How the British Empire was replaced by the British Commonwealth

“We refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”

– Balfour Declaration of 1926, issued by the 1926 Imperial Conference of British Empire leaders in London

British nations are hit hard in the Great War, a major turning point for the British Empire

Canada lost nearly 1% of its population in World War One, and Australia and New Zealand lost more than 1% of their respective populations therein. The British Isles themselves actually lost roughly 2% of the UK population during this infamous “Great War.” Small wonder, then, that the First World War was a turning point for the British Empire. I plan to cover the lead-up to the Great War elsewhere, so I will not try to attempt such coverage here. Thus, suffice it to say here that things exploded in 1914, when these various parts of the British Empire were all sucked into the conflict. The year 1914, specifically, is thus considered to be a major turning point for the British Empire. To some degree, even India and South Africa were affected by the carnage, although their death rates were somewhat lower than those listed above. Like the United States, these various portions of the British Empire would later send some troops to fight in the Russian Civil War as well, when the broader world war had ended. But these interventions ultimately failed, and communism was nonetheless instituted in Russia. In the negotiations for the postwar peace treaty, all of these portions of the British Empire were represented in the Allied delegation therein. These included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, and (of course) Britain itself. It was then acknowledged that groups like the Anzacs and the Canadians had fought very bravely alongside their comrades from the British Isles. Thus, it was felt that they, too, should have a place at the bargaining table there. This was an unofficial recognition of their status in the still-ongoing British Empire. During the war, the British Isles also saw the Irish rebellion of 1916. This soon led to the creation of the “Irish Free State,” which later became the “Republic of Ireland.” (More about that later.)

Australian troops at Gallipoli, circa 1915 – part of World War One

Irish soldiers at the Somme, 1916 – part of World War One

The English Empire: The predecessor of the British Empire

“In the reign of king Henry the seventh, his ministers (not to say the king himself) were more industrious in hunting out prosecutions upon old and forgotten penal laws, in order to extort money from the subject, than in framing any new beneficial regulations. For the distinguishing character of this reign was that of amassing treasure into the king's coffers, by every means that could be devised: and almost every alteration in the laws, however salutary or otherwise in their future consequences, had this and this only for their great and immediate object.”

– Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 33

In 1485, the last Plantagenet king of England fell in battle. His name was Richard the Third, and he was killed on the battleground of Bosworth Field. The winner of the battle was a young man named Henry, who then became “Henry the Seventh.” He was the first of the Tudor rulers of England. Henry had been on the Lancastrian side of the “Wars of the Roses.” But, when he married a Yorkist lady in 1486, the two factions from the civil war were finally united, since he was marrying someone from that faction. Her name was Elizabeth of York, and she would eventually give birth to a son in 1491. The boy was the future “Henry the Eighth,” who would eventually form the new “Church of England.” (More about that here.) But, at that time, the boy’s birth signaled a formal end to the “Wars of the Roses.” The following year was 1492, the year that Christopher Columbus was arriving in the Americas. Spain and Portugal would soon be creating massive overseas empires, in which they spread their longtime Catholic faith to distant shores. Henry the Seventh was still the king of England in 1496, when he commissioned John Cabot to sail to Asia. Cabot sailed in 1497, but instead landed on the coast of Newfoundland – in what is today Canada. They did not yet attempt to found a colony there. Cabot later made another voyage to the Americas, but did not return. To this day, no one knows what happened to Cabot’s ships.

A replica of John Cabot’s ship the Matthew

A review of Michael Wood’s “In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great”

“Whilst the Amphictyonic confederacy remained, that of the Achaeans, which comprehended the less important cities only, made little figure on the theatre of Greece. When the former became a victim to Macedon, the latter was spared by the policy of Philip and Alexander [the Great].”

– Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 18)

One of the greatest conquerors in history, whose empire stretched from Greece to India …

He was one of the greatest conquerors in history, whose empire stretched from Greece to India. Before he reached age 30, Alexander the Great created a massive empire that would include much of the world, as it was known to the Mediterraneans in his time. Our best sources for his expedition include two histories, both written some centuries after the time of Alexander. One of these two historians was Greek, while the other was a Roman. But Alexander was a Macedonian. The Macedonian language no longer exists today, but it was definitely related to Greek. Some have even considered the Macedonians to be “Greeks” themselves. The host of this program sometimes seems to think so. But the Macedonians did not consider themselves to be “Greeks.” Nor did the self-identified “Greeks” consider the Macedonians to be Greeks. Nonetheless, it is true that the Macedonians spread Greek culture to a then-unprecedented extent. Nothing would spread Greek culture so widely again until the advent of the Roman Empire, which was some centuries later. I thought that it might have been helpful for the host to clarify this issue, even with a brief sentence or two. But this is actually a truly great film despite this omission.

The British Empire: From the Acts of Union to the Battle of Waterloo

The eighteenth century was a crucial period for the British Empire. It saw the birth of the “Kingdom of Great Britain” itself, in the 1707 “Acts of Union.” It saw much-admired advances in philosophy, from the English philosophers to the “Scottish Enlightenment.” And it saw many important political developments for the British Empire, at home and abroad. For example, it saw the continuation of an ongoing struggle between Britain and France. Britain would be affected by the loss of many of its overseas colonies in North America. Much closer to home, it was affected by the French Revolution, and the chaos left in its wake. Thus, in the early nineteenth century, it would eventually fight the Napoleonic Wars, one of the defining conflicts of its history. Therefore, an examination of this general period might be in order here. That is, I plan to go from the 1707 “Acts of Union” … to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. This period has a massive legacy for the British Empire, and for many of its former overseas colonies.

Battle of Trafalgar – Spain, 1805

Why are certain European languages so often spoken in Africa? (Answer: History)

“A Declaration introducing into international relations certain uniform rules with reference to future occupations on the coast of the African Continent. And deeming it expedient that all these several documents should be combined in one single instrument, they (the Signatory Powers) have collected them into one General Act, composed of the following Articles …”

– “General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa” (26 February 1885) – an agreement among some of the European powers

Many of the contemporary languages of Africa came to the continent from elsewhere …

Many of the contemporary languages of Africa came to the continent from elsewhere. Even the Arabic language arrived from the Middle East, although this was fairly early in (North) African history. Arabic is the dominant language of Muslim North Africa today, as you may know. In fact, Arabic is the most spoken language in Africa today. But many other languages on the African continent arrived from Europe, during the “Scramble for Africa” – which was mostly during the nineteenth century. Thus, the languages of English, French, and Portuguese are among the most spoken languages on this continent. To a lesser degree, Spanish is also spoken in certain parts of Africa, and has a presence there. This would surprise many, because we expect Africans to speak various languages that are native to the continent (such as Swahili – or “Kiswahili,” as it is sometimes called). And, very often, they do speak native African languages. But the European languages also have a strong presence in Africa, which is a legacy of the past colonization there. How did all of this happen, you might be wondering? That is what this post will be undertaking to explain. I have discussed other African colonies from Germany and Italy in another post, and their various effects on the World Wars (more about that here). Thus, I will not attempt to duplicate much of that coverage here. Rather, I will instead focus this post on the bigger colonization by Britain, France, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal – some of which were very influential, as I will show later on. I will also throw in a number of country names – and, at times, dates. But it is not expected that the reader will remember any of these details. Rather, I just hope that I will convey the feeling of how complicated these geopolitics were, and answer a possible reader’s question about how these European languages came to be in Africa. This came in the context of European colonization elsewhere in the world.

Front view of fort São João Baptista – Portuguese Benin, 1917

A review of “Byzantium: The Lost Empire” (The Learning Channel)

Also known as the “Eastern Roman Empire,” which lasted about a thousand years longer than the better-known “Western Roman Empire.”

The Roman Empire was divided into western and eastern halves more than once in its history. Sometimes, the halves reunited; but when they were divided again in 395, the separation became permanent. When Westerners discussing this period use the phrase “the Roman Empire,” they are usually talking about the western portion, which fell in the year 476. But the eastern portion didn't fall until the year 1453, and it is now known to us as the “Byzantine Empire.”

Map of the split of the Roman Empire into East and West, in AD 395

To the inhabitants of this empire, it was originally known as the “Eastern” Roman Empire. But when the Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, the eastern empire had now become the only “Roman Empire” still remaining. Thus, it became convenient for the people living under it to refer to these eastern territories as simply the “Roman Empire.” Why, then, do contemporary English speakers instead tend to refer to it as the “Byzantine Empire”?

A review of “Queen Victoria's Empire” (PBS Empires)

“ ♪ Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves.
And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. ♪ ”

– “Rule, Britannia!” (1740), a British patriotic song written decades before Queen Victoria was born

At the height of the British Empire, it was the largest empire in the history of the world. Its geography was so widespread that people often commented that the sun “never set” on its borders. Actually, it is not the only empire in history to be described in this way, but it may still be the most prominent of them. The British Empire actually predates Queen Victoria's reign by some centuries, with its “first empire” going from 1583 to 1783 (the year that they lost America). The “second empire” went from 1783 to 1815, the year that the Napoleonic Wars ended. But a number of historians believe that Britain's “imperial century” was from 1815 to 1914, the year that World War One began. Queen Victoria reigned for more than half of this latter period, as it turns out, and was alive for an even larger share of it – part of which was before she assumed the throne in 1837. Thus, historians sometimes refer to this empire as “Queen Victoria's” empire, and to this era of British history as the “Victorian era.”

A review of “Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire” (History Channel)

Note: This is a different series from “Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” (which is made by the BBC).

There aren't too many documentaries out there about ancient history …

If you've ever looked online for movies about ancient history, you've probably had a hard time finding any. Ancient history isn't a popular subject for Hollywood movies (or even documentaries), and so very few programs about it have ever been made. I don't know why this has been the case, but I can probably make some guesses about it. If you make a documentary about World War II (a modern topic), you have access to actual archival footage from the period. You can get it at very low cost, and advertise its benefits to your viewers. Some of them will even prefer the gritty realism of the actual footage to re-enactments, which are just educated guesses (albeit good ones, if they're done right). Thus, you can sometimes get more effectiveness for less money, which is a real advantage in the world of documentaries. But if you depict the distant past, you are usually forced to rely on re-enactments, and the cost of these re-enactments can be steep. Consequently, many of these ancient history documentaries are never made in the first place.

This documentary is primarily a military history

An ancient history topic must thus be fairly popular before a for-profit network like the History Channel will decide to throw significant money at it. No matter how much the producers of these networks might like these topics, they usually can't justify the budget for these programs unless they think that they have a reasonable chance of recovering these expenses with some added cash flow. One presumes that the Roman Empire was considered popular enough to justify these budgets to investors at this time. If it had not been, after all, it's safe to assume that this series would never have been made. I imagine part of its appeal to the general public was its focus on military history (rather than other kinds of history). Military history has long been a popular topic with certain segments of the general population (perhaps especially the male population); and although political history is sometimes covered here, the primary focus of this series is military history. This may be the most comprehensive military history of Rome ever made for television. It has some weaknesses (which I will note later), but it's still a fine series despite these.

Relief scene of Roman legionaries marching, from the Column of Marcus Aurelius – Rome, Italy, 2nd century AD

A review of Michael Wood's “Conquistadors”

A disturbing and intensely fascinating human drama ...

It caused the fall of empires, and the rise of a new one in their place. It changed the destiny of continents, and left the imprint of Europe on their face. And it was a tale of cruelty and ruthlessness - a disturbing and intensely fascinating human drama - which forever changed the Western Hemisphere; and by extension, the entire world.

Machu Picchu, Peru

The story has an air of Shakespearean tragedy to it ...

The event is, of course, the Spanish Conquest; and generations of schoolchildren have grown up with the story of how it happened. The story has an air of Shakespearean tragedy to it, of complicated characters who manage to be sympathetic even when callous and cruel; and even the brutality and horrors of it cannot stop it from being interesting, captivating, and utterly compelling. We may not like it, but we'll never be able to get away from it; and instead of ignoring it, there is value in learning about this epic tale; and hearing of the tremendous impact it has left on our civilization, and our world.

Moctezuma II being held captive by Cortés, circa 1519 or 1520