In the search for the historical King Arthur, historians often attempt to identify the legendary Arthur with a known historical figure. One such theory identifies King Arthur with Artuir mac Aedan, a historical prince of the Irish kingdom of Dal Riada in southwest Scotland. For a variety of reasons, some scholars have argued that he was the historical figure who formed the basis of the legends of King Arthur. But do the facts really support this suggestion?   Why Might Artuir mac Aedan Be the Real King Arthur? View of the territory of Dal Riada from Ben Nevis. Source: Copyright Caleb Howells   Artuir mac Aedan was the son of Aedan mac Gabran, a powerful king of Dal Riada. In fact, Dal Riada was one of the most notable and powerful kingdoms in Britain in the 6th century. For this reason, we can reasonably conclude that Artuir mac Aedan was a relatively important prince. We know that he was historical because he is mentioned in the Life of Saint Columba (the Vita Columbae). This was written in about the year 700 by Adomnán, only a few generations after the events it describes.   The idea that Artuir mac Aedan was the historical foundation for the legends of King Arthur is based on a few key facts. Firstly, his name is identical to King Arthur’s. The form “Artuir” is simply an Irish form of “Arthur,” whereas the legends of King Arthur are primarily from Welsh and Latin sources. Secondly, Artuir lived in the 6th century, which is when King Arthur was supposed to have lived.   Replica of the Stone of Scone, Scone Palace, Scotland. Source: Aaron Bradley, via Flickr   In addition to those two basic facts, we have also seen that Artuir’s dynasty was particularly powerful. This is an important detail because King Arthur was supposed to have been the most prominent king of his time.   In addition to those three basic facts about Artuir, several minor details supposedly connect Artuir to King Arthur. For one thing, the legend of the Sword in the Stone is argued to be derived from the accession ceremony of the kings of Dal Riada. This ceremony allegedly involved the use of a sword and a stone. Furthermore, proponents of this theory claim that there is evidence that Artuir had a sister named Morgan, just like King Arthur in the legends.   Other even more minor points have been highlighted as supporting evidence for this theory. However, these are the main pieces of evidence used to identify Artuir mac Aedan as King Arthur.   Chronological Issues With Artuir mac Aedan Folio of the Annales Cambriae recording the Battle of Badon in the right hand column, in Harleian MS 3859, c. 12th century. Source: British Library   One crucial problem with this theory is the chronology. One key event involved in dating the Arthurian legends is the Battle of Badon. This was supposedly King Arthur’s climactic battle against the Anglo-Saxons.   Gildas mentions this battle in his De Excidio, where he refers to it as having occurred 43 years before he was writing. The Annales Cambriae, a 10th-century chronicle, places it in 516 CE. As per Rachel Bromwich’s suggested revised chronology for a king known as Maelgwn Gwynedd, to whom Gildas directed some comments, this date might need to be brought forward by several decades. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Battle of Badon was not an event that took place as late as the second half of the 6th century. This is a fatal problem for the theory that Artuir mac Aedan was really King Arthur.   Stained glass depiction of Columba, who wrote about King Aedan, from Iona Abbey. Source: Historic Environment Scotland   Based on the evidence from the Vita Columbae and the Irish Chronicles, we have a very good idea of when Artuir mac Aedan lived. According to the Annals of Tigernach, his father was reportedly born in 530 or 531. The Annals of Ulster provide information consistent with this, telling us that Aedan became king in 574.   Consequently, Aedan cannot have reasonably fathered Artuir before the year 550. In fact, Artuir could have been born quite a few years later since there is no reason to believe that he was Aedan’s eldest son. In other words, Artuir mac Aedan was not even born when the Battle of Badon took place. That battle was supposed to have been Arthur’s climactic battle against the Saxons after years of war between them. This being so, it is clear that Artuir mac Aedan cannot have been King Arthur. At the very least, he cannot have been the earliest core of the legend.   Issues With the Proposed Evidence Stone of Scone. Source: Edinburgh Castle   However, recognizing this crucial chronological issue, it might be suggested that the legendary King Arthur was actually a composite figure. If we take this view, then we could potentially argue that Artuir mac Aedan contributed to the legends of Arthur, even if he was not the warrior who fought at the Battle of Badon. In support of this is the evidence concerning the Sword in the Stone and the argument that Artuir had a sister named Morgan, just like King Arthur.   However, when we examine the supposed evidence in more detail, we see that it does not really stand up to scrutiny. In the case of the Sword in the Stone, the argument is that this is a distorted memory of the accession ceremony of the kings of Dal Riada. The problem is that, despite persistent claims online, there is no evidence that a sword was ever involved in this ceremony. The new king would simply stand or kneel on the Stone of Scone, which would then allegedly emit a shriek. No sword is ever recorded as being involved. Furthermore, there is the simple fact that Artuir never became king of Dal Riada.   Martyrology of Oengus, in MS G10, p. 24, c. 16th century. Source: National Library of Ireland   What about the claim that Artuir had a sister named Morgan, just like King Arthur? The basis for this claim is a document known as the Martyrology of Óengus, written in the 9th century. This refers to a daughter of Aedan named Muirgein, near enough to “Morgan.” The problem is that there is no evidence that the Aedan in question was Aedan, the father of Artuir. In fact, there is evidence that actively suggests that it was a different Aedan.   The Martyrology of Óengus gives the birthplace of Muirgein as a certain Belach Gabrain. This is surely the same as a place called Bealach-Gabhran mentioned in the Tripartite Life of St Patrick. That latter document explicitly places this location in Ireland, not Britain. Many modern scholars identify it as the modern-day Gowran Pass.   In any case, that same document also mentions a certain Aedan mac Colman in Ireland. It seems far more likely that Aedan, the father of Muirgein, was this Aedan and not Aedan mac Gabrain, the father of Artuir.   The Issue of Prestige Annals of Ulster, in IE TCD MS 1282, fol. 45v, 16th century. Source: Trinity College Dublin   There is one more crucial issue with the identification of Artuir mac Aedan as the real King Arthur or even as a contributor to a composite figure. The evidence suggests that Artuir mac Aedan was not a very important person. While the kingdom of Dal Riada was certainly important, Artuir himself seems to have been a minor and unimportant prince. The basis for this conclusion is the way in which the death of Aedan’s sons is presented in the Annals of Tigernach and the Annals of Ulster.   The Annals of Ulster records the fact that several of Aedan’s sons died in battle against the Miathi. Notably, Artuir is listed last among his brothers. In the equivalent entry in the Annals of Tigernach, Artuir is missed out entirely. This strongly suggests that Artuir was not a renowned and famous warrior. This severely weakens the suggestion that he had anything to do with contributing to the legends of King Arthur. Certainly, it makes it extremely unlikely that he was the core figure behind the legends.   Was Artuir mac Aedan the Real King Arthur? Illustration of Excalibur, by Howard Pyle, 1903. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In conclusion, the theory that Artuir mac Aedan was the historical figure behind the legendary King Arthur is primarily based on three factors. He had the same name as Arthur, lived at approximately the right time, and came from an important kingdom. However, when we look at the facts more closely, we see that there are some serious issues.   The Battle of Badon, which was King Arthur’s famous victory against the Saxons, took place somewhere within the first half of the 6th century. However, Artuir mac Aedan was not even born then.   Furthermore, while Artuir’s kingdom was prominent and powerful, the evidence strongly suggests that Artuir himself was unimportant and forgettable. This makes it highly unlikely that he contributed to the legends about King Arthur.   In addition, we have seen that the extra details that supposedly support this identification—namely, the accession ceremony of the kings of Dal Riada and Artuir’s alleged sister—do not really stand up to scrutiny.   The search for the real King Arthur continues.

  Everyday life was difficult in the 19th century, particularly in the city of London. Despite this, many families and children were just as excited about Christmas as we are today. Let us now endeavor to rediscover the true meaning of Christmas simply by exploring the precious traditions of the Victorian working classes. These unfortunate people savored one day of jollity with what little they could afford, and by all accounts were surprisingly grateful for everything they did have. So, how exactly did they celebrate each year?   Christmas in 19th-Century London A depiction of a German family with their Christmas Tree, drawn in 1888. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Victorian Period is remembered as one of poverty and hardship. For a large percentage of the London population, the 19th century was a time of constant struggle. Each day was defined by a selection of burdens, worries, dangers, and troubles. The joys of life were permanently overshadowed by a battle to avoid loss of employment, homelessness, and the ever-present threat of the debtor’s prison or the workhouse.   During the year of 1850, there were around 2.3 million people living in London. Tens of thousands of these people, children included, slept each night on the cold, cobbled pavements. A further 16,000 individuals were spread across the 86 workhouses operating in the city, but many families chose homelessness over entering such an institution.   Furthermore, around 30 percent of the population lived in what would now be considered extreme poverty. Many who were lucky enough to afford accommodation lived in unheated, overcrowded, and unsanitary conditions. In such a world as this, how could one possibly think about celebrating Christmas? Despite living in a period of such uncertainty, the Victorians loved Christmas and were even responsible for shaping Christmas traditions as we know them today.   Victorian London, by Gustave Doré, 1872. Source: Wellcome Collection   The truth of the matter is that each separate class experienced very different versions of Christmas, all of which were anticipated and enjoyed in equal measure. In this article, we will focus on Christmas as it happened in the homes of the typical, hardworking families—the type of family that filled the majority of houses in the city. These were the sorts of people who endured long and laborious hours for a pitiful wage, but just about managed to scrape by with what they had. Their Christmas budget would not have extended beyond one low-price present for each member of the family, a meager goose, and perhaps a Christmas pudding or a little bottle of brandy.   Of course, Christmases here could not be compared with the opulence and grandeur enjoyed annually by the residents of Buckingham Palace and other great houses, but a more expensive Christmas did not necessarily equate to a better one. Who is to say that the children of Queen Victoria should be any more excited than the children of a poorer family, similar to the Cratchits from A Christmas Carol?   How Are Thy Leaves So Verdant? An artwork showing Queen Victoria and Prince Albert decorating a Christmas Tree in the 1840s. Source: Wikimedia Commons   When it comes to Christmas, if there is one thing that the Victorians are famous for, it is the introduction of the Christmas tree to England. By the mid-19th century, the decorating of a tree had become an integral part of Christmas preparations, and there was hardly a family in London that did not partake in the tradition in one way or another.   According to popular and historic tradition, it was Martin Luther, some 300 years previously, who first came up with the idea of decorating a tree at Christmas. His intention was supposedly to commemorate the birth of Christ by creating a display of natural beauty, illuminated with candlelight, and to keep it in his home over the twelve days of Christmas. Legend has it that the idea came to Martin Luther as he walked through a pine forest on Christmas Eve, near his home in Wittenberg in Germany. The sight of the sparkling stars between the branches reminded him of the heavens, and moved him to such an extent that he had a tree of his choosing chopped down and brought into his house. He informed his family that the tree would be a reminder of the coming of Christmas Day and the coming of Christ as the light of the world.   By the 17th century, the idea of the Christmas Tree had become widespread in Germany, particularly in the South. An anonymous chronicler recorded that, at Christmas, the people of Strasburg set up fir trees in their parlors and hung roses cut out of colored paper, as well as apples, wafers, gold foils, and sweets.   The Royal Family in 1846, by Franz Xaver Winterhalter, 1846-7. Source: The Royal Collection   So, how did it happen that the tradition spread so suddenly across Europe and into Britain? As with many other traditions, it is usually Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, who is credited with the introduction of the Christmas Tree in England. Although he undoubtedly had a part in its popularization, he was by no means the first person to decorate a Christmas tree in Britain.   It was actually Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the wife of King George III, who set up the first known Christmas tree in England. This tree, the first recorded to have appeared in Britain, was erected at Windsor Castle. Charlotte had been born in Northern Germany in 1744, and consequently, when she arrived in London, she brought with her a variety of Christmas traditions and customs.   We know that the young Victoria, the future Queen of England, decorated a Christmas tree in 1832, five years before she inherited her throne. On Christmas Eve, at the age of just 13, she recorded her experience of her Christmas tree in her diary. “After dinner, we then went into the drawing room near the dining room,” she wrote, “and there were two large tables on which were placed two trees hung with lights and sugar ornaments, the presents being placed around the trees.”    Christmas tree, by Elliott B. Source: Unsplash   It is now thought that, by the year 1860, there was not a middle-class family in England that did not either keep or know about the tradition of the Christmas tree. As decorations were generally inexpensive, the tradition of the Christmas tree spread into the homes of families of all incomes. Popular and cheap decorations for a tree included real candles, tinsel, and homemade paper chains or cut outs.   Those who had neither room, money, nor desire to keep a Christmas tree may have chosen to decorate their home with cheaper alternatives, such as holly, ivy, mistletoe, and other natural greenery. They may also have appreciated trees erected for public viewing, such as in churches or shop windows. It was customary to decorate on Christmas Eve, gathered around the tree with the whole family.   Sweet Singing in the Choir Carol singers, by David Beale. Source: Unsplash   In a world where television and internet did not exist, and money was lacking, people learned to make their own entertainment. At Christmastime, particularly on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, the Victorians loved to sing carols. Carol singing, then also known as wassailing, was commonly performed in a variety of places and for a variety of reasons. It took place in crowded, snowy streets as public performances.   Wassailing took place in churches as part of religious services. It took place with family and friends gathered around the Christmas tree. It took place at Christmas parties, and it took place in residential areas, when people went door to door with their choirs. Whether accompanied by a piano or acapella, whether against the warmth of a fire or in the cold of the winter night air, singing carols was an integral part of Christmas entertainment.   It was during the year of 1880 that the first so-called Carol Service took place. A musically-minded man named E.W. Benson, the bishop of Truro cathedral, held a newly invented ceremony on Christmas Eve. He called his service “Nine Lessons With Carols,” and as expected, it featured nine Biblical readings and nine Carols. When combined, they told the story of Christmas from the Annunciation of the Angel Gabriel to Mary, until the visitation of the Magi and the Epiphany.   Truro Cathedral, by Winston Tjia. Source: Unsplash   This service was a major event for the Victorian working classes, as the attendance of such services was permitted for all manner of folk. They could attend Church on Christmas Eve and sing amongst the middle classes. Whilst wealthier members of society could afford to pay musicians and choirs for their musical entertainment, Church music was free, and therefore could also be enjoyed by the poor.   It may surprise you to learn that almost all of the carols we sing today were written during the Victorian era. Some, like O Come O Come Emanuel, had been written as early as the 12th century. Others, such as The Boar’s Head Carol, were composed in the 15th, and were sung by the likes of King Henry VIII. But many were written by the Victorians themselves, and this newly-penned selection would have been considered extremely modern during the 19th century. Just a few of the Carols enjoyed by the Victorians include, Good Christian Men Rejoice (c. 1400), The Coventry Carol (1534), God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen (c. 1650), Hark the Herald Angels Sing (1739), O Come All Ye Faithful (c. 1740), Silent Night (1818), O Holy Night (1847), Once in Royal David’s City (1848), Deck the Halls (1862), In the Bleak Midwinter (1872), and Away in a Manger (1895).   The Goose is Getting Fat Christmas pudding on a Christmas card, 1890. Source: The Met, New York   Although the Victorians gave each other gifts for Christmas, these were usually small tokens, and present giving was not the most important thing that happened on the day. At the center of a Victorian celebration was the Christmas Dinner, as it gave time for the whole family to sit down together, partake in a hard-earned feast, and generally enjoy each other’s company.   At the mention of a 19th-century Christmas dinner, one may immediately bring to mind two pictures. The first is of Queen Victoria, sitting at a banqueting table in Windsor Castle with the rest of the royal family. Her table would have been graced with all sorts of expensive and sumptuous delights. Secondly, a picture of the Cratchit family, brought to life by Charles Dickens, as they gathered around a small table and distributed pieces of one of the smallest geese the shop could provide. Despite their differences, both pictures are equally merry.   Mulled wine, by Hannah Pemberton. Source: Unsplash   Popular dishes served on Christmas Day, whether in the households of rich or poor, included roast goose, plum pudding, Christmas pudding, roast chestnuts, warm brandy, mulled wine, Christmas punch, and gingerbread. The courses of wealthy families were somewhat more lavish and may have included a boar’s head, venison, roast beef, oyster soup, roast ham, or roast turkey. Vegetables were equally important to all classes, and root vegetables such as potatoes, parsnips, and carrots were found on tables all over the country. Even sprouts became associated with Christmas dinner during the Victorian era.   In an ideal situation, even in poorer households, Christmas dinner would be accompanied by a roaring fire in the hearth, a selection of greenery to adorn the room, and many smiling faces around the table. The ambience was likely to have been warmer and more inviting than it was at any other time of the year.   All the Little Children That Round the Table Go Poster for Tom Smith’s Christmas Novelties Including Crackers, 1911. Source: Wikimedia Commons   A British baker and confectioner, who lived between the years of 1823 and 1869, established one of our most treasured Christmas lunch traditions. Although he was by trade a sweet-maker, he is now most famous for his invention of the Christmas cracker.   Tom Smith’s inspiration for the Christmas cracker was thought to have been his roaring fire. When he heard the crackle of a log he had just thrown on, he was struck with an idea. He made a long, cylindrical package to replicate a log, and determined that the product would produce a bang when pulled apart.   Inside, patrons would discover something to eat (a sugared almond from his confectioners) and some form of entertainment (a short motto on a piece of paper). Due to the excitement of the bang, the product soon became known as the Christmas cracker.   When he invented and advertised his first Christmas cracker in 1847, little did Tom Smith know that they would endure the centuries and only grow in popularity. It might shock him to realize that an estimated 154 million crackers are pulled each Christmas in the present era.    Glad Tidings We Bring, to You and Your Kin Photograph of Sir Henry Cole, 1876-84. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Moving on from the inventor of the Christmas cracker, we come to the inventor of another Christmas staple. Henry Cole, who lived between the years of 1808 and 1882, is credited with the invention of the Christmas card. These cards, which are still sold, written, and exchanged by people all over the world, originally came about during the year of 1843.   The popularity of Henry Cole’s invention was helped along by a variety of factors, including the arrival of cheaper printing techniques, cheaper and easier postage, and the introduction of the Penny Black postage stamp. For the first time, people began to wish each other season’s greetings with a special card rather than a letter. Common designs for Victorian Christmas cards included pictures of decorated Christmas trees, presents, pieces of holly and ivy, birds such as robins, snow-covered churches and villages, and even musical notes and directions for various Christmas carols.   Let Nothing You Dismay The Workroom at St James’s Workhouse, by Thomas Rowlandson, 1808. Source: Londonlives.org   To the many thousands of people living in the workhouse during the 19th century, Christmas Day was pretty much a day like any other. The most that could be expected was some sort of festivity at lunchtime. This came in the form of a plate of roast beef, a little glass of something alcoholic, and, if you were really lucky, a meagre slice of plum pudding. Some children may have been given an apple or an orange.   Whether or not this actually occurred was subject to many factors, such as the current laws regarding the treatment of the poor and the whim of the owner of the institution. There was certainly no day off from work, so if there was no Christmas dinner to be had, Christmas Day could easily have come and gone without so much as a passing mention.   If You Have No Ha’Penny, Then God Bless You Photograph of Charles Dickens, portrait by Geremiah Gurney Head, 1867-8. Source: Wikimedia Commons   While the fictional Ebenezer Scrooge may have thought of Christmas as a “time for finding yourself a year older and not a penny richer,” or as a “poor excuse for picking a man’s pocket every twenty-fifth of December,” many real Victorians considered Christmas a perfect time for generosity and charitable giving. It was customary, especially on Christmas Eve, for businessmen to be visited by well-meaning people, collecting donations to pass on to the poor in time for Christmas Day.   In fact, it was Ebenezer Scrooge himself who actually contributed to a massive increase in yuletide charitable giving; 6,000 copies of A Christmas Carol were published on December 19, 1843, and every single copy had been purchased by Christmas Eve. Influenced by an inspiring tale of warmth and generosity, charitable donations by the middle classes to the poor soared, practically overnight.   Charles Dickens is often remembered by the epithet “the man who invented Christmas,” as he changed the way thousands of people thought of those less fortunate than themselves, particularly during the winter season. Christmas is still thought of as a time for sharing what you have, whether it be a great deal or very little. Many charities continue to appeal during December, in the hope of providing a better Christmas for somebody in need.   Tis the Season to Be Jolly The Ghost of Christmas Present, drawn by John Leech, 1843. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In this article, we have reviewed the main parts of a Victorian Christmas celebration. From the pulling of Christmas crackers to the sending of Christmas cards, from the singing of carols to the enjoying of a hearty Christmas dinner, 19th-century traditions don’t seem so different from our own.   What really stands out about Victorian Christmas, particularly for the most unfortunate of families, is the fact that they relied solely upon the entertainment they could create for themselves. Christmas was uncommercial, by default inexpensive, and acted as one single day of bright hope for the future, amongst a year of other difficulties. The run-up to Christmas was not defined by frantic preparations, hurried Christmas shopping, and a mass accumulation of material goods. Instead, Victorian shoppers went out on Christmas Eve, unhurried and glowing with Christmas spirit, to collect what they needed for themselves and their loved ones. They attended Church, spent time in prayer, and considered Christmas as a time, firstly for the annual remembrance of the coming of Christ into the world, and secondly for love of family and community.   The Victorians captured the true meaning of Christmas and celebrated it in a way that would make many people happier than they might imagine, even today. Undoubtedly, the hardships faced by the Victorian people gave them great cause to appreciate Christmas in a way that really mattered.

  Medieval castles are often portrayed in modern literature as beautiful buildings belonging to brave leaders, but the truth is much darker. In many cases, kings and lords built the giant structures, not to protect local populations, but to dominate the masses and collect money from them. And so, for hundreds of years, castles stood as instruments of conquest. This was particularly true from the 10th to the 15th centuries. In what ways did castles help nobles dominate and govern entire societies?   Castles Were Used to Seize Territory and Suppress Rebellion Image from the Bayeux Tapestry showing William with his half-brothers. William is in the center, Odo is on the left with empty hands, and Robert is on the right with a sword in his hand. Source: Wikipedia   Medieval castles offered much more than simple refuge to soldiers in times of war. The enormous buildings were regularly used to dominate subjects in the areas in which they were built and derive revenue from them through taxes. The story of the Norman Conquest of 1066 illustrates the situation clearly, as right after their victory, the Normans went on a building spree and built roughly 600 to 800 castles across England by the 12th century.   William the Conqueror, in particular, handed out land in a calculated pattern so that one royal castle was, in many cases, within a day’s march (roughly 15 to 20 miles) of the next. The spacing pattern helped to suppress rebellion among the defeated Anglo-Saxons.   They Were Used as Toll Collection Centers The Rhine in Basel, Switzerland. Source: Wikipedia   Once the fighting died down and trading resumed, the towering medieval castles of Europe ceased being just fortresses. They were converted into revenue collection points by the lords who controlled them. As a result, many nobles built their castles right on the busiest roads and rivers so that merchants had no other choice but to pay up if they wanted to use the routes. Nowhere was this more obvious than along the Rhine. By the early 1300s, more than 60 castles lined its riverbanks, each one basically a medieval toll booth. A trader heading from Basel to Cologne would, for example, be compelled to pay between 10 to 25 percent of his cargo’s worth, just in fees.    That said, things in England worked a bit differently. Because most towns grew under the protection of a castle or a major church, locals paid steady market tolls and rent to the lords.    They Were an Immense Economic Burden Beaumaris Castle, Anglesey, UK. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The process of building castles required total domination of territories in which they were to be built in order to obtain cheap labor for construction. Unfortunately, the procedure also stripped the land of its resources such as timber and stone. King Edward I of England revealed just how expensive such endeavors were when he launched his final conquest of Wales in the late 13th century.   Beaumaris Castle alone, which was constructed in 1295, took thousands of laborers to build. It utilized about 400 skilled masons and over 2,000 laborers at peak periods, most of whom were paid wages, though some were compelled to work under wartime labor obligations. It is estimated that Edward spent roughly £80,000 to £100,000 on his ring of Welsh castles and associated fortifications between 1277 and 1330. The sum, spread over more than five decades, placed a heavy burden on the royal treasury as the average annual revenue during that period was about £20,000.   They Were Used as Centers of Justice Beaumaris Castle Inner Ward. Source: Cadw   Castles stood as important centers of administration in many regions during the medieval years and acted as hubs where lords managed their estates and enforced local laws. Established lords, especially from the 11th century to the 13th century, held special rights called high justice in many places across Europe. The rights allowed them to dispense punishments to lawbreakers for breaking local laws, and even order executions. Hanging was a regular punishment in many regions at the time, but over the years, kings started to take more control, especially from the 14th century onward. They also started to gain greater influence over local justice systems through royal courts.   Towering Symbols of Fear and Royal Control The Norman White Tower, the keep of the Tower of London, overlooking the River Thames. Source: Wikipedia   Almost every medieval castle was an unmistakable symbol of the royal authority that held power over the lives of ordinary people. King Henry II of England made this point unmistakably clear in the 1180s when he commissioned the building of the massive Great Keep at Dover Castle – a towering castle that was visible for miles across the English Channel. Later kings recognized the danger of having too many private towering fortresses and introduced the License to Crenellate (from roughly 1200 to 1500). The royal permit meant that no noble could build or fortify a castle without the crown’s explicit, written approval.

Christmas is celebrated in myriad ways across the globe, each culture adding its own unique customs to the festive season. From Iceland’s mischievous Yule Lads to Japan’s KFC dinners, these traditions reflect the rich tapestry of global holiday celebrations (tatlerasia.com). In Colombia, the “Noche de las Velitas” (Night of the Little Candles) marks the start ...

  Ask the average American what they know about former president Abraham Lincoln, and answers will likely relate somehow to the American Civil War and Lincoln’s role in the abolition of slavery. Lincoln is largely credited with freeing slaves with his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. However, a closer look at Lincoln’s words and actions brings up questions. Was Lincoln truly the humanitarian that history credits him with being?   Anti-Slavery Crusader? Young Lincoln spoke out against slavery—but to what extent? Source: Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons   There is little doubt that Abraham Lincoln was against the idea of slavery. In 1841, he saw a group of slaves shackled in irons on a riverboat trip, a sight which bothered him and stuck with him. He spoke of the occasion and its impact on him in a letter to a friend in 1855, in which he stated his opposition to the extension of slavery. He continued to hold this view in his early political career, even describing himself as being anti-slavery. However, he did not campaign for immediate emancipation. In a speech given in Peoria, Illinois, in 1854, he came close to defending southern slave owners, stating that he had “no prejudice against the Southern people” and believed that they were “just what we would be in their situation.”   This pro-Lincoln banner was flown leading up to the 1860 presidential election despite the misspelling of the candidate’s first name. Source: Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons   Still, Lincoln’s anti-slavery views made an impact on his political career. When he ran for president in 1860, his opponents, notably Southern Democrats, utilized his views as scare tactics. One Georgia pro-secessionist spread the rumor that Lincoln planned to force the intermarriage of Blacks and whites and that within ten years, white children would be “slaves of Negroes.”   The Charleston Mercury and other newspapers published scathing critiques and cartoons of Lincoln in crude depictions with African Americans. Even though Southerners feared Lincoln’s anti-slavery rhetoric, his statements and efforts regarding the cause were not enough for many abolitionists. Many viewed him as appealing to a “moderate” anti-slavery view rather than a full believer in the cause. Lincoln seemed to be focusing more on preventing the spread of slavery rather than doing away with it entirely. His speech on February 27, 1860, in New York, referred to as the Cooper Union Address, cemented this idea in the heads of many abolitionists. In his address, Lincoln said, “Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is…” and referred to using votes to stop its spread to current “free” states.   Several prominent abolitionists spoke out against Lincoln and even went so far as to abstain from voting, but the majority of abolitionists who did vote in 1860 chose the Republican. Lincoln would not even be placed on the ballot in many Southern states but still carried the election. When he became president, he chose cabinet members who opposed slavery.   Was Lincoln an Abolitionist? This optimistic cartoon by Thomas Nast spoke to hope in regard to abolition after the Civil War. Source: Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons   In 1858, Lincoln stated, “I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist.” Nevertheless, Lincoln was no abolitionist. Though political opponents used his anti-slavery views to appeal to their supporters and inspire fear, Lincoln had no plans to free America’s slaves as he became president.   However, some, such as Frederick Douglass, had hope that Lincoln’s views on slavery would help pave the way for true abolition in the future. When he was elected, Lincoln’s first priority was to preserve the Union, a priority that continued throughout the Civil War. As the war progressed through the early 1860s, Lincoln was forced to confront the issue of slavery. After all, it was the main factor for the division of the states to begin with.   A print featuring Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. Source: Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons   In September 1862, Lincoln issued a threat to his Southern counterparts. He promised that if the war continued, on the first day of January 1863, he would issue a decree freeing slaves in the rebellious states. His warning was not heeded, and in January, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, forever branding the president the “Great Emancipator.”   However, it is important to note that the proclamation only outlawed slavery in the states that were in rebellion or part of the Confederacy. Areas that were occupied by Union forces, regardless of location, were exempt from the proclamation. This exemption covered territory in many slaveholding states, including South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Mississippi. Though slavery was essentially defunct in the North at that time, it wasn’t nonexistent, with almost two thousand slaves still on record. Lincoln made no moves to make abolition a blanket policy for the whole country.   Believer in Equality? A Harper’s Weekly illustration shows Lincoln attacking slavery, represented by a tree. Source: Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons   Though Lincoln touted equality in his Gettysburg Address in 1864, he seemed to have some hesitation about whether or not whites and Blacks could live equally in America. In his 1854 Peoria speech, he suggested that his “first impulse” if the slaves were freed was to return them to Liberia in Africa. Realizing that this idea was impractical, he didn’t give up the idea of moving freed slaves elsewhere.   In 1861, he made a trip to Panama to visit the land of a Philadelphia man named Ambrose Thompson, who had volunteered his jungle holdings as a refuge for freed slaves. He went on to support Congressional bills that would provide money to relocate freedmen to Haiti, Liberia, or “such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the president may determine.” The preliminary version of the Emancipation Proclamation included language about the effort to relocate freed slaves “elsewhere.”   What Was Lincoln’s Indigenous Policy Like? Parker Peirce’s rendition of the mass hanging of 38 Dakota men in 1862. Source: Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons   Lincoln’s views on the Indigenous people of the United States aren’t in the spotlight as frequently as his efforts in relation to African Americans. His ideas in this regard mirrored those that were generally accepted by the US at the time. Indigenous tribes were seen as a threat to American settlers and the ability of the United States to grow and prosper.   Growing up on the frontier, Lincoln’s interactions with Native Americans were often negative and helped develop his racial attitudes. In addition, Lincoln voluntarily served as a militiaman against Indigenous forces during the Black Hawk War, although he did not actually see any combat. As president, Lincoln was directly responsible for several actions that continued to sour US-Indigenous relations, including allowing the deaths of 38 Dakota warriors in 1862 in the largest mass execution in US history. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation only five days later.   Was He a Humanitarian in Other Ways? This photo of an unidentified, emaciated prisoner from Belle Isle Confederate Prison illustrates some of the horrors Civil War prisoners were subjected to. Source: Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons   Though Lincoln may not have lived up to the title of abolitionist or have been known for working toward peace with Indigenous tribes, he did prove himself to be a humanitarian in other ways. The Geneva Convention, a global pact in which several nations pledged to avoid certain actions that threatened humanity in wartime, wasn’t signed until 1864, when the Civil War was concluding. Before that, Lincoln had made efforts to prevent the Union Army from acting cruelly, even in a period as disastrous as the American Civil War.   In 1862, Lincoln consulted legal scholar Francis Lieber of Columbia College for help forming humanitarian guidelines for the treatment of Confederate soldiers. Approved by Lincoln in April of 1863, Lieber’s “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field,” known as the Lieber Code, called for the humane treatment of Confederate forces after loss or capture. This was the first time that limits existed on certain military actions and underlined the importance of humanizing elements of warfare.   Though Lieber’s, and in turn, Lincoln’s recommendations were not always followed to the letter, such as in the case of Sherman’s March to the Sea (the code recommends avoiding the looting and destruction of civilian property), the broad recognition was that Confederate soldiers were still Americans and should be treated as such. Lincoln also outlawed the use of torture and poison in the Union army’s tactics.   Lincoln featured in Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, October 20, 1860. Source: Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper / Wikimedia Commons   While in reality, Abraham Lincoln may not completely live up to the title of “Great Emancipator,” he does deserve some credit for his role as a leader during the most divisive time in America. He proved himself willing to listen to the voices of all Americans, a quality often so lacking but much desired in elected officials. Lincoln’s legacy may be exaggerated at times, but it is enduring. He may not have been the abolitionist he is sometimes championed as, but his anti-slavery viewpoint and efforts to preserve the Union undoubtedly played an important role in advancing the United States towards a more progressive and fair future.