HOW DID ROMANIA DEVELOP
AS A COUNTRY AFTER ITS INDEPENDENCE FROM THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE?
Lorena B provides a scholarly overview of Romania’s modern history- a topic that has often been overlooked by British historians.
The development of Romania as an independent state emerged through a complex interplay of regional and international forces. Situated in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, Romania’s road to independence was profoundly influenced by centuries of existence under the Ottoman Empire, the unification of three key regions into Romania and the growing desire for a national and cultural identity. Romania was composed of the three regions of Wallachia, Moldovia and Transylvania, each with their own histories but united by culture, ethnicity and language. Before being subjugated by the Ottoman Empire, Wallachia and Moldovia were established principalities that resisted the attempts of subjugation by many empires including the Ottomans. Despite attempts to resist, these principalities were placed under the Ottomans, with limited autonomy in certain aspects; however, they were politically and economically restrained. Transylvania, on the other hand, followed a different trajectory after the battle of Mohacs in 1526 and was integrated with Hungary and later the Habsburg Empire. This arrangement still allowed the principalities a degree of autonomy, as previously mentioned, and also fostered the preservation of their culture and language even within the empire. It was only over the course of a few centuries that Ottoman influence in Wallachia and Moldovia grew more restrictive as the Ottomans prioritised the empire over local interests, which led to the Romanian desire for further autonomy. Thus, with the amalgamation of a growing Romanian culture and desire for independence from the Ottoman empire, grew a nationalist sentiment that inspired Romanians to work towards unity, an independent state and self determination
Romania’s trajectory towards independence was marked by nationalist sentiments that spread across Europe, characterised by the uprisings of 1848, and hence the growth in demand for autonomy and the unification of
Wallachia, Moldovia and Transylvania. It was this sentiment of nationalism sparked by the revolutions across Europe and the pre-existing sentiments of a shared culture and identity that led to the unification of these three states to what we now recognise as Romania, achieved under Alexander Ioan Cuza in 1859; and this marked a key step towards independence. Fortunately, this was made possible with the approval of European powers who saw the creation of a new state as a buffer state between the Ottomans and the Russians, but regardless of unification and the attitude of other European states, it was not until the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 that Romania declared its independence from the Ottoman Empire, which was confirmed by the Treaty of Berlin in 1878. Romania was now recognised as an independent state under Carol I from the Hohenzollern family as its first monarch. Following its independence from the Ottoman Empire and its official unification, Romania embarked on a path of nation building, characterised by the modernisation of its institutions. This started as early as 1866, soon after its unification, in which Romania adopted a new constitution that established a constitutional monarchy and created a legislative assembly. King Carol’s reign, which began in 1866 was marked by his efforts towards embedding a constitution; with his goals to centralise authority, reform the military and ensure a strong government. The ultimate goal of this journey sought to transform Romania into a modern European state, as inspired by the liberal and nationalist movements of the era.
The foundation of this political reform lies in the emergence of a cultural and national identity in the late 19th century This brought along social reforms, ignited by the promotion of a distinct Romanian identity by intellectuals and politicians which emphasised the significance of connections to Romanian heritage This then went on to develop a national education system, the growth of literature and art as well as fostering a sense of Romanian pride. However, It would be an oversight to not acknowledge that Romania faced as many challenges- as some aspects remained the same, or sometimes worsened An example is Romania’s economic situation; which followed a less successful trajectory than its politics; with its primarily agrarian economy and the challenge of modernising this sector of the economy and addressing the negative consequences of the stagnant economy. Consequently, as a result of
prevailing economic struggle and thus social inequality in Romania, the 1864 land reform under Alexandru Ioan Cuza was implemented and sought to improve peasants’ rights; but instead left many peasants with ongoing grievances and insufficient land and hence poor wages and a poor economy. These issues persisted and eventually led to the major peasant revolt of 1907; which exposed the unsatisfactory trajectory of Romania’s economy through unification and independence from subjugation under the Ottoman Empire. Whilst political reforms proved more successful than economic reforms, political power was concentrated within the aristocratic elite and there were certainly tensions amongst the peasantry and working class who were not content with the constitution and the dominance of the elite over politics in Romania.
Romania’s transformation from a fragmented collection of principalities under the influence of the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires into a unified and independent nation set the stage for the development of Romania as a modern state. This trajectory was driven by the rise of 19th century nationalist fervour that swept across Europe with the 1848 revolutions, inspiring Romanians to demand unity, self-governance and a separate cultural identity. The unification of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldovia reflected the determination of the people to preserve a shared culture, history and heritage which laid the foundation for the significant political and social reforms. Although this development was fraught with challenges such as economic stagnation and social inequality, these struggles played a role in the strengthening of Romania’s ability to resolve issues and create social cohesion It was the efforts made to modernise Romanian institutions and cultivate a sense of cultural pride that allowed Romania to evolve to the state that it became in the 20th century, with its emergence as a prominent power in Eastern European politics It is a remarkable transformation underscored by the resilience and ambition of the people who navigated complex dynamics to achieve national unity and independence
WHAT IMPACT DID SOUL MUSIC HAVE ON THE US CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT?
James D explores the links between the US Civil Rights Movement and the wonderful Soul music of the 1960s and 1970s. If you want to update your Spotify playlist whilst learning about a crucial period of American history, this is definitely the article for you!
Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and Jesse Jackson leaders crucial to the Civil Rights Movement led marches, gave speeches, and made significant contributions to the massive social change within America during the 1960s and 70s. However, in this article I would like to introduce perhaps a secondary perspective by discussing the role that a few musicians, working in a small house in the centre of Detroit, had on the Civil Rights Movement as a whole.
To provide some background on the Motown label and its impact on civil rights, we first need to look at its roots. Motown was founded in 1959 by Berry Gordy, who took out an $800 loan from his family to begin experimenting in the studio He signed his first group, the Miracles, later that year Moving into early 1961, we see the addition of the legendary Marvin Gaye to the Hitsville-based label. Gaye himself was a monumental contributor to the Civil Rights Movement through his music Songs such as What’s Going On released in 1971 touched on the senseless violence and police brutality carried out against peaceful Black protesters during this period of civil unrest. Lyrics such as “don’t punish me with brutality” and “we’ve got to find a way to bring some lovin’ here today,” symbolise the attitudes and feelings of the Civil Rights Movement. Gaye emphasised his concern about racial violence and police brutality; and expressed his belief that reconciliation could be achieved through the principles of peace, love, and understanding. This iconic song was also released alongside an album of the same name, which featured other Motown staples such as Inner City Blues and Wholy Holy.
Even though it wasn't released under the Motown label, Sam Cooke's song "A Change Is Gonna Come" captures the sentiments and ideas of the Civil Rights Movement. It is impossible to overstate how important the record was to the 7 | Page
evolution of the Civil Rights Movement. For many, the song became an anthem because of its messages of perseverance, acceptance, and freedom. The song "A Change Is Gonna Come" came to represent the bitterness that the Black community experienced as a result of being subjected to the unfair structures of society in the US, including those brought about by the Jim Crow laws. Cooke's own views regarding racial discrimination are reflected in the song, which calls for reform and the advancement of civil rights in the United States. Since its debut, the song has received widespread praise and recognition as an anthem for the Civil Rights Movement as it brought forward the many concerns of the Black community within America during the 1960s.
Returning to 1964, we see the release of another universal anthem for the Civil Rights Movement by the legendary Hitsville label: Dancing in the Street, performed by Martha and the Vandellas. This song became an anthem for many members of the Black community fighting for equality and justice. The upbeat nature of the song called for an almost provocative outcry for people to take to the streets, protest, and fight for their rights. Contextually, this piece was released in the summer of 1964, following major national race riots. The song calls for harmony and unity, with lyrics such as “an invitation across the nation” and references to cities like “Baltimore and DC.” It could also be interpreted as a call to end discrimination, particularly with its line, “Oh, it doesn’t matter what you wear.” This line symbolises the desire for equality, suggesting that it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from everyone should be united as one, able to dance freely in the street, hand in hand.
If you would like to explore more about Motown and Soul music as a whole, here is a list of my top 10 Motown songs, which I recommend you listen to in order to gain a greater understanding and appreciation for Motown music:
1. Whats Going On- Marvin Gaye,
2. Midnight Train To Georgia - Gladys Knight and the Pips
3. Sitting On The Dock of the Bay- Otis Redding
4. Ain't No Mountain High Enough- Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell
5. Livin For The City- Stevie Wonder
6. My Girl- The Temptations
7. War- Edwin Starr
8. Heard It Through The Grapevine- Marvin Gaye
9. Wonderful World- Sam Cooke
10. Papa Was A Rolling Stone- The Temptations
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES MICHAEL COLLINS DESERVE TO BE REMEMBERED AS A HEROIC FIGURE IN IRISH HISTORY?
Harry C- our youngest contributor this year-explores the historical and political significance of one of the most well known figures in modern Irish history.
Michael Collins is one the most renowned figures in Irish history His name is synonymous with the struggle for Irish independence; and he was a great tactician, politician and a tireless, courageous leader. Collins embodied the Irish spirit of resistance against British rule His influence continues to inspire and shape Ireland and its national pride today, and though his life was cut short in 1922, he remains one of the most influential and prominent martyrs to the Irish people Collins, however, wasn't simply another revolutionary figure; his understanding of modern warfare, intelligence and guerrilla tactics set him apart from many of his counterparts. He recognised that Ireland’s fight for independence could not be won on the battlefield or through peaceful political processes alone but through a strategic mixture of the two.
Collins's rise to prominence began with the 1916 Easter Rising, a major event in Irish history. Even though the rising was a failure, it marked the beginning of a radical shift in Ireland's stance on independence. Collins, a young man, was not a central figure at the time but soon became an indispensable part of the Irish revolutionary movement; and his participation in the rising would later help him develop his understanding of guerrilla warfare. Following the Easter Rising, the IRA engaged in brutal guerrilla warfare against the British forces; this would be the war for independence. Collins emerged as a key figure in the
conflict, being the director of intelligence within the IRA as well as playing one of the most crucial roles in securing the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1921. This treaty established the Irish Free State and put an end to British rule over Ireland. In the treaty one of the most controversial points were; the separation between the 6 counties in the North and the rest of the Free State. Although the treaty was controversial for Collins, his pragmatic and tenacious approach ultimately secured victory for the Irish nationalists. However, although the treaty did deliver the beginning of an independent Irish state it was deemed cowardly in the eyes of some Republicans, sparking a further round of conflict.
It is no exaggeration to say that Michael Collins’ actions and decisions shaped the very image of modern Ireland. One of Collin's most significant achievements was transforming the independence movement from an underground resistance to a viable political force. As the Director of Intelligence for the IRA, Collins oversaw and orchestrated a number of different guerrilla warfare campaigns; and covert units such as ‘The Squad’, also called the “twelve apostles,” helped undermine British authority in Ireland. His tactics, which strongly utilised intelligence networks and strategic assassinations, marked a shift in how modern conflicts are fought to this day.
However, Collins did not please everyone. After the Anglo-Irish treaty was signed there was a division of the IRA between the Pro-Treaty IRA, also known as the Free State Army ,backing Collins , and the Anti-Treaty IRA, known as the Irregulars, under the political leadership of Éamon de Valera. They had previously been friends but now became rivals due to their individual stances on the signing of the Anglo-Irish treaty. The treaty, however, was highly controversial. While it marked a significant step toward full Irish independence, it fell short of the republic that Collins and many of his fellow revolutionaries had initially hoped for. Some of the clauses, such as the requirement for an oath of allegiance to the British Crown, were seen as offensive to Ireland’s sovereignty However, Collins believed it was a necessary step toward achieving full independence in the future. His famous quote, “I have signed my death warrant,” reflected the immense personal sacrifice he was making for the long-term future of the nation
Collin’s death in 1922 just months after the signing of the Anglo Irish treaty was a defining moment in Irish history. He was killed in an ambush during the civil war by the Anti-Treaty combatants in Béal na Bláth, as Collins was leading a convoy of government forces in an attempt to neutralise anti-Treaty guerrilla activity in southern Ireland. The convoy included Collins and several high-ranking officials. At only the age of 31, Collins’ death marked a new chapter for Ireland. Collins was often seen as a symbol of unity and courage, his strategic brilliance and unwavering patriotism allowed him to shape Ireland's future in ways not many others could. Although it would take Ireland 15 more years to achieve full independence, Collins’ life and legacy would inspire generations of Irish people and remain a key chapter in the story of modern Ireland.
THE REGENCY DREAM?
Tonia D considers the complex realities of Georgian society and how they compare to modern portrayals of this era in dramas like Bridgerton…
When people hear the term ‘Regency era’ they most likely immediately think about the British Royal Family and aristocrats living in glamorous residences, not wearing a piece of clothing twice and only having to worry about who their parents might set them up with. Does that ring a bell? This idea probably primarily came from shows like Bridgerton and films like Pride and Prejudice or Becoming Jane. But was it really that glamorous? Let's have a look at what the Regency era was really like…
We associate the period between 1795 and 1837 as the Regency era. It is named after King George (also known as Prince Regent), who ruled Britain while his father, King George III, was ill Officially, his reign only lasted from 1811 until 1820 but the years before and after his reign are said to be included in the Regency period.
| Page
During that time-which was also considered as the time of romance and elegance- British society saw big changes in music, fashion and lifestyles. The prominence of many famous authors happened during that time as well, such as Lord Byron and Jane Austen. While she was not a political figure or a social reformer in the traditional sense, Austen’s novels reflect and critique the values, social structures, and class dynamics of the time, making her work an important commentary on Regency society.
Looking at social structures, there were extreme divisions between the aristocracy and gentry on the one hand and the lower classes. This led to social tension; as well as the impact of industrialisation on Britain which led to many people moving to Britain’s rapidly expanding cities. Therefore, accommodation in urban areas became stratified according to class. It was something the upper classes could easily afford and if the working classes were not employed as servants in wealthy households, they had to make do with overcrowded tenement housing. Concerning jobs, even though women were starting to work, they were still paid much less than men and faced inequalities such as not being allowed to vote.
Fashion during that time saw a big change as well. The aristocracy was especially keen on wearing elegant, simple and classic gowns and suits in order to display their wealth and status. Light colours and printed patterns became popular, the most popular fabric being muslin which is a type of cotton weave. Wool was worn very rarely as women only wanted the most exquisite textures Additionally, it became very important to wealthy families to dress their servants nicely as they represented them and it was crucial to retain a good reputation Eventually, metropolitan fashion also spread into rural areas as communication improved. There were also some ‘menswear influencers’. One example is Beau Brummell. His full name was George Bryan Brummell and he held a lot of influence over men’s fashion as his views on style were highly respected by elite society. He is credited with popularising many of the conventions of classic menswear but is also known from countless short stories, books and TV shows, where he was portrayed by famous actors like Stewart Granger. There were many advertisements featuring him to promote
specific clothing pieces. He lived from 1778 to 1840 but his influence on menswear is still very present to this day.
When looking at the movies and shows that are set during that time period the most well known are Bridgerton or the Jane Austen novels and movies. Through these representations many people get the idealistic idea that the Regency era was very glamorous as they are heavily focused on aristocratic society. This creates the image of this period being almost perfect, with beautiful people, beautiful fashion, love stories and kisses in the rain. Nevertheless, we must not forget the downside of this period and the fact that only a tiny percentage of people lived in this way. In fact, the working class faced many challenges during that time such as economic inequality, as wages were low especially in cities and the Industrial Revolution's benefits were unevenly distributed. Basic goods were something the working class had to spend a significant portion of their earnings on and to give an example, the price of bread was about one shilling per loaf which was a day‘s wages for a labourer. Thousands of people had to deal with poor working conditions, with workers having to work 12 to 14 hours a day, six days per week. Additionally, child labour was a common thing and not prohibited. Around 100,000 children were employed in factories in 1815, working as long as adults and under dangerous conditions.Child labour then resulted in limited access to education, which could be seen in 60% of the population being illiterate. As the working class was fully aware of the inequalities they were facing but knew there was no way for them to break out of that prison-like situation, many riots and protests happened One of the biggest mass protests was the ‘Peterloo Massacre’ which took place in Manchester in 1819. People demanded parliamentary reform as they did not feel represented at all and wanted the right to vote as well as better working conditions This protest was repressed, resulting in the killing of at least 15 people and many more being injured. Probably the most extreme factor coming into play were the health conditions. Life expectancy was significantly lower for working-class people than for the aristocracy. Often people from the working class only made it to their early twenties, due to poor living conditions, malnutrition and most importantly the lack of medical care
Thus, we can recognise that the Regency era was a period of stark contrasts. While the wealthy elite was living in beautiful residences with the most exquisite furniture, clothes and meals being cooked for them, the workingclass struggled to survive and had far less rights. Their situation, actually, did not improve signficantly until the late 19th century with the rise of the labour movement, the passing of social reform legislation and the enfranchisement of some elements of the working class, resulting in better living and working conditions.
CRYPTOGRAPHY AND ITS IMPACT ON TUDOR AND STUART HISTORY
In this article Logan C reminds us that code-breaking and ciphers have always been a crucial element in the twists and turns of our nation’s history…
Cryptography-the seamless, secret science of codes, ciphers, secrets and symbols. Cryptography is a term used to refer to scrambling and substituting messages so that they become difficult to understand without knowing the method by which they were changed; or in other words-secret writing. For as long as history has been recorded, sending secret messages has always been an invaluable skill. The earliest form of cryptography comes from the first historian, Herodotus, who sent messages using engravings on stone slates and covered them with wax. This became known as steganography. This early form of cryptography used hiding the message rather than changing the actual message A bit further on in history, the Romans developed the Caesar cipher This is where the letters in a message are all shifted to the corresponding next letter in the alphabet. This was a very common and simple cipher that is known now as monoalphabetic rotation ciphers Other simple ciphers are substitution ciphers, which simply involve each letter being assigned a random other letter or symbol or number. Ciphers were incredibly useful as letters and messages could easily be intercepted Especially in times of war, encrypting messages was important.
| Page
Cryptography was becoming a more studied and important science which was gradually developing. It was becoming a key method of communication and if, as a state, you were behind on your cryptographic development, you were automatically weak in the face of enemies who potentially were more advanced at cryptanalysis. States had set up offices and employed people to encrypt messages and decrypt intercepted messages. An example of one of these people is Sir Francis Walsingham, spy master for Queen Elizabeth I.
The Babington plot was one of many attempts Catholics in England made to try and overthrow Elizabeth. It was also one of many that involved Mary, Queen of Scots trying to become Queen of England. Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland who had to flee Scotland and come to England. She did this because Elizabeth was her cousin so Mary believed she would be welcome. However, many Catholics believed Mary to be the true heir to the English throne as Elizabeth was the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, whose marriage was never recognised by the Pope. Because of this Mary was seen as a threat to Elizabeth and so Mary was kept under heavy scrutiny and imprisonment. This still didn’t stop Catholics from plotting to overthrow Elizabeth. The only method of communication for Mary was through letters. Obviously, however, these letters would have been often intercepted and so Mary would have to use cryptography. In June 1586 Mary began conspiring with the Catholic Anthony Babington. As well as cryptography they used steganography to communicate. Mary would receive a barrel of beer once a week. The plan was to hollow out the bung in the barrel of beer and place messages inside of it before placing it in the barrel and using the brewer to move this barrel to and from Chartley Castle where Mary was being held. This was suggested by an English Catholic called Gifford Gifford had gone to the French embassy, where there were many letters waiting to be delivered, but they knew that if delivered via the traditional route they would be intercepted. Gifford told the Embassy that he knew a way to deliver the letters So, he came up with the plan It worked. On top of this method Mary and Babington still used cryptography to ensure full encryption. They used what is known as a nomenclator system which is where cipher and code are used The difference is that ciphers mix individual letters whereas codes substitute whole phrases. On top of this they
also used nulls which were when characters with no meaning were used in order to throw off analysts. However, Gifford was actually a double agent. He was hired by the Machiavellian Francis Walsingham to offer himself as a letter smuggler for Mary Queen of Scots. Before every letter was delivered, Gifford brought it to Walsingham who made a copy before the real letter was delivered. Walsingham had employed a cryptographer who made use of frequency analysis, a technique which matches the frequency of symbols to the frequency of letters in the language. Despite the efforts of Mary and Babington, the letters were deciphered. Since to arrest Mary she had needed to show evidence of treason, her reply to the letters, and therefore admission of involvement, was essentially signing her own death warrant; and she was executed in 1587.
There is still more to tell of these events but the main importance was the lesson this taught to the Royalists during the Civil War. The Royalists needed a cipher that could not be cracked by frequency analysis; and so the cipher they had adopted was a homophonic substitution cipher. This is where multiple symbols could refer to the same letter. If organised correctly this could mean every symbol was used an equal number of times which therefore eliminates the effectiveness of frequency analysis. After the battle of Naseby on 14th June 1645- which was a victory for Parliament’s New Model Army-Charles I had to flee, leaving behind a series of letters known as the ‘Naseby letters’. After being discovered by Cromwell they were immediately ordered to be deciphered. The letters were written in cipher; however, due to the brilliance of the parliamentarian cryptanalysts they were deciphered and published the next year in a pamphlet named ‘Kings Cabinet, Opened’. This was a huge blow to the Royalists as the letters included ideas of peace treaties with parliamentarians as well as letters trying to gain the support of Catholics, which was politically controversial at the time. The letters also explicitly stated that Charles I did not intend on keeping any promises made to the parliamentarians. This completely shredded Charles I’s credibility and support for him was significantly eroded This certainly didn’t help when he was later put on trial for treason and it is made clear by the fact he was beheaded in 1649.
In conclusion, cryptography has influenced warfare and politics since history has been recorded and it continues to impact our lives. Even though we no longer use letters and paper to send messages anymore important data can still be intercepted; it is simply in a different form. In fact, cryptography is an even more pressing matter than it has ever been. Ever since we started carrying around mobile phones we have been constantly emitting continuous flows of our data wirelessly, through thin air. This data can easily be received from unknown and unwanted recipients, but thanks to cryptography this data is made, mostly, useless to those who intercept it.
WHY DID THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE EVENTUALLY COLLAPSE IN 1453?
Alana P provides an overview of the rise and fall of one of History’s most important empires…
The division of the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves marked a significant turning point in history. In the late third century, Roman Emperor Diocletian initiated this division, which ultimately led to the establishment of the Eastern Empire as the Byzantine Empire This separate entity, which emerged in 330 CE, derived its name from Emperor Constantine, who further solidified its status by establishing Constantinople as its capital. Strategically located between Europe and Asia Minor, Constantinople became a vital hub for trade and cultural exchange, ensuring that the eastern part of the empire retained its prominence even as the western portion succumbed to barbarian invasions
East and West failed to successfully work together and often argued over resources and military aid Eventually, the West descended into an economic crisis which in turn left Italy, and the city of Rome, vulnerable to outside threats. Rome struggled to gather sufficient amounts of troops to defend its frontiers from local rebellions and outside attack, causing an increase in funds invested into the military upkeep of the empire. As less funds were available for technological advancements, infrastructure fell into disrepair. In addition to
this, Rome was an increasingly difficult city to govern, given its size and past inconsistent leadership which led to civil wars and rebellions against the emperors: more than 20 men took the throne in the span of 75 years. Consequently, the citizens of Rome lost trust in their leadership. Once the Barbarian tribes arrived at their borders, the oppression became too much to bear which resulted in a revolt and weak negotiations from the Romans. Eventually, King Alaric of the Goths moved southwards and sacked Rome.
Meanwhile,the eastern capital of Constantinople served as the enduring seat of the Roman Emperors. During the reign of Constantine, the city experienced significant prosperity, marked by an increase in wealth and trade. Its advantageous natural harbour, the Golden Horn, facilitated control over essential shipping routes and overland trade. Furthermore, the mighty Theodosian walls, constructed in the 5th century, provided impenetrable land defences. This unique triple defence system, which included moats, outer and inner walls, and towers, successfully withstood numerous sieges, thereby enhancing the city’s resilience.
Constantine’s decision to establish Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire significantly altered the religious landscape and promoted unity among his subjects. As the first Roman emperor to promote Christianity, he transformed the empire into the first Christian state. The formulation of Christian doctrine, particularly through the Nicene Creed, established foundational beliefs that would shape the Church’s future. Nevertheless, as Christianity expanded, interpretations emerged, resulting in distinct theological perspectives among the churches of Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome.
The theological rifts culminated in the Great Schism of 1045, when Michael Cerularius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was excommunicated by the Roman Church. This schism between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church significantly weakened alliances and bonds that had previously united the Christian world, thus causing the beginning of Constantinople’s downfall. One of the most significant challenges to the Byzantine Empire arose during the Fourth Crusade in 1203. An alliance formed between France and Venice; and Alexios Angelos, the son of a deposed emperor, who promised the Crusaders vast riches and support in his quest to
reclaim the throne from his uncle. Although he succeeded initially, his reign was short-lived as the population revolted against him, resulting in his death. The subsequent unrest led to the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders, which left one-third of the city's population homeless. This event marked a profound decline in the empire's power and influence, and generations of emperors struggled to maintain control over the remnants of Byzantine authority in the ensuing centuries.
By 1299, the rise of the Ottoman Empire started a new power struggle in the region. As the Ottomans expanded their territory, the Byzantine Empire faced increasing pressure. Emperor Constantine XI attempted to forge alliances with Venice and Genoa to bolster defences against the encroaching Ottomans. However, Venice ultimately withdrew its support, leaving Constantinople vulnerable. In 1453, Giovanni Giustiniani Longo of Genoa contributed 700 men to aid the defence of the city, but this was insufficient against the overwhelming forces of the Ottoman Empire.
During this tumultuous period, Emperor Constantine XI sought to unify the Christian faith in a bid to strengthen the empire. However, his efforts were met with resistance, and Pope Nicholas V's attempts to regain control over the eastern half of the Church resulted in riots and further discord among the populace. As the power of the Byzantine Empire waned, the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II constructed a fortress across the Bosporus, effectively gaining control over trade routes and solidifying Ottoman dominance in the region.
In April 1453, the Ottoman Empire launched a decisive siege of Constantinople, deploying a huge army against a defence force of fewer than 70,000 soldiers, along with around 35,000 armed civilians. The siege lasted nearly two months, during which Emperor Constantine XI was urged to flee to safety in Morea However, he chose to remain with his people, embodying the spirit of resistance against the overwhelming odds.
The final assault on the city occurred in May 1453, culminating in the fall of Constantinople. The victory of the Ottoman Empire marked the end of the Byzantine Empire, a once-mighty entity that had endured for over a millennium. Following the conquest, Constantinople was transformed into the capital of the Ottoman Empire, renamed Istanbul, and thus began a new 19 | Page
chapter in the history of the region. The fall of Constantinople not only signified the end of Byzantine rule but also heralded the rise of the Ottoman Empire as a dominant power in both Europe and Asia. The repercussions of this transformation reverberated throughout history, shaping the political, religious, and cultural landscape of the region for centuries to come.
THE MAIDAN REVOLUTION AND MODERN UKRAINIAN HISTORY
Yan O analyses how the Maidan Revolution in 2013 has helped to shape the modern history of Ukraine…
Beginning in late 2013, the Euromaidan turned Ukraine upside down. The struggle for freedom, rights and a better future quickly transformed from what had initially started as a protest against a political decision. The ‘Revolution of Dignity’, or Euromaidan, was more than just a series of demonstrations. It was the voice of millions of people calling for their nation to take a different course. Significant changes in Ukrainian politics, society, and self-perception amongst Ukrainians resulted from it.
It all started on November 21st, 2013, when Ukrainians came together in Kyiv's Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square).They were angered by President Viktor Yanukovych's decision to reject a key accord with the European Union. Many people saw this as a betrayal of their ideal of joining Europe in preference for a closer relationship with Russia. What began as a tiny protest quickly expanded, attracting students, activists, and ordinary individuals from all around Ukraine People wanted to be a part of Europe, not stuck in an outdated political system. The protests began peacefully, with protestors camped out in the square. Everything changed on November 30th. The violence of the riot police towards the protestors stunned the nation The brutal repression motivated more people to come out onto the streets, particularly in December 2013 and January 2014. Ukrainians were demanding more than just European integration, they wanted an end to corruption, Yanukovych's resignation, and justice imposed on those who had used force
against them. The documentary Winter on Fire shows the change from a peaceful demonstration to a national revolution. It demonstrates how the government's actions merely increased the people's resolve. The crackdown seemed like an attack on their dignity, and the campaign was soon named the "Revolution of Dignity."
The spirit of Euromaidan extended beyond Kyiv. People from other regions, such as Crimea and Donetsk, also turned out to support the campaign. Despite the delicate political climate in Crimea, there were protests in support of freedom and dignity. The movement brought together people from all over the country who wished to see Ukraine become democratic and free. It was a massive demonstration of solidarity, with people from diverse backgrounds working together for a common goal.
The Euromaidan protests reached their peak in February 2014, with intense clashes between demonstrators and government police. Over 100 people were sadly killed, and they are now known as the "Heavenly Hundred." Yanukovych escaped to Russia on February 22nd, 2014. A new government was formed in Ukraine which began to work toward European integration, signing an agreement with the EU in June 2014. However, the protestors’ victory also marked the beginning of a terrible period for Ukraine. The political gap allowed Russia to invade Crimea, causing fighting in the eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. These events finally culminated in a full-fledged war, which continues to this day. Despite this, the Ukrainian people's determination and strength remain unwavering
Euromaidan had a significant impact on how Ukrainians saw themselves. Before the movement, Ukraine was often viewed as being caught between Europe and Russia. However, Euromaidan resulted in a shift. Many more people came to identify with principles such as democracy, freedom, and human rights This transformation in identity was critical in defining what it means to be Ukrainian, compared to being under Russian control. One of the most impressive parts of Euromaidan was how people coordinated without a central leader Ukrainians worked together to give food, medical assistance, and shelter for the protesters. This mass action demonstrated a new sense of
solidarity and determination, which has since been an attribute of modern Ukraine.
The Euromaidan movement is a powerful example of how protest can shape democracy. When people collaborate together for a common purpose, they have the capacity to effect enormous change, even in the face of significant challenges. Euromaidan was about more than just getting rid of a corrupt leader; it was about creating a political culture in which the people's opinions are heard. The protests boosted Ukrainians' confidence, allowing people to demand openness and responsibility from their leaders. The influence of Euromaidan is still felt strongly in Ukraine today. It set the tone for measures to combat corruption and improve the country, but these reforms faced numerous challenges. The sense of national togetherness created by Euromaidan may be its greatest legacy. Despite the country's regional and linguistic differences, the experience of coming together during the frigid winter months built a common sense of identity and purpose. Today, Ukrainians are more motivated than ever to form a democratic society free of external domination. Euromaidan was an important event in Ukraine's recent history. It was more than just a protest; it was a fight for dignity, liberty, and a future in Europe. It demonstrated to the world the ability of ordinary people to fight back against corruption and tyranny. Despite the problems that Ukraine has experienced since, such as the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing fighting in the east, the spirit of people who took part in Maidan Nezalezhnosti continues to inspire. Their courage and drive provide a basis for a new Ukraine one that is proud, united, and devoted to a democratic future Euromaidan has had an impact on every part of Ukrainian life today. It has shaped the country's politics, identity, and future direction. Above all, Euromaidan teaches us of the power of solidarity and the need to fight for what is right, no matter the cost.
