would become the Latin American country with the strongest commitment to the Allies during the war by protecting Allied shipping in the South Atlantic. Its involvement shaped its politics for decades to come.

Brazil Before WWII

During the 1930s, Brazil underwent some of the biggest political and social changes in that country’s history since its independence from Portugal in 1822. The country had faced major instability as a result of power struggles between military and civilian authorities. This was exacerbated by the onset of the Great Depression. Brazil’s government struggled to head off the shockwaves of the global economic downturn. The shock may have been even worse if Brazil had not burned off much of its coffee stocks. This led to political turmoil, giving Getúlio Vargas a chance to take power into his own hands.

When President Washington Luís Pereira de Sousa began cracking down on his opponents, Vargas launched a rebellion against him. Fearing that the country would collapse into chaos, the military overthrew Luís’ and temporarily ruled the country for several days. On October 30, this junta named Vargas the acting president, and he was formally sworn in in early November. He promised to end the chaos in the country and rejuvenate the Brazilian economy.

For the rest of the 1930s, Brazil faced additional political instability from both communist and fascist movements. Vargas did not want his power to be infringed upon and declared a state of emergency. This led to him banning opposition parties, cracking down on dissidents, and creating a new constitution. His political project was known as the Estado Novo and existed until 1945. As Brazil faced major changes to its political institutions, WWII arrived on its doorstep.

Axis Attacks on Brazilian Shipping, 1939-1942

When the war started in September 1939, Vargas vowed to remain neutral. He admired the political systems in Germany, Italy, and Japan and did not want to jeopardize the extensive trade Brazil had with each of those countries. At the same time, Brazil had a close relationship with the United States, and President Roosevelt hoped to preserve that relationship. This meant that Brazil faced a quandary: should it join the Axis alliance when its largest military partner was sympathetic to the Allies?

Germany and Italy resolved that problem for Vargas’s government. In a repeat of the strategy pursued in WWI, Germany began a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare to prevent supplies from reaching Britain via the Atlantic. This meant that Brazilian ships started to be targeted. The distance between Allied bases in West Africa and Brazil was a short one and its routes were patrolled by Allied aircraft and warships. The British government hoped to get Brazil to agree to patrol its waters and protect the Allied merchantmen that sailed there.

By August 1942, Brazilian ships were repeatedly attacked by German and Italian submarines. Some 15 ships were sunk and many crewmen were killed or wounded by these attacks. Notwithstanding Germany’s previously cordial relations with Brazil, the German U-Boat Command ordered any vessel entering Brazilian waters except from Argentina and Chile to be attacked. The attack on Pearl Harbor meant that the US was involved and other countries in Latin America were now being pressured to help the Allies. Vargas now realized that his country’s entry into the war was a matter of time.

Brazil’s Entry Into the War and Initial Decisions

The attacks by Axis submarines on Brazilian merchant shipping enraged Brazilians, who up to this point had been ambivalent about the war in general. There were riots targeting people of ethnic heritage of any Axis country, especially German-Brazilians. The military was enraged that Brazil’s sovereignty was being violated and insisted on a forceful response. The increased involvement of the US Navy and Coast Guard in anti-submarine warfare off the Brazilian coast meant that Brazil was involved in supplying Allied ships.

Vargas was still reluctant to enter the war because of Brazil’s economy and his fear of civil unrest. However, when it became clear that the public wanted to enter the war, he decided to finally join the Allied war effort. On August 21, 1942, Brazil formally declared war against Germany and Italy. While it cut ties with Japan and arrested Japanese sympathizers, it never formally declared war against Tokyo. Brazil had already cut ties with the Axis powers during the Rio Conference after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Despite his initial reluctance and resignation attempts by some senior officials, Vargas was now all in for an Allied victory.

The Allies were thrilled to have Brazil’s involvement in the war effort. The Brazilian Navy could now assist in patrolling Atlantic convoy routes. Additionally, Brazilian ground forces could join the fight in Europe. The United States provided a massive amount of military aid to ensure that Brazil’s military was prepared for battle. Additionally, Washington financed the creation of a steel mill at Volta Redonda.

The Brazilian Navy’s Hunt for Submarines

Following its entry into the war, Brazil became a big player in the Battle of the Atlantic. While Brazil’s navy was weak by WWII standards and its ships lacked much of the equipment they needed to hunt down and sink German and Italian submarines, Brazil worked closely with the American and British navies to form convoys with escort vessels and aircraft to protect Allied shipping in the Atlantic Ocean. In 1939, it had a mere 19 vessels that were seaworthy; this increased during the war as a result of American military aid. Brazil’s available surface ships were placed under the control of the US Navy’s 4th Fleet. The fleet was aggressive and repeatedly attacked German submarines, although it remains unclear if it successfully sank any.

Brazil’s air force also performed yeoman service. American aid ensured that Brazilian pilots flew top-model aircraft with advanced detection systems. Working with American squadrons from several airfields along the coastline, they managed to drive off Axis attempts to get close to major ports. Twelve Axis submarines were sunk thanks to air attack. Due to an increase in submarine losses, Germany and Italy abandoned their attacks on shipping off the Brazilian coast in late 1943, apart from smaller attacks later on. Brazil successfully protected 3,167 ships in 614 convoys during the war.

The Brazilian Expeditionary Force in Italy

Soldiers from the Brazilian Expeditionary Force in Italy, 1944. Source: National Archives of Brazil

President Vargas promised the Allies that the Brazilian military would join the fight in Europe. After Brazil’s entry into the war, the Brazilian Ministry of Defense created an expeditionary force. Preparations were slow, and the Brazilian public began to say that “it’s more likely for a snake to smoke than for the BEF to go and fight.”

Instead of Vargas’s intention of fielding a corps of 100,000 men, the Brazilian Expeditionary Force ended up being a division of 25,000 men, made up of the 1st, 6th, and 11th Infantry Regiments, the 9th Engineer Battalion, and the 2nd Mechanized Regiment. The soldiers enjoyed the joke and subsequently wore shoulder badges featuring smoking snakes.

After being supplied with American weapons and going through an American training regime, the Smoking Snakes went to Italy with the American 10th Mountain Division and arrived in July 1944 to join the US 5th Army.

Major General João Mascarenhas commanded the BEF upon its arrival in Naples. By this point, the Allies had advanced north of Rome after breaking the German lines. The redeployment of several Allied infantry divisions from Italy to support the invasion of France meant that the Brazilians were welcomed warmly. Despite initially struggling to acclimatize to the weather, Brazilian forces entered the fighting quickly. After seizing the towns of Camaiore and Monte Prano, the BEF moved into the Serchio Valley with other Allied divisions like the 10th Mountain. They held their positions there with a single regiment for several months against German counterattacks.

As part of a major assault on the German’s Gothic Line in northern Italy, the BEF was ordered to assault Monte Castello, a major German position on the Allied left flank. The division was stretched thin and struggled to advance. In just over a day in December 1944, they lost 1,000 men attacking Castello. For the winter, they remained in place until they could advance again in better weather.

The End of the War and Its Legacy in Brazil

In the last spring of the war, the Allies managed to break through the Gothic Line. The BEF seized the Castello and marched northward to accept the surrender of German forces on the border with France. After intense fighting and heavy casualties, Brazilian forces could share in the spoils of victory, and Allied commanders were pleased with their performance. However, they did not participate in the postwar occupation and demobilized immediately after returning to Brazil.

While the Brazilian public was happy with their successes, they did not receive much welcome from the state. The political instability that dominated society in the 1930s returned in 1945 when Vargas was overthrown in a coup. Veterans of the BEF did not receive adequate compensation or support from the state. They were not even allowed to march in public with their uniforms. Many became resentful and this played into the decision by the army to mount a coup in 1964, leading to Brazil’s infamous military regime. Only in recent years have their contributions been acknowledged.

While Brazil was not considered one of the major powers of the war and its contribution to the Allied war effort has largely been forgotten, the Brazilian army, navy, and airforce played their part in aiding Allied convoys and supporting the war effort in Italy. Close to 2,000 Brazilian combatants and civilians died during the war. Of all the Latin American countries involved in the war, Brazil provided the greatest amount of support. It earned itself a place with the other victors of the war.

The Battle of Marathon is one of the most famous battles of antiquity. Perhaps best known for inspiring the long-distance race of the same name, the battle has also been regarded as the triumph of freedom over despotism. Victory at Marathon owed much to the Athenian general Miltiades, who had previously fought alongside the Persians and knew how to exploit their weaknesses. His bold tactics ensured a lopsided victory against an enemy hitherto considered invincible.

Son of Athens, Vassal of Persia

Miltiades was born in Athens in c. 550 BC to a prominent family known for their chariot-racing prowess in the ancient Olympic games. He was named after his uncle Miltiades the Elder, who was the ruler of the Athenian colony on the Thracian Chersonese, the present-day Gallipoli Peninsula.

The younger Miltiades grew up in Athens in the household of his father, Cimon. The historian Herodotus claims that Cimon was killed by the sons of the Athenian tyrant Peisistratus because they were jealous of him winning three Olympic chariot-racing prizes in a row. However, Miltiades served as archon or chief magistrate of Athens in 524 BC, suggesting that he was on good terms with Hippias, the son of Peisistratus.

Miltiades the Elder died in 520 BC and was succeeded by his nephew Stesagoras, Cimon’s eldest son. Stesagoras was an unpopular ruler who was murdered in 516, Hippias dispatched the younger Miltiades to succeed his brother as tyrant (i.e. autocrat) of the Chersonese. To consolidate his position, Miltiades pretended to be in mourning for his brother and proceeded to arrest the local elites when they called on him.

Miltiades’ realm was separated from Persian-ruled Asia Minor by the narrow straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. The Persian king, Darius the Great, was the ruler of the largest empire the world had ever seen. The Persians were accomplished archers and spearmen on horseback and on foot, but a volley of Persian arrows was usually enough to put the enemy to flight.

In 513, Darius launched his campaign against the Scythians in Ukraine. His march took him through the Thracian Chersonese, and Miltiades quickly submitted to the Persians. He accompanied Darius during the Scythian campaign up to the River Danube and was able to observe Persian battle tactics at close quarters.

While Darius returned to Persia, he left behind a large army under his cousin Megabazos, which marched into Thrace and occupied parts of present-day Bulgaria and northern Greece. Miltiades may have joined Megabazos’s campaign, since he married Hegesipyle, the daughter of King Oloros of Thrace.

As a Persian vassal, Miltiades may have also conquered the nearby islands of Lemnos and Imbros.

The Ionian Revolt

While Miltiades was ruling the Thracian Chersonese, the Athenian tyrant Hippias was overthrown by a Spartan invasion in 510 BC. While the Spartans hoped that the new Athenian government would support Spartan interests, the Athenian statesman Cleisthenes filled the power vacuum and introduced democratic reforms, leading to the prospect of further Spartan intervention.

In the face of Spartan aggression, Athens sought an alliance with the Persian Empire. An agreement was made in 507, but while the Athenians believed they had entered into an alliance of equals, the Persians considered it a show of submission. News of the agreement led to the disintegration of the Spartan-led coalition that was preparing to invade Athens in 506, but the confusion over its terms would eventually lead to hostilities between the Athenians and the Persians. The deposed Athenian tyrant Hippias had sought assistance from the Persian court, but the Athenians refused a Persian demand to reinstate him.

In 499 BC, the Ionian Greeks in northwestern Anatolia rose in revolt against Persian rule. After some early success, the Ionians requested assistance from the Athenians, who sent 20 ships and joined a successful raid on the city of Sardis in 498. Greek fortunes declined thereafter as the Persians assembled their forces on land and sea and gradually pushed back the Greeks. By 494 the Persians captured and sacked Miletus, the epicenter of the Ionian Revolt.

Miltiades’ allegiances during the conflict is unclear. Darius appears to have regarded him as a loyal vassal, but Miltiades’ decision to return to Athens in 493 BC indicates that his true loyalty lay with his native city. However, the Athenians soon put him on trial for his previous association with Hippias and for his submission to the Persians. Miltiades was acquitted, but suspicion remained.

The Persian Invasion

Although Athens played no further part in the hostilities after the sack of Sardis, Herodotus claims that the city was now firmly in Darius’ crosshairs for repudiating the agreement of 507. By summer 493, Darius began building a fleet for the invasion of Greece and sent envoys to the Greek city-states requesting their submission. While many complied, Athens and Sparta defied the King of Kings by executing the Persian envoys. Among the advocates for this hardline policy were Miltiades and Themistocles, the Athenian commander who would later defeat the Persians in the naval battle at Salamis in 480.

In 492, a Persian force commanded by Darius’ nephew and brother-in-law Mardonios made further encroachments into Greece, taking over the northern regions of Thessaly and Macedon. The campaign set the stage for the invasion of 490 under the joint command of Darius’ nephew Artaphrenes and a general named Datis.

According to Herodotus, the Persian invasion fleet amounted to 600 triremes, while later writers claimed that the Persians had up to half a million men. Modern estimates suggest that the Persians had 60,000 men at most, with 24,000 soldiers and 36,000 rowers. Such a force was insufficient for a full-scale campaign in Greece, suggesting that Darius’s primary objective may have been to capture the Cyclades Islands, including the large island of Naxos and the important religious site of Delos.

Having successfully achieved these objectives, the Persians nevertheless continued towards mainland Greece in an effort to subjugate the Greek cities that had not yet submitted. After capturing the city of Eretria on the island of Euboea, Athens was next in line.

Athens Alone

With the Persians poised to land in Attica, the Athenians sent requests for assistance throughout Greece. They received positive responses from nearby Plataea, a traditional ally with no more than 1,000 soldiers, and Sparta, a traditional rival who happened to be as hostile towards the Persians.

Athens was the largest of the Greek city-states and could field as many as 10,000 citizen hoplites and a similar number of light infantry. In spring 490, Miltiades had been elected one of the ten generals in Athens, perhaps owing to his experience in Persian service. While some Athenians believed they could survive a Persian siege, Miltiades proposed that as soon as the Persians landed in Attica, the Athenians should leave the city and advance against them. His motion was duly passed by the Athenian assembly.

The exiled Athenian tyrant Hippias accompanied the Persian invasion force and was a source of valuable intelligence. Hippias advised Datis to land at Marathon, since it was close to Eretria and offered relatively open ground suited to Persian cavalry. In accordance with Miltiades’ policy, the Athenian army marched north to confront the Persians.

Before embarking on the march, the Athenian generals sent an urgent message to their Spartan allies. According to Herodotus, the runner Pheidippides (otherwise known as Philippides) covered the 150-mile distance in a day-and-a-half. The Spartans informed the messenger that they were prepared to help, but they could not leave straight away. The Spartans were particularly pious and were celebrating the Karneia, a festival dedicated to Apollo and the most important religious event on the Spartan calendar. By the time 2,000 Spartan hoplites arrived at Marathon, the battle was already over.

Victory at Marathon

With the exception of the small Plataean contingent, the Athenians would have to face the Persians alone. Although the decision to march to Marathon was taken on Miltiades’ initiative, he was only one of ten Athenian generals who were subordinate to Callimachus, the polemarch or commander-in-chief. When the Athenian generals were evenly divided on whether to wait for the arrival of the Spartans, Miltiades persuaded Callimachus to vote in favor of a battle.

Nevertheless, Miltiades did not attack immediately. A popular theory suggests that Miltiades was encouraged to attack after seeing the Persians embark part of their army to target Athens directly, though there is little evidence for this. Historian Peter Krentz argues that Miltiades had observed the Persian preparations over several days and decided to attack early in the morning before the Persian cavalry was in position (Krentz, p. 143).

While the Athenians may have been outnumbered at Marathon, they were more heavily armored and had an advantage in close-quarters combat. Given his previous experience with the Persian army, Miltiades believed that victory could be possible so long as the Athenians closed with the enemy quickly enough before they were overwhelmed by the Persian archers and cavalry.

On the morning of battle, conventionally dated to September 12, 490 BC, the Athenian army drew up in formation and marched across the Plain of Marathon towards the Persian camp. They paused around a mile away to dress their line, which was equal in length to the Persian line with strong flanks and a weak center.

After Callimachus conducted a favorable sacrifice, Miltiades gestured towards the Persians and shouted “Rush at them!” While Herodotus’s description of the battle has had scholars questioning the feasibility of heavily armed hoplites being able to run almost a mile while remaining in a condition to engage the enemy, Peter Krentz suggests that hoplite armor was lighter than assumed and that the Athenians could comfortably cover the distance at a jog (Krentz, p. 150).

Although the Persian archers released a volley of arrows, the Athenians continued to advance undaunted, and the two armies engaged in a protracted hand-to-hand fight. While the Persians broke through the weak Athenian center, the Athenians defeated the Persians on each flank and combined to defeat the Persians who had broken through their lines.

As the Persians fled towards their ships, the Athenians gave chase, killing many Persians in the process. Persian casualties are estimated at 6,400, while the Athenians lost only 192 men, whom they cremated and buried in a large mound that remains a prominent feature on the battlefield. Among the Athenian dead was Callimachus, the nominal commander-in-chief.

The Battle of Marathon is inextricably associated with the marathon race. The familiar tale is that after a battle, an Athenian soldier ran a distance of 26.2 miles in full armor to announce the victory before collapsing dead on the spot. Although the story was first mentioned by Plutarch in the 2nd century AD and does not appear in Herodotus, posterity has identified the man as Pheidippides, the Athenian runner who achieved the more impressive feat of running to Sparta and back within a few days.

Downfall and Death

The heavy losses at Marathon prevented the Persians from continuing their campaign. Although they had failed to defeat the Athenians, the Persians had defeated Eretria and claimed the Cyclades. While he may have regretted the casualties at Marathon, Darius could still consider the campaign a victory. The Battle of Marathon showed other Greek city-states that the Persians were not invincible.

Ten years later, Darius’ son Xerxes would personally lead a larger army into Greece. This second invasion force was delayed by Leonidas at Thermopylae, turned back by Themistocles at Salamis, and destroyed by Pausanias at Plataea, securing Greek victory in the Greco-Persian Wars.

Although he was not formally in command of the Athenians at Marathon, Miltiades has been credited with the strategy and tactics that not only ensured that the Athenians fought the Persians, but that they won. Miltiades was around 60 years old and did not have long to savor his glory, and he continued to have enemies in Athens.

In 489, Miltiades led a large Athenian fleet on a campaign to take back the Cyclades from the Persians. He suffered a serious leg wound during an unsuccessful attempt to take the island of Paros, and he returned to Athens in disgrace. In a demonstration of the fickleness of Athenian democracy, he was charged with treason and found guilty. Although his death sentence was commuted to a large fine, he soon died in prison from his leg wound.

Miltiades’ son Cimon followed in his father’s footsteps to become a prominent Athenian general and statesman. His leadership of the pro-Spartan aristocratic faction made him a rival of Pericles, the populist champion of Athenian democracy.

Source

• Krentz, P. (2010). The Battle of Marathon. Yale University Press.

A large British force arrived off the shores of New York City in the summer of 1776. Under Sir William Howe’s command, this British army was expected to quickly defeat the inexperienced American Continental Army under George Washington. Howe’s army included a contingent of hired soldiers from several minor German states. Known as the Hessians, these troops are among the most misunderstood participants in the American Revolution due to stories told about them during the war and for centuries after. Who were the Hessians, and what role did they play in the American Revolution?

Armies for Rent in 18th-Century Germany

The most enduring myth about the Hessians is that they were bloodthirsty mercenaries. Scholars argue that this is an inaccurate portrayal. Rather than considering them mercenaries, it is better to think of the Hessians as supporting or auxiliary troops hired to increase the size of British forces in the American Colonies.

At the time, many small German states had large professional armies. Hesse-Cassel maintained an army of 12,000 conscripted soldiers out of a population of just 275,000. Hesse-Cassel’s prince, Landgraf Friedrich II, rented his professional army to countries like Britain for considerable sums. His agreement with the British during the American Revolution was equivalent to thirteen years’ worth of tax revenue.

Friedrich II invested this money in public works, education, and social welfare. This revenue was sorely needed in Hesse-Cassel during the 1770s. For example, travelers as late as 1750 found that Hesse-Cassel had not recovered from the devastation of the Thirty Years’ War, which had ended in 1648! The region again became a battlefield during the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763).

Hesse-Cassel was not alone in developing professional armies to rent to Europe’s military powers. The British signed treaties with six German states during the American Revolution. Some states had troops fighting in the British, French, and Dutch militaries simultaneously.

The British Empire & The American Revolution

Despite considerable success on the battlefield, the British army remained relatively small compared to other major European militaries, such as France, Prussia, and Russia. The English Civil War of the previous century made many Britons suspicious of maintaining a large professional army. As a result, in successive wars, British forces relied on swelling the army’s ranks with foreign troops, mostly from smaller German states.

British diplomats wanted to hire foreign troops to send to the American Colonies nearly a year before the outbreak of the American Revolution in April 1775. However, nothing came from British efforts to secure additional troops as rulers like Catherine the Great of Russia refused requests or asked for an exorbitant price.

But by late 1775, British officials in London recognized that defeating the American rebels would require reinforcements in the form of hired foreign troops. The only realistic option was to conclude treaties with various small German states of the Holy Roman Empire, such as Hesse-Cassel, before the revolutionaries could.

Subsidy Treaties

Colonel William Fawcett led British efforts to hire German troops to serve in North America. The British concluded the first of these treaties with the ruler of the German state of Brunswick in January 1776. Subsequent treaties on behalf of King George III and German rulers were concluded between early 1776 and October 1777. In the end, over 30,000 German troops from the states of Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Hanau, Brunswick, Anspach-Bayreuth, Anhalt-Zerbst, and Waldeck fought in the American Revolution. Many other German soldiers, mainly from Hanover, were recruited into individual British regiments during the war.

British officials did not know what to expect from many of these German troops. In fact, there were several bloody mutinies before the first convoys even left Europe. Indeed, some on the British side wondered if the soldiers were worth the money. British concerns would be put to rest at least temporarily by the summer of 1776.

From Victory to Victory in 1776

Two convoys carrying the first 8,000 Hessian troops arrived in New York in August 1776. In the coming months, these troops would be joined by additional Hessian and other German reinforcements. In August 1776, British commander Sir William Howe routed Washington’s army at the Battle of Long Island. The Hessian troops struck fear into Washington’s men by their fierce demeanor and discipline under fire. Moreover, Hessian commanders, like Count Carl von Donop, encouraged their troops to take no prisoners.

Patriot propagandists wasted little time responding. The Declaration of Independence specifically referred to King George III’s decision to hire foreign troops to fight in America as one of the reasons for separating from Britain.

However, propaganda efforts did not stop the British and Hessian success. Hessian troops played a significant role in British victories over Washington’s forces across New York in the summer and fall of 1776. For instance, under heavy fire at the October 1776 Battle of White Plains, Hessian troops advanced through a burning cornfield carrying their cartridge boxes over their heads to make sure that the ammunition would not explode. Hessian troops then dealt a decisive blow to American troops and forced the surrender of Fort Washington in November 1776.

While they vilified Hessian troops, American rebels also sought to recruit Germans to the American cause, or at least desert from the British army. The Pennsylvania militia sent some captured Hessians on a tour of Philadelphia before sending them back to their units to encourage desertion to the Patriot cause.

Defeat in 1776: The Surprise at Trenton

British forces chased Washington’s dwindling army across a cold, wet New Jersey in the winter of 1776. But Howe soon retired to winter quarters in New York City, leaving some troops to garrison several towns in New Jersey. Washington established a camp across the Delaware River in Pennsylvania.

With most of the army’s enlistments due to expire by the end of the year, Washington resolved to attack and secure a victory after so many defeats. He settled on a risky surprise attack on Hessian troops at Trenton, New Jersey, during Christmas celebrations.

Colonel Johann Gottlieb Rall commanded Hessian troops. Rall had spent 36 of his 50 years in the Hessian army. Despite being a harsh disciplinarian, Rall was popular with his troops. Together, they settled down to a festive Christmas celebration. Washington had other plans for the Christmas holiday. After ferrying his army across the icy Delaware River, Washington attacked Rall’s unsuspecting garrison on December 26.

Contrary to popular belief that the Americans quickly routed drunk Hessian troops, Rall’s men put up stiff resistance. However, Hessian troops were soon surrounded and forced to surrender. Washington’s troops took over 800 Hessian prisoners at Trenton. Rall died of wounds received shortly after the battle.

The War Continues

Washington’s dramatic victory at Trenton formed part of what historians call the Ten Crucial Days that saved the American cause. At the same time, the Battle of Trenton severely damaged the reputation of German troops in the eyes of the British and Americans. Colonel Rall’s defeat led to another myth about the Hessians, namely that they were more concerned with plunder and drinking than fighting with honor and discipline.

This is not to say that Hessian troops did not plunder during the American Revolution. There were numerous instances of plundering and other crimes committed, which pushed many neutrals or indifferent Americans to support the Patriot cause. Nevertheless, the damage was done to the collective psyche of German officers in North America.

Hessian officer Count Carl von Donop became obsessed with avenging the honor of his troops after Trenton. His chance came at the October 1777 Battle of Red Bank in Fort Mercer, New Jersey. It is said that before the battle, he declared, “Either there will be a Fort Donop or I shall be dead.” Von Donop was killed, and the attack failed.

German troops also suffered a staggering defeat during the 1777 Saratoga campaign at the Battle of Bennington. Several thousand mostly Brunswick troops became American prisoners after the British surrender at Saratoga.

Prisoners of War

Roughly 5,400 German soldiers fell into American hands between 1776 and 1783. Many of these troops were captured at Trenton or in the American victory at Saratoga in October 1777.

German and British troops were largely kept in separate prisoner-of-war camps. This was partly due to hopes that the Americans could successfully convince German troops to abandon the British war effort. Many spent the remainder of the war in camps scattered across central Pennsylvania, western Maryland, and Virginia, while some German prisoners were granted opportunities to work for local farmers or merchants. This experience also likely influenced some German prisoners to remain in North America after the war.

Despite the decisive victory at Yorktown in October 1781, Washington’s army faced serious internal challenges. In response, Congress sought to recruit German prisoners of war to serve in Washington’s army. However, this campaign met with limited success.

Aftermath

American Patriots had a complicated relationship with German soldiers in the British service. On the one hand, American propagandists condemned German troops as murderous mercenaries. Their arrival in America was even used as part of the justification to declare independence from Britain. However, at the same time, many Americans actively recruited German soldiers to desert and join the Patriot cause.

The German soldiers in American prison camps were released by May 1783. Most returned to Europe. However, others decided to stay in North America, where they received land offers from both the young United States and the British in Canada. For example, many former prisoners remained in the vicinity of where they had been held, such as Frederick, Maryland, and York, Pennsylvania. Soldiers who returned to Germany and their families received state pensions well into the following century.