From 1931 to 1945, the Japanese Empire ruled over the province of Manchuria in northeastern China. Manchuria was considered a crucial part of the empire because of its access to resources and the presence of several million Japanese settlers on the territory. Only when the USSR invaded in 1945 did Japanese rule end. To this day, China and Japan still spar over the official narrative of what transpired while the Japanese were in Manchuria during the 1930s and 1940s.   Japanese Imperial Designs on Manchuria Japanese cavalry attacking Chinese forces at the Battle of Pyongyang during the First Sino-Japanese War. Source: British Library   Situated in northeastern China, Manchuria had been the setting for competition between the Russian and Japanese empires for influence in China at the turn of the 20th century. The region controlled large quantities of natural resources and access to East Asian shipping lanes. Japan had arisen from centuries of isolation and chaos to become a modernized empire under the leadership of the Meiji Emperor.   As a part of this process, it desired to test its new military capabilities on the Asian mainland and obtain colonies to add to a limited resource base in the Japanese islands. In the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, Japan defeated the declining Qing Empire to gain control of the Korean peninsula and a sliver of territory in Manchuria. When Russia coerced Japan into giving the main harbor of Port Arthur (Lüshunkou District, Dalian, China), Tokyo vowed to get it back.   “In the Battle of the Sha River, a Company of Our Forces Drives a Strong Enemy Force to the Left Bank of the Taizi River,” Yoshikuni, 1904. Source: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston   From 1904 to 1905, the Japanese army and navy fought an intense war against the Russian Empire known as the Russo-Japanese War. To the surprise of the international community, the Japanese military proved vastly superior, destroying two Russian fleets at sea and inflicting a series of defeats on Russian land armies.   As part of the Treaty of Portsmouth brokered by US President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905, Japan gained access to the southern part of Sakhalin Island and gained control of Port Arthur. For Japan, this victory was a major turning point in their development; European countries began to see them as a major regional power. The support from local Chinese in fighting the Russians convinced many Japanese that the local population would welcome them if they took over the territory. This had major ramifications for future Japanese policy.   Mukden Incident Japanese troops gathering outside Mukden, Manchuria, 1931. Source: Heritage Image   Japan’s decision to enter World War I and the Russian Civil War was intended to lead to Japan gaining control over more territory through the Versailles Conference. While they did gain access to some islands in the Pacific and some concessions on the Chinese mainland, Tokyo was embittered when most of their territorial claims were denied. Many senior officers in the military blamed the civilian government for not insisting on more control over territories in Asia. Additionally, the fear that Japan could be colonized by the European powers was pervasive in Japanese politics. Many Japanese believed that the only way to become a great power was through territorial expansion.   From 1916 to 1928, China was in a state of chaos known as the “Warlord Era.” When Sun Yat-sen formed the Kuomintang Party as part of an effort to unify China, Japanese officials became worried about dealing with an aggressive neighbor. In 1927, Japanese military and political leaders met to discuss plans to take over Manchuria. Tokyo believed that resistance would be minimal due to the weakness of the Chinese army and state. In June 1928 the Japanese Kwantung Army organized the assassination of Manchurian warlord Zhang Zuolin, but Zhang’s son and successor Zhang Xueliang proved an ardent opponent of the Japanese. Zhang’s opposition to Japanese influence inspired the Japanese military to take a more direct approach.   On September 18th, 1931, in what came to be known as the Mukden Incident, an explosion rocked a Japanese-owned railway in the city of Mukden, now Shenyang. Japanese military personnel claimed that Chinese nationalists committed the act and responded by entering the city in force. While Tokyo insisted it was an act of aggression against its interests in the region, evidence surfaced that the Kwantung Army staged the incident.   Establishment of Manchukuo Photograph of the young Xuantong Emperor (Puyi). Source: Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC   Within a couple of months of the Mukden Incident, Japan had seized control over Manchuria. The untrained and ill-equipped Chinese army offered little resistance and Japanese generals were stunned by their success. Tokyo’s civilian government, hoping to maintain friendly relations with the West, disagreed with the military, but the generals got their way. Ugaki Kazushige, the governor-general of Japanese-controlled Korea, began setting up a puppet state with the assistance of Chinese monarchists who wanted to restore the former emperor Puyi to his throne. Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek, facing brutal internal battles against warlords and Communist forces, did not use force to push the Japanese out. Instead, he appealed to the League of Nations, causing Japan to withdraw from the League in 1933. This did nothing to change the reality on the ground for the Japanese in Manchuria.   Ever since the collapse of the Qing Empire in 1912, there had been a number of Chinese who were loyal to the child emperor Puyi, who was deposed at the age of six. In 1924, he was expelled from Beijing and escaped to the Japanese-controlled port of Tianjin. When he received the offer to be head of state of the newly formed Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo, he happily accepted the opportunity to return to the ancestral homeland of the Qing emperors. He retained a large number of former imperial advisors and was given a palace in Changchun, which was renamed Xinjing or “New Capital.” While Puyi’s title was changed to emperor in 1934, the Japanese controlled every facet of government.   Japanese Settlement and Security Actions Japanese women cultivating soy in Manchuria (Manchukuo), 1930s. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Many Chinese were resentful of being dominated by foreigners and a major insurgency had sprung up from the remnants of the Chinese army. From 1932-1940, the Japanese army used ruthless force to crush the rebellion, which at times numbered over 300,000 men. Japan deployed more troops and recruited local collaborators to target the insurgents. This brutal colonial struggle, practically forgotten today, had mostly ended by the Second World War, although some Chinese forces hung on until 1945.   Japan began to colonize the territory almost immediately. The South Manchuria Railway Company was set up to expand the railway lines in the region and even opened an office in New York City. Japan upgraded port infrastructure, increased the size of towns and cities throughout Manchukuo, and introduced new farming techniques. However, the local Chinese became an underclass thanks to the arrival of 270,000 Japanese settlers over a 14-year period. Hoping to avoid the effects of the Great Depression, large numbers of Japanese soldiers and civilians moved their families to Manchukuo. Tokyo encouraged this practice, hoping to resolve agricultural problems on the home islands with the importation of crops from its empire. As was the case in Korea and Taiwan, Japanese settlers formed a higher caste in the societies they moved into. Tokyo sought to reengineer the demographics of the territory.   Caste Society in Manchukuo A propaganda poster promoting harmony between Japanese, Chinese, and Manchu, 1935. Source: Manchukuo State Council   Japan claimed that Manchukuo was part of its “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere,” a euphemism for its empire. Tokyo promoted propaganda to people throughout Asia that its rule was benevolent to all Asian peoples and was different from European colonialism. In reality, its rule over Manchuria was not much different from what other empires did in Asia. Japanese settlers were issued rifles and organized into paramilitary units to fight Chinese guerillas. Propaganda in the Japanese homeland urged people to go there as a “civilizing force.” The Chinese locals were seen as uncivilized, savage people who could not possibly rule themselves.   Tokyo followed the model that it had used in Korea and Taiwan. Schools taught in Japanese and Japanese cultural customs were adopted. Even though Chinese loyal to Puyi were allowed to rule over ministries in the Manchukuo government, Japanese officials ruled through “internal guidance.” Any efforts by Chinese officials to enact policies Tokyo was opposed to were doomed to fail thanks to the massive Japanese military and police presence. Co-prosperity was less about promoting interethnic harmony and more about keeping Europeans out of Japan’s colonial “sphere of influence.”   Japanese ideology embraced militarism, fascism, and racism as a part of its national ideology starting in the 1930s. Other Asian groups were seen as hostile to the interests of the Japanese people but also partners in the fight against the West. While Puyi may have seen himself as China’s last emperor, he was nothing more than a useful tool in the minds of policymakers in Tokyo.   World War II The Kwantung Army, 1940s. Source: histclo.com   Ironically, Japan’s desire for more territory became its undoing and meant the end of its colony in Manchukuo. Throughout the 1930s, China’s long civil war continued between the Communists and the Kuomintang. The intensity of the fighting meant that Japanese military leadership assumed seizing more territory would be an easy gambit.   The Second Sino-Japanese War  began in 1937 when Japanese forces launched a full-scale invasion of China. By 1941, they had seized most of the Chinese coast and large parts of the interior. In 1938, they attacked Soviet-controlled territory in Mongolia, an action that failed and put Manchukuo at risk of a Soviet invasion. A temporary ceasefire led to a quiet period on the Soviet-Manchukuo border. However, Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and the expansion of World War II led to major changes in the region.   Dizzying success in the first several months of the Pacific War was followed by a steady drumbeat of defeats for Japan. By 1943, the Allies were winning on all fronts except in China. Manchukuo was not at risk of direct Allied attack but suffered nonetheless. As part of the Yalta Agreement, the Soviets agreed to invade the territory once Germany was defeated. Days after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Soviets invaded and finished Manchukuo off once and for all.   The End of Manchukuo A journal of poems written on the bark of birch trees by Japanese internees in Siberian camps. Source: Maizuru Repatriation Memorial Museum   The Soviets destroyed the Kwantung Army in a very short time. Japanese forces crumbled due to the weakness of local defenses and the lack of reinforcements. The Red Army ruthlessly attacked southward and seized the entire territory, even advancing into the Korean peninsula. In September 1945, Emperor Hirohito of Japan recognized the inevitable and ordered his government to surrender to the Allies. Part of the terms included Manchukuo returning to Chinese control and being renamed Manchuria. All Japanese were to be repatriated back to the home islands.   Having arrived in Manchuria full of pride as part of Japan’s colonization mission, the Japanese settlers panicked with the Soviet advance. Many of the young men had joined the military and became casualties. Long lines of Japanese refugees, mainly women and children, fled to the ports for evacuation. The civilian refugees were lucky—they were repatriated to Japan on US Navy ships. 575,000 captured soldiers and sailors were taken by the Soviets to forced labor camps in Siberia. With this, the Japanese colonial project in Manchuria came to a brutal end.

  Ottoman women from the 16th to 18th centuries lived in a patriarchal society where they had clear-cut gender roles in the household. Although they had limited opportunities for formal education and employment, many women played important roles in politics, arts, medicine, economic production, and governance.   Wives and Mothers Woman on birthing chair, from Enderuni’s Zenanname (Book of Women), a work about the women of the world and their qualities, 1793. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In early-modern Ottoman society, gender was one of the defining factors in a person’s life. Women were expected to become dutiful wives and show obedience to male family members, who were considered the “heads of household.” Ideas like honor were instilled in women’s bodies and actions.   During the reign of Sultan Süleyman (r. 1520-1566), the Kanunname or secular law was put into place alongside Islamic law to regulate the behaviors of Ottoman citizens. These laws considered order in the household as the basis of order in wider society. Thus, men whose wives were guilty of crimes like adultery, for instance, were also fined for being unable to preserve order and honor in their households.   Motherhood was another purpose of a woman’s life. A good wife was expected to bear healthy children and teach them good manners and morals. In the 16th century Turkish epic The Book of Dede Korkut, the narrator opines that “a girl cannot become a lady unless she has good breeding from her mother.”   Women’s Work Female musicians, painted by Levni, d. 1732. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Women were not expected to have careers or professions in the early-modern Ottoman Empire. They were often barred from joining craftsmen’s guilds and rarely received formal professional training. Yet, many women were exceptions to this rule. Rural and nomadic women were expected by their communities to participate in fieldwork, such as farming, animal herding, and cotton or hazelnut picking.   Townswomen often performed work as servitors, that is, as maids, washerwomen, servants, and personal attendants. They worked mainly in baths, hospitals, and for elite households. Some areas, such as midwifery, nursing, weaving, and embroidering, were even female-dominated. Pierre Belon, a 16th-century French traveller and diplomat in the Ottoman Empire, noted that women would frequently sell their handmade goods at markets.   Women also performed roles where their voices and opinions could be heard. Belon noted that women were employed as teachers in primary schools for girls. Women like Mihri Hatun (d. 1506) and Ayse Hubbi Hatun (d. 1590) were celebrated court poets who were patronized by sultans. Ayse Hubbi was born into an elite family with close ties to Sultan Süleyman. As a result, she received a fine education in court and eventually became a lady-in-waiting and close friend of future sultan, Prince Selim II. Ayse Hubbi’s poetry challenged the misogynistic beliefs of her time:   “Being feminine is no shame to the name of the sun…  Being masculine is no glory to the crescent moon.”   Many women also broke the barriers of gender segregation through their work in the medical field. Saliha Hatun was a physician who practiced in Istanbul in the 1620s-30s. Her consent forms, dated between these years, reveal that she performed successful hernia and tumour operations, mostly on men. Interestingly, she had no female patients.   Festivities and Celebrations Wedding procession, by Lambert de Vos, ca. 1574. Source: Gennadius Library   Women, though to a lesser extent than men, were involved in the public and social arena. They attended celebrations for royal marriages, circumcision festivities, and military campaigns. Since women were not allowed to perform in public, they held gender-segregated dance and theatrical shows.   These restrictions did not reach inside the private space, however. In 1524, Istanbul’s Italian community organized festivities in celebration of the peace treaty between the Italian states. In the house of the Italian ambassador, a ballet and various other dances were organized and danced by Turkish women.   English historian and orientalist Thomas Hyde (d. 1703) also wrote in his book De Ludis Orientalibus (1694) that women dancers, called çengi, dressed like men and took part in plays and traditional dances such as the zeybek.   Patrons of Art and Architecture Hürrem Sultan Complex, Istanbul. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Women were important patrons of art, learning, and architecture. They mostly founded religious buildings like mosques and tekkes (dervish monasteries), rather than secular ones. Royal women patronized buildings as a symbol of their goodwill, religiosity, and power. Having a building patronized in their name immortalized and publicized these women, the majority of whom would never be seen outside the harem.   Hürrem, wife of Suleyman the Magnificent, had the Haseki Hürrem Külliye built in 1540. This massive structure consisted of a mosque, medreses (religious schools), a hospital, hamam (bathhouse), and soup-kitchen.   Women’s patronage was felt all around the empire. Rabia Gülnüş Sultan (d. 1715), consort of Sultan Mehmed IV, and mother of two Sultans, Mustafa II and Ahmed III, established pious foundations, hospitals and soup-kitchens in Mecca for weary pilgrims. After the conquest of the island of Chios in 1695, Rabia Gülnüş had a church converted into a mosque and built a fountain to provide the area with clean, flowing water.   Unruly Women Turkish prostitute, from Travels in Turkey, by Nicolas de Nicolay, circa 1578. Source: Academia.edu   In Ottoman society, women’s honor and reputation were policed and considered a communal issue. According to the etiquette of high society, female respectability was linked to public visibility. In the 16th century, scholars considered a respectable woman to be one who was veiled and did not leave the house without a retinue of attendants or servants.   Despite these beliefs, women often acted in “unseemly” ways. Rural women did not have the luxury of being idle and secluded. Field and housework, including going to the river to wash clothes or to the well to collect water, made women visible and active in public. Likewise, Gypsy (Romani) women had a strong public presence. They abided by the moral guidelines of their own community, and thus could be seen in the street without veils, performing dances, and selling goods.   Women also engaged in illegal—albeit widespread—work like prostitution. Women found guilty of prostitution could be fined or exiled, and even being accused of such work was enough to ruin a woman’s reputation. Those who were accused of prostitution could take their accusers to court. If the accusations were proved to be false, the accuser would receive a hefty fine!   Queens and Concubines Imagined portrait of Hürrem Sultan, by Johann Theodor de Bry (1561-1623), circa 1590s. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Women in the Ottoman Empire had important responsibilities as the wives, consorts, concubines, mothers, or sisters of sultans. In the early 14th century, it was common for Ottoman sultans to marry princesses of rival empires like the Byzantines. However, by the 16th century, the Ottomans dominated Turkey and the Balkans, and so, sultans preferred to take concubines.   Concubines were slaves of the sultan. Many of them, such as Hürrem, were products of the Crimean slave trade. Concubinage allowed sultans to produce heirs and secure their dynasty’s survival without the need for marriage. Although marriages were acceptable, they were not preferred. This was because local Turkish families could strengthen their influence or lay claim to Ottoman lands and power if their daughters were married to the Sultan.   Concubines and wives of the sultan were more restricted than other women in their society. They were free to travel, although their visibility was restricted by enclosed carriages. Until the Early Modern Era, concubines were restricted to having one son with the ruler. This was due to Ottoman governmental practices. Once a prince reached his teenage years, he would be sent to govern another province. His mother would accompany him, acting as the Sultan’s eyes and ears, and ensuring the court functioned properly.   This changed when Sultan Suleyman I married his concubine Hürrem, had several male children with her, and allowed them to live with him in Istanbul. The most powerful position a woman could reach was that of valide sultan, or queen mother. The valide not only ran the harem, but also had a major influence on her son’s choice of concubines and even his political decisions.   Women of the Court Women of the harem, in the Album of Sultan Ahmed I, circa 1610. Source: Topkapi Palace Museum   The harem was almost like a smaller version of court “in court.” Some of the roles played by women included “mistress of financial affairs,” housekeeper, and educator of the ladies-in-waiting.   Female members of the royal family, who were raised in the harem, usually married grand viziers, ministers, or princes of other dynasties. After this, they would move into their own palaces or homes. Some, such as Sultan Suleyman’s daughter Mihrimah, still retained their influence and wealth. When her brother Selim became Sultan, Mihrimah continued to give him political counsel and even lent him a sum of 50,000 gold coins.   Most women in the harem, however, played service roles. They sewed and embroidered clothes for the pages of the court. They also ensured the harem remained clean and hygienic. Wet nurses or daye were common in the Ottoman court. The wet nurses of princes held high status and established mosques inscribed with their titles and names, something that many queen mothers themselves were not able to do.   The gender segregation in court also meant that males could not freely access the harem. As a result, many women had to perform traditionally male professions. In Suleyman I’s era (ca.1514), female physicians were appointed for the women at court. Non-Muslim women were also given specific roles. Jewish women often acted as the political agents or kiras of powerful women at court. As intermediaries and economic advisors for the queen mothers, kiras gained status and wealth, which sometimes led to them being blamed for poor management of finances in court.

  The decades between 1770 and the early 1800s witnessed multiple gatherings of America’s “Founding Fathers.” Names like Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or John Adams led a group that built the American Republic. These men, along with others, took part in the American Revolution and created enduring documents. Their beliefs and philosophies led to timely quotes.   “If free speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter” George Washington in military dress, by Charle Peal Polk, 1790. Source: The MET, New York   Already famous from his successful stint leading the Revolution’s Continental Army, George Washington also became the first President in 1789. Like his compatriots, he left us with this quote as a warning and advice. On free speech: “If free speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”    Washington’s quote regarding free speech is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. Often quoted, free speech became a fundamental right in American law. His warning that staying silent is a cautionary reminder to speak up, criticize, and question the government, or face the consequences.   “The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases” There was concern that Thomas Jefferson would bring revolution to America once again. Source: The White House. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Declaration of Independence is a historically significant document, perhaps among the most important of the past century. And principally authored by Thomas Jefferson. Like the other American Founding Fathers, he offered sage advice. Among his quotes, perhaps this one is the strongest: “The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”   Being an Enlightened thinker, Jefferson’s thinking reflected his beliefs. This example states that, should government grow, that growth comes only at liberty’s expense. Liberty in this context is speaking freely, civic participation, or economic freedom. To Jefferson, liberty only thrives when government is small, decentralized, and under the people’s control.   “The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority’s ability to harm a minority”   U.S. President James Madison (1809-1817) was the first true wartime president in American history, presiding during the War of 1812. Source: The American Battlefield Trust   James Madison, like Jefferson and Washington, was a man of the Enlightenment. Madison played a crucial role in promoting the U.S. Constitution and wrote the Bill of Rights. Like Jefferson, he served as U.S. President and espoused similar beliefs. As Jefferson preferred small government, Madison firmly believed the Constitution prevented tyranny.   The Bill of Rights, As of December 15, 1791. Source: Library of Congress   As one of the Constitution’s biggest champions, the future 4th American President said thus: “The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority’s ability to harm a minority.”     This quote to Madison is that the majority makes the laws, but not at the expense of the minority. He believed the Constitution restrained the majority, protecting individual and minority rights. The parts of the Constitution—Bill of Rights, separation of church and state, and a judiciary—set limits on what the government can do. The minority in Madison’s quote meant dissenters, ethnic groups, or those whose views differed.   “Government is instituted for the common good…not for profit, honor or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men” John Adams by Gilbert Stuart, c. 1800. Source: National Gallery of Art, Washington DC   John Adams, like Jefferson, emerged as the most vigorous of the Founding Fathers. During his time, he’d serve as President, ambassador, and lawyer. Adams authored the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, which influenced the later famous document. While Jefferson favored small government, Adams believed in a strong central government. Here, citizens accepted government rule that protected their rights and well-being, thereby forming a social contract. Under such a belief, John Adams gave us this quote: “Government is instituted for the common good…not for profit, honor or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.”   Breaking down this quote, Adams advocated that the government needed a system of checks and balances to prevent tyranny for the common good. The latter part of Adam’s quote argued against corruption. He warned against tolerating leaders who used their office for personal gain. They ruled only with the people’s consent.   Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech” Benjamin Franklin. Source: National Portrait Gallery, Washington DC   Ben Franklin stood apart from his fellow Founding Fathers. Besides politics, he dabbled with things, inventing items like bifocals and the lightning rod. While Adams believed in a centralized government and Jefferson in a decentralized one, Franklin opposed political extremism.   Franklin personified Enlightened beliefs-civic virtue, liberty, and reason. To him, discourse triumphed over violence. That said, the politically moderate Franklin said, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”   To analyze his quote, one must believe free speech is essential. An oppressive government destroys free speech, thus eliminating liberty. Having control over language allows leaders to avoid debate and accountability. Franklin’s greatest fear was censorship.

  On May 30, 1431, in Rouen, the capital of Normandy, a large crowd assembled in the marketplace to witness the execution of Joan of Arc, a 19-year-old peasant girl. Two years earlier, Joan had led the French forces in a key victory at Orléans against the English. The win marked a watershed moment in the Hundred Years’ War, allowing Charles VII to be crowned king. Captured by the Anglo-Burgundian forces, she was accused of heresy in a politically motivated trial. Let’s take a look at the events that led to her execution.   Joan of Arc & The Hundred Years’ War Portrait of Charles VII, by Jean Fouquet, 1444. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Louvre Museum, Paris   In 1429, a young woman wearing men’s clothing and accompanied by a group of men-at-arms entered Chinon, a town in the Loire Valley where Charles held court. She had previously sought an audience with the French dauphin at Vaucouleurs, but her attempt was unsuccessful.   The daughter of a tenant farmer, Joan of Arc was born in 1412 in Domrémy, on the border between the duchies of Bar and Lorraine. During her childhood years, Charles, the son of the king of France, entered into a bitter dispute with the English monarchy.   In 1422, on the death of his father (Charles VI), Charles claimed the throne. However, the Treaty of Troyes, a 1420 agreement signed between his mother, the leader of the pro-English Burgundian faction, and the king of England, had disinherited the dauphin and de facto handed control of France to the English. As a result, the death of the English and French monarchs led to the outbreak of a new wave of fighting in the Hundred Years’ War.   In 1428, John, duke of Bedford, the English regent during Henry VI’s infancy, launched a siege against Orléans, hoping to weaken Charles VII’s stronghold in the Loire. Discouraged by the English military success, Charles was close to seeking refuge in Spain or ceding to the English demands. The arrival of Joan of Arc in Chinon, however, changed the dauphin’s fate—and the course of French history.   Joan of Arc at the Siege of Orléans, by Eugène Lenepveu, 1886-1890. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Panthéon de Paris   Claiming to be guided by the voices of St. Michael, St. Catherine of Alexandria, and St. Margaret of Antioch, Joan said she was given the mission to expel the English from French territories. Encouraged by his theologians to trust the young woman, Charles decided to hold his ground. Meanwhile, Joan, known as “the Maid,” sent a fiery letter to the king of England, declaring:   “She [Joan] comes sent by the King of Heaven, body for body, to take you out of France, and the Maid promises and certifies to you that if you do not leave France she and her troops will raise a mighty outcry as has not been heard in France in a thousand years. And believe that the King of Heaven has sent her so much power that you will not be able to harm her or her brave army.”   Joan, outfitted in armor, entered Orléans on April 29, bringing much-needed supplies. Her presence inspired the exhausted French troops, leading to a rousing success. When news of the victory at Orléans spread, morale among the French soldiers soared, and so did Joan of Arc’s fame.   After another decisive victory at Patay, Charles VII was crowned king at Reims, the traditional place of coronation of the French monarchs, previously firmly controlled by the Anglo-Burgundian forces.   Joan of Arc’s Capture Capture of Joan of Arc, by Adolf Alexander Dillens, 1847-52. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg   While Joan of Arc had successfully secured Charles VII’s claim to the French throne, the civil war dividing France was far from over. After his coronation, the newly anointed monarch decided not to march toward the Anglo-Burgundian-controlled Paris, a move opposed by Joan. Then, in early 1430, the Burgundian forces, led by Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, advanced toward Brie and Champagne. In March, he set out to besiege Compiègne, a city that had switched sides after the coronation and aligned with Charles VII.   Aware of the imminent danger, Joan departed for Compiègne and arrived in mid-May. Over the following days, she tried to surprise the enemy forces at Soissons. The townsfolk, however, refused entry to her forces, declaring allegiance to the Burgundians. Upon returning to Compiègne, Joan planned an initially successful attack against the Burgundian army on May 23. Later outflanked by an English contingent, she was forced to fall back to the city.   However, during the retreat, as she protected the last soldiers crossing the Oise River, she was thrown off her horse. Captured by the Burgundians alongside her brother, she was taken to Margny. Charles VII, set to negotiate a truce with the duke of Burgundy, did not come to her aid.   Portrait of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, after Rogier van der Weyden, c. 1455. Source: Wikimedia Commons   John of Luxembourg, the commander of the Burgundian soldier who captured the Maid, sent Joan to his castle in Vermandois. When she tried to escape, she was taken to a more remote location, where she made another attempt to avoid her guards by jumping off a tower. Meanwhile, the bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon, asked the duke of Burgundy to hand over Joan to him in return for a ransom of 10,000 francs. Now in Cauchon’s hands, Joan was tried in Rouen, Normandy, a region in northern France controlled by the English.   The trial began on January 13, 1431. The judges presiding over the court were Pierre Cauchon and the Vice-Inquisitor of France.   Why Was Joan of Arc Tried as a Heretic? Pierre Cauchon in a miniature from the manuscript Processus in causa fidei contra quamdam mulierem Joannam, vulgariter dictam, la Pucelle, 15th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris   The bishop of Beauvais contacted the duke of Burgundy with the backing of the theology faculty of the University of Paris. A rector of the institution since 1403, Cauchon had led the university to take the Burgundian—and English—side. He was also one of the negotiators at Troyes, where Philip the Good and the English monarch agreed to unite France and England in a dual monarchy, with each country retaining its separate institutions. Cauchon’s animosity toward Joan of Arc stemmed also from personal reasons, as he had been forced to leave Reims, where he lived, before Charles VII’s coronation.   Upon learning of Joan’s capture, the University of Paris’ agents wasted no time in contacting the duke of Burgundy to request Joan be tried for heresy before an ecclesiastical court: “We beseech you … that as soon as it can be done safely and conveniently, … Joan be brought under our jurisdiction as a prisoner since she is strongly suspected of various crimes smacking of heresy.”   Joan of Arc in Prison, by Gillot Saint-Evre, 1833. Source: Wikimedia Commons   During the trial, Joan of Arc had 70 charges drawn up against her, mainly focusing on the fact that her claim of direct communication with God and the saints was blasphemous. In particular, she was accused of prophesying the future, wearing men’s clothing (more on that later), and believing her declaration stemmed from divine revelations. In other words, the judges found fault in her reliance on the direct orders of God rather than the authority of the Catholic Church.   At the time, the church was still reeling from the effects of the Western Schism (1378-1417) and the strengthening of the Conciliar Movement that resulted in the decline of papal authority. As a result, the Inquisition targeted those who seemed to move beyond the confines of strict orthodoxy and the institutional church. The accused had a hard time proving their innocence, especially as they were allowed no counsel for the defense. This made the trials highly susceptible to political influences, as was the case for Joan of Arc.   Joan had been crucial in securing Charles VII’s coronation. Thus, accusing her of heresy meant undermining the French king’s legitimacy. The rules of the Inquisition decreed that the defendant must appear before the bishop of their hometown or be tried where they committed the heresy. Joan’s trial, however, took place in Rouen, a city in the English-controlled Normandy.   Was Joan of Arc Killed for Wearing Men’s Clothes? Joan of Arc Enters Orléans, by Jean-Jacques Scherrer, 1887. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Musée des Beaux-Arts d’Orléans   On January 3, 1431, shortly before the beginning of Joan’s trial, an edict was issued in the name of the infant Henry VI. Besides accusing her of professing “very dangerous dogmas, most prejudicial and scandalous to our holy catholic faith,” the document emphasized her habit of wearing men’s clothes:   “It is sufficiently notorious and well known how for some time, a woman who calls herself Joan the Maid has put off the habit and dress of the female sex, which is contrary to divine law, abominable to God, condemned and prohibited by every law; she has dressed and armed herself in the habit and role of a man.” Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, the compendium of medieval doctrine, condemned cross-dressing, declaring that “it is sinful for a woman to use male clothing or vice-versa.” An exemption was granted only for necessity-based circumstances. According to various records from the trial, Joan told the court that she continued to wear men’s clothes in prison to protect herself against sexual assault attempts. At the same time, a record of Joan’s questioning on April 5, 1431, reveals that the voices of the saints “instructed this woman, in the name of God, to take and wear a man’s clothes.”   During the trial, Joan tried to skilfully avoid falling in the traps set by the judges, refusing to divulge information about her dealings with Charles or pronouncing herself on matters of faith. Faced with the lack of damning proof of her heresy, the court eventually resorted to the only visible evidence of Joan’s blasphemous ways: her preference for men’s clothes.   Joan of Arc, by Albert Lynch, 1901. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Private Collection, Doyon Art Appraisal, Pensacola, Florida   In May, when the judges threatened to turn her over to the secular authorities, Joan signed a form of abjuration. She was condemned to life in prison and forced to wear women’s clothes. Some days later, however, the guards saw her once again donning male attire. Questioned about the fact, she said that the voices of the saints rebuked her for abjuration, adding she had changed her clothes of her own free will. A witness in the 1452 retrial implied that the men’s clothes “had been purposefully left near her in the prison.”   After her “relapse,” the judges turned Joan over to the Anglo-Burgundian authorities. On May 30, 1431, she was burned at the stake at the Place du Vieux-Marché in Rouen. Joan’s cross-dressing is one of the most controversial points of her story, with some scholars seeing her preference for male clothes as a rejection of the standard of gendered appearances of her time.   Joan of Arc: A Victim of the French Civil War? Joan of Arc, by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, 1882. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge   To this day, Joan of Arc remains one of the most fascinating figures of French history. Over the years, she became a martyr, a French heroine, a feminist icon, and a source of inspiration for artists. While her story lends itself to various interpretations, it is perhaps better understood in the backdrop of the bitter civil war between Charles’ supporters (known as the Armagnacs) and the pro-English Burgundians.   In 1419, the internal strife led to bloodshed, with John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, murdered on Charles’s order. The assassination exacerbated the already tense situation, bringing John’s son, Philip the Good, to enter into an alliance with the English. In 1431, it was a court formed almost entirely by Burgundians that tried and condemned Joan of Arc of heresy, hoping to undermine Charles VII’s position.   It is not a coincidence that Charles, 20 years later, after he had managed to expel the English from France, ordered an inquiry into the 1431 trial. In 1455, her sentence was revoked. Like the original trial, Joan’s rehabilitation was similarly politically motivated, aiming to remove any suspicion of illegitimacy from Charles VII’s crown.

Joel Schoepf, who worked as Parker McCollum's assistant road manager, was arrested earlier this month and charged with online solicitation of a minor under 14. Continue reading…

In case you had any difficulty figuring out what the video from the "Seditious Six" was about, leave it to the other Stephen Miller to explicate it. I'm not talking about the White House adviser, but Stephen L. Miller, the conservative writer and pundit. After the video from six Democratic...

We’re back with another installment of Hot Bike’s Tech Tips, and we’re going to dive deeper into oil pumps, and more importantly, we’ll provide you […] The post Oil Pump Installation Tips and Tricks with Danny Wilson appeared first on Hot Bike Magazine.

Norway’s highest court on Wednesday called the Norwegian arm of Dutch motorcycle club Satudarah a criminal association and banned the group, saying it was necessary to prevent serious crime. The Supreme Court said participants in the club, known for a history of violent crime, extortion, illegal drug trade, and arms trafficking allegations, “repeatedly committed serious offences against someone’s life, health and freedom,” and that their actions were “apt to cause fear in the population”. The court added that although Satudarah describes itself as a motorcycle club and is open to ethnic minorities, participants didn’t need to have a motorcycle or a license to join. “Nor does the club aim to promote multi-ethnic interests,” it wrote. The Supreme Court also noted that the gang describes “itself as a so-called 1% club – a term normally used for motorcycle clubs that live on the fringes of society’s laws and rules.” According to Norwegian broadcaster NRK, Satudarah set foot in Norway in 2014. Last year, police asked courts to ban Satudarah because of its alleged criminal activities, which were said to include drug offences and violent clashes with other gangs. Continue Reading Motorcycle Clubs Banned To Stop Crime FIGHT BETWEEN ROCK MACHINE AND VAGOS MC LEAVES MULTIPLE DEAD SHOOTING BETWEEN ROCK MACHINE AND VAGOS MC LEAVES MULTIPLE DEAD Dorset Motorcycle Club riders deliver toys dressed as Santa ‘Lucky to be alive’: Dirt biker shares rescue story after trail collapse near Mt. Rainier

Local councils across the UK are purchasing fleets of drones that can be used to monitor residents from the air. Over 60 councils around the UK have staff certified to operate unmanned aerial vehicles and [...] The post ‘Spies In The Sky’- UK Councils Using Drones To Snoop On Residents appeared first on The People's Voice.

Outgoing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has called for former NIAID director Anthony Fauci to be prosecuted for his role in the Covid-19 cover-up. Looks like Fauci’s presidential pardon may be in jeopardy following Trump’s [...] The post MTG Urges Trump To ‘Prosecute Fauci’ After Biden Autopen Pardons Nullified appeared first on The People's Voice.