Adolf Hitler was born in Braunau am Inn, a northern area in modern day Austria, which was formerly a part of the vast but fragile Austro-Hungarian Empire, in 1889. His father, Alois Hitler, was abusive to the young boy, often exacting punishments via physical abuse, whilst his mother, Klara Polz, who was also his Father’s cousin, was very doting and the young Hitler grew very fond of his mother.
Hitler as a baby
Whilst he was often described as a confident young man in his early youth, his personality changed when his younger brother, Edmund, passed away from the measles when Hitler was 11, turning him into a more detached and depressed young teen, who’d often argue with his father and teachers. Only three years later, his father would pass away from a lung hemorrhage. Not long afterwards, his grades started to decline, with him barely passing his final exams.
At the age of 18, he had a sad goodbye to his mother, before moving to Vienna to take an entrance exam to the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. After being rejected not once but twice, he had to return home to Linz, after learning that his mother was dying of breast cancer. She passed away at the age of 47, when Hitler was 18. The family doctor, Eduard Bloch, said that he had never seen someone so distraught as Hitler was at his mother’s death.
One of Hitler’s paintings
Aimless, Hitler slept on the streets of Vienna, selling paintings of Vienna’s sights in order to pay for food and alike. Whilst his former roommate in Vienna, August Kubisek, often described Hitler as rather outgoing, despite a general disinterest in pursuing women romantically, passionate in politics and the arts, a fan of the opera and somewhat Catholic in his beliefs, Hitler abruptly left the apartment they lived in shortly after his mother died and left no note indicating where he was going to. Likely because he was going nowhere.
Whilst he was often friendly towards Jewish individuals who expressed their religion in a more subtle way, that attitude began to slowly change over his time on the streets. Whilst the soup kitchen he spent most of his time in was largely a Jewish community, the middle class of the city found antisemitism to be fashionable. Karl Lueger, mayor of Vienna from 1897 till his death in 1910, ran on a populist platform and largely campaigned in favour of antisemitism, a politician who Hitler openly admired. It is also around this time that Hitler noticed a different attitude he had towards Jewish people.
Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I watched the man stealthily and cautiously; but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Antisemitic pamphlets were also commonplace around Vienna. Having developed these racist sentiments, he came to despise the multicultural Austro-Hungarian Empire, so moved to Germany by late 1913. Accused of draft dodging, Hitler wrote a letter to the Austro-Hungarian police, fearing arrest if he didn’t. Admiring his tone, the police let him go and the matter was largely dropped altogether. Only a few months later, war broke out.
In 1888, London was the largest city on the planet. At the height of the industrial revolution, this was the peak of capitalism, with many factory owners making lots of money very quickly.
A photo of London in the late 19th Century
However, just down the road from where all these rich men lived in Kensington were their workers, who lived in the infamous Victorian London Slums, which were rife with cholera outbreaks, rats and typhoid. Many of the men laboured in the highly dangerous factories to make a living for their family whilst the children were hired as chimney sweeps, where some would get trapped and die. The women sometimes turned to prostitution in order to make a living. One of the most famous of these slums was the expansive district of Whitechapel.
An East End Slum in Whitechapel
On the 31st August 1888 at around 3:40 am, Charles Cross was walking down Buck’s Row in Whitechapel when he saw a woman lying on her back on the ground. He rushed over, to find her hands cold to the touch. Robert Paul came to his side and the two analysed the body. However, not wanting to be late for work, the two men left the scene, hoping to find a police officer on their way. This effort was, thankfully, for naught as 5 minutes later PC John Neil happened upon the same body himself.
Neil, who had a lantern so could see much better, found a large cut across the woman’s throat. It was deemed to be relatively fresh, as the wound was still bleeding and different parts of the body were still warm. Another constable arrived who grabbed a doctor who determined that she had been dead for half an hour, which meant that Cross and Paul found the body only 10 minutes after the murder.
She was quickly rushed to the morgue not long after, where she was identified as Mary Ann Nichols, a 43 year old woman with 6 children who had turned to prostitution in order to get into a lodging house she had been denied from earlier that night. She was last seen, by a close friend, walking down Whitechapel Road, around 800 metres from her murder site, whilst visibly drunk. This was around 2:30, only one hour before her death.
A drawing of Nichols
The doctors determined that there were two slits to the throat as well as a slice across the abdomen and that she had been disembowelled. Whilst no organs had been removed, the doctors still determined that the killer had a decent anatomical knowledge. Many police officers compared it to another murder earlier that month, that being Martha Tabram. Both women were prostitutes, killed incredibly violently and ferociously, had no discernible motive for their respective murders and were around the same age. However, the difference was in the wounds. Whilst Tabram had been repeatedly stabbed, Nichols wounds were more consistent with slashes and slices. Despite this, the police still suspected the two murders of being linked.
On September 8th, a little over a week after the first murder, at 4:45 am, John Richardson was walking along Hanbury Street before making a stop at No. 29. He walked through the house to check the security of the basement door in the back yard before sitting on the back doorstep, where he trimmed a piece of leather from his boot. He then left the premises back through the front door and closed it behind himself, continuing on his walk to work. An hour later, a tenant on the third floor by the name of John Davis walked down stairs. The front door was now wide open but the back door was closed. Davis walked outside only to find the body of a woman lying on her back by the fence in the yard.
A photo of the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street
A doctor and a police officer soon arrived on the scene. The doctor said that she had been “terribly mutilated”. The specifics include a deep cut in her throat and her intestines had been lifted from her body and wrapped around her neck. By the woman’s feet they found a cloth and two combs, which were suspected to be belonging to the victim but had been arranged by the murderer.
At the mortuary she was identified as Annie Chapman, a 47 year old woman, who occupied herself with crochet work, flower selling and casual prostitution on the side. The last official sighting of Chapman was when she was denied lodging at 35 Dorset Street due to insufficient funds. However, at 5:30, a woman named Elizabeth Long saw Chapman conversing with a man just metres away from 29 Hanbury Street. Many suspect that this man, who Long could not see as his back was facing her, was the killer.
A photo of Chapman
However, this creates a conflict, as the doctor determined the time of death was at 4:30. Richardson claimed that when he entered the backyard at 4:45 there was no body, and that it was impossible for him to not have seen it if it was there. The doctor did concede saying that he mainly judged the time of death based off the temperature of the body, which could’ve been effected by the cold night. This would place Chapman’s death between 5:30 and 5:45 in the morning. However, this creates a chilling reality, where, with the dim light of dawn slowly creeping through the streets, the residents of 29 Hanbury Street would have had an unobstructed view of the murder. However, no-one was reported as having observed the murder.
At the mortuary, marks were discovered on her fingers, consistent with someone aggressively taking off a ring. Other parts of the abdomen were removed and not found, including Chapman’s womb. Doctor’s determined that, because of this, the killer must have some kind of anatomical knowledge, whether that be a surgeon, a medical student or a butcher.
Many in Whitechapel began to question the competence of the police, despite the overwhelming odds stacked against them. In an attempt to stop the attacks, a man named George Lusk established the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, a vigilante task force set on hunting down the killer. Due to a leather apron being found at the scene of Chapman’s murder, newspapers began to suspect that a Jewish man was behind the attacks, due to a Polish Jewish boot maker in Whitechapel named John Pizer often being characterised by his leather apron. The Vigilance Committee began to severely harass Jewish Businesses.
A cartoon depicting a police man playing Blind Man’s Bluff, attempting to demonstrate their incompetance
The newspapers whipped the people up into a frenzy, which encouraged many people to write into the police offices and newspapers claiming to be the murderer. Many of these were dismissed as pranks or false allegations. However, one sent to the Central News Agency in London caught their eye. The letter, which arrived on the 27th of September, read as follows in bright red ink.
Dear Boss,
I keep on hearing the Police have caught me, but they won’t fix me just yet. I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and I shan’t quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal. How can they catch me now? I love my work and want to start again. You will soon hear of me with my funny little games. I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with, but it went thick like glue and I can’t use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha. ha. The next job I do I shall clip the lady’s ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn’t you. Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight. My knife’s so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance. Good Luck. Yours truly Jack the Ripper
Don’t mind me giving the trade name
PS Wasn’t good enough to post this before I got all the red ink off my hands curse it. No luck yet. They say I’m a doctor now. ha ha
The letter sent to the Central News Agency
The name at the bottom of the letter would ring throughout history as one of if not the most famous serial killer of all time. The Agency forwarded this to the police, who were more skeptical. However, their opinion would soon change.
On September 29th, just two days after the “Dear Boss” Letter, 40 Berner Street was holding a meeting for the Socialist Club. The meeting came to a close and some chose to stay and drink. At half past midnight, Joseph Lave used the side entrance, which led into Dutfields Yard, to grab some fresh air. He lingered for 10 minutes, facing into Berner Street before retreating into the building. Moments later a man named Morris Eagle, who was a member of the club and had come back after escorting a woman home, turned right off Berner Street into Dutfields Yard and used the same entrance into No. 40.
A map of the street
Barely 20 minutes went by before a horse and carriage, driven by Louis Diemschutz, made the same turn that Eagle did, turning right into Dutfields Yard off Burner Street. However, once he entered the yard, the horse veered to the left. He looked down and saw the body of a woman lying by the wall. He went inside to check on his wife before a small crowd gathered outside. They determined that the woman was dead and then dispersed to find a police officer.
The name of the victim was Elizabeth Stride, a 44 year old cleaner and prostitute. She had been spotted 3 times through out the night with a man described as having a “respectable appearance” the last one of these being at around 12:35, about 25 minutes before the body was found.
A photo of Stride
The most notable sighting was by Israel Schwartz, who spotted a man violently shoving a woman at the entrance of Dutfields Yard. Schwartz crossed the street, deciding to not intervene, before the man yelled “Lipski”, a Jewish slur, which encouraged another man to follow Schwartz for quite some distance. Whether this was a co-conspirator or the man was simply frightened too and happened to walk down the same way as Schwartz is up to interpretation. This occurred only 5 minutes before the body was discovered and it is believed that the woman was Stride and the man shoving her was the killer.
She did not have as many brutal wounds as the other victims, with just a slit of her throat, which lead many to believe that she was not actually a victim of the Ripper. However, what many believe is that when Diemschutz rolled his cart down Dutfields Yard, he had inadvertently interrupted the murder, and the murderer had hidden at the end of the alleyway. Once Diemschutz went inside to check on his wife, it is believed that the murder slipped out of the yard and went on the hunt for another victim.
Later that night, at around 1:45, PC Edward Watkins discovered another body on his patrol route around the area of Mitre Square, only 15 minutes away from Dutfields Yard. She was taken to the mortuary and identified as Catherine Eddowes, a 46 year old street vendor and prostitute. Eddowes had been jailed earlier that night, for being so drunk she collapsed on the pavement, and was not released until 1 in the morning. 35 minutes later, she was spotted in the company of a man near an entrance to Mitre Square.
A drawing of Eddowes
The post mortem found that she too had been disembowelled, with some of her organs being removed, most notably her womb and her left kidney, reinforcing their theory that the killer had decent anatomical knowledge. What was also notable was that there had been a small incision made on her left earlobe. This indicated that the murderer was attempting to cut Eddowes’ ear off, as detailed in the letter, before he was, once again, interrupted. This was somewhat confirmed by a postcard sent 2 days later. Whilst it was much shorter than the letter sent on the 27th, many detectives still believed this to be from the actual killer, as it was written before any information about the two murders had been released to the public or the press.
I was not codding dear old boss when I gave you the tip, you’ll hear about Saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a bit couldn’t finish straight off. Had not got time to get ears off for police thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.
The postcard sent to the Central News Agency
In addition, two blocks away from Mitre Square, a piece of blood stained cloth was found on the pavement, which was found to be a part of Eddowes’ apron that she was wearing. Above it, in large sprawling text on the wall, was written:
The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing
The graffito found on Goulston Street.
A cartoon depicting the discovery of the writing
The meaning of this is heavily debated. Was it written by the killer in an attempt to divert attention away or towards the Jewish Community of London? Was it just discarded there by chance under to some anti-semitic graffito by someone who wasn’t the killer? To this day, no-one knows the answer to any of these questions. No matter what the case was, Commissioner Charles Warren ordered it to be removed for fear of civil unrest.
A final confirmed letter was sent to George Lusk on the 16th of October and was redirected to the police force after its arrival. It appeared as though the handwriting was much worse than the previous two, as well as the spelling. However, some suspect that this was done on purpose to throw the police off to make the killer seem uneducated.
From hell.
Mr Lusk, Sir I send you half the Kidne I took from one women prasarved it for you tother piece I fried and ate it was very nice. I may send you the bloody knife that took it out if you only wate a while longer signed
Catch me when you can Mishter Lusk
A photo of the “From Hell” letter
With the letter there was a parcel which, as the letter described, contained half a human kidney. There was no way of confirming, however, if this was actually Eddowes’ kidney or something that a medical student had done as a prank. Whatever the case may be, this is what many believe to be the final letter from Jack the Ripper, and there was relative peace in London for quite some time. For over a month, not a single murder was reported and many believed that the Ripper had simply stopped.
[I]t daily becomes evident that the Whitechapel murderer has gone out of business [and i]t is pretty certain that, despite […] the bravado exhibited by Jack the Ripper in his recent letter, the monster has become frightened at the magnitude of the police arrangements for his detection and has suspended his horrible work for the present, if not for good.
The Dunkirk Observer Journal, October 29th, 1888
In the property of Millers Court on November 9th, 1888, landlord John McCarthy had noticed that the tenant of number 13, one Mary Jane Kelly, had fallen behind on her rent. At around 10:45 am, he instructed his assistant, Thomas Bowyer, to collect the money. Bowyer knocked on the door twice and, after receiving no response, decided to peer through the window to see if Kelly was home. After seeing what was inside he quickly ran to his boss and summoned him to look upon the horror in 13 Miller’s Court.
The sight we saw I cannot drive away from my mind. It looked more like the work of a devil than of a man. [Kelly]’s body was lying on the bed undressed. She had been completely disembowelled, and her entrails had been taken out and placed on the table. It was those that I had seen when I looked through the window, and took to be lumps of flesh. The woman’s nose had been cut off, and her face gashed and mutilated so that she was quite beyond recognition. Both her breasts, too, had been cut clean away, and placed by the side of her liver, and other entrails on the table. I had heard a great deal about the Whitechapel murders, but I declare to God I had never expected to see such a sight as this. The body was, of course, covered with blood, and so was the bed. The whole scene is more than I can describe, I hope I may never see such a sight again.
John McCarthy’s testimony he gave to the press
Kelly was the youngest victim. She was somewhere in her mid twenties and was, up until the start of the month, cohabitating with a man named Joseph Barnett, who had split with Kelly on the 30th of October, due his disapproval of her life as a prostitute as well as the circles she hung around with.
A drawing of Mary Jane Kelly
Kelly was seen by Barnett in 13 Millers Court on the evening of November 8th, the former of which was in the company of a woman who was on her way out the door. Whilst many accounts conflict on this, Barnett claims he arrived anywhere between 7:00 and 7:45 and left before 9:00. At 11:45, Kelly’s neighbour spotted her entering her home with a man, whilst she was in a drunken state. She was heard singing by this same neighbour and was still singing by the time the neighbour left Miller’s Court at 1am.
It is then alleged that she left Miller’s Court and met up with George Hutchinson, asking for some spare coins as the two were well acquainted. When Hutchinson told Kelly he had no spare money, she walked down the street and was spotted in the company of a well dressed man by Hutchinson. Believing the presence of a well dressed man in the accompaniment of a woman like Kelly to be strange, he scrutinised the appearance of the man.
The central figure aligns with Hutchinson’s description of the man
Hutchinson then shadowed the couple up to Miller’s Court, whereupon the man gave Kelly a red handkerchief before being invited inside. The detail about the red handkerchief matches up with the testimony of the last person to see Eddowes alive, who described the man he sighted as having a “reddish handkerchief” tied around his neck. Hutchinson then stuck around for around an hour before leaving.
Once Kelly’s neighbour returned, at around 3:00, there was now no sound or light coming from Kelly’s room. At 4:00, the residents above and across from Kelly heard “cries of murder” from nearby, whilst other residents heard absolutely nothing at all. Doctors were unsure where to place the time of death as, despite Hutchinson’s testimony, some believe that he embellished the truth or simply lied in order to gain more public attention. The certainty was not helped by the fact that some witnesses described seeing and even speaking to her as late as 8 or 10 o’clock on the morning of November 9th.
These 5 murders described above are the suspected “Canonical Five” Victims. Whilst there were some murders in the area before and some since, these are usually the ones collectively agreed upon as the murders that were committed by Jack the Ripper. To this day, the case still remains unsolved. With hundreds upon hundreds of suspects, ranging from Charles Cross, who discovered the body of Nichols, to Lewis Carroll, the writer of Alice in Wonderland, the case will likely never be solved. Even with all these advances in modern science, with some DNA tests being conducted on cloth samples, this one simple question can not be answered nearly 200 years later.
Who was Jack the Ripper?
A cartoon depicting the nearly impossible manhunt for Jack the Ripper
By the middle of the nineteenth century, the British Empire ruled the world’s largest navy and possessed trading networks that stretched across the globe. Yet one geographical mystery remained unsolved. Merchants travelling from Europe to the markets of East Asia still had to sail around either the southern tip of Africa or South America, journeys that could take many months. If a navigable sea route could be found through the Arctic islands north of Canada, it would dramatically shorten travel times and become one of the most valuable trade routes in the world. This elusive route became known as the Northwest Passage.
A map of trade routes before 1845
For centuries, explorers had searched for it. Some returned empty-handed. Others never returned at all. By the 1840s, however, many believed that only a small section of the route remained unmapped. The British Admiralty decided that one final expedition might complete the puzzle.
To lead it, they selected Sir John Franklin. At fifty-nine years old, Franklin was one of Britain’s most experienced Arctic explorers. He had served in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars and had already led several expeditions into the Canadian Arctic. His record was mixed. During an overland expedition in 1819–1822, his men had suffered extreme starvation, becoming so desperate that they resorted to eating scraps of leather from their boots. The ordeal earned Franklin the nickname “the man who ate his boots”. Nevertheless, he was widely respected within the Navy for his determination, leadership and ability to maintain morale under the harshest conditions.
A photo of John Franklin
The expedition he was given in 1845 was the most advanced polar venture Britain had ever attempted. Two bomb vessels of the Royal Navy, HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, were selected for the mission. Both ships had already proven themselves in Antarctic exploration and were specially reinforced for service in Arctic ice. Their hulls were strengthened with additional timber and iron plating, while their interiors were fitted with steam heating systems to make life more bearable during the long polar winters. Each vessel was also equipped with a converted steam engine and retractable propeller, giving them a limited ability to manoeuvre independently of the wind.
In addition, the expedition also served as a showcase for several of Britain’s newest technologies. If the propellors needed fixing they would use the new invention of the diving suit to go down and break the ice with a stick. They also brought canned food onto ships, in order to cut down on contractions of scurvy, a disease brought about by lack of Vitamin C in a diet, a very common plight for sailors. In order to preserve the crew’s mental health, books, sports equipment and even costumes for theatre productions were brought aboard. A total of 129 officers and sailors were chosen, many of them experienced seamen who believed they were embarking on a voyage that would secure their place in history.
A drawing of HMS Erebus and HMS Terror
On 19 May 1845, the Erebus and Terror departed from Greenhithe in Kent to cheering crowds. The mood was optimistic. The ships represented the very best of British naval engineering, commanded by one of the Empire’s most celebrated explorers. Few doubted that Franklin would return as the man who finally discovered the Northwest Passage. Instead, neither he nor a single member of his expedition would ever be seen alive again.
Around a month into the expedition, they stopped in Greenland, to gather more supplies, send letters home from the crew and send 5 men back who had contracted illnesses. In late July of 1845, two whaling ships spotted the Erebus and Terror entering Baffin Bay. This was the final confirmed sighting of the expedition.
A map of the area the expedition was set to travel through
As 1846 turned into 1847, and 1847 into 1848, there was still no sign of the Erebus or Terror. At first, few people were alarmed. Arctic expeditions were expected to disappear from civilisation for years at a time, and Franklin had carried enough provisions to sustain his men through multiple winters. Yet as the months passed, anxiety began to grow.
No one was more concerned than Franklin’s wife, Lady Jane Franklin. Convinced that something had gone wrong, she repeatedly pressured the Admiralty to launch a search expedition. Officials initially hesitated, believing that Franklin was simply trapped by ice and would eventually return. Lady Franklin refused to accept inaction. She organised a public campaign, appealed to newspapers, lobbied politicians and wealthy patrons, and transformed the search for her husband into a national cause. Under mounting public pressure, the Admiralty finally authorised a series of search expeditions in 1848.
A portrait of Lady Jane Franklin
For two years, ships combed the Arctic with little success. Then, in August 1850, searchers made their first major discovery on the bleak shores of Beechey Island. There they found the remains of a winter camp and three neatly marked graves. The headstones identified the dead as John Torrington, William Braine and John Hartnell, all members of Franklin’s expedition who had died during the winter of 1845-1846. The discovery revealed that Franklin’s ships had spent their first winter sheltering at Beechey Island, waiting for the sea ice to thaw before continuing southward. Although only three men had died, the graves were the first concrete evidence that the expedition had reached the Arctic and that not everything had gone according to plan.
More than a century later, in the 1980s, the three bodies were exhumed by archaeologists. Preserved by the permafrost, they were found in an extraordinary state of conservation, providing researchers with a rare glimpse into the expedition’s early hardships. Scientific analysis revealed signs of pneumonia, tuberculosis and severe physical stress. Investigators also detected unusually high levels of lead in the remains, leading to speculation that the crew may have suffered from lead poisoning, possibly from the ships’ water systems or the solder used in food tins. Modern researchers continue to debate how significant a role lead played in the disaster, but it is widely accepted that malnutrition, disease and the extreme Arctic environment were all major factors.
The graves on Beechey Island. The fourth one, furthest left, is for a member of the search party
The most important discovery came nearly a decade later. In 1859, a search party led by Captain Francis McClintock found a cairn – a mound of stones used as a marker – on the northwest coast of King William Island, more than four hundred miles south of Beechey Island. Hidden inside was a written message from the expedition, the only official communication ever recovered from Franklin’s men after they disappeared into the Arctic.
H.M.S.hips Erebus and Terror Wintered in the Ice in Lat. 70°5’N Long. 98°23’W Having wintered in 1846-7 [sic] at Beechey Island in Lat 74°43’28’’N Long 91°39’15’’W
After having ascended Wellington Channel to Lat 77° and returned by the West side of Cornwallis Island. Sir John Franklin commanding the Expedition. All well. Party consisting of 2 Officers and 6 Men left the ships on Monday 24th May 1847.
Charles Frederick Des Voeux and Graham Gore (officers on the ships) May 28th, 1847
A drawing of the search party finding the cairn
However, they found in the margins a very different message than the one claiming everything was fine a year prior.
HMShips Terror and Erebus were deserted on the 22nd April 5 leagues NNW of this having been beset since 12th Sept 1846.
The officers and crews consisting of 105 souls under the command of Captain F. R. M. Crozier landed here — in Lat. 69°37’42’’ Long. 98°41’
This paper was found by Lt. Irving under the cairn supposed to have been built by Sir James Ross in 1831 — 4 miles to the Northward — where it had been deposited by the late Commander Gore in May June 1847.
Sir James Ross’ pillar has not however been found and the paper has been transferred to this position which is that in which Sir J. Ross’ pillar was erected.
Sir John Franklin died on the 11th of June 1847 and the total loss by deaths in the Expedition has been to this date 9 officers and 15 men.
Francis Cozier, April 25th 1848
And start on tomorrow 26th for Backs Fish River
James Fitzjames, April 25th 1848
The message found at King William Island revealed the expedition’s final known movements. Sometime after leaving Beechey Island in 1846, the Erebus and Terror had become trapped in pack ice off the northwest coast of King William Island. There they remained, unable to break free. Modern climate research suggests that the Franklin Expedition encountered an unusually severe period of Arctic ice, leaving even their heavily reinforced ships helpless.
An illustration of the ships frozen in the ice
The situation steadily deteriorated. On 11 June 1847, Sir John Franklin died, although the cause remains unknown. By the spring of 1848, a further twenty-four officers and sailors had also perished. With no prospect of the ships escaping the ice, Captain Francis Crozier and Captain James Fitzjames made a desperate decision. On 22 April 1848, the surviving 105 men abandoned the Erebus and Terror and set out on foot for the Canadian mainland.
The journey ahead was brutal. The men were hundreds of miles from the nearest permanent settlement and faced some of the harshest conditions on Earth. Contemporary evidence suggests they hauled heavy sledges loaded with boats, food and supplies across the frozen landscape, hoping to reach the Back River and eventually find rescue. None of them succeeded.
A painting of the men pulling the boats south
For years afterwards, the fate of the survivors remained a mystery. Then, in 1854, explorer John Rae returned from the Arctic with a disturbing account. During his travels, he spoke with local Inuit communities who possessed silverware, tools and other items that could be traced directly to Franklin’s expedition. More importantly, they described encountering groups of starving white men moving south and later discovering camps littered with bodies. Some of the remains, they claimed, showed signs that the dead had been cut apart for food.
Victorian Britain reacted with horror. Many people simply refused to believe the story. The idea that Royal Navy sailors could have resorted to cannibalism seemed incompatible with contemporary notions of British discipline and civilisation. Among the most vocal critics was Charles Dickens, who publicly dismissed the Inuit testimony and defended the reputation of Franklin’s men.
We submit that the memory of the lost Arctic voyagers is placed, by reason and experience, high above the taint of this so easily-allowed connection; and that the noble conduct and example of such men, and of their own great leader himself, under similar endurances, belies it, and outweighs by the weight of the whole universe the chatter of a gross handful of uncivilised people, with domesticity of blood and blubber.
Charles Dickens writing in his public journal, 1854
An illustration of Dickens from 1842
More than a century later, however, archaeology largely vindicated the Inuit’s account. During excavations conducted in the late twentieth century, researchers examined human remains recovered from King William Island. Many of the bones bore unmistakable cut marks made by knives. Others had been broken open in ways consistent with extracting marrow, a practice commonly associated with extreme starvation. The evidence suggested that, in their final days, at least some members of the expedition resorted to cannibalism in a desperate attempt to survive.
By then, it no longer mattered. Every member of the Franklin Expedition was dead. What had begun as Britain’s most ambitious Arctic voyage had ended as one of the greatest disasters in the history of exploration.
A 1945 photo of skulls discovered on King William Island, believed to belong to the Franklin Expedition’s crew
Not a single member of the Franklin Expedition ever returned home. For more than 175 years, historians, archaeologists and Inuit communities have worked together to piece together the fate of the 129 men who vanished into the Arctic. New discoveries continue to emerge even today, including the identification of additional remains and the recovery of artefacts from the wrecks of the Erebus and Terror, which were finally located in 2014 and 2016 respectively.
Ironically, the expedition’s greatest achievement came after its destruction. The numerous search missions launched to find Franklin mapped vast stretches of the Canadian Arctic and ultimately confirmed the existence of the Northwest Passage that he had set out to navigate. Although Franklin himself never lived to complete the journey, the knowledge gained from his expedition and the searches that followed helped solve one of the greatest geographical mysteries of the nineteenth century. In Victorian Britain, Franklin and his men came to be remembered not as failures, but as explorers who had pushed further into the unknown than any who came before them. Whether remembered as a tale of courage, tragedy, hubris or endurance, the story of the Franklin Expedition remains one of the most compelling mysteries in the history of exploration.
They Forged the Last Link with Their Lives
The words on the base of a statue of Franklin in Waterloo Place
The statue of Franklin on Waterloo Place in London
By 1800, Napoleon Bonaparte had established himself as First Consul of the French Republic, making himself functionally the autocratic head of state of a centralised republican government. Wielding his newfound and profound executive power, he pacified royalist rebels, established a new national bank to stabilise the economy, cracked down on banditry in the French countryside, reforms that were only exemplified by state owned newspapers. In what many describe as a benevolent dictatorship, Napoleon transformed France from the chaos of the early Republic into the stability of the Consulate. However, France’s foreign affairs position was nowhere near as good as its domestic one.
A portrait of Napoleon as First Consul
After Napoleon’s initial triumph in Northern Italy, the Second Coalition declared war on France. The powers of the Second Coalition sought to reverse French expansion across Europe, dismantle the satellite republics established during the Revolutionary Wars, and weaken France’s new republican regime. Specifically, Russian Field Marshal Alexander Suvorov had recaptured the Northern Italian territories that Napoleon had conquered in 1797, leaving French forces under the command of General André Masséna starving and in desperate need of supplies on the Mediterranean coast. When Tsar Paul I withdrew Russia from the coalition, it still left almost 100,000 Austrians in Northern Italy, under the Command of Field Marshal Michael von Melas.
Napoleon eventually rallied 60,000 reserve troops in order to liberate the French Forces at Genoa, reclaim Northern Italy and defeat the Austrians. A much more cautious man than Napoleon might have reinforced Masséna from the west, taking advantage of pre-existing friendly supply roots and would avoid a treacherous trek over the Alps. However, he believed that driving back enemy forces on his own supply depots could leave to a stalemate. So he took an incredibly bold plan. Though armies had crossed the Alps many times since antiquity, few had attempted to move a large force with artillery through such difficult terrain at speed and in secrecy. What it did require, however, was Masséna holding the line. By April, this was a very real fear that eventually materialised.
A map of French Positions by 1800 (Epic History, YouTube)
On April 6th, Melas launched a massive offensive against Masséna’s forces, which split his army in two and forced him to retreat into the city of Genoa, beginning a siege from both the land and sea. Fearing that the fall of Genoa would force him to be trapped between the mountains and the Austrian forces, Napoleon rallies his forces on May 6th to advance from Geneva across the Alps.
An army can pass always, and at any season, wherever two men can set their feet.
Napoleon, May 1800
The Alps are a great land to cross. At around 100 miles in width and peaks reaching over 14,000 feet, the Army of the Reserve, numbering roughly 40,000 men, crossed through several Alpine passes, with the main body using the Great St Bernard Pass, which has a peak of around 8,600 feet, a march that was led by General Jean Lannes on May 8th. Despite the spring season, the mountains were blanketed in thick snow and. To reduce the likelihood of an avalanche decimating the troops, they travelled at night and early morning. Despite the men considering mutiny due to the rough conditions, they eventually reached St Bernard Hospice, where food and rest was prepared.
An illustration of the hospice on the pass
Despite the brutal conditions, losses during the crossing were surprisingly light. Contrary to the propaganda of the era, Napoleon himself made the crossing on a sure-footed mule as opposed to a charger. Lannes’ advanced guard swept aside Austrian outposts and surprised an outpost at Châtillon. However, they encountered fierce opposition by Captain Josef Stockard von Bernkopf at Fort Bard.
Conditions in besieged Genoa became desperate, with food shortages reducing troops and civilians to eating horses and other animals as famine intensified. Not only that, but General Jean-de-Dieu Soult was badly wounded and captured by Austrian Forces. At Fort Bard, a small Austrian garrison temporarily blocked the French advance. Unable to quickly storm the fort, Napoleon ordered artillery dragged past the position at night with wheels wrapped to reduce noise. Lannes attacked the enemy at Ivrea before advancing on Romana. Napoleon rapidly entered Lombardy, seized Milan, and threatened Austrian communications, forcing Melas to abandon his wider strategic position and confront the French army. Napoleon had seized the strategic initiative, but Austria’s army remained intact. The campaign’s outcome would be decided weeks later on the plains near Marengo.
We have struck here like lightning […] the enemy can hardly believe it
Napoleon to Joseph Bonaparte, 24th May, 1800
An idealised portrait of Napoleon crossing the Alps in 1800
By October of 1799, Napoleon had returned from Egypt. Despite his humiliating defeat at the siege of Acre, his popularity could not be higher, thanks to his self published propaganda. However, France was still in crisis. With prices soaring, taxes on the rise and banditry rife, people called for Napoleon to save the country.
However, not everyone was happy with this. The French Directory, a group of 5 individuals who had executive power in France, believed that Napoleon should be court-martialled for abandoning his men in Egypt under the command of Jean-Baptiste Kléber. However, moving against such a hugely popular general would cause mass upheaval, and make the Directory’s position weaker than it already was. Napoleon was a notable critic of the Directory, stating to General Paul Thiélbault that:
These men are bringing France down to the level of their own blundering. They are degrading her. Well, what can generals expect from this government of lawyers.
Napoleon speaking to Thiélbault, October 26th, 1799
A painting of the formation of the French Directory
The members of the Directory consisted of Paul Barras, permanent member of the Directory since its formation in 1795 and a close ally of Napoleon but was seen as corrupt, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, one of the leading political thinkers in France and author of “What is the Third Estate?” which was a widely influential political pamphlet in the Revolution, Louis-Jérôme Gohier, a staunch Jacobin and former Minister of Justice, Jean-François Moulin, another staunch Jacobin and General, and Roger Ducos, a more moderate ally of Sieyès. This executive branch was not without a legislative one, that being the Council of 500, who proposed laws, and the Council of Elders, who passed them. The two councils all dressed in clothes reminiscent of robes worn in the Roman Republic. However, all three of these institutions were seen as corrupt and unfit to govern France. And one of the people who say it was Sieyès himself.
Sieyès, who believed that the current system was corrupt and in need of desperate change with a constitution that he would pen, began webbing a mass conspiracy to overthrow the French Government as it stood. It began with Maurice de Talleyrand, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and an influential political figure. He also recruited a fellow Director, the ever loyal Roger Ducos, as well as roping in the Presidents of both the Council of 500 and the Council of Elders. Joseph Fouché, Minister of Police, became aware of the conspiracy. Whilst he did not join, he stated that he would not intervene. However, there was one man that Sieyès needed in order to secure the army. He called this man “The Sword”, a populary military figurehead to be used at the decisive moment before being “sheathed” afterwards. After considering multiple options, Sieyès eventually approached General Jean Victor Marie Moreau, who declined, but personally recommended a different man.
There’s your man. [Napoleon Bonaparte] will make a better job of your coup d’état than I could.
Moreau on Napoleon Bonaparte
A portrait of Emmanuel Sieyès
Despite the President of the Council of 500 being Napoleon’s own brother, Lucien Bonaparte, Sieyès disliked Napoleon’s clear ambition. However, Talleyrand managed to convince Sieyès to let Napoleon into the plot. Eventually, a conspiracy came together within a week of Napoleon and Sieyès’ first encounter. The date was set for November 7th, or the 16th of Brumaire on the Revolutionary Calendar (RC), and would take two days. In case anything went awry, the conspirators had safety measures. Sieyès had a briefcase full of money and good to go. Fouché had an arrest warrant drafted for Napoleon in case he needed to switch sides. Napoleon himself slept with a pair of loaded pistols at his bedside.
However, the plot had to be delayed by 48 hours, during which time, Napoleon visited the house of General Jean Bernadotte, where he had dinner with Bernadotte, Moreau and General Jean-Baptiste Jourdan, in order to get more allies in the army for the coup. Whilst Moreau agreed to assist and Jourdan agreed to stay neutral, Bernadotte was outraged, crying that Napoleon would be guillotined. Napoleon responded with two simple words.
We’ll see.
Napoleon to Bernadotte
November 9th (17 Brumaire RC) finally rolled around. Having rallied 60 officers to his house, Napoleon initiated the call to arms. Meanwhile, an unscheduled meeting of the Council of Elders was held in the Tuileries Palace, the seat of the French Government. Here, the Moderates quickly passed two measures, that Napoleon would take charge of the Paris Military District and that the next days Council Meetings shall take place at the Château de Saint-Cloud, a palace approximately 5 miles outside the city, both of which were under the pretence that a Jacobin Revolution was underway in Paris. Across town at Luxembourg Palace, Ducos and Sieyès both resigned their positions as Directors and attempted to convince Barras, Gohier and Moulin to do the same. Whilst Barras complied with the help of a hefty bribe, Gohier and Moulin refused. As a result they were placed under house arrest under the observation of General Moreau. With the executive branch now gone, the conspirators could make their move.
On November 10th (18 Brumaire RC), Napoleon woke up early to travel to the Château de Saint-Cloud. Joachim Murat, a newly promoted General of Division, had rallied 6,000 troops at the Château. As deputies of the Councils arrived, the vast military presence could not go unnoticed. At this meeting, the Jacobin deputies were permitted, who were furious at not having been included in the meeting of the previous day. When the sessions began at 1pm, chaos quickly descends upon the two chambers. Napoleon, having lost patience, barged into the meeting of the Council of Elders. Whilst he was trying to speak, he was heckled. When one deputy asked him “What about the constitution?” Napoleon responded by saying:
The Constitution! You yourselves have destroyed it. You violated it on 18 Fructidor [September 14th]; you violated it on 22 Floreal [May 11th]; you violated it on 30 Prairial [June 18th]. It no longer has the respect of anyone.
Napoleon to the Council of Elders
At this remark, there was an uproar in the council. Napoleon went on, demanding action and implying that the Elders were paid off with British money. Eventually, he was dragged out of the room by 4 soldiers. It did not take him long before he walked into the Council of 500. It was even more raucous in there. Napoleon could hardly get a word in, as he was shoved, grabbed and even punched, amid cries comparing him to Julius Caesar and Oliver Cromwell.
A painting of Napoleon (central) in the chaotic Council of 500
Eventually, a group of grenadiers retrieved Napoleon an took him out to the courtyard. Despite it not being a desirable option, military action had to be taken. A bruised and bloody Napoleon ordered grenadiers to go inside and dispel the chaos, but were stopped by the Council Guard at the doorstep. However, Lucien finally took initiative on the matter. On horseback, Lucien cried:
Citizen soldiers! The great majority of the Council is at this moment being terrorised by a handful of deputies armed with daggers. These brigands are doubt in English pay… I declare to you that these madmen have made themselves outlaws by their assaults on the liberty of this Council!
Lucien speaking to the crowd of soldiers in the courtyard
He then drew a sword and pointed it directly at Napoleon’s chest.
I swear that I will stab my own brother to the heart if he ever makes an assault on the liberty of Frenchmen.
Lucien speaking to the crowd of soldiers in the courtyard
Eventually, the grenadiers were let inside and the Councils were dispersed quickly. Some accounts suggest that robes and hats were left behind as deputies leapt out of windows. Soon, a new measure was passed by the remaining moderate deputies. It detailed that the Councils shall not meet for 4 months, that the Directory be abolished and replaced with a consulate. The third consul would be Ducos, the second would be Sieyès and the first consul would be Napoleon Bonaparte.
Just six years earlier, Napoleon was a young Corsican leading his first major victory at 24 at Toulon. Now, he was 30 and leading one of the most powerful nations in the world. And yet, somehow, his ambitions still lead higher and higher. An ambition that would conquer Europe in years to come.
Napoleon returned to Paris from his campaign in Italy and was lauded as a hero. His campaign was so successful that the French Government believed that Napoleon was capable of an invasion of mainland Britain. However, as the War of the Second Coalition broke out, Napoleon soon realised that the French Navy was nowhere near powerful enough to take on the powerful Royal Navy. Instead, he decided to take out Britain’s supply line to India by taking control of Ottoman Controlled Egypt, whilst also securing the Sultan of the Indian Mysore Kingdom as a potential ally.
By 1798, Napoleon was elected to the French Academy of Sciences, after which he went to Egypt with 40,000 soldiers, and a collection of 167 scientists, mathematicians, naturalists, chemists and geodesists. However, on the way there, he managed to capture Malta, then under the control of The Order of St John of Jerusalem. They put up little fight and Napoleon only lost 3 men. On July 1st of 1798, Napoleon’s forces landed in Alexandria. They combatted the Ottomans on multiple occasions, most notably at the Battle of the Pyramids, which was located approximately 24km (15 miles) from the Great Pyramids of Giza. In the battle, there was less than 30 French casualties compared to the nearly 2,000 they inflicted.
A painting of the Battle of the Pyramids (July 21st, 1798)
Despite this increase to French morale, disaster struck when Admiral Horatio Nelson destroyed or captured all but 2 out of 17 French Ships in the Battle of the Nile. After this decisive loss in the Mediterranean Campaign, Napoleon travelled north to Damascus with 13,000 men, capturing the port towns of Gaza, Arish, Haifa and Jaffa. Most notably, Napoleon noticed that, when he attacked Jaffa, the defenders were largely made of Albanian prisoners of war on parole. As a result, when he conquered the town, he ordered the garrison to be executed by bayonet and drowning. Then, all the men, women and children were pillaged, murdered or raped for 2 days and nights.
Napoleon’s army eventually reached the city of Acre. Believing it to be an easy victory, Napoleon decided to only use infantry to attack the city, believing that they would capitulate easily. He believed it would only take two weeks to capture the city before he would then march on Jerusalem. However, after one and a half months, the city stood firm. Many believe this was in part due to the large Albanian population of the city, fearing that they may share the same fate as Jaffa if they fell. Not only that but the British came in to assist, supplying the city’s defences with fresh sailors and marines, and sunk multiple French siege artillery ships. Once the French forces had finally managed to make a break through the wall of the city they discovered that the defenders had built a much deeper wall within. A cold, hungry and plague ridden French Army eventually retreated on May 21st, 1799, after a two month long siege.
A painting of the Siege of Acre (March 20th – May 21st 1799)
Napoleon returned to Egypt, having lost over 5,000 men in the siege, 2,000 of whom had succumbed to the bubonic plague. After this humiliating defeat, Napoleon decided to return to France without his army, fearing that the French Republic may soon collapse. Or was it perhaps him taking advantage of an opportunity?
After the Siege of Toulon, and a subsequent crushing of a Parisian Royalist uprising, Napoleon had managed to land himself the rank of Major General, one of the highest ranks in the French Revolutionary Army. He was assigned his own army and decided that, in order to rise the social hierarchy, he needed a woman. Despite many women finding him creepy and disgusting, he managed to marry Josephine de Beauharnais, an older widow with two children and a rather promiscuous background, on March 9th, 1796. Only two days later, the French Government ordered an all out offensive against Austria. Napoleon was assigned to a southern campaign through Italy as more of a distraction away from Jean-Baptiste Jourdan and Jean Victor Marie Moreau. This would be his first major campaign, and it would be the first of many successes for Napoleon, at only 28-years-old.
You to whom nature has given spirit, sweetness, and beauty, you who alone can move and rule my heart, you who know all too well the absolute empire you exercise over it!
A letter Napoleon sent to Josephine in Februrary of 1797, during the Italian Campaign
The army assigned to him was demoralised, underpaid and in desperate need of equipment. However, Napoleon lifted their spirits with inspirational speeches, something that would become a staple of his career to come. Severely outnumbered, he would split his enemies into two and take them on separately, which would later become the iconic Napoleon strategy of dividing and conquering. Using this strategy, Sardinia was knocked out of the war and the Austrians were sent running. During the Austrian retreat, Napoleon was in the fray himself at the famous Battle of Lodi, aiming cannons and getting covered in mud, earning the respect of his men, to such an extent to the point where he ordered an almost suicidal charge over a river, they followed and succeeded.
A painting of the Battle of Lodi (May 10th, 1796)
Napoleon swept through Northern Italy, being welcomed in town after town with open arms, believing them to liberating the people from their Austrian oppressors. However, Napoleon would plunder towns and send riches back to France. It is estimated that Napoleon collected 45 million Francs in money, 12 million Francs worth of jewellery and precious metals, as well as an additional 300 art pieces, such as sculptures and paintings. He also used some of the money he plundered to pay his men, some of the first real money they had seen in ages.
During the campaign, Napoleon also became more influential in French politics. He created two newspapers, one for circulation amongst soldiers and the other for the French populous. Recognising his ambition, French Royalists warned that Napoleon may be on the path to becoming a dictator. In response, Napoleon sent General Charles-Pierre Augereau to Paris to support a coup that purged royalists from legislative councils. This meant that Paul Barras, one of the Directors of the Executive Branch of the French Government, had a firm grip on power but was now more dependent on Napoleon.
A drawing of Generals being rounded up during the coup
Whilst the northern front was at a stalemate, Napoleon began making a bee-line straight for Vienna. Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen, had to withdraw forces to Vienna, despite gaining a successful victory against the northern forces, due to Napoleon’s assault. After losing to Napoleon at the Battle of Tarvis, the Austrian government sued for peace when they learnt that Napoleon had arrived at Leoben, a city just 100km (62 miles) away from Vienna. With Napoleon overseeing negotiations himself, Austria allowed France to take control of much of Northern Italy as well as the low countries. He managed the establishment of many Sister Republics for the French Republic, of which he wrote constitutions and organised governments. Napoleon’s first success had been a great one, and it was only the beginning of his military career.
From that moment, I foresaw what I might be. Already I felt the earth flee from beneath me, as if I were being carried into the sky.
Napoleon after his victory at the Battle of Lodi
Casualties
First French Republic – 45,000 killed, captured or wounded
Coalition Forces (Sardinia, Habsburg Empire, Papal States, Venice) – 27,000 killed, 160,000 captured
The year was 1793. Louis XVI, the 45th King of France, was dead, beheaded by his own people. Outside of Paris, Royalist sentiment was abundant and, in an attempt to unite France behind one cause, the Revolutionary government declared war on Austria-Hungary, who believed that France’s anti-monarchist sentiment would spread across the continent. Austria called upon its allies and France was no in all out war with most major powers, including the United Kingdom, Sardinia, Spain and Prussia.
Naturally, this did not help the French cause and violent uprisings began sparking up across France. One such place these uprisings was the port city of Toulon, a highly strategic naval base in the Mediterranean. This uprising was, unsurprisingly, backed by the British, who were welcomed into the port with open arms. France had now lost the naval power of the Mediterranean without a shot being fired. France needed this port back desperately and sent 19,000 troops down to deal with the uprising. One of these forces was commanded by a then relatively unknown artillery officer, by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte.
A painting of the young Napoleon
Napoleon was from the island of Corsica, which was purchased by France from Genoa not long before Napoleon was born. The island had widespread anti-French sentiment, which Napoleon agreed with. His father, on the other hand, gladly embraced the new French rulers, leading to father and son often butting heads. He was sent to military school in France, where he was heavily bullied due to his accent and his families lack of wealth. However, he held his ground and often stood up to bullies. When he wasn’t beating up the bullies, he would often be found alone reading about the conqueror’s of old, like Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. He wondered if it was possible if he could be as great and powerful as them.
Once he graduated, he was made Second Lieutenant in an artillery regiment. But Napoleon was not content with this. He had ambition and wanted more power. However, in pre-revolutionary France, military ranks were most often gained by nobility and nepotism, not by actual talent. Luckily for Napoleon, the Revolution occurred and the people of France were now on a more equal playing field. Whilst Napoleon was not too big on the violence and mass beheadings, he believed that, in order to rise the ranks, he must become pro-revolutionary.
General Jean-François Carteaux, the leader of the forces at Toulon, was a court painter by trade with zero military training so was not highly skilled in leadership positions. Not only that but one of his only professional officers was seriously wounded in battle. Antoine Saliceti, a Corsican deputy of the National Convention, recommended Napoleon, who was travelling near Toulon on his way to the front lines. Despite Napoleon having almost no military experience yet, Saliceti appreciated his manner and political aspirations. Carteaux had almost no choice but to accept Napoleon to lead the Siege of Toulon.
A map of Toulon, with the Fort’s labelled
Napoleon’s plan was simple. They needed to build up significantly more guns and train the infantry to operate them. Then, they would capture the southern Fort L’Eguilette, allowing them to inflict heavy artillery casualties on the British ships, forcing them to leave, which was important as the ships were the key source of defence. The first part of this plan, however, involved the capture of Mount Caire, where British troops were stationed. After an unsuccessful assault, due to Carteaux being hesitant to send the 3,000 men required to accomplish the task, command of Toulon was handed over to General Dugommier. He stated that:
There is only one possible plan – Bonaparte’s
General Dugommier speaking on Toulon
In order to build up the fortifications of Toulon, the British built a new fort called Fort Mulgrave. The area was so fortified it was called “Little Gibraltar” by the French. An unsuccessful British counter attack followed and, in the early hours of the 18th of December, 1793, in the pouring rain and howling wind, Napoleon’s forces charged up the hill. The muskets were useless as guns due to the rain and could only be used as clubs and bayonets. The second charge came, with Napoleon in this wave. During this, his horse was killed and he was wounded in his thigh, mere inches away from a fatal stab. However, despite this, the British were driven off the Mountain after severe hand to hand combat, and French artillery now observed Toulon.
The British, not wanting to lose their ships, began evacuating the city. Citizens, who feared being executed as traitors to the Republic, attempted to board the ships. Some 14,000 were evacuated whilst the rest of the city either drowned in the chaos or were executed by firing squad in the morning. This was the first victory of Napoleon Bonaparte, a path that would lead Europe down a 21 year long path of near endless war. At the time, Napoleon was only 24 and was promoted to Brigadier General.
The French managed to push back the Austrians into the lowlands but more countries joined the coalition against France so they were pushed back out. Realising they were losing the war, the began mass conscription. Despite the revolution fever being high in Paris, outside the city, people were very fond of the clergy and nobility, as they had not been effected too badly by the economy compared to Paris. Now these people were being conscripted to fight for a Republic that they despised. Because of this, multiple counter-revolutionary uprisings occurred across the nation. One suppression of these counter revolutions ended in violent pacifism, where Jean Baptist Carrier tied thousands of priests and civilians, including women and children tied to ship which were then sunk. Carrier was found guilty of war crimes and executed.
Eventually the British ended up occupying the city of Toulon, an important Mediterranean naval port. To deal with the occupation, France sent down a relatively unknown captain at the time, by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte. Due to his successful capture of the city, Napoleon was promoted to Brigadier General.
Napoleon commanding the Siege at Toulon
At the time, the government was still a majority moderate government. With the uprisings, the war effort going badly and the economy returning to it’s awful state, people began to distrust the government. Marat blamed the moderates, saying that all moderates who remained should be executed, who in turn called for Marat’s arrest. The moderates in the radicals were in heated conflict, until the radical Jacobins stormed the National Convention, arresting the remaining moderates. Robespierre and the Radicals now controlled the government.
Now we meet a woman called Charlotte Corday, who lived in Caen. Like many outside of Paris, she was upset and angered by the violence from the radicals. The one man she blamed the most was Marat. She wanted peace in France, so travelled down to Paris, telling Marat he had a list that she wanted him to publish in his paper. She was invited into his bathroom, where she stabbed him fatally in the chest, piercing an artery near his heart. He died quickly and became a martyr for the cause. Symbols of Christ in Temples of Reason were changed to Marat. Corday was executed by guillotine
A painting of Morat’s body
Soon, Robespierre began to get paranoid, believing that there were people inside France wanting to upend the Republic. He set up a secret police and spies to watch his own citizens. He founded a new tribunal, which speed lined the process of trying traitors and having them executed. Anything that remotely criticised the Republic or praised the old monarchy would result in execution. During the Reign of Terror, commanded by Robespierre, over 40,000 people were executed by guillotine. The most famous victim of the Reign of Terror was Marie Antoinette.
She was finally put on trial after years in prison and sentenced to death via guillotine. She expected a royal carriage to bring her the gallows, like her husband. What she got was a wooden cart. Antoinette was pulled by horse through the streets of Paris in a white dress, maintaining composure despite the jeering of the crowd. He last words were her apologising for stepping on her executioner’s shoe. She was beheaded at 12:15 on October 16th, 1793. She was only 37.
A drawing of the execution of Marie Antoinette
Unfortunately, Robepierre’s strategy had worked and France was finally back on it’s feet. The food shortage was fixed and the French army had even made a successful push against the coalition. Georges Danton decided it was time to normalise the Republic, by proposing the deescalation of executions, the reestablishment of the church and suing for peace against the coalition. Because of his thoughts, Danton, one of Robespierre’s closest friends and allies who helped him found the Jacobin Club, was promptly executed. Many others who even slightly opposed Robespierre were also executed. He started another religion, in which he basically declared himself God. It’s a round this time, historians believe, that Robespierre had gone mad. Eventually, the legislative assembly had enough and, in a unanimous vote, had Robespierre put on trial. He was sentenced to death and was executed by guillotine, making him the last victim of the Reign of Terror that he started.
By July 1789, France was already in the middle of a political revolution. The Estates-General had transformed into the National Assembly, the Tennis Court Oath had challenged the authority of the King, and Louis XVI’s government was struggling to maintain control over Paris. What had begun as a dispute over taxation and political representation was rapidly becoming a confrontation between the monarchy and a population increasingly willing to use force to defend the Revolution.
One of the first meetings of the National Assembly in a Tennis Court
The situation became even more dangerous when Louis XVI began concentrating troops around Paris and Versailles. Several thousand soldiers, including foreign regiments in French service, were brought into the region. To many Parisians, this appeared to be preparation for a military coup against the National Assembly. Their fears intensified when Louis dismissed Jacques Necker, his popular finance minister, on July 11th. Necker had become a symbol of financial reform and was regarded by many ordinary people as one of the few members of the government sympathetic to their suffering. His dismissal therefore convinced many Parisians that the King intended to crush the revolutionary movement. The news spread rapidly. Paris erupted.
The revolutionary response was not initially a plan to storm a fortress. Parisians began arming themselves. Crowds gathered throughout the city, searching for weapons with which they could defend themselves against the troops surrounding Paris. On July 13th, a citizens’ militia was organised, eventually becoming known as the National Guard. The Marquis de Lafayette, an aristocrat and veteran of the American Revolution who had joined the revolutionary cause, was appointed its commander. Even some regular French soldiers began refusing to fire upon the population or defecting to the revolutionary side. The monarchy’s ability to control Paris was rapidly disappearing. On the morning of July 14th, thousands of Parisians attacked the Hôtel des Invalides, a large military complex and veterans’ hospital. They seized thousands of muskets and several cannons. There was, however, one major problem. They had very little gunpowder. The revolutionaries knew where they could find more. The Bastille.
An illustration of the Bastille
The Bastille was a medieval fortress in eastern Paris that had been used as a royal prison. By 1789, it was no longer the enormous prison of popular imagination. Only seven prisoners were being held there when the Revolution began. Its military importance was nevertheless considerable. The fortress contained a substantial supply of gunpowder, and its enormous walls and cannons made it a powerful defensive position. More importantly, however, the Bastille had become a symbol of royal absolutism. For centuries, the French monarchy had possessed the power to imprison people through lettres de cachet, allowing individuals to be detained without a conventional trial. Although the Bastille was not filled with political prisoners in 1789, its reputation had become associated with arbitrary royal power. To the revolutionaries, therefore, the fortress represented much more than a collection of stone walls. It represented the authority they were trying to overthrow.
The Bastille was commanded by Bernard-René de Launay, a relatively inexperienced military governor. His garrison consisted primarily of about 80 elderly soldiers known as Invalides, supported by several dozen Swiss soldiers. Thousands of Parisians surrounded the fortress. They demanded that de Launay surrender the Bastille and hand over its gunpowder. De Launay refused. The situation became increasingly tense as representatives of the Parisian population attempted to negotiate with him. The defenders lowered a drawbridge at one point, allowing some of the crowd into the outer courtyard. Confusion followed, and fighting eventually broke out. The revolutionaries attacked.
A painting of the storming of the Bastille
The Bastille’s defenders opened fire, killing and wounding numerous people. The attackers, however, vastly outnumbered the garrison. The fighting continued for several hours. Eventually, de Launay realised that the fortress could not be held indefinitely. With the possibility of a much larger massacre looming, he agreed to surrender. The drawbridge was lowered. The Bastille had fallen. The surrender did not save de Launay.
As the revolutionary crowd entered the fortress, the governor was seized. He was beaten and eventually killed. His head was cut off and placed on a pike, before being carried through the streets of Paris. The violence shocked even some revolutionaries. The Bastille’s defenders also suffered casualties, although the majority of those killed during the battle were among the attackers. Around a hundred revolutionaries were killed or wounded during the fighting, while only a small number of the defenders were killed. The revolutionaries had nevertheless achieved something enormously significant. They had captured a royal fortress. More importantly, they had demonstrated that the government could no longer simply order the people of Paris to obey.
A portrait of De Launey
The fall of the Bastille sent shockwaves throughout France. Louis XVI was reportedly informed of the events by the Duke of La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt. According to the famous story, the King asked whether the events constituted a revolt. Liancourt allegedly replied:
No, Sire, it is a revolution.
Duke of La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt to Louis XVI
Whether the exchange occurred exactly as later accounts claimed is uncertain, but the sentiment captured the reality of what was happening. Louis was losing control. The King eventually recalled Necker and ordered the withdrawal of many of the troops surrounding Paris. He also travelled to the city himself, where he appeared before the revolutionary authorities and publicly accepted the newly established National Guard. The Bastille had therefore achieved something that the National Assembly had struggled to accomplish through political debate. It had forced the monarchy to retreat.
The consequences were not limited to Paris. News of the Bastille spread throughout the countryside, where rumours circulated that aristocrats were preparing to use armed forces to crush the Revolution. Peasants began attacking aristocratic estates and destroying documents recording feudal obligations. This wave of panic became known as the Great Fear. Across France, peasants demanded an end to feudal privileges. Some attacked manor houses and burned records relating to rents and obligations. The National Assembly now faced a problem. The Revolution was no longer merely a political movement taking place in Paris. It had become a mass uprising across the country.
An illustration of farmers rebelling in the countryside
On the night of August 4th, 1789, members of the National Assembly responded by abolishing many of France’s remaining feudal privileges. In a matter of hours, centuries of aristocratic and feudal rights were swept away. The old social order was beginning to collapse. The Revolution was not simply about destroying the existing system. It was also about deciding what would replace it. Inspired by Enlightenment philosophy and influenced by the American Revolution, the National Assembly began developing a new political philosophy based upon individual liberty, equality before the law and popular sovereignty. One of the figures involved was the Marquis de Lafayette, who had fought alongside the Americans and had become familiar with the political ideas that had inspired their revolution. Lafayette also corresponded with Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as the American ambassador to France. Jefferson offered suggestions and discussed the principles of the emerging document, although he was not its author. On August 26th, the National Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It proclaimed that men were born free and equal in rights and that sovereignty ultimately belonged to the nation. It was one of the most important political documents of the Revolution.
However, its vision of equality had significant limitations. Women were not granted equal political rights, slavery continued in French colonies, and the declaration’s language about universal liberty would coexist uneasily with the realities of colonialism and economic inequality. Nevertheless, its principles represented a fundamental challenge to the old order. Political authority was no longer supposed to exist simply because a king or aristocrat possessed it by birth. It had to be justified by the rights of the nation. The Storming of the Bastille therefore represented a turning point. The Revolution had begun as a constitutional and financial dispute between Louis XVI and the representatives of the French people. By July 14th, it had become a popular uprising capable of overthrowing royal authority by force. The Bastille itself was not particularly important as a prison by 1789. Its real importance was symbolic. The people of Paris had destroyed one of the most recognisable symbols of arbitrary royal power and demonstrated that the monarchy could be challenged directly. But the violence of July also foreshadowed the increasingly radical character of the Revolution.
A painting of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
One of the most prominent voices calling for further violence was Jean-Paul Marat, a radical journalist whose newspaper, L’Ami du peuple (“The Friend of the People”), attacked aristocrats, royal officials and political opponents. Marat increasingly argued that the enemies of the Revolution could not be defeated through moderation alone and that force would be necessary to destroy them. His rhetoric became increasingly extreme as the Revolution progressed. Marat was not responsible for the Storming of the Bastille, nor did the National Assembly simply order or endorse the killing of de Launay. However, the events demonstrated how quickly political conflict could turn into popular violence once the authority of the state began to collapse.
The Revolution had crossed a threshold. The King could no longer rule France in the way his predecessors had. The aristocracy was beginning to lose its privileges. The National Assembly claimed to represent the French nation. And the people of Paris had discovered that they possessed something that the monarchy could not easily take away: the power of the crowd. The Bastille had fallen. The French Revolution was only beginning.
