Crowning Achievement

     With the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the loss of Roman political and educational traditions during the Dark Ages, conflict ignited with every coronation, declaration, and decree whether between kingdoms, peoples, or tribes. During some of the darkest days of the Dark Ages, Charles Martel, a Mayor of the Palace for the Frankish Merovingian kings, fought off a Muslim invasion force that kept lands north of modern Spain from Islamic control. The grandson of Charles Martel, Charlemagne (Charles the Great) eventually held the legitimate title of king and sought an expanse in control of European lands. A great conqueror from a family of competent leaders, Charlemagne earned a reputation as a man of ambition and  strong character and as a man who sought to establish a new permanent empire.
     The legacy of Charlemagne extends into history, religion, politics, education, and the nearly every conflict between the great powers of Europe over the last twelve hundred years. His influence resulted from the power of his birth, ambition of his mind, strength of his will, and conviction of his heart, but his lasting appeal grew from his title of "emperor" and the unification of a huge swathe of Europe under his reign. While in Rome securing the power of pope from dissenters, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as emperor. The Frankish kings had long been defenders and protectors of the pope, the Bishop of Rome, while Byzantine emperors placed their forces in conflict against the burgeoning Islamic caliphates. With the Frankish king at hand and the Byzantine emperor unreachable and uninterested, Leo III strategized to create an emperor in Europe and a powerful friend to the papacy.
     Charlemagne's coronation during Christmas mass in St. Peter's Basilica, Rome in 800 A.D. changed the future of the world macroscopically. For centuries, European rulers justified their claims to the throne by heredity linked to Charlemagne. To strengthen this connection in the minds of subjects and contestants to the throne, several emperors chose Christmas Day for their coronation ceremonies. The day, the most important Christian day after Easter, also emphasized that the ruler had the favor of God indicating that to rebel against a him was to go against God. Though many Holy Roman Emperors sought coronation by the pope in Rome, Charlemagne's crowning emphasized his dominance throughout the region at the time.

     Charlemagne's influence led others to mirror his example and flaunt their power in a way reflective of the past and strengthen the claim to power by drawing similarities to Charlemagne. His grandson, Charles the Bald, was also crowned in Rome on Christmas Day, 875, but died two years later. Otto II was crowned emperor in 967, the last true emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
     Other than those two men with strong bonds to Charlemagne and significant influence on the course of history, the other coronations seem almost inconsequential, but of thousands of individuals crowned through European history, few could pretend the prestige of Charlemagne's might. In the year 1000 A.D. Stephen I became the first king of Hungary at his Christmas coronation. Henry III of the Holy Roman Empire was crowned in 1046, and William I, the Conqueror, was crowned King of England in Westminster Abby in 1066 just months after the Battle of Hastings. With the Crusades becoming increasingly important, Boudouin I was crowned king of Jerusalem in 1100, Roger II earned crowning as king of Sicily in 1130.
     All these coronations of kings and emperors occurred on Christmas Day, but many coronations could not wait until Christmas because the ruler had to solidify power claims immediately to ward off rivals. As history wore on and Charlemagne's direct impact became diluted, fewer Christmas coronations were attempted, but Charles II was crowned King of Scotland in 1651. That so many were able to link their power to Charlemagne and Christendom is a testament to the legacy of European kingship.
     While Christmas is traditionally a religious celebration, men never stop living. Natural disasters, battles, and significant political events have all occurred on Christmas Day, just another day in the year. Clovis, King of the Franks, baptized himself on Christmas in 498. This event linked the Frankish realm to Rome and secured Christianity in Europe as a legitimate force in post-Roman politics. Without this Charlemagne would not have been crowned in Rome by a pope.
     Christmas is a special time of year and has been celebrated as the birth of Christ since the fourth century. This day marks the anniversary of Charlemagne's, Otto the Great's, William the Conqueror's, and Emporer Hirohito's coronations, the 1717 flood Deltawerken, and the resignation of Mikhail Gorbachav as General Secretary of the U.S.S.R. Nearly every country and culture celebrates Christmas in some fashion from religious services, religious holidays, gift exchanges, and seasonal traditions. May you all enjoy your holiday whenever you celebrate it.

__    
Agatha Tyche

Water Trains

     The cheapest way of shipping large quantities of marketable goods or military supplies is over water. Because of buoyancy reducing the object's weight, rivers are the bloodlines of civilization and ocean access is one of the most important factors in determining a nation's economic status. The United States has huge navigable coasts with protected harbors in the Atlantic Ocean for trade with Europe and Africa and the Pacific Ocean for trade with China, India, and Japan. The appreciation of ocean access has only become fully acknowledged recently. While ancient Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, and the Chinese all used waterways for shipping and military purposes, little is known if the ancients realized that trade is what created a nation's economic might and that trade is controlled through water.
     After European ascendance with colonies on every continent, England became a huge proponent of naval power. Though the Dutch East India Company established control over spice islands before the British, the British did it better, bigger, and longer. Controlling the oceans without a challenge for well over a century, the British demonstrated that oceanic power controlled trade and led to a prosperous empire.
     As the Industrial Revolution sparked the mass production of goods, producers needed to expand market reach to sell surpluses never conceived of before. Britain developed a man-controlled inland shipment system built around manipulation of rivers to aid shipping routes: canals. Within a few years, canals threaded over the English countryside from small supply villages to the massive factory hubs of the great cities. The United States joined in the canal race, and the Erie Canal, one of the longest ever built, demonstrated the vast improvements offered by these waterways. Before the Erie Canal, goods from the Great Lakes to New York City took two weeks on wagon roads. When the canal opened in 1825, shipping prices dropped to ten percent pre-opening price and the travel time halved.

     Mostly forgotten in the modern age because of the effectiveness, greater speed and decreased terrain limitations of the locomotive, canals changed the landscape of industrializing countries by easing trade and transport and developing lock systems. The lock system for canals leveled long stretches of ground that sped railway creation for trains just decades later.
     Canals still have an important impact on the global economy. The modern Suez Canal, completed in 1869, linked Britain with her Asian colonies, notably India. The British protected this artery from Napoleon and through both world wars. The other major modern canal, the Panama Canal, was built by the United States in 1914 to link the east and west coast of the country by halving the time of sailing around the Cape Horn. Both the Suez and Panama Canals are vital for international trade in the modern era while many smaller canals are now abandoned or only used as tourist attractions and for recreational use.
     Though the longevity of the canal boom was shorter than a human life time, the huge improvements on the speed and quantity of trade to previously isolated areas opened the world to the full effects of the Industrial Revolution and to the power of change. The canal made it possible for man to think of large-scale geological change to achieve his needs over the long term, and from that, civilization has not looked back. Though most of the tracks for the water trains have long been locked, the trade history still flows freely.


 __    
Agatha Tyche

The African Guerrilla

     The character of leaders varies on the culture, period, and circumstance, but the greatest variable and determinant is the personal traits of the individual. Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck is a remarkable figure as a leader in World War I while the rest of his life and further exploits have been criticized and his name removed from honorific tributes from street names to statues. Despite public backlash for personal affairs post mortem, the men who served under him on his World War I campaign, especially his Africans, flew from thousands of miles away to attend his funeral.
    Growing up in a Prussian military family, Lettow-Vorbeck began his career early and had experience in China and Africa before the War to End All Wars. Injured in the German West African (Namibia) uprisings in 1904, he gained fighting experience in the African jungles as well as knowledge of the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare against a larger, better equipped enemy. In 1914, just prior to the outbreak of war, Paull von Lettow-Vorbeck gained command of German East Africa (Tanzania). Ignoring a direct command not to mobilize for war, he organized his 250 Germans over the 2,500 native African Askari.
     The first true test of Vorbeck's ability to command outnumbered troops without hope of support or provision came when a British flotilla attacked Tanga with a force that outnumbered the defenders eight to one. Strategically retreating into the jungle and splitting the army into small fighting bands, the Germans successfully confused the enemy and forced their retreat. In all, the Britsh-Indian force suffered about 4,000 casualties to the defenders's fifteen Germans and the fifty-four Askaris. Thus began a four-year resistance by the only remaining German colonial force in Africa.
     Von Lettow-Vorbeck's strategy was simple. Since the German forces would not be able to defeat the huge British forces on the continent, the Germans would deny the British a victory of their own. This guerrilla process tied up nearly 100,000 Allied troops in a side-theater colonial war against fewer than 10,000 German troops without support of any kind. Continuing from his victory at Tanga, Lettow-Vorbeck split his forces and attacked British, Belgian, and Portuguese outposts and railways throughout East Africa including Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

     With no supplies reaching the Germans except those scavenged from the countryside and stolen in raids, by 1917 the Allied forces pinned Lettow-Vorbeck's forces down in an area that forced a battle while being outnumbered more than three to one. The Battle of Mahiwa was the first and only major confrontation the Germans and Askaris had against the Allied forces, but even pitched battle proved disasterous for the assailants. After careful scouting, Lettow-Vorbeck's 1,500 troops fought off a direct assault by 5,000 men then outflanked them and bayonet charged against machine gunners. In this battle, the Allies accumulated 3,000 casualties while the Germans suffered only 519.
     In September 1918 one of Lettow-Vorbeck's threen main armies was captured, but the German commander fought on for another two months. When word of the November 11 Armistice reached General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck by a British POW, the chivalrous leader dutifully surrendered to the surprised and relieved British. After four years of constant fighting without any support, relief, or resupply from his nation, Lettow-Vorbeck's German force never lost a battle and single-handedly made British exploits in Africa throughout the war shameful. His British captors allowed the Germans to go free but held the Askari soldiers in abysmal camps. Lettow-Vorbeck refused to return to Germany until his black soldiers were also released. Historians have credited much of his success throughout the war on Lettow-Vorbeck's treatment of his African soldiers. Promoting several natives to officer positions for performance, his reliance on native troops kept his army fitter than the European Allied forces and allowed the German force to exploit knowledge of the terrain and resources. Lettow-Vorbeck's skill, courage, tenacity, and honor earned him the respect of his British opponent, Jan Smuts.
     His return to Germany after the war saw huge support from the populace as they welcomed home an undefeated general in a lost war. Though Lettow-Vorbeck dabbled in politics, with the rise of Hitler's Nazi's he declined any position of power with verbal insults, only avoiding being executed because of his extreme popularity. Throughout World War II, he was kept until surveillance, but no action was taken against him.
     Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck returned to East Africa in 1953 where he was greeted by a group of his Askari veterans singing his regiment song and cheering. For his funeral in 1964, several of those same warriors were able to fly into Germany.
    An outstandingly persistent  man from Germany stood his ground on colonized soil in defiance of the massive enemy that threatened his nationalistic fervor. Never losing a battle, and surrendering undefeated, this German forced the Allies to commit huge numbers of troops to put down one of the most successful guerrilla rebellions in history. Though Lettow-Vorbeck's lost 2,000 men over the four years of the war, the Allies lost over 10,000 men, mostly due to the horrible arboviruses of the jungles of Africa. By using natives, the Germans suffered minorly compared to the Allies who suffered thirty casualties through sickness for every man in battle.
     In a war remembered for the inability of high command to learn the effects and techniques of modern war, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck stands high, undefeated, and as one of the most successful, adaptable generals of the twentieth century.


 __    
Agatha Tyche

The Pen Is Mightier than the Sword

     The development of human language has been suspected of coinciding with the rise of complex social interactions and technological innovations. As geography, social context, and descriptions for everyday interactions entered into the language, a fuller, more complete world came into view to the inventors of those words. The English language has a strongly documented history of language development. Established as an Anglo-Germanic dialect, heavy Latin elements were interjected with the French conquest after 1066 until establishing a basic format for its modern style about six-hundred years ago. Other languages underwent similar changes with sentence structure, inflections, and vowel shifts influencing pronunciation, spelling, and social affairs.
     Debate on whether language affects perception or perception affects language has been studied, switched, and reverted multiple times over the last century, but a definitive agreement from both sides is that one does affect the other.
     In Namibia the BBC documented the Himba tribe's ability to specifically select minute differences in reds and browns but an almost non-existent ability to express differences in greens. A more documented case in linguistic expression of the visual world is the differentiation in Russian's words for lighter and darker shade. The terminology distinction cues the language user's brain to be more aware of minuscule tone variations. The conclusion of the color-linguistic study found that native Russian speakers were faster and more accurate in distinguishing light and dark blues compared to Latin and Germanic language users that do not have multiple words to describe colors.
     The origin of color perception to real world descriptions dates back to the mid-nineteenth century with Britain's William Gladstone. While reading through The Odyssey and The Illiad, he noticed Homer's odd descriptions of objects. The ocean is often described as "wine dark" and sheep are "violet." Curious, Gladstone tallied the use of color words in the original Greek and found that white, black, and red were the most used colors followed by yellow with almost no reference to green and no words for blue. In the decades since Gladstone's observation, other ancient cultures have been analyzed for color-describing terms. Blues are the last colors to be described by most cultures except ancient Egypt because of their unique ability to make blue dyes.
     The general consensus by linguists and psychologists is that man's ability to describe the world is directly related to his experience of it and vice versa. If there is not a word for a specific pigment, hue, or tone, that color cannot be distinguished so cannot be described so cannot exist in the minds of the people that cannot describe it.

     Interestingly, George Orwell, a prominent mid-twentieth century British writer, promoted popular knowledge of this cognitive-linguistic link in his novel 1984's language "Newspeak." The invented language showed how power can use language to deceive and manipulate people, leading to a society in which the population blindly obeys the government. Without the language to imagine ideas of rebellion, revolt, or resistance, the populace becomes unable to convey dissatisfaction with the distribution of power. By limiting language, Orwell's Big Brother government uses language as a mind-control tool to limit the will and imagination of the language's users. Though popular for its themes of corruption, distrust, and fear of large governments, Orwell's focus was to show how words shape people's sense of reality through the concealment of truths and manipulation of presentation to history.
     As the internet aids in the globalization of the economy and speeds the industrialization of billions of people, new words are being invented for technological innovations, techniques, and social interactions as humans have done for thousands of years. However, with the increased permeability of cultural perspectives, words are changing hands ever more rapidly. Though the mixed-slurred language blend of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner does not seem likely within the next few years, the rapid exchange is changing the way younger generations perceive the world. With the explosive development of the scientific system in the late nineteenth century, languages were cataloged, recorded, and fixed. With the established language code in place, science translated between English, French, and German cultures rapidly and led to the modern age. As science has slowed its progress, language has begun to evolve beyond the rigid confines of the nineteenth century.
     Language affects human perception of the world. If this assumption is true, language has the power to change the focus of humanity by altering the focus of science and repurposing the power of politics. With its ability to alter the reality of the user, language is the most powerful tool of humanity. Language is the magic of man.

 __    
Agatha Tyche

BLESSED

     From a biological standpoint, the life of a modern human in the industrialized world is easy. Sustenance is so easily procurable, that millions of people struggle to limit their intake and indulgences. From a social standpoint in a Western mindset, the opportunities for common people are exponentially greater than any other comparative era or empire. Men and women choose occupation, location, religion, marriage, and political commitments or shun those responsibilities completely if they prefer.
     As the imbalance of income makes the news in America as the wealthiest grow richer, as the balance of power shifts in the world from the United States and her European allies toward the populous East and expanding nations of Africa, and as the decades of world peace seems to grow tense and falter, how can a man in the West find, not contentment, but the merest smidgen of happiness in a grey and darkening world?
     Science could offer a shield from that despair. The progress in agricultural efficiency and production, the expanding capabilities of computer memory storage in carbon atoms, and the enormous potential for 3D printing all present the tantalizing promise of progress in a corroding environment. If not Science, the discovery of the past with new revelations on past empires sunk in water, sand, or mud merit a comparison of the material prosperity of the present to the wretched conditions of the past. If the future promise of science or the past comfort of history fail to sate the depression of the present, religion has been an eternal comfort to the wary, weary minds of every age. Religion offers the traditions of the past, solace in the hardships of life, and hope beyond life in a socially recognized and established method.

     Indeed, in reflections of my own life, all three of these areas have comforted me and spurred me to action, but the value of this trio can be measured only physically and intellectually. The greatest treasure in the world is the commitment of another's life.
     This is what I conclude in the mindset of a soon to be wedded man.
     How could a woman ever love a man? It is beyond comprehensible. The fairer sex has no comparison in man save that of out-doing him at every task.
     Yes, I still believe that every woman is a goddess in her own right and specialty, but mine is the queen of goddesses.

 __    
Agatha Tyche

Steadfast Frienship

     Last month Queen Elizabeth II of England became the longest serving monarch in English history. In recognition of this achievement, long life, and astounding changes of the last sixty-three years, remembrance of and association with British success must also be paid homage. While England and the United Kingdom once ruled one of the largest, most expansion, and diverse empires in history, it is not the only one nor the oldest. While the British Empire is no more, her children still populate the globe on every continent, yet the present is similarly a child of the past.
     Before England's 1381 Peasant's Revolt, when Europe was still recovering from the Black Death, when the Byzantine Empire was on its last legs, and when the Hundred Year's War was still in force, England came into agreement with Portugal to safeguard each other regardless of the enemy. That agreement, the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance of 1373, still holds and is the oldest active alliance in the world.
     Two of the most powerful sea-faring nations of history signed an agreement to be friends to friends and enemies to enemies. The friendly terms between the two nations extends back to the beginning of the Crusades with temporary agreements before the definitive treaty centuries later.
     English-Portuguese ties became linked just before the Age of Exploration when Portugal circumnavigated Africa and boasted a proud sea-faring tradition both militarily and economically. Portugal's strength lent itself to English strength as the New World lands brought a wealth of resources and competition among the other European nations.
     While a 642 year long alliance between two powerful sea-faring nations seems remarkable, Portugal and England have been two of the most stable nations in world history. England's last invasion occurred in September 1066 while Portugal is the oldest nation-state in Europe and has had defined borders since 1139. Neither of these nations are phased by centuries of commitment, and both have heavily impacted the modern world through global enterprise and innovations.

     Portugal was the first global empire in history and extended over four continents. The first great European empire, Portugal surrendered its last colony, Macau, to China in 1999 after six centuries of global influence. Lisbon is the second oldest capitol city in Europe after Athens and is believed to have been established by the Phoenicians about 1200 B.C.
     The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance has been invoked several times over the centuries, notably during disastrous European wars. The two nations defeated France and Spain in the Seven Years War despite being outnumbered. During the Napoleonic invasion of Portugal in 1807, Britain sent its army to assist its ally, and the two nations successfully pushed Napoleon back into Spain. During World War I, Portugal sent troops to Northern France to aid England, and during World War II, Portugal provided the Azores archipelago as a naval base for the Allies and acted as an effective deterrent to keep Spain from joining the Axis nations. Most recently, the United Kingdom invoked the alliance during the Falkland War in 1982.
     Almost nothing lasts six and a half centuries. As the world continues to develop, trade and power change hands, yet for these small nations, history and friendship are inseparable regardless of threat, leadership, war, or century. Unwavering commitment and respect is nearly absent from history's annals, but to see a mutual respect and support endure the test of time and the tensions of empire, demonstrates the potential of what man is capable of when his heart is true.

 ___

Agatha Tyche

The Frontier

     With the advents of the Industrial Revolution and Globalism, the materialism of Capitalism has spread from Europe and America around the world. These dual events have enormously changed life in every region and nation around the world whether through locomotion and medicine or through colonization and exploitation. While these effects are uncontested, the residual philosophies prior to the Industrial Revolution's impacts in the early nineteenth century have placed the world, resources, and biological population limits into new perspectives.
     With the public discovery of a New World by Christopher Columbus's expeditions in the 1490s, Europe began an expansive invasion-settlement of these newly recognized lands. European nations began sending conquers to subdue native populations and explore the lands. Later, settlers, particularly in North America, made permanent homes along the coast to enable trade with their mother European nations. With the devastation of ninety-percent of native populations, the Europeans had half the world to extract wealth and resources from to send back to Europe. The Spanish and Portuguese focused on gold, silver, and precious materials to supplement their coffers while the French, Dutch, and British turned to fur and forestry.
     The Spanish and Portuguese did not make permanent plans of colonization and instead concentrated their efforts on extraction. The North American experience was different but similarly economically-oriented; settlers hunted several animals to extinction and cut huge swathes of forests that permanently changed the landscape and soil type. Because of the required manual labor and slow trans-Atlantic shipping, the extraction of New World resources escalated slowly and seemed to be able to last forever.
     With the improvements of steam and machine and the growing populations in both Europe and these New World settlements, resource extraction became mechanized to meet industrial needs. Never before had the provisions of nature been taxed so greatly to provide materials for the incredible population boom. The seemingly endless reserves of resources in the New World began to be depleted by the mid-nineteenth century.

     As the abundance of natural resources became more difficult to find and extract, the populations of Europe began to look elsewhere to meet their new industrial might, especially toward Africa and SouthEast Asia. The inhabitants of the New World, particularly in the United States where industrial growth was increasing to match Europe's, had to live in the reality of the stripped, barren landscapes. This proximity to the destructive greed of man birthed two movements in the United States just before the turn of the twentieth century. The first group continued the practices from the decades before and moved on to new lands that were farther west and previously inaccessible. The second group began a conservationist movement that sought to protect resources and restore land usefulness after strip mining and clear cutting forests.
     The first group, known to history as the frontiersmen, miners, and cowboys of the American West, continued to exploit the immense natural wealth of the land without regard to future uses. Despite the efforts of the conversation movement and the establishment of federal government regulations like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1972 and Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, the indoctrination of capitalist-consumerism of Americans and industrial countries requires escalated production to grow the economy and collect the money of consumers who buy things that they did not know they needed.
     The ecological term for the exploitation of natural resources because of their endless reserves in known as the Frontiersman Mentality or the Cowboy Mindset. While modern people might pride themselves on being green or practicing efficient, renewable business practices, the frontier's influence on the United States has not disappeared. Today Americans throw away more reusable materials than every before, especially non-degradable plastics. The Throwaway Mindset of a consumerist culture is directly related to the assumption that resources are endless and that there will always be new reserves to take from.
     This century as the global population begins to level off around eleven billion and the easiest reverses of metal, oil, and timber are used up, humanity will not be able to run away from its actions any more. Overlooking the effects of climate change, the economy, and agricultural needs, as the waste and debris of the civilized, industrial countries begins to choke the world, change will come from choice or inevitability. There is not another frontier.

 __    
Agatha Tyche

Splintered Unity III: Blood and Iron

     With Prussia's economic ties to Northern Germany solidified through the Zollverein, Bismarck asserts Prussia as the leader of Germanic self-determination. Allying with Austria in 1864 to take control of the German-dominated Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark, Prussia added two provinces to the mass of German states dependent on Prussia for trade and military protection. Austria protested that its contribution in the victory was overlooked because all territory ceded by Denmark fell into Prussia's grasp.
     This situation further antagonized Austria in German eyes since Austria seemed to focus more on the addition of land than on the nationalism of a united Germany. With the Austrian-Prussian alliance's defeat of Danish forces in 1864, their united military strength represented an intimidating force. From an international viewpoint, Bismarck used this dispute to calm the Great Powers of Europe away from a permanent Austrio-Prussian alliance that would disrupt the balance of power. Nonetheless, this victory gave German states redeemed confidence in Prussia. Militaristic forces worked together for unity, not divided by on issues of the liberalism movement.      
     Furthermore, Prussian industrialization provided “a superior energy which swallow[ed] up [other German states].” Bismarck remarked that “the great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and the resolutions of the majorities . . . but by iron and blood.” Much of Prussia’s prestige and conciliatory power depended on its military readiness. Political maneuvering, Bismarck’s strength, remained the largest barrier against an Austrio-Prussian war. The consequences of the Danish War in 1864 created financial problems in both Prussia and Austria and provided Bismarck with a reason for a separatory war with Austria for German unification. War could finalize Austria’s separation from the German states.

     Much of the two year delay between the Danish and Austrian wars stemmed from empty Prussian coffers. Bismarck could not fight Austria until the money for war had been collected after the expenses of 1864. When ready Bismarck used provocative Prussian policies to cause Austria to mobilize troops which led to the Austrio-Prussian War. As Bismarck prepared for war, he used, “the complexity and confusion of the political and legal system, and the disagreements among the Great Powers” to isolate Austria from her traditional allies and allow a private war between Prussia and Austria over the German states.
     During his fundraising campaigns to the Federal German Parliament to expand Prussia's military budget in preparation for war, Bismarck gave a speech that revealed this resolution of German Unification at all costs. Public opinion was inconsequential since it could be controlled with propaganda, and the Great Powers of Europe could be persuaded to avoid an, essentially, German civil war.

We are too hot-blooded, we have a preference for putting on armor that is too big for our small body; and now we are actually supposed to utilize it. Germany is not looking to Prussia's liberalism, but to its power; Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden may indulge liberalism, and yet no one will assign them Prussia's role; Prussia has to coalesce and concentrate its power for the opportune moment, which has already been missed several times; Prussia's borders according to the Vienna Treaties [of 1814-15] are not favorable for a healthy, vital state; it is not by speeches and majority resolutions that the great questions of the time are decided – that was the big mistake of 1848 and 1849 – but by iron and blood.

Source: Otto von Bismarck, Reden 1847-1869 [Speeches, 1847-1869], ed., Wilhelm Schüßler, vol. 10, Bismarck: Die gesammelten Werke [Bismarck: Collected Works], ed. Hermann von Petersdorff. Berlin: Otto Stolberg, 1924-35, pp. 139-40.

     Prussia chanced war to gain the power of a united Germany. Moltke recommended that Bismarck recruit Italy as an ally to create a two-front war with Austria which succeeded in splitting Austrian forces. Prussia matched Austria’s number of troops, but better infantry and mobilization technology made substantial differences in the battles. The main pillar of Austria’s Habsburg dynasty, the army, protected the empire and functioned as an “effective instrument for indoctrinating a large body of men of every class and nationality with dynastic sentiments and the idea of imperial unity . . . To the army, the fatherland was the whole empire, not some province or region.” This unifying view in Austria negated the specific German nationalism Prussia attempted to exploit in the unification wars. Because her subjects remained loyal to Austria as a whole, Prussia did not want to entail non-Germanic cultures in its newly formed empire.

     In 1866 Bismarck transitioned Prussia from political negotiations to military action. During the Austro-Prussian War, many of the lesser German states still favored Austria in attempts to retain the dualist balance of power. A large portion of German and Prussian civilians resisted efforts of war and wrote in protest of it. By eliminating Austrian influence in the German states, Bismarck reduced anti-Prussian influences which aided in consolidation.

     In the Austro-Prussian War, Prussia had to mobilize against Austria as well as many of the Germanic states loyal to Austria. “The campaign of Prussia against Austria and her allies, who comprised most of the north German and all of the south German states, was a Blitzkrieg in the most exact sense of the word.” With Austria’s quick defeat, Bismarck accomplished Austria’s political expulsion from the German diets. No territorial gains by Prussia on Austrian territory were proposed, only consolatory holds within Germany. Bismarck claimed that “The strength of the government in relation to parliament had been enormously increased by military victory.” With victory over Austria, Prussia became the predominant continental European power. A German newspaper toted, “The quick and decisive victory . . . has indeed shocked the whole political world and thrown everybody off his balance.” Bismarck took advantage of this unsettled climate to make Prussian advances as complete as possible. Austria’s resumption in Germany would negate these political gains.

The peace terms of the Seven Weeks War permanently ended Austrian claims in Germany and dissolved the German Confederation. With this, Prussia issued a new constitution to the German states. Prussia’s victory destroyed the territorial barriers that separated her eastern and western halves.

Before 1866 Prussia could only claim the desires of a great European power. With Austria’s poor performance in the Crimean War and subsequent defeat ten years later by Prussia at the Battle of Königgrätz, it fell from the European stage. Prussia’s political ambitions desired full recognition for its new zenith. By disassociating Austrian influence in Germany, Prussia could proudly declare the new strength to be from its own establishments, not Austria’s. “[Bismarck] had only one idea, the idea summed up by the term Realpolitik, the exaltation of the Staatsrecht, the right and duty of the state to pursue its own advantage regardless of any other consideration and by whatever means comes to hand . . . The state above all morality.” The Prussian drive for dominance combined with growing German nationalism provided the foundation for the new empire, the Second Reich.

     The progressive outlook took hold of the German populace. After the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, Emperor Wilhelm I said, “What is past is past! . . . Nothing can be brought back; may every attempt to do so be abandoned! It is now the ‘duty of every patriot’ to ‘help build the new Prussia’.” As Prussia’s power increased through the nineteenth century, Austria’s waned. While Bismarck could have allowed Austria to remain as a secondary power in a united Germany and lend its historic prestige, this would have undermined Prussia’s new political strength over the German parliament. There was no need to share the new with the old.

     The Southern German Confederation resisted Prussian efforts because of continued Austrian political and economic ties. To finalize a complete consolidation of German states, Bismarck provoked France into another war that allowed Southern Germany to be allied with a victorious Prussia  and gain a sense of unity. Prussia’s emperor, Wilhelm I, and parliamentary body, the Reichstag, dominated the new confederation. The new Confederation of Prussia and Germany “had to satisfy the Prussian king and the king’s party and his royal cousins on the smaller thrones of northern Germany, [the] populace, and it had to prove attractive to the South Germans.” Bismarck desired material hegemony over Germany before political hegemony since economics would encourage loyalties more directly. In the end, his efforts were successful, and Prussia came to integrate all the German duchies into her political and industrial military might.

     The unification of Germany seemed inevitable as early as the 1840s, but the power behind the process did not exist prior to 1866. Austria’s exclusion from the unification process, especially its German population, later proved unnecessary due to Prussia's incredible military.

     The political competition between Austria and Germany began at the Treaty of Vienna in 1815. By the 1860s Prussia’s political ambitions desired full recognition for its new zenith. By disassociating Austrian influence in Germany, Prussia could proudly declare the new power to be from her establishments. One of these establishments, the Zollverein, gave Prussia a huge economic advantage over her competitor. After the Austro-Prussian war, many Germans retained favorable Austrian views. By removing Austria from a united Germany, Prussia negated Austria’s stance in favor of cultivating Prussian interests. Single power dominance aided in consolidation efforts because of a single power base. To speed this process, war propaganda purposefully created a negative public perception of Austria to encourage war tensions in the public, and Bismarck continued to use this intentional division between Prussia and Austria after the war.

     Internal and external forces also combined to exclude Austria from the new German empire. A unified Germany with both Prussia and Austria would incite a European war to maintain the balance of power like the Crimean War in 1853-1856. After the Danish defeat in 1864, the Austrian-Prussian military alliance represented an intimidating force. Thus, Bismarck rejected retention of the alliance since a united German nation would be just as unstoppable as the alliance but would solely represent Prussian interests.

     Domestically, nationalism, initiated with Napoleon’s invasion at the beginning of the century, excited the great German dream of unification. Once the balance of power within Germany between Prussia and Austria upset, the largest obstacle to unification vanished. Prussia saw itself as a pure German state while Austria’s mixed population was impure. The German empire, inspired by German nationalism, would be a German country.

     Prussia’s unification of Germany required Austria’s exclusion because of the divisive nature of the dualist approach that prevented the unification in the 1840s-1850s. Austria’s exclusion from the Zollverein weakened their influence in the Frankfurt Diet and allowed Prussian military and economic strength to dominate the German states. The nationalist tendencies remained so strong as to disregard the balance of power in Europe, remove Austrian influence, and form a single Germanic nation: Germany.

     Prussia's careful, methodical manipulation of the Germanic states and the international European political alliances of the time allowed for an economically vigorous, rapidly industrializing, militarily focused nation to rise in the center of the European continent. Despite hundreds of years of insoluble fractures, a Prussian-spurred union based off of popular nationalist ideals solidified a fearsome new power who had transformed from slag into the "guns of August."

 ___

Agatha Tyche

Splintered Unity II: Minds and Money

     With the dissemination of the Holy Roman emperor's power to localized tribal princes and the polarizing of Reformed and Catholic factions during the Reformation, the lands of Germany were segmented into isolating parcels that impeded trade and political unity. It was these factors of the fractured power structure in the leading German families that initially decimated the German countryside in the Thirty-Years War, but primed the German people with a longing for shared greatness through their lands. Napoleon's invasion of the Germanic states in the early nineteenth century seeded the the concept of nationalist ideals that anchored Germans into a popular movement that cried out for peace among brethren, for it was better to have one, mighty Germany than hundreds of castle with thousands of guards.
     As German unity became more prominent both to the subjects of the duchies and to the politicians in various assemblies across the region, two powers strove to be the catalyst of unification. Austria, the prominent empire, ruled much of southern and eastern Europe, held considerable influence within the German parliaments, and had a significant German population; its size was one of its detraction since Austira's composition also included many other peoples and cultures that weakened the appeal of a Greater Germany under Austria's divided interests. The second contender was a powerful German state that had received recognition for its military prowess during the wars of Austrian succession in the eighteenth century and for its part in the coalition that defeated Napoleon. Prussia did not have the political weight or monetary resources of Austria, but under Bismarck and Wilhelm I, Prussia used its tenacity and efficient military to become the adhesive of German unification.
     One of Prussia's weapons against Austria during the decades-long maneuverings of German unification was the tariff-free trade agreement between Prussia and an increasing number of lesser states. The Zollverein acted to secure Prussian interests by expanding its sphere of influence within the Germanic people and excluding Austria from the economic ties. As the benefits of the Zollverein  became apparent within member states, Prussian political gains garnered attention across Europe. In the quest for a Greater Germany, the three leading minds of Prussia, Bismarck, Moltke, and Wilhelm, sought to gain the support of other German provinces through trade, propaganda, political manipulations in the parliaments, and, most famously, through war.
     The pivotal points in Austrio-Prussian relations occurred in the early to mid 1860s. Moltke’s promotion to Chief of Staff in 1857, Wilhelm I’s assumption of the throne in 1861, and Bismarck’s appointment to First Chancellor in 1862 set the stage for the establishment of the Second Reich. Prussia offered new, expanding strength amidst the political indecision of the political diets and shifting Austrian interests. In regards to a united Germany, Julius Frobel, a German writer, said, “The German nation is sick of principles and doctrines, of literacy greatness and of theoretical existence. What it wants is power, power, power! And whoever gives it power, to him it will give honor, more honor than he can [imagine.]”

     The reversal of fortune in Prussia also timely occurred in Austria. Bismarck’s visit to Vienna in 1862 caused him to express “an almost superstitious dislike to being entangled with the fortunes of Austria” since its wide ethnic basis seemed too dissimilar to the interests of the Saxon populations of Prussia. Bismarck claimed that Austrian desires did not align with the larger portion of the German population. Bismarck sought to associate German nationalism with Prussia to help exclude Austria's mixed ethnic populations. Considering these issues, Bismarck began to overthrow Austrian influence in the Frankfurt Diet and the minor German states by 1863.

     Political maneuvering, Bismarck’s strength, remained the largest barrier against an Austrio-Prussian war because of increasing tensions in the German parliaments, the increasing strength of the Zollverein, and disputes over certain German areas. Austria petitioned Prussia for entrance into the Zollverein in 1865 but was rejected, creating further economic and political tension. War with Denmark in 1864 had drained Prussian coffers, but Austria also functioned through financial troubles in 1864-1866 and hoped membership in the Zollverein would alleviate some of the trouble. Countering this, Bismarck attempted to raise funds for the Prussian army through the Frankfurt Diet from the Germanic states while denying any funds to Austria.

     Although Bismarck and leading Prussian officials had a desire for war with Austria to consolidate their power over the German states, large numbers of Germans remained indecisive. Prussia noticed that “While the masses remained by and large loyal to the established system of particularism, the sympathies of the materially and intellectually decisive classes of society were increasingly attracted to Prussia. The great military victories of the Hohenzollern armies in 1866 consummated a process of coalescence in trade and manufacture which had been going on for a generation.” Berlin became the leading city of the Zollverein and a legitimate contender for unification, especially in northern and western Germany while southern Germans looked to Vienna and the federal parliament.
     With the long history of contested control between Austria and Prussia over German states after the Vienna Treaties in 1815,  Prussia decisively eliminated Austria from its Germanic allies as soon as politically possible in 1866. Isolation of Austria had been attempted throughout the 1850s,  but many Germanic states constantly switched support to the weaker of the two dominant German states to retain the balance of power for as long as possible and so preserve their own sovereignty.

     By 1866 Bismarck felt political maneuvering had been sufficiently exhausted. At the risk of all the prestige gained through the Zollverein and popular German sentiment, Prussia sought to determinedly eliminate the threat of Austrian power on the escalating issue of German unification. Thus, the diplomatic, political Otto von Bismarck transitioned Prussia from political negotiations to war

 ___

Agatha Tyche

Splintered Unity I: Zollverein

     Depending on the perspective of analysis, the size of the relevant parameters adjust appropriately. To study the social relations within a family, family hierarchy, culture, individual personalities need to be considered. For analysis of the trade relations between two cities, location, resources, production, population, trade routes, and political alliances are added to the small scale structure of personal interaction between leaders and diplomats and the history of the cities' relations. To once again expand investigations into the working of a nation, analysis must incorporate as many known variables as possible to accurately understand the processes of interaction. The largest stage in our world is the interaction between nation-states. For most of history, the only restrictions on a nation-state was the threat of destruction for its actions by more powerful states or by internal divisions. Not until the twentieth century did large-scale cooperation between countries seek to define the legality of international actions. That international union of nations came about as a method of limiting the destructive capabilities of Europe, specifically Germany.

     Despite its recent reputation as the incredible war machine of World War I, the harbinger of World War II, and the center of tensions for the Cold War, Germany has a long history of unity and bringing together interaction.

     After the strength had leaked out of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and the Reformation of the Catholic Church splintered German communities between Lutheran and Catholic religious doctrines, the German region of the Holy Roman Empire splintered into thousands of small domains. The next several centuries saw wars waged both to create more fractures and to reunite the disparate fringes.

     After the Napoleonic invasions in the early nineteenth century seeded nationalism, the Germanic states sought unification. Two empires held significant swathes of German land and people: the western, small Prussia and the large, diverse, historic Austria-Hungary. In the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Prussia desired a dualist organization of German states through which Austria and Prussia could share influence equally but the governmental organization favored Austria. The Prussians began incorporating industrial technology and railroad mobilization into military applications in the 1830s. These adaptations gave Prussia new political strength and aided in the establishment of a tariff-free trade union between member German states. With suggestions of Prussia’s potential to match Austria and unification in sight, many Germans enthusiastically supported Prussia and encouraged the consolidation of German states to form around the Prussian-German national identity.

     While Austria’s political and military might surpassed Prussia’s for the first half of the century, the German unification process, completed in 1871, represented the rise of Prussia at the expense of Austria’s German influence. German nationalism found a father in the purity of Prussia, not the mixed cultures of the Austrian Empire. The Zollverein, the trade union between Prussia and other German states, aided in this exclusion with the creation of Prussian-German trade routes that left Austria out of economic relations as the German industrial revolution took hold. To avoid disassembly by the other European powers for rapidly expanding, Prussia excluded Austria from the new Germany. A unified Germany with both Prussia and Austria would incite a European war to maintain the balance of power similar to the Crimean War.

     Bismarck’s political maneuvering prior to the Austrio-Prussian War aimed at unifying Germany. After the war, Prussia sought to maintain Germany as a single nation, but Austria’s inclusion in this nation would risk Germany’s internal stability with political and economic division and externally with the threat of an encompassing European war for power. 

     The rise of Prussia and unification of Germany required a weakened Austria. Political, economic, and military complications provided the destabilizing forces that Prussia used eliminated Austria’s influence.

     Political revolution in 1848 accompanied by and prompting the resignation of Metternich, who had orchestrated the Congress of Vienna, saw the beginning of Austria’s decline. The revolutions discredited the Austrian-influenced Germanic Confederation’s ability to govern the Germanic states, but Prussia’s maintenance of power during 1848 led to a favorable shift in German confederate government. The 1850 remodeling of the German constitution placed German unification hopes in Prussia and Austria, not on a German federation of balanced powers.

     The economic depression of the 1850s stirred up political agitation that encouraged German unification through confederate diets. Military force alone could not effect German unity; national federations and councils attempted unification with religion, social reform, and common law. With the example of Italian unification in 1859, several German states intensified their calls for a united Germany. Despite the increasing pro-Prussian sentiments, Austria used old German allies to form the Confederate Diet amidst the tension over the Electorate of Hesse-Kassel in the later 1850s. The residing president of the diet, an Austrian, countered the increasing economic power of the Prussians in the middle Germanic states. However this dualist arrangement threatened war, and the two dominant powers reworked the diet as “coequals.”

     The Crimean War further escalated tensions. Prussia remained uncommitted during the war which allowed it to continue advancing its military technologies, learn from the techniques of other major powers, and avoid any negligible entanglements that war would bring. The Crimean War gave Prussia a final boost in its modernization that allowed it to draw militarily equal with the other major European powers. By the 1860s, European powers realized that “the most permanent result of the Crimean War was the disruption of the Concert of Europe. Forty years of peace were now followed by four [Prussian] wars that revolutionized the power structure of the Continent.” Austria did not consider Prussia a reckonable power in 1854 at the beginning of the Crimean War because Prussia had not yet placed herself into a strong position to gain influence in Europe and upset the balance of power. With the wars end, Austria shifted focused to limiting Prussian political influence within the German states. Austria also began testing Prussia’s new strength and resolve as early as 1857 with the construction of defensive forts in Holstein and some of their other major Germanic state allies.

     As the tension between the two great German powers mounted, independent German states realized that the balance between Austria and Prussia was the only force granting sovereignty to lesser governments. One of the two Greater Powers would have to succumb in order to unite Germany. The controlling force of this balance, the Frankfurt Diet, acted slowly, and with support from Prussian propaganda, most voters saw the diet as retrogressive. Instead, the populace concluded that new social structure and relations could not be accommodated into the outdated views of independent German states. The confederation parliaments of Germany slowed unification because of split alliances between Prussian and Austrian spheres of influence.

     Attempting to overcome the limitations of confederate political control, Prussia sought economic unification to aid in its political influence throughout Germany. Austrian inclusion in this economic state would eliminate its unifying capabilities because the two great powers would remain equals and prolong the stalemate.

     While Prussia sought material economic success through commercial liberalism, Austria attempted to reunite Germany with cultural customs. Bismarck, chancellor, did not trust Austria. In 1862 he said, “I cannot keep myself from suspicion. I am convinced that [Austria] is proceeding in no straightforward fashion towards us. She will use us as she needs, without giving anything in return, and then cast us aside.” Despite the previous irresolution of the dualist approach, the middle German states did not desire sole control by either power since independent sovereignty would dethrone families in power.

    

      The Zollverein, the German Customs Union, formed in pre-war Germany and included most German territory outside Austria. Economic influence became Prussia’s strength against Austria in the German parliaments. Its strength grew continuously. The Congress of German Economics, begun by Prussia in Berlin in 1858, played a key role in the Zollverein’s effectiveness. It economically united Germany and eased the transition to political unity. By ostracizing Austrian economic involvement by refusing to allow its participation in the Zollverein, Prussia dominated German trade. Because of Austria’s powerful influence on the European political world, Prussia used the Zollverein to undercut Austrian influence in Germany. Austria feared that the Zollverein would create a de facto Prussian state through economic ties. That fear was realized.

     In 1862 Austria’s response to the Zollverein in the German states nearest the Austrian border was complete compensation for any trade loss of quitting the economic pact with Prussia. Some sentiments in the southern states, however, favored Prussia. “Prussophiles” combined German nationalism with policies of unrestricted trade.

     The financial freedom espoused by the Zollverein eliminated all trade restrictions and created an economic boom in Prussia by the end of the 1850s. German states aligned with Prussia agreed to the tariff-free Zollverein for economic gain while being drawn into Prussian influence and economic ties. As a newspaper editor mentioned, “Berlin proved adept at combining friendly appeals to enlightened self-interest with arm-twisting and naked blackmail. Small adjacent states that refused to enter the Prussian-Hessian union were subjected to hard-hitting counter measures . . . in which new transport routes were used to suck the flow of trade away from target territories.” 

     The Zollverein gave Prussia the lead on German unification at the cost of Austria’s entire economy.

 ___

Agatha Tyche

Rise and Fall of Timbuktu

     Before American parents threatened to send disobedient children to Siberia, the farthest reaches of the European man's geographical mind rested at the southern end of the largest desert of the world. Timbuktu, a land of trade, education, and wealth captured the fascination of the West centuries before the colonization of Africa. Situated at the northernmost curve of the Niger River, Timbuktu provided a trade point for trans-Saharan caravans with access into central Africa and the western African coast.
     Established as a city by Muslim traders in the 1200s, Timbuktu grew notoriously prosperous with trade in ivory, slaves, salt, and, famously, gold. This city's importance made it prominent in several consecutive empires until gradual diminishment of the political power and wealth of North Africa and large-scale trade disruption after the Battle of Tondibi in 1591 ended the supreme importance of Timbuktu as a central trade hub south of the Sahara.

     Location allowed the city to become a prominent trader during the Muslim dominance of Africa with most Saharan trade routes connecting Timbuktu to the other major cities of North Africa. Salt miners in the desert brought their wares to the city to ship south along the river while gold from the hills to the east gave Timbuktu an unrepeatable monopoly on gold production. Other typical trade items of Africa like ivory and slaves flushed out the economy of a city whose population is estimated at 100,000 while Europeans were dying of plague.
     At the peak of its wealth, Emperor Mansa Musa I went on a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324. While his travels and lavish, gold-fueled gifts caught the attention of the rest of the world, that same pilgrimage crippled the wealth of the empire that it never fully recovered. Such vast quantities of gold were gifted and spent to feed the 60,000 man caravan that Egyptian and Arabian gold prices were inflated for a decade. At the time of the pilgrimage two-thirds of global gold production was controlled by the Malian Empire, but those techniques for gold extraction in thick clay and mud have not changed in a thousand years. Malian villages mine gold in the same method as their ancestors which does not allow for Mali to be a significant producer on the global market.
     Mansa Musa's leadership stabilized the empire both economically and militarily during his life. So successful was the empire at securing the safety of trade routes that even twelve years after Musa's death, crime remained minimal. This wealth and security allowed travelers, merchants, ambassadors, and scholars to reach Timbuktu safely and spread stories of it abroad.
     Often overlooked in the legacy of the city was the knowledge center that it maintained. Trade record keeping created a learned atmosphere that led to the establishment of a university and made Timbuktu a leader in the African and Muslim worlds for education. Traders brought books to the city and sold knowledge for prices higher than any other marketplace goods because of the demand for books and competition between scholars.
     The city could not retain its reputation as the global monopolizer in gold and as trans-Saharan trade weakened from Portugese and Spanish trans-African shipping, Timbuktu's dynasty began to fade. African trade continued to flow from the desert to the Niger River and from the gold mines to the North, but with civil wars and conquest, the disruption of the local trade created market hubs in distant cities. The dominance of Timbuktu was over, but its legend had only begun.
     In more recent times after the French colonization of Africa and the post-colonization establishment of the nation of Mali, Timbuktu became a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1988. When Islamic extremist militants invaded the city in 2012 and 2013, the cultural and historical wealth of the city was threatened and much of it was destroyed. In a remarkable, heroic effort to preserve the ancient Islamic writings, librarians and ledgers smuggled over 28,000 records and hundreds of thousands of pages out of library stores while the city was under Islamic-rebel control. The triumph of these efforts were more fully realized when the retreating rebels burned the library before fleeing the city as French-Mali joint forces retook the city.
     Timbuktu has been many things to many men. The capitol of one of the richest men to ever live, the trade hub for millions of Africans for centuries, a city of mystery, a culture of music, and the core of a legacy that spans the continents and centuries to capture the awe and imagination of every culture it contacts.

 __    
Agatha Tyche

Nutrition

     In a land of wealth and plenty that dominates many aspects of the globe, the United States' three-hundred million citizens spend less of their annual income on food than ever before. Because of the incredible monetary and caloric wealth, the average adult American gains seven pounds during the holiday period in December. This land of plenty has seen its population increase in weight throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries as have many European countries.
     At the end of the seventeen hundreds, much of the world was the same height at just under 150cm (5 ft). With the agricultural revolution in Europe and America that mechanized food production, the populations gained access to a rich, steady food source. Human height is controlled by genetics but growth only comes from nutrition. Nutrition for growth is most important during childhood, and starving children will not grow as tall as ones that are well fed.
     The height of people worldwide has increased significantly in the last 150 years. As countries develop and gain access to more reliable food supplies, nutrition, and medical care, those populations grow in number and size.
     By World War I, the average American doughboy was 167cm (5ft 6in) compared to American men now at 180cm (5ft 11in). Most Western European and industrialized nations have similar proportions. World War I saw the industrial might of the world directly compete against itself, and much of the socioeconomic and nutritional gains of the previous century went unnoticed between men of similar size.
     The Eight Nation Alliance that besieged China during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 demonstrates the height differences between wealthy  and developing nations. Because the forces involved were composed of nations around the world, a direct comparison of the size of citizens and subjects of different nations can be made.

Left to right: Britain, United States, Australia, India, Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Japan.

     Britain and America had a strong industrial-agricultural complexes that nourished growing populations better than any other in the world. Germany and France were rapidly industrializing and quickly caught up to the sizes of the wealthier nations. Russia and Italy, two of the poorer European nations at the time, are on the smaller side because of the less diversified agricultural sector while Japan's rocky soil restricted large, rich diets until trade developed to significantly increase food access to its people.

     Industrialized nations' tourists to poorer regions of the world today still notice the smaller height of poor nations, but as globalization fuels the world's economy, agricultural production increases, and the world's population stabilizes, the height of men throughout the world will level off: For all men are created equal in every culture, race, sect, and nation.

  __    
Agatha Tyche

Buy-archy: Dynasties in American Politics

     As the oldest constitutionally-based republic in the world, has influenced the dynamic political adjustments to Europe in the last two-hundred years, and affected the enormous support and variety of democratic governments around the world, the United States of America perches grandly atop the assortment people's-consent governments, yet with voter participation barely enticing a third of the population to vote, America's esteemed republic seems to have grown decrepit with age.
     With the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 by all thirteen states, America began a great democratic experiment. The novelty of this approach drew the wonder and scorn of America's European trade partners and induced Alexis de Tocqueville of France to write Democracy in America (1835 and 1840) in which he analyzed the effectiveness of this type of political system. The Founding Fathers of America, five of whom became presidents under the Constitution, were a group of influential elites that largely sacrificed their own interests to establish a functional nation independent of Great Britain's imperial hand.
     Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 39 signers of the Constitution, and the many who served on the Continental Congress, a legacy was born of rugged, frontier-minded people led by the New World's aristocratic, land-owning elite. An elite group that was versed both in European philosophy and exposed to the natural rigors of the uncivilized colonies. That arrangement fixed the foundation for the dreams of the millions who have called America their home over the last four-hundred years. Since the establishment of Jamestown and other British settlements, the United States as colonies and as states has placed wealthy families in governance over the working classes -  with some several exceptions of extraordinary men and circumstances. Aside from those exceptions, the American political and economic systems, often married and self-supporting, have been a reproducible relay of lineages taking residence in the seats of power. Not in ways that have outraged the voter public at large, instead encouraging furthering the democratization powers under Theodore Roosevelt, Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson's ideologically Progressive presidential terms.
     While the lineages of political power extend to all levels and branches of the American political system, the most visible and memorable powerhouse is the head of the Federal Executive branch, the President of the United States. The first recognized dynasty of American presidents was the Adams family. John Adams, one of the most predominant and vocal Founding Fathers, held strong ideas and the strength of character to withstand opposition. As the first vice president and second president, Adams began the precedent of peacefully switching hands of power from one man to another after the electoral process. Four presidents later, his son, John Quincy Adams, became the sixth president and the second in the Adam's dynastic claims to the presidential seat.
     A less notable and less influential dynasty over the course of America's destiny is the Harrison dynasty of the early to late nineteenth century. William Henry Harrison became of the ninth president, the last born a British-subject, and the first to die in office. He rose to power from his fame as a military officer and left a legacy in the War of 1812 that solidified America's self-identity. William's grandson, Benjamin Harrison, became the twenty-third president. While the political dynasty ended there, Benjamin's son Russell had a military career in the Spanish-American war that extended the recognized portion of the family's legacy through the nineteenth century.
     The Dutch, New York-based Roosevelts have made a permanent impact on their family, the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and the world. Succeeding the assassinated William McKinley in 1901 to become the twenty-sixth president, Theodore Roosevelt captured the support of the American public. Theodore Roosevelt broke up large corporations with trust-busting laws, invigorated the standards of the American army, expanded America's military and economic strength throughout the Western Hemisphere, initialized government reforms, established the legal preservation of many national parks that are still visited by millions today, and has endured lasting admiration for his courage, manliness, foolhardiness, and indomitable spirit. In modern American popular culture, Theodore Roosevelt matches the legendary tall tales of the Founding Fathers with feats of his ferocity and bravado from assassination attempts, distinguished military career, and dozens of legal precedents from re-invigorating the working class to federal government reforms. Despite these triumphs that set up America to claim the twentieth century as her own, Theodore's cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, extended the immense influence and power of Theodore to take hold of the reigns of the world. The thirty-second president took his place as the United States endured the Great Depression. While his reforms are still denounced by America's political right, FDR led America through some of its most trying challenges since the Civil War. The Great Depression and a majority of World War II directed FDR's leadership against the antagonists of the American population. Franking's dying on the brink of America's victories in both European and Pacific theaters, the Roosevelt family's incredibly immense legacy on the world had only begun. The institutions established by both men still affect any residents of the United States and began the current ties of America's political alliances with European and Asian-Pacific powers.
     As the "land of the free" and home of the brave," America declares that all who take up the work can achieve their earthly goals, but for the dynastic families of American politics, hard work, money, a familiar name, and legal support extend normal labor into the most prominent chair of the American system of governance. Many families control local elections whether in small towns or giant cities like New York. Other families become fixtures of the political scene in Washington's federal government as exhibited by the success of the Kennedy family. The legacy of America's political families is as recognizable as the aristocratic and monarchical dynasties of Europe, yet seemingly inexplicably, the American dynasties gain their power not only through wealth and connections but through the support of the ballot box.
     As noted at the beginning, the modern system of democratic-republic representation in America is weak, with voter turnout low and inconsistent. Despite the dismal participation, contenders for the coveted seats of power are never in short supply, yet since 1981 with only the exception of the current occupier Barak Obama, a member of the Bush or Clinton family has been in one of the two most powerful positions in America.

     With the 2010 Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United concluding that corporations are people, unlimited funds are available to candidates for political campaigns. As the stagnation of middle-class American wages continues, the overall contribution strength of the American whole is less able to out-pay the corporations who are able to spend millions on lobbyists and billions during campaign season. Families striving to pay the bills and, perhaps, save for retirement while putting any child through any level of education find it difficult to keep track of the numerous political stances of the various candidates, never mind financially contributing on a negatively balanced budget. As the rich get rich and the American middle class wanes, laws favoring the rich disproportionately affect hundreds of millions of individuals.
     Americans recognize these problems, yet change does not come. Perhaps this is due to 90% re-election of state representatives to Congress despite 70+% disapproval of recent Congress performance. The general population is unable to become involved or contribute to the political system because of the slow financial stripping of their means. Despite an increasing number of Americans working more than fifty hours, and being forced to find non-full time positions to make ends meet, the average family income is stagnant. This is the core economic quandary of modern America. Adjusted for inflation, an average middle class family in 1970 would make nearly $95,000 in 2015 which contrasts the real national average of about $52,000. Even the richest state, Maryland, only has an average family income of $69,000, twenty-five thousand dollars below 1970 levels.
     The connection between political dynasties and American economic woes is correlated in recent decades by the repetitious re-election of Bush and Clinton candidates into the White House. One of the easiest ways to gain support or disdain from a large number of people instantly is to have a recognizable name. In a sea of people who have unheard of names with no known political credit to them, familiarity triumphs whether or not its authenticity and ideas are more widely supported. Because of the instantaneous recognition "Bush" and "Clinton" have on the American population, individuals with the "brand" are instantly more successful despite being little different from or potentially worse than the competition.
     The next year and a half will captivate the American media on the domestic and foreign problems of the country. The famous people who promise to fix those problems will likely fair better in the approval ratings. History has revealed the strengths and weaknesses of family dynasties. Part of their success is from their simplicity and consistency. Dynasties in democratic societies, notably America, have long been successful and even good for the overall trajectory of a nation's people, but as the money to fund the positions of power is concentrated into fewer hands, are the choices between two dynasties the best options or is it time to clear the board and reset some of the pieces?
     If corporations are people and money talks, the loudest voices will not be the American people.


 __    
Agatha Tyche

Devotion to Dust

     History is an odd study. It provides access to the past but only through filters and peep holes. History recounts the actions and effects of the dead which can be used a a guide to our decisions today though the outcomes are never certain. For many historians the study of past people and events is simply a passion that arouses curiosity and enthusiasm that cannot be directed anywhere except into books, into digs, and towards fellow enthusiasts. For many cultures, history is implicit in ordinary life from the buildings walked by to the social customs used to interact with family and foreigners. These places like Jerusalem, Rome, and Timbuktu possess a spirit that extends beyond time and memory and which holds firmly onto its residents for generations. The colonies of the Americas and South Pacific, notably the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand thoroughly destroyed and ignored native inhabitants of previously settled areas while simultaneously distancing colonial culture from the motherland. Specifically in the United States, popular culture believes history starts at the Revolutionary War in 1776 because nothing before that is worth remembering. That mindset is more dangerous than being in awe of the past because it places the present in full view outside of any context. Why do many nations see Americans as self-centered? Because to American citizens, the United States is the only nation that has ever mattered in history, and its greatness has never been eclipsed.
     History provides context by recognizing the triumphs and chastising the mistakes of the past while attempting to hold the present accountable and provide guidance to the future. Herodotus is credited as the Father of History since he is the first person acknowledged for recording historic events from first hand accounts in order to preserve knowledge. His work The History reveals insights into ancient Greece, Persia, and Egypt from monuments to travel routes to popular opinions. Although Herodotus was the first, he included bias and hear-say and did not document sources. He collected and compiled information to be kept safe for the future but did not include analysis or context. For centuries after Herodotus, records of events were kept throughout the Hellenistic world and collected, famously, in the library at Alexandria. The Romans continued the tradition of recording keeping, but the enthusiasm for analyzing records loss a great deal of its importance as the empire waned. The medieval period of Europe saw the near extinction of literacy and forced preservation to become the primary function of the learned.
     Napoleon Bonaparte's education reforms brought the modern methodology of a historian into play. On his conquests, he had geologists, botanists, zoologists, and a record keeper travel with his army to survey the land, biology, and events for future compilation. His forethought expanded the purpose of history from classical mythology and warfare to recording the present, analyzing the past, and changing a pastime into an academic pursuit.
     The current academic basis for historic inquiries varies for as many people as study history. Undeniably, studying history sates the unquenchable curiosity of mankind. History records the present for the future while revealing the past to the present lest the greatness of man's achievements are forgotten. While war, generals, and empires garner much attention, recent trends in the last few decades have focused on minorities, women, and civil rights as current social appetites dictate a new perspective. The study of history also reminds humanity of its failures and highlights pitfalls of the past. This can be a caution to world leaders and generals as well as a predictor for future imperial blunders and economic disasters.

     Perspective changes connotation. The components that dictate the changes of time can be broken down into three pivotal, interconnected cogs that drive the future onward. The smallest wheel spins rapidly and controls social movements and cultural adjustments to economic capabilities, wars, and civil relations. The medium wheel dictates political policies and laws that can control or react to social shifts. Though more powerful than the instant reaction of the masses, the political wheel spins more slowly. The third wheel moves languidly, nearly unnoticeably, and alters the climate and geography of a region which affects access to resources that influence political momentum, economic capabilities, military needs, and social attitudes.
     The small wheel that does all the spinning is the easiest for people to recognize and study, but it is controlled by larger, less obvious changes. Those larger forces are acknowledged but almost ignored. The climate of the ancient Nile allowed Egypt to flourish because of a consistent, easy water supply while the vast forests and Atlantic Coastline of Europe set the stage for the imperial expansion of the oceans similar to China's resource dominance in Asia.
     Part of the study of history is to answer questions; part of it is to find answers. History is a clock, and no matter which hand you focus on - time keeps ticking.


 __    
Agatha Tyche