Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Lordly Traits and the Increase of Bureaucracy in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

           Medieval lords and nobles were the center of medieval society. Among many things, the lords kept the peace, kept the bread ovens, and controlled the taxes. There are an abundance of qualities a good lord should withhold. A decent medieval lord would be a pious Christian man, an extravagant gift giver, and with strength on the battlefield. In order for a medieval lord to keep his manor or kingdom, he must meet these qualities. Because these three main qualities became quite important for a lord, the medieval government landscape transformed to a bureaucratic administration during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This essay will first examine the three main traits of a good lord and then assess how the traits assisted in the transition to a bureaucratic government, proving that the traits did indeed influence the evolution to bureaucracy.
            There was a sensitive balance between the church and state during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. An abundance of holy days, saints, and clerical positions shaped daily life. Within King Æthelred’s law code, he makes a clear description of all clerical matters that were relevant in his kingdom. The first subjects in his law code all discussed the country’s faith: Christianity. The kingdom will hold one Christian faith “and that peace and friendship are to be rightly maintained in both religious and secular concerns within this country”[1]. King Æthelred also emphasizes that God’s servants be extra dedicated to God. He decrees that all of his subjects must be loyal to their lords, to him (their king), and to the one God.[2] King Æthelred’s law code is an textbook example of a Christian focused lord. A good lord decrees the difference between the state and the church while also explaining all the duties of the church and its followers.
            Florence of Worcester illustrates what a lord would do to prove his holiness. He tells us of Harold Hardrada and his way of proving his worthiness to rule England. He began to “patronize churches and monasteries; to pay particular reverence to bishops, abbots, monks, and clerks; and to show himself pious, humble and affable to all good men.”[3] Florence of Worcester is particularly bias towards Harold in his writing, while not favoring this “Count of Normandy”[4] that is trying to usurp the throne from Harold. At the end of his writing, he describes the anointment of William I and points out that William had to swear to “defend the holy churches of God and their ministers…”[5] To the monk, Florence of Worcester, it is very important for a king to be godly and pious. He favors Harold because of his direct piety, while disliking William I for his relentless slaughters.  Good lords not only needed Christian piety, but should also be generous gift givers as well.
Lords in the eleventh and twelfth centuries displayed an abundance gift giving to receive and display their power. The various charters of donations to the Abbey of Cluny provide both Christian and gift giving examples of good lordship. Lords not only gave gifts to their vassals but to God as well.[6] It was an immense display of power and wealth if you had the means to give away many things to the abbeys. Kings, lords, nobles and wealthy families alike, would donate to devout abbeys like the one at Cluny to display their own wealth and piety. The various charters of donations to the Abbey of Cluny displays many families donating personal items, lands, slaves, and children to the Abbey[7] in hopes that it will save their souls and please God. Although important, donating to monasteries and abbeys were not the only way that gifts were given and received during this time period.
 The Agreements between Count William and Hugh display the method of gift giving and taking. Within the account, Count William repeatedly promises Hugh various gifts of land, wives, and armies whilst all the while, refusing him and giving them to another lord that is already mightier.[8] The count knows Hugh is a loyal and faithful lord that would not cross him even if the count were to act unjustly toward him. In order to keep peace in his land, the count gives gifts to strong lords to keep them happy, so they will not try to overthrow him. Hugh is the victim of the situation who ends up with nothing because of this. In order to keep peace in his realm, the count must give gifts of land, wives, armies and supplies to his lords. Gift-giving can come in many forms but the purpose remains the same: to hold peace within the kingdom and display your control and wealth. Along with the Christian gift giver, a good lord must also be strong in the battlefield.
            A good lord is a mighty warrior. During the eleventh and twelfth centuries it was vital for a king and his lords to be powerful in strength. A document that we previously looked at also communicates the importance of strength for kings and lords. King Æthelred’s law code decrees that any man that deserts the king’s army, all his property and life shall be forfeit.[9] Because King Æthelred included this in his law code, we can conduct that the army was indeed important to King Æthelred and he could not tolerate deserters and cowards within it. King Æthelred was one of many lords who were conscious of their armies.
            To receive much praise, admiration, and loyalty, a king must be a good warrior. William of Jumièges writes of William I within his title The Deeds of the Dukes of the Normans. “…the Londoners… gave hostage and submitted themselves and all they had to their noble conqueror and hereditary lord. And thus his triumph duly completed in spite of so many perils, our illustrious duke, to whom our inadequate words do not begin to do justice…”[10] the author also refers to William as a “fortunate war-leader”[11]. Because of William’s success on the battlefield, he successfully forced the English into submission. William I is one of the best examples of a strong war leading king.
            Not only were kings supposed to be good warriors, but their lords and nobles were as well. Stephen of Blois is a lord that displays the qualities of a good lord. He is pious, generous, and a warrior. In March 1098 he writes to his wife (and vassals) illustrating hope, piety, and ferocity on the battlefield. The first crusade was a disastrous campaign but Stephen depicts it with false claims that would encourage more men (his vassals) to bring their arms to aid the Christians. This letters illuminates what a crusader was supposed to think of the campaign. He describes that “many of our brethren and followers were killed and their souls were borne to the joys of paradise”, “God [is] continually fighting for us”, “Our men…prepare to die for Christ” (295)[12]. Stephen of Blois was a crusading lord who encouraged others to crusade after him, who glorified crusading, and who convinced his vassals of the rewards. A good lord is courageous and encourages men to fight alongside him even if death is certain.
            Christian, gift-giving, fighting kings and lords are the ones who are known to be successful throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries. All of these great qualities that are required of kings brought forth a new style of governing during the medieval era. Out of these qualities, bureaucracy developed. Christian kings and lords took it upon themselves to fight in the crusades, leaving their manors and castles without a leader. They had to appoint people to bureaucratic offices to hold the government together. An extremely honorable gift to receive from the king was a political office in which the receiver helps run the country for the king. Such gifts also increased bureaucracy within the time.
            The Christian lord’s transition to bureaucracy begins with the appointment of clerical positions. It was the Christian lord’s duty to appoint the clergy to their monastic place. This becomes practice of the appointment of political offices for a bureaucratic government. King Æthelred makes it clear what the duties are for the clergy in his law code.[13] The next method a Christian lord transitioned to bureaucracy is through the crusades. In his letter to his wife, Stephen of Blois appoints her “to carefully watch over your land, to do your duty as you ought to your children and your vassals.”[14] Women during the eleventh and twelfth centuries arose in power whilst their husbands were crusading. This opens the door to appointing nobles to keep the kingdom while their lord is away. It could be said that the Christian lord’s bureaucratic government was born out of the first crusade.
            The gift-giving lord’s transition to bureaucracy involves a switch of the types of gifts that were being given. The Norse invasions ceased and chaos was not as widely spread. Lords could not loot and seize properties and possessions from weaker adversaries as they once had. Stealing to give was no longer an opportunity for the lords of the medieval period. After this ceased, gifts were given as political offices often resembling chancellors, chamberlains, and constables. Henry I and William I instated a gift giving bureaucratic government. Henry I initiated the exchequer as a permanent government agency. Within the Dialogue of the Exchequer we can see the outcome of the many appointed offices. “There is a lower exchequer (Receipt) where the money is handed over to be counted… [and] and upper exchequer, an account may be rendered of them.” [15] There is also an usher, a treasurer and many other appointments that are required for the exchequer’s office. While this is a purely political purpose for gifting positions at court, it is also evident that gift giving to God was still alive.
            The gift giving lord also gave to God which lead to bureaucracy. Because many women wrote on account of their donations to certain abbeys and monasteries, we see the importance of women at a risen state. They are able to write their own charters on behalf of their husbands. The Charter of Countess Eusemia of Oxford demonstration to us the woman taking account of her property even while her husband, the count, is still alive to witness. While she still points out the “consent of my husband, Count Aubrey”[16] it still shows us the usefulness of women during this time period and the possibility of bureaucratic tendencies within the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Not only could women write their own charters for donations, but they could stand in for their husbands in times of need as well.
            The warrior lord’s transition to bureaucracy is similar to that of the Christian lord’s. War called the lord away from his castle, and left his ruling place open. William I often left his seat to be filled by his wife Matilda I. The queen would act as regent, advisor and diplomat while the king was away. This bureaucratic ruling is also seen in the reign of Richard I, who was only in England for six months of his reign. A lord at war requires people to stand in for him while he is away.
            The traits that create a great lord or noble are a main cause for the transition to bureaucracy in medieval times. Because a good lord was Christian, gift giving, and a strong warrior, his kingdom had to have his positions filled so it did not fall apart while he was away. Before they went to fight crusades and wars, kings and lords would bestow gifts of political positions to their wives and eventually to other nobles to fill these places. The Christian, gift giving, warrior lord made way for the bureaucracy of the later middle ages.
           




[1] “King Æthelred, Law Code (1008)” In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 262-265. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007.
[2] “King Æthelred, Law Code (1008)” In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 262-265. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007
[3] "Florence of Worcester: Chronicles of Chronicles." In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 305. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007.
[4] "Florence of Worcester: Chronicles of Chronicles." In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 305. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007.
[5] "Florence of Worcester: Chronicles of Chronicles." In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 307. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007.
[6] "Cluny’s Foundation Charter and various charters of donation” In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 207-212. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007.
[7] "Cluny’s Foundation Charter and various charters of donation” In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 207-212. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007.
[8]“Agreements between Count William of the Aquitanians and Hugh of Lusignan (1028)” In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 213-219. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007
[9] “King Æthelred, Law Code (1008)” In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 262-265. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007
[10] “William of Jumièges, The Deeds of the Dukes of Normans (1070)” In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 304-3055. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007
[11] “William of Jumièges, The Deeds of the Dukes of Normans (1070)” In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 304-3055. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007
[12] “Stephen of Blois, Letter to His Wife (March 1098)” In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 293-295. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007
[13] King Æthelred, Law Code (1008) In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 262-265. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007
[14] “Stephen of Blois, Letter to His Wife (March 1098)” In Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara Rosenwein, 293-295. Vol. 2. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2007
[15] “Charter of Countess Eusemia of Oxford (1150)” In Cartularium Prioratus de Colne, ed. John Fisher, Colchester: 1946. Translated: Heather Tanner.
[16] “Charter of Countess Eusemia of Oxford (1150)” In Cartularium Prioratus de Colne, ed. John Fisher, Colchester: 1946. Translated: Heather Tanner.

The Creation of Monsters as a Fantastic Art Through the Lens of the Trilogies Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings

Within the fantasy genre of literature, authors have created things that are not native to our lives. They create a new realm of creatures, plants, and human-like races. Not all monsters are evil, snaggle tooth, troll looking creatures. They can be anything different from you, the human. Fantasy is the liberation of the imagination (Mathews, 2002). By letting their imaginations run rampant, authors have created a massive amount of new creatures. These creatures have become legends and pieces of art. A monster in a fantasy novel is a piece of art, especially when film producers try to create the monster for the screen. Fantasy is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels.
Determining the type of fantasy that each of these books are, can help juristic the creations of the creatures within them. J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter can fit into almost all four of the fantastic categories: Linimal, Intrustive, Portal and Immersive (Mendelsohn, 2008).  Harry Potter meets the criteria to be a liminal fantasy because a lot of the story takes place within the ‘muggle’ world, or our world, and it is ignored or not noticed by the muggles. They do not notice it but their worlds run parallel with each other. The books can also be intrusive because Hagrid intruded upon Harry’s life and brought him to the magic. Portal fantasy can also be used to describe Harry Potter because they go through Platform 9 ¾ and through the wall in the Leaky Cauldron into Diagon Alley. To see the book as an immersive fantasy, we can look at Hogwarts itself and its neighboring town, Hogsmead. Both of these places are strictly wizards and witches. The story immerses itself in these places where it is its own “Wizarding World” where no muggle can get to. Since the book can fit all of these traits of the fantastic it opens up a whole world of fantastic creatures and monsters that Rowling can create. The possibilities are endless. She can create things that are strictly from the “Wizarding World” or she can take things from the muggle world, like mythology, and incorporate it into her story.
The Lord of the Rings does not fit into all four of the fantastic but it does fit the definition of a portal fantasy and an immersive fantasy (Mendelsohn, 2008). Arguably, The Lord of the Rings is a portal fantasy because of the ship passage the elves, and later Frodo and Bilbo, take to ‘leave’ Middle Earth. This is the ‘portal’ in which the fantasy theory is linked. I prefer to think The Lord of the Rings as an immersive fantasy. Since the whole story takes place on Middle Earth, we can infer that it is its own world, and is not associated with ‘our’ world nor any other world. Everything in Middle Earth is its own, yet it is still slightly similar to our world. The mountains, the horses, and humans are all reflections of our world. Tolkien’s story does not have nearly as many creatures and monsters as the Harry Potter but it still creates a fantastic genre of monsters for the world of fantasy.
            In order to talk about the creation of monsters as a form of art, we must define what a monster really is. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a monster can be defined as “one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character” or “a strange or horrible imaginary creature” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). In Diana Jone’s Book, The Tough Guide to Fantasyland, she says “Most of them have something snaky about them” (Jones, 2001). To say that the ‘impossible monsters’ in these stories create a mother of the arts is slightly unfair to the other creatures within the stories. Not all creatures are monsters, and not all monsters are creatures. Humans can be monsters too. It is up to the fantastic writers to create their own unique creatures and monster. The authors become literary artists.
            The Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter novels both demonstrate the fantastic creations of fantasy as a form of art. The creatures and monsters within The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are similar in certain ways, yet they have their own distinct characteristics. The similarities of the monsters are that they are each respective author’s own creations. Most of the monsters in Harry Potter were created by J.K. Rowling while quite a few of the monsters in The Lord of the Rings were created by J.R.R. Tolkien.  Another similarity that they both have is that some of the creatures or monsters are taken from other fantastic works. J.K. Rowling used quite a bit of mythology while creating her creatures. Tolkien used Elves, Dwarves and Wizards which had be known to exist in other novels. Both of these authors kept humans in their fantastic writing. ‘Muggles’ in Harry Potter and ‘Men’ in The Lord of the Rings are relatable to the reader, while the other characters are not.
            When thinking of a monster, one may think of death. Because typically, a monster’s main goal is to scare or kill. Four great examples of monsters like this in Harry Potter are Boggarts, Dementors, Basilisks and Voldemort himself. Boggarts, while they are terrifying to each individual based on their fears, their aim is not necessarily to kill. Boggarts do not have as much power as the creatures that they turn into. They cannot suck the soul like a Dementor, nor do they have a cry loud enough to kill when it is a Banshee (Rowling, 1999).  Rowling created this monster in her own mind, put it to paper and made it come alive. Rowling also created Dementors. A Dementor is a monster that feeds off of human happiness and are considered to be one of the worst creatures to inhabit the world (Rowling, 1999). While a Basilisk was not invented by Rowling, she uses them in her second novel, The Chamber of Secrets. With eyes that petrify with one glance, and the deadliest venom of all serpents, the Basilisk is one of the most lethal creatures (Rowling, 1998). Pliny the Elder was one of the first to mention a Basilisk in history and mythology, Rowling merely borrowed the idea to fashion the King of all Serpents and pet to Salazar Slytherin. (Rowling, 2001). It is up for debate as to whether or not Voldemort is a monster. He is still human, yet he possesses the qualities of a monster. He deviates from normal behavior, and is rather terrifying. The creation of Voldemort, his corruption, rebirth and the use of his Horcruxes is all very disturbing (Rowling, 2007). For Rowling to create such  terrifying pieces of work, truly shows the ability of her imagination, and her capability to create something that people would marvel at. Rowling has a talent for creating terrifying, death oriented monsters in her Harry Potter novels, as Tolkien does in his.
            The Lord of the Rings trilogy also has many terrifying monsters. The Nazgul and their mounts, and the Orc Breed in general are all disturbing monsters that you don’t want to get in the path of. The Nazgul, or Ringwraiths, are the nine men that succumbed to the power of the One Ring and are bound to serve it forever as a wraith. In the book they are described as Sauron’s most terrible servants (Tolkien, 1954). Even their voices as they flew around the battlefields destroyed people.
“At length (of their cries) even the stout-hearted would fling themselves to the ground as the hidden menace passed over them, or they would stand, letting their weapons fall from nerveless hands while into their minds a blackness came, and they thought no more of war, but only of hiding and of crawling, and of death.” (Return of the King, pp. 97, Tolkien, 1954)
The wraiths are upon the most terrifying creatures that roam Middle Earth. Their black winged, long necked steeds are also quite grotesque. They are referred to as “Hell Hawks” or “Fell Beasts”.
Sauron’s minions in The Lord of the Rings vary in size and ability. Goblins are the smallest of the creatures and love explosives. Orcs are their own disturbed, aggressive, foul race. They are cannibalistic creatures of destruction and loathing. The Uruk-hai a larger, more advanced breed of Orc that were mainly utilized by Sauron for his war on Rohan (Tolkien, 1954). The creation of these dark creatures abandons reason and creates a new genre of monsters for the world to admire.
             Both Rowling and Tolkien use the Goblin in their novels, but they are very different. Both of the renditions of the Goblin in the respective novels are clever. Rowling’s Goblins are the bankers of the Wizarding World (Rowling, 1997), while Tolkien’s are devious mechanism builders (Tolkien, 1954). Reshaping a creature that was already made makes a big difference in the image that the creatures give off. Tolkien’s goblins are much more monstrous than Rowling’s banking creatures. Recreating the creature to the respective story is another way of taking a piece of art, or fantasy, and making it into your own. That’s what art is about, expression.
To better convey the rich diversity of the creatures and monsters created in their respective worlds, the authors also draw focus to friendly creatures or monsters. Rowling’s Wizarding World is full of various creatures that we, as muggles, may consider monsters. House elves, while they do clean, cook, and make your bed, are still little elves that are ‘strange’ and betray ‘normality’ (Rowling, 1998). A hippogriff is another creature from mythology that Rowling borrowed for her book. The hippogriff is a symbol of dominance, with its way of greeting others. With the winged body of a horse, and head and torso of an eagle, this creature demonstrates one of the magical creations that fantasy and mythology has brought us (Rowling, 1999). Faux, the Phoenix belonging to Dumbledore, is a mythological swan-sized scarlet bird with a long golden tail (Rowling, 2001). Harry’s fascination with Faux could by symbolic to the way Harry dies, and comes back to life in the end of the series since Phoenix’s die in a burst of flame and are reborn through their ashes. Creating these magical creatures was not purely Rowling’s imagination, but she uses them and adapts them to her novel.
The Lord of the Rings also uses some more known creatures within his story. The mix of human like races in The Lord of the Rings isn’t the sole creation of Tolkien, although he made them highly popular and more well-known. The Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits are the three main races of men outside the world of regular men. Elves are one of the oldest races on Middle Earth and are known to be the fairest and wisest of them. Dwarves are a stunted race that typically dwell in the mountains. Their weapons of choice are axes, while the elves are typically archers. The hobbits are not a fighting race, as they are even smaller than dwarves. Hobbits live quiet lives in the Shire and rarely see ‘adventures’ (Tolkien, 1954). Tolkien adapted these already made fantastic creations to something that would be marked as his version of them. Art is something that is created with imagination and skill (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). In order to create these masterpieces, Tolkien and Rowling both had to have a great imagination and immense skill.
The fact that both of the authors use Elves is interesting. The elves in the respective stories are so different, yet known by the same name. The only similarity between the two elf breeds are their pointy ears. Elves have been known throughout literature and are used quite commonly. Typically they are short, little workers, like Santa’s helpers. Tolkien takes the idea of an elf to a different level. Now they are tall, beautiful, smart warriors (Tolkien, 1954). The elves in both of these books are completely different, yet are a similar creature. This is what art is, taking something, expanding the idea of it and molding it to something else.
Creating an entire new world, filled with creatures, monsters, people, towns, and everything that the world consists of is a literary art. Fantasy writers have more of a task to create a new world, rather than other authors, who write about things in our ‘real’ world.  J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien are literary artists who created an entire world filled with terrors and delights.  The creation of their monsters in the novels is simply an artistic creation and allows us to see that fantasy is the mother of the arts, opening doors of endless possibilities. The creation of the monsters like Dementors and Orcs abandons reason and creates a new genre of monsters for the world to marvel at. The use of mythology in the Harry Potter novels shows us the timelessness of the creations that other authors have made. The authors even use the same names for some of their creatures, yet they are distinctly different. Because of the range of fantastic categories that these particular novels can be related to, they are prime examples of the vast amount of monsters that can be created in the fantastic genre.  By looking at the examples within these literary fantastic novels we can safely say fantasy truly is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels.
           


References:

Art. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved December 12, 2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

Jones, D. (1998). The tough guide to fantasyland. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Mendelsohn, F. (2008).  Rhetorics of Fantasy. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan UP.

Monster. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved December 12, 2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monster

Pliny the Elder. (1855). The Natural History. Bostock, J, Riley, H. (Translators).

Rowling, J.K. (1997) Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Rowling, J.K. (1998) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Rowling, J.K. (1999) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Rowling, J.K. (2001) Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Rowling, J.K. (2007) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.


Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954). The Lord of the Rings. New York: Harper Collins Publishing Ltd

Union Advancement, Confederate Devastation: The American Civil War

December 1864 was the dawn of the finale of the Civil War. Union Generals recognized the end was near and seized every opportunity to bring it to a close. Within the exchange of their letters, General Halleck and General Sherman express a multitude of thoughts, feelings and plans for their armies. The attitudes in regards to a “destructive war” are that they had to take all risks because nothing risked is nothing gained. Sherman knew they were facing not only a ‘hostile army but a hostile people’ as well. The choices the Union high command made in regards to the “destructive war” were for the advancement of the Union and devastation the Confederacy at any means necessary. Historian Charles Royster would assess this exchange as extremely insightful and essential item for assessing Sherman’s movements. My own assessment of the significance of this exchange is that it proves the union’s policy of the “destructive war” in a forward way. This paper will divulge the details of these statements, exposing each question with a thorough discussion.
According to these two letters, the Union high command’s attitude toward the Civil War as a “destructive war” is rather forward. The two Generals are aware of the hostility of the enemy and the indispensable advancements that had to be made. General Halleck commends Sherman’s victories, expresses how the March will be remembered in this “great war” and advises him to salt the ground around Charleston. He hopes that Sherman will destroy Charleston and that “a little salt should be sown upon its site it may prevent the growth of future crops of nullification and secession”. The very idea of nullifying and succeeding a crop for an area of civilization is in itself, the epitome of a destructive war tactic. Sherman replies to his comments that he will keep it in mind.  He was not ecstatic about salting Charleston because he claims it is “dead and unimportant when its railroad communications are broken”. Sherman has all the capability and more to salt Charleston but he knows it is dead anyway. In this case, it is a matter of the question of “why break something that is already broken?” Instead, Sherman counters Halleck’s reserved request and claims that he would rather take Wilmington. It is not a fear of salting Charleston with an abundance of sympathy, but a strategic maneuver to destroy something more useful to the Confederacy.
In his letter to Halleck, General Sherman expresses his views on the southern population. He speaks of the difference between this war and the European wars before it, “We are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies.” Sherman speaks of a different kind of war; a total war. In this case of war, a destructive war is the only way to gain the upper hand. If they are not only fighting soldiers, but also the entire populous, earthly destruction is a necessity. Overall, the attitude of the Union high command is that the population, as well as the soldiers, must feel the brutality and pain of the war they have chosen. That is why Sherman chose to march his army through the entirety of Georgia as forcefully as he did; to make this point very clear to the citizens of this state. After his march, he confides that the state’s enthusiasm and faithfulness in Jackson is wavering and that South Carolina is soon to join them in their fear. Sherman’s March to the Sea was as emotionally destructive as it was physically destructive for the southern population. His march proves that he was not only warring against the southern army, but the southern people as well.
The destruction of South Carolina was much anticipated by Sherman’s army. “The truth is the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina. I almost tremble at her fate, but feel that she deserves all that seems in store for her.” As destruction lies on the horizon in front of them, Sherman believes South Carolina deserves the fate his army is going to bring upon it. This statement is a great example of the attitude of the Union high command by revealing that Sherman does not wish ill for the people and land, but he knows it must happen.
Upon reading these letters, Charles Royster would find them to be extremely interesting, useful and full of explanation. Throughout his book, The Destructive War (1993), Royster excessively examines the mind frame, strategy and justification Generals Sherman and Jackson used against each other during the war. This letter contains key information from Sherman on his mind frame and plans for the movement of his troops. Sherman explains to Halleck not only why he wants to march one way, but also why he does not want to march the other way. This letter exposes Sherman and the side of him that is not necessarily sympathetic to the south, but not exactly as hard handed as he is portrayed in media. He “almost trembles” at the fate of South Carolina, not wanting to salt Charleston, and offering high respect and friendship to Halleck. These examples are countered by other descriptions of destruction, yet are interesting to know. Royster would surely be intrigued by the attitude that Sherman expresses in this letter as well as the details of the possible movements of his maneuverable army.
The significance of this exchange of letters between Sherman and Halleck is that it truly expose the attitudes of the Union generals. I find it more valuable to read and asses than I would find reading and assessing a book on the subject matter. The firsthand account from Sherman and Halleck provide a useful insight to the feelings, thoughts and attitude of the Generals. I have gathered a pronounced understanding of the Union’s attitude toward the “destructive war” by diagnosing the statements in these letters.  The attitude of doing anything that would advance the Union and devastate the Confederacy while showing the hard hand of war to the population was taken up by the high command of the Union during the Civil War. Reading this directly from Sherman’s point of view opened my eyes to his perspective, rather than a storyteller’s. It is extremely important for historians to read primary sources rather than secondary because it provides a different and direct insight to the information.
From these letters that were exchanged towards the end of the Civil War, Generals Sherman and Halleck converse their thoughts and plans for the Union Army. While Halleck’s letter is more of a congratulation, Sherman’s exposes more details and reasoning behind his quandaries and actions. The letters uncover the Union’s views on the “destructive war” policy of doing anything that advances the Union and devastates the Confederacy. Charles Royster would find the information in here extremely insightful as he has successfully uncovered the motives, thoughts and feelings of Sherman in his book, The Destructive War. These letters disclose the Union policy during the civil war in a more informal, personal way.



The Teachings of Dona Beatriz and William Wade Harris

       Hailing from a small community in the war torn country of the Kongo, Dona Beatriz had connections with the supernatural from a small age. She was trained in the work of communicating with the spirits in the other realm. She was called to do the work of the Lord, (or Saint Anthony), in 1704. While lying, nearly dying with fever, Dona Beatriz was visited by Saint Anthony. The vision she received from him would be the driving force for the rest of her life. Nearly 200 years later, on the West African Coast, William Wade Harris had recently converted to Christianity. He was working for the American Episcopal Mission as a school teacher and catechist. Being part of a violent uprising caused him to get sent to prison. While he was in prison a similar thing happened to him that had happened to Dona Beatriz. He received a vision from the Archangel Gabriel. Gabriel’s message would also lead Harris throughout the rest of his life.
Dona Beatriz and William Wade Harris are profound African Christian leaders. Their lives were dedicated to one purpose: spreading the word of the Lord to Africans. While their teachings shared the same purpose, they went about them in different ways and had quite a few variances. This paper will examine the similarities and differences among the two African evangelists, the outcome of their teachings and the reason for the surplus of their converts.
The teachings of these two African Christians can be seen very different with only a few similarities. Dona Beatriz pronounced that Saint Anthony was nearly a second God. He was extremely vital to the Christian way of life and worship. She started by preaching that Jesus was angry at the Kongelese for their ongoing war, and that it was necessary to say three “Hail Marys” and ask for forgiveness (Thorton, 105).  She also believed that Jesus and the other early Christian figures were in fact, from the Kongo and were Kongolese. This caused a bit of an irritation with the Catholic Church and they refused to believe her. After her first communication and vision from Saint Anthony, Dona Beatriz had weekly visits and talks with God himself. Her main focus of her teachings derived from many traditions of the Roman Catholic Church in the Kongo, but she put her own spin on it. For example, she converted the prayer “Salve Regina” into “Salve Antoniana” (Thorton, 215-220). This was turned into her anthem for her Antonioism movement. She also preached that God was only concerned with the believer’s intentions, not with the sacraments or good works that they did.
 William Wade Harris did not have as many radical teachings as Dona Beatriz did however. Harris preached rather orthodox Christian messages. He did not come up with new ideas on Christianity as Beatriz had. Harris created an image of himself that relayed his African nature, as to not ward off indigenous people. He dealt with indigenous fetishes that went completely against Christian teachings. He burned objects that were not Christian and he called upon healers to quit their witchcraft ways of healing. Alas, with all of the rejection of indigenous ways, he did approve polygamy and had several wives in his company.
Both of these teachers had things that would offend the Catholic Church (polygamy, claiming Saint Anothony next to God, and claiming that Jesus and his followers were from the Kongo) but they had some teachings that were good for the population. These teachers brought Christianity to indigenous people whether it was the ‘right’ Christianity or not. They both derived from the same principles and taught that Jesus is the savior. The outcomes of their teachings shed more light on the effectiveness of the lessons they brought.
William Wade Harris did not have as grisly an end as Dona Beatriz. Because her teachings were so radical in such a strict Catholic dominant nation, she was eventually condemned as a heretic and witch and was sentenced to burn at the stake (Thorton, 180). Although she was met by an untimely demise, her movement was not. She was outlived by her Antonianism movement. Her teachings continued to live on after her death but not for very long. A few years later, many of her noble followers were forced to reject their faith and rejoin the Catholic Church. Although the movement itself died, its ideas lingered on for quite a while. There were hints of it even in the Americas (thanks to the Kongolese slave trade) and other places as well. William Wade Harris however, was not execute; he merely died of old age. In only 18 months of his preaching, Harris baptized over 32,000 new converts of which created 160 congregations (Shank, 160). “Harrist” churches were also founded but most of the new converts went to already established churches (Shank, 160). Harris gained the name the “black Elijah” and is known as the precursor of the Pentecostal movement in Ghana. Harris definitely has a less grim path than Dona Beatriz. This is most likely in cause to the way he taught his beliefs. He did not create anything new for the faith, he just added a few old bits here and there, whereas Beatriz tried to change old ideas into new ideas.       
The social and political environment within which these teachers emerged had a great effect on the outcomes of their teachings.  Dona Beatriz emerged from a civil war torn country that was tired of war. The country had been at war for far too long, the slave trade was at a peak from the war and the population was tired and hopeless. The teachings that Beatriz preached, spoke of hope, pride and forgiveness for these people. The idea of Jesus and his first Christian figures being from the Kongo made these people feel like they had some sort of purpose or pride in their heritage. They looked to Saint Anthony for hope and courage in this depressing time. Dona Beatriz spoke to the leaders of each side and pleaded with them to join her cause and put an end to the fighting. Because her teachings were hopeful and powerful, she was cast aside by the powerful. The lower class and middle class clung to her because she was their only hope. But in the end, it was the powerful that were her downfall and death.
The politics and society were not as troubled during the time that Harris emerged. He started preaching in the colonial ruled west gold coast of Africa. The British and French ruled most of the area that he was in. Not many evangelists had reached the places they he did though. Many of the new converts testified that they had never even seen a white missionary before, that they were converted by the “Black Elijah” (Shank, 59). The areas he went to were full of superstition, witchcraft and even cannibalism (Shank, 60). He dived into it and had a great success rate of converting these indigenous people. Because he created an African nature about him, he had a high success rate with the indigenous people. He did not have to face the wrath of power, slave trading and civil wars like Beatriz did, he merely faced those who had never heard of Christianity altogether.
The history of Christianity in Africa across time and space can be examined in the teachings and tellings of Dona Beatriz and William Wade Harris. Dona Beatriz’s teachings took place in the late 17th and early 18th century Congo, while Harris’ teachings took place in the 20th century West Africa. Both of their teachings had a profound impact on their people. Because they were native to the country and the people, they had a better impact than white missionaries would. Throughout this course it has been revealed that black missionaries and preachers have a better success rate than their white counterparts. Whether it is 100 years ago, or 300 years ago, indigenous Christian teachers have a great impact on the landscape of African Christian population. Their history shows us that no matter what type of Christianity you are preaching, the one that is followed by Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant or others, it is better grasped and held on to by the indigenous people if it comes from someone of the same color, culture and background.
The history of these two teachers teaches us about the relationship between mission-Christianity and African evangelists. Mission-Christianity is the spreading of Christianity through missions, while African evangelists are those who have converted and want to spread the word of Christianity to their fellow Africans. Mission-Christianity is difficult for many Africans to accept because of the treatment the white missionaries would bestow upon the African people. They did not always practice what they preached, so to speak. The indigenous people found it much easier to grasp the information and faith from people who had had similar experiences and cultures that they had. Explaining Christianity from an African’s point of view is much easier to accept than if a person from Great Britain tried to explain it to them. Dona Beatriz and William Wade Harris teach us that it is easier for Africans to teach Africans about Christianity than it is for white people to teach Africans about Christianity.

Kongelese native Dona Beatriz and indigenous William Wade Harris prove that Christianity is better grasped by Africans when it is preached to them by other Africans. Both of these natives gathered thousands of new followers to the Christian faith in few short years, when it took Christian missionaries centuries to bring Christianity to some African countries. Saint Anthony and Archangel Gabriel visited these two teachers and started a journey for them that would lead to the conversion of thousands of new Christians across Africa. Because of their African heritage and trust in the faith, they easily gained thousands of followers. Their teachings may be different from each other, their country’s society and politics unalike but the amount of people that they converted to Christians is not arguable. 

Black Death and Revolt: London in the Mid-1300's

What was the impact of the Black Death and the Peasant Revolt of 1381 on London?

Trade was increasing, ports were flourishing while London grew until August 1348. The Black Death struck the city with no cure, no hope and no escape. The overwhelming death toll left the city without workers from many trades. London had to rebuild its population and make changes in order for it to flourish once again. The Black Death left the city in such disarray, that hardly forty years later, the peasants revolted, demanding reform. The Black Death and Peasant Revolt of 1381 impacted London economically, politically, socially, religiously and culturally. Because these were such big events in London’s history, their impact was immense. The outcome of these events triggered the rise of the Gentry, different construction of churches, the rise of piety in people, the halt of wars, protestant ideas and poverty stricken peasants.
Being described as the “most devastating pandemic in human history”, the Black Death wounded Europe worse than any wars or conflicts before its time. Anywhere from one third to one half of the population was decimated by the virus. There are three versions of the plague: Bubonic, Pneumonic and Septicemia. The Bubonic Plague is the most common form which produces painful fist sized swellings at the site of the flea bites killing the victim in anywhere from 2 to 6 days. The fleas that carry the virus latched themselves onto rats, which carried them around the world trade system. The Pneumonic Plague occurs when the infection enters the lungs, causing the victim to vomit blood. Because it is spread through the air via coughing, sneezing and even breathing, this version of the plague is most contagious. The Septicemic Plague is rarer but enters the victim’s bloodstream and kills within a day. In autumn of 1348, the plague reached London, the perfect set up to spread a contagious, deadly virus. Rich and poor were crowded together while entire families slept in one room. Dozens of people would sleep on straw while animals and rats burrowed in with them secretly carrying the fleas that bore the virus. The Black Death claimed about 40,000 Londoners, leaving the city in a mournful state of chaos.
About forty years after the Black Death, Wat Tyler arranged an army of peasants who wanted reform from the King. Tyler organized for the army to march upon London and capture the Tower. For the first, and only time in history, the Tower of London was captured. The angered peasants killed the Royal Treasurer and the High Chancellor, and held strong until King Richard II agreed to meet with them. The Peasants Revolt of 1381 was the first prevalent uprising in England. The peasants wanted payment in money and lowered taxes. King Richard II agreed to their terms and wrote a Charter for them peasants with a list of the new laws. A few days later, he revoked the Charter and gave the order to the Royal Army to kill every peasant that owned a copy of the Charter. Richard decided that was a good way to prove his power and authority over the people and show that England will not tolerate rebellions. After the charter was revoked, the peasants carried on with their poor conditions as usual, minus 1500 that had been killed from the rebellion. The Peasants Revolt was a failure that merely sparked attention to the social changes that followed the Black Death.
The Black Death lead into the Peasants Revolt of 1381 and they both had effects on London that lasted for many years. After the Black Death, London’s economics were stricken. The Black Death left London short of labor, making the people who did work, work harder for the same amount of money as when they did not have to work as hard. Landowners did not want to raise wages because they couldn’t afford to, leaving the peasants unpleased with their incomes. The King passed the Ordinance of Laborers which fixed wages at ‘pre-plague level’ and the Statute of Laborers which were labor laws. “It was lately ordained by our lord king, with the assent of the prelates, nobles and others of his council against the malice of employees, who were idle and were not willing to take employment after the pestilence unless for outrageous wages…” (Statute of Laborers, 1351). Not long after these laws were passed, they were revoked, leaving the peasants back where they started. After years of poverty and overworking, the peasants had had enough, causing the revolt of 1381. The economics of London was impacted from the Black Death and Peasants Revolt in the aspect that there was not enough people to do the work, or buy the products, leaving the landowners or shop keepers without income.
Social aspects of London were also affected from the Black Death and the Peasants Revolt. After the Black Death the public resented the King and their local Lords, which was another cause of the Peasants Revolt of 1381. After the Peasants Revolt of 1381, the lasting social effect was the rise of the Gentry. Because of the rise of wages and lowered cost of grain, the Gentry were left to find new interests and ways to earn. Offices such as the Justice of the Peace, Sheriff, and Members of Parliament were taken by the old landowners and aristocrats. This shift in social movement created a new class between the rich and the poor. This is the first appearance of the Middle Class in London society.
The everlasting wars in France came to a halt during and after the Black Death. Since the population was a fraction of what it had been, the government did not launch any campaigns in France until 1355. Political policies after the Peasants Revolt of 1381 did not alter. Although King Richard II made the Charter for the peasants, he revoked it, and killed anyone that had a copy. Politics resumed as usual in London and did not see much change for some time. The only impact that the Black Death had upon politics in London was the halt of the war campaigns in France.
The Catholic Church was highly questioned during and after the Black Death. The church blamed the sinfulness of men for the Black Death, but once an astounding amount of clergy started dying, the people questioned the purity of the Church and its officials. Instead of coming close to God through the Clergy, people started coming close to God individually, which is one of the building blocks of Protestantism. The idea of challenging the absolute authority of the church hierarchy was starting to be whispered which leads us to believe that the Black Death helped pave the way for the Protestant Reformation. After the Black Death there was also a greater amount of piety amongst the upper classes. The founding of colleges and churches increased drastically after the Black Death. Many of the Churches in London were added on to during this time, more manuscripts published and universities founded. Religion was not as affected by the Peasants Revolt as the Black Death. Because this was the start of questioning the Catholic Church, the Black Death had a very lasting impact on London.
Culture in London was greatly affected from the Black Death and the Peasants Revolt. The use of vernacular languages started to be more common. Due to the lack of educated clerks, in 1362, Parliament passed a statute decreeing that all pleas should be heard in English. The use of vernacular language lead in to the blossoming of English literature. Geoffery Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales were written during the 1380s. William Langland produced the first version of his great poem: The Vision of Piers Plowman in 1362. More cultural effects from these events are the way churches were built. Because of the labor shortages, they postponed building churches, or instead of building elaborate decorated style churches, they became more perpendicular and plain. This leads into one of the main distinguishes between Roman Catholic Churches and Protestant English Churches.
The Black Death and Peasants Revolt of 1381 greatly affected the future of London. Many changes were brought forth in London in the years following these events. Economics, politics, social structure, religion and popular culture were all affected. The workers were not plentiful, the gentry rose, religion started veering away from Catholicism, and the use of vernacular language spread rapidly. So much of the population had died from the Black Death that there was not nearly enough people to farm or work in the cities, causing discomfort for the ones who did work. The changes the peasants hoped to acquire from their rebellion had not fully taken effect until many years after their efforts. The lords that owned land outside of London lost their workers and usefulness so they sought employment elsewhere. They moved into London and took new positions in the government, which created a middle class for the first time in London’s history. The people started to question the true purity of the Catholic Church leading into one of the greatest changes in England’s history: The Anglican Reformation. After so many educated clerks had died, London switched over to using vernacular language instead of Latin and French. English became more popular and authors began their tales that would be read centuries later. The Black Death and Peasants Revolt of 1381 were terrible events in history but they lead to greater things. Without them England might still be a French speaking, peasant filled Catholic nation with no parliament.







Work Cited:
Ibeji, Mike, Dr. "Black Death: Political and Social Changes." BBC News. BBC, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.
"The Black Death in England 1348-1350." The Black Death in England 1348-50. Ed. David Ross. Britain Express, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
 Ibeki, Mike, Dr. "Black Death." BBC News. BBC, 10 Oct. 2011. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
 Kelly, John. The Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death. London: Harper Perennial, 2006. Print.
Gottfried, Robert Steven. The Black Death: Natural and Human Disaster in Medieval Europe. New York: Free, 1983. Print.

Napoleonic Propaganda

"How did Napoleon use propaganda during his campaign and reign to influence and gain support from the people of France?"

In 1804, France obtained an Emperor. Napoleon Bonaparte pushed his way from being a commissioned second lieutenant to the Emperor of France within 20 years. Without the use of propaganda this could not have been possible. “Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist”.[1] By many historians, Napoleon is considered one of history’s best propagandists. Because he knew the importance of influence over the armies and people of France he was very concerned about the construction and projection of particular images of his rule.[2]. Once he seized power in 1804, Napoleon showed an inflexible instinct to regulate publications and to censor any opposition.[3] But it was truly before 1804 that he discovered that propaganda was necessary. Napoleon Bonaparte used propaganda during his campaign and reign of France to influence and gain support for the armies and people of France in many ways.  The main forms of propaganda that will be discussed in this essay include the newspapers and books, political military documents and bulletins, commissioning and sponsoring of art through theatre, paintings, and writers, and promoting his self image all over France. It will also discuss whether or not this is propaganda, and the lasting effects of the propaganda. Napoleon’s propaganda techniques were strong, thorough and left behind a legacy that would be remembered well after his life.
The Napoleonic legend was not born on the throne in Paris, but on the lush planes of Lombardi Italy.[4] During his Italian campaign, Napoleon learned the importance of censorship, good morale, and support from home. Some of Napoleon’s greatest propaganda techniques developed while he was at war. Famous victories could be turned into great propaganda via military bulletins. He quickly learned to play up his victories and play down his defeats in the bulletins and newspapers from the front. [5] The Courrier de l’Armee d’Italie was a newspaper he created for his troops as well as the people back in France to read. He emerged from his campaign with the realization that his personal charisma could flip the outcome of the battle as effectively as his strategic and tactical skills.[6] Since he never shied away from controlling the press, we can see that he understood the power of the press both for rallying his troops and for influencing the public opinion in France.[7]
Napoleon knew his roots were with the army, soldiers and officers alike, but he did not forget to target the people of France during his propaganda campaign. Along with making his own military newspapers, he shut down 64 of 73 newspapers in France and started  censoring all the future publications. He quickly learned to exploit the power of the press to his advantage as a political weapon and devise new propaganda techniques.[8] He sought to manipulate the press to his own ends. He was convinced that newspapers should serve the interests of the government.[9] In Decree limiting Parisian and Provincial Newspapers (17 January 1800) Napoleon outlines the new rules: the minister of general police will…only allow the printing, publication and distribution of the (13) newspapers, report immediately on all the newspapers published in other departments, ensure that no newspaper is published simultaneously in the department of the Seine or Republic, the owners and editors of newspapers retained after the present decree will present themselves to the minster of residence to provide their proof of virtue as French citizens, their place of residence and personal signatures and their loyalty to the constitution. And lastly, all newspapers which include artless disrespectful towards the social order will be suppressed![10] Napoleon stated that he would never “allow the papers to say or do anything contrary to my (his) interests” and he did exactly that. He monitored and closed down all opposition, leading everyone to only read what he has approved for them to read. [11]
Napoleon also spent a lot of time sponsoring and commissioning art in France. Everything he did with art was to prove his imperial power and make people respect it. He had intentions to make Paris an artistic capital of the world. During his military campaigns he would bring back artifacts, paintings, and relics from all over the world and put them in the newly repurposed Louvre. [12] Napoleon spent an average of 16,000 pounds year on pictures and sculptures. [13] Having the best art is part of being on top. Having a large variety of classical and renaissance art symbolized the civility and knowledge of the French. He sought to prove that he was indeed the Emperor of France, a great a powerful Empire, and he has ultimate power.
Because Napoleon understood that theatre had great potential to draw people in, he paid particular attention to it. He sponsored the Opera and controlled what shows were put on. By sponsoring the big theatres, it put the small boulevard ones out of business and unable to make plays that did not elevate him. He would use the theatre to glorify himself by putting subtle hints into the old classical plays. He banned certain plays that might remind the people of their former king.[14] Napoleon tried to control and monitor every aspect of life for his subjects, shaping their thoughts and opinions to his favor.
Cartoonists, poets, and novelists were also subject to Napoleon’s propaganda project. He encouraged and commissioned cartoonists to direct their jests at the enemies, mostly England.[15] He imposed the ‘Direction General de I’imprimerie et de la Librarie’ which requested all artists and writers to start creating works that would glorify his rule. He required all the authors to submit two copies of their works to checked before their publication. He also imposed like demands on posters and lectures. Napoleon did not want one book to go on a shelf without it being read and approved by selected officials. All literature was monitored and catered to venerate him. The histories of his battles and campaigns were also rewritten. He had it rewritten to, naturally, make himself look better. He said “History is a myth which people choose to believe.” To the population, if it was in a history book, then it must be true.[16]  This is a great example of his manipulation over the population of France.
Napoleon’s image appeared all over the empire. His face appeared on everything from coins to pamphlets. His portrait became well known, along with his abundant eagles and iconic “N” logo. The image that was produce with his portraits and eagles highly resembled Roman Caesars, giving the impression of him being as our ancient predecessors in Rome.[17]
One of the most well-known forms of Napoleonic propaganda is the paintings. Napoleon made sure all of the important imperial moments of his reign were documented on canvas. His royal wedding to Marie Lousie, the birth of his heir, and outstanding victories at war were all commissioned to be created by the best artists around.[18]
Napoleon exploited many handpicked artists to do his art works. Andrea Appiani was a Milan painter known for his frescos and was the first to paint the official portrait of Napoleon. Napoleon used him to paint several other official paintings and eventually named him “first painter” of the Kingdom of Italy. Antoine-Jean Gros was discovered by Napoleon’s wife Josephine and was commissioned to depict the victories at the Bridge of Acole and the Battle of Lodi. Napoleon did not, in fact, hold the Bridge at Acole, so having Gros paint the victorious image to make himself look triumphant was not entirely true. Once again, this is an example of how Napoleon manipulated the truth for his audience. Antonio Canova was a treasured sculptor of Napoleon’s. He was responsible for creating the busts and Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker statue which depict him in a powerful Romanesque light.[19]
The artist Jacques Louis David was appointed as the chief visual propagandist for Napoleon and was depended on  for providing paintings and statues of Napoleon in the style of the Roman Caesars.[20] David not only painted and sculpted for Napoleon, he also designed his clothes and hairstyles that we have come to recognize in our time. The style that David used created a realist visual that the middle class could relate to.[21] Because his success made the government and Napoleon realize that art truly can be propaganda for his rule, Jacques Louis David was named the “Painter of the Government”.[22]
The Consecration of the Emperor Napoleon I and Coronation of the Empress Josephine (1805-07) is one of the most well known pieces of Napoleonic propaganda. This oil on canvas painting created the idea of imperial propaganda. It was not only the painting that was propaganda but also the action of Napoleon taking the crown and crowning himself symbolized and showed everyone that he was a self-made Emperor and he owed allegiance to no one.[23] This painting does not entirely depict the event accurately. David initially had Pope Pius VII sitting quietly with his right hand upon his knee but Napoleon insisted he have his right hand raised, as if conferring his blessing on the Empress as she was crowned by her imperial husband. He wanted everyone to think or know that the Pope gave his blessing to the new Emperor and Empress. David also added Napoleon’s mother to the painting, although she was not actually present.[24]
Napoleon left a legacy in France and Europe. The Napoleonic Code, French international administrative system, the national banking system, military academies and universities, as well as a glorious French symbol are still apparent and used in France today.[25]
In their book, Jowett and O’Donnell discuss a 10-step plan of analysis that incorporates the major elements of propaganda. Napoleon, like all other propagandists can be analyzed via this plan. The plan overall asks: “to what ends, in the context of the times, does a propaganda agent, working through an organization, reach an audience through the media while using special symbols to get a desired reaction? …if there is opposition to the propaganda, what form does it take?... how successful is the propaganda in achieving its purpose?”[26]
The ideology and purpose of the Napoleonic propaganda campaign is to have the people of France favor Napoleon, and not reject him. The first controlling propagandist action that Napoleon did was censor the newspapers because while he was in Italy some of the papers were making him look bad. Napoleon’s future goals and objectives required him to have the people of France adore him, and propaganda was the way to achieve that first step.
The context in which the propaganda occurs is also very important for Napoleon. He had to be very careful not to sway towards anything like Robespierre and the Terror, or anything like the previous Kings of France. Since this was not long after the heat of the French Revolution, France was tired, longing for solidity in their government. Napoleon saw the opportunity and seized it. The Identification of the propagandist was not concealed. Napoleon made his power and origins of his propaganda known.
 The structure of the propaganda organization goes back to Napoleon himself as the apparent leader. Although, Napoleon could not have written every article, bulletin, play, song or cartoon that was published in his favor. He hired writers and gave them the tasks at hand. Jacques Louis David is a great example of one of Napoleon’s members of his propaganda organization.
The audience of the propaganda campaigns is also very important. The target audience for Napoleon’s propaganda varied per the propaganda. The bulletins were aimed at his army while the newspapers, plays and arts were aimed at the people. The army was targeted because without good morale of his army, Napoleon would not have had as many victories. He said, “In war, morale counts for three quarters, the balance of material force only makes up the remaining quarter.”[27] The French population as a whole was also targeted because without the support of the people, he could end up like the late royal family.
In the early 19th century the main media was newspapers and arts. Napoleon successfully used all the modern means of media for his propaganda campaign. The reaction that Napoleon was looking for when he utilized all means of media in France was for the French people to know who he was no matter the lifestyle they lead. If you were poor, bourgeois, or upper class, you would know who Napoleon Bonaparte was. Coins, posters, newspapers, plays, poems, portraits, dinner plates, pillows with an “N” on it; you name it, Napoleon had something with his face, eagle or logo on it.
The special techniques to maximize effect for Napoleon’s propaganda would be the depth of his knowledge of the people. He knew the people and the soldiers; their wants, tendencies, and needs. He catered his propaganda to the population of his time. Napoleon also utilized strong symbols of power. The eagle and Romanesque portraits both represent Napoleon as a Roman Caesar, which is one of the greatest empires in history. Napoleon also used certain language styles to appeal to certain groups of people. He used words like “savoir” and “pacifier” to relate to historical and religious vocabularies.[28]
The audience’s reaction to the various techniques Napoleon used can be assessed by looking at the admiration for him overall. He could not really be critiqued openly since his propaganda was so controlling, so what we see is an overwhelming joy of his reign. Since the victors write history for the books, of course we will see Napoleon as a wonderful leader, who did marvelous things for France, but not everyone necessarily felt that way. The great French historian, Michelet, was 6 years old when Napoleon was crowned Emperor of France. He recalled from that day “nothing out of the ordinary except a mournful and dismissal silence”.[29] As far as historiography goes for Napoleon, the main sources of his history are from himself, in his memoirs from St. Helena and the histories that he had ‘rewritten’ during his propaganda escapade. After his death however, the reactions to him and his propaganda was more prevalent as many books were published either bashing him or praising his accomplishments. The primary sources from his time are biased to him, while the sources after him take the facts out of the primary, and put them into a new context of words. The audience of Napoleon’s propaganda reacted strongly, and for a long time even after his death.
When Napoleon’s name first became known, there was counterpropaganda and anti-Napoleon newspaper articles, posters and cartoons. Once Napoleon found out about those articles or people, he swiftly disposed of them. That is when he started censoring everything from articles to books. He did not take lightly to people who opposed him and that is very clear. In other countries, however, there was naturally anti-Napoleonic propaganda plastered around. As the fear of the Napoleonic invasion to Britain started spreading, the British started producing Anti-Napoleonic propaganda.  The first poster that was published in 1798 and said, "Liberty, Atheism, Blasphemy, Invasion, Requisitions, Plunder, Beggary, Murder, Destruction, Anarchy, and Slavery". [30] Other forms of anti-Napoleonic propaganda can be seen in the Vendee Territory. In this territory, the people were loyal to the crown of France, and did not like Napoleon at all. They rebelled. Their insignia was a heart with a cross protruding from the top with the words “Dieu Le Roi”, or “God the King”.[31]  Not everyone loved Napoleon, but a fair share of French countrymen did.
The last step on the 10 step plan is to evaluate the effects of the propaganda. Was Napoleon’s propaganda a success? With the evidence that I have found, I would say overall, yes. Since the people of France, in general, like him and supported him, his propaganda was mostly successful. Napoleon was loved by his people. When he was passing through the Alps, peasants from all around came to see him through and cheer him on, as they would again in 1815. The people of Lyon shuffled around his hotel to just catch a glimpse of him. Actors and writers went off and created a play called “Le Heros de Retour” in his honor.[32] Napoleon kept much his popularity after his first exile. The Napoleonic merchandise like plates, card decks, broadsheets and statuettes kept circulation. People would publish articles or posters that captioned “He will return!” or “Vive l’Empereur!.[33]
His propaganda techniques were so successful in creating his imperial image that it became even stronger after his death. Books of all sorts started being published about him, praising or attacking, and people from all over France came to the funeral service when his remains passed under the Arc de Triumph and to his specially made tomb.
His final downfall was not caused by lack of of good propaganda, military support, or public support, but because he was out numbered and outsmarted on the battlefield. Although his troops did desert him in Russia, it was because of lack of food and warmth, rather than hatred for their General overall. It is doubtful that Napoleon regretted his propagandist moves. He knew it was all necessary.  “If I had a free press”, he wrote, “I wouldn’t last more than three months!”[34] It is almost impossible that Napoleon would have made it as far as he did without his propaganda campaign.
Throughout his reign as Emperor of France, Napoleon Bonaparte influenced and controlled the minds of his population through propaganda. Because he used every modern means of media in his campaign, Napoleon is known as one of the greatest propagandists in history. The number of supporters he gained through his campaign was unbelievable and the control he maintained throughout his reign was impressive. Through the press, paintings, theatre, and bulletins, Napoleon created a culture and empire that would not soon be forgotten.





[1] Jowett, Garth S. & O’Donnell, Victoria. Propaganda and Persuasion. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006 pp.7
[2] Forrest, Alan. "Propaganda and the Legitimization of Power in Napoleonic France." French History. no. 4. 2004: 426-445.
[3] Forrest, Alan. "Propaganda and the Legitimization of Power in Napoleonic France." French History. no. 4. 2004: 426-445.
[4] Crook, Malcolm. Napoleon Comes to Power: Democracy and Dictatorship in Revolutionary France, 1795-1804, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1998. pp. 50
[5] Taylor, Philip M. Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. pp. 153.
[6] Welsh, William E. "Napoleon Bonaparte's Coronation 200 Years Ago Split His Life Into Two Separate Chapters." Military History 21.5 (2004): 10-16. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Nov. 2013. pp. 12.
[7] Forrest, Alan. "Propaganda and the Legitimization of Power in Napoleonic France." French History. no. 4. 2004: 426-445.
[8] Jowett, Garth S. & O’Donnell, Victoria. Propaganda and Persuasion. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006 pp. 86.
[9] Crook, Malcolm. Napoleon Comes to Power: Democracy and Dictatorship in Revolutionary France, 1795-1804, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1998. pp. 125.
[10] Crook, Malcolm. Napoleon Comes to Power: Democracy and Dictatorship in Revolutionary France, 1795-1804, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1998.. pp. 126.
[11] Forrest, Alan. "Propaganda and the Legitimization of Power in Napoleonic France." French History. no. 4. 2004: 426-445.
[12] Hanley, Wayne. Columbia University Press, "The Genesis of Napoleonic Propaganda:1796-1799." Accessed November 9, 2013
[13] Taylor, Philip M. Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. pp. 155.
[14] Holtman, Robert B. Napoleonic Propaganda. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1950. pp. 145-146
[15] Holtman, Robert B. Napoleonic Propaganda. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1950. pp.165
[16] Taylor, Philip M. Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. pp. 155
[17] Hanley, Wayne. Columbia University Press, "The Genesis of Napoleonic Propaganda:1796-1799." Accessed November 9, 2013
[18] Hanley, Wayne. Columbia University Press, "The Genesis of Napoleonic Propaganda:1796-1799."
[19] Hanley, Wayne. Columbia University Press, "The Genesis of Napoleonic Propaganda:1796-1799."
[20] Taylor, Philip M. Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. pp. 154.
[21] Jowett, Garth S. & O’Donnell, Victoria. Propaganda and Persuasion. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006. pp.86
[22] O'Brien, David. After the Revolution: Antoine-Jean Gros, Painting, and Propaganda Under Napoleon. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2006. pp. 9.
[23] Jowett, Garth S. & O’Donnell, Victoria. Propaganda and Persuasion. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006. pp. 86.
[24] Cavendish, Richard. "Napoleon Is Crowned Emperor Of The French." History Today 54.12. 2004: 52. Academic Search Premier. Web.
[25] Jowett, Garth S. & O’Donnell, Victoria. Propaganda and Persuasion. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006. pp. 87.
[26] Jowett, Garth S. & O’Donnell, Victoria. Propaganda and Persuasion. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006. pp. 270.
[27] Taylor, Philip M. Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. pp. 153.
[28] Holtman, Robert B. Napoleonic Propaganda. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1950. pp.177-178
[29] Crook, Malcolm. Napoleon Comes to Power: Democracy and Dictatorship in Revolutionary France, 1795-1804, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1998. pp. 95.
[30] Bernevig, Bogdan Andrei. Stamford University, "Anti-Napoleon Caricature and Propaganda in England 1798-1803." Last modified May 2000.
[32] D.M.G. Sutherland, France 1789-1815 Revolution and Counterrevolution, London: Fontana Paperbacks, 1985. pp. 331
[33] D.M.G. Sutherland, France 1789-1815 Revolution and Counterrevolution, London: Fontana Paperbacks, 1985. pp. 431
[34] Taylor, Philip M. Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. pp. 155.