User:VilkaIsBack/Sandbox: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 05:23, 14 December 2025

Assassin's Creed Hexe[edit | edit source]

DO NOT ADD TO ARTICLE. SPECULATION.

Gameplay[edit | edit source]

Assassin's Creed: Hexe will be a more linear entry in the Assassin's Creed series, breaking away from the modern format. It is set in Central Europe, during the 16th century Holy Roman Empire. The protagonist is Elsa, a witch of sorts with alleged supernatural abilities, such as possessing animals and controlling them. The fear system from the Assassin's Creed: Syndicate downloadable expansion Jack the Ripper is rumored to make a comeback, with Elsa relying heavily on it to fight back against the Holy Roman Empire's soldiers.^[1]

Echoes of History transcripts[edit | edit source]

Assassins vs Templars[edit | edit source]

The Templars & The Holy Grail

Woman's Voice: History Hit and Assassin's Creed presents Assassins vs Templars Real Histories of the Secret Orders.
Matthew Lewis: Welcome to the inside of one of history's greatest stories, I'm Matt Lewis and in this collaboration between Ubisoft and History Hit we're taking you back to the very beginning. The story of Assassin's Creed is one of deadly rivalry between conflicting ideologies that asks whether peace is found through freedom or control. It began with Assassins and Templars racing to gather the Pieces of Eden in the fiery heat of the Near East amidst brutal religious upheaval. We're all Desmond Miles now and we've found our Animus. A team of the best historians working in their fields will unlock the memories of the past for us, lead us through their secrets and introduce us to some of the real people who inspired the game. It's time to break into the vaults of two of history's most infamous organizations as we pit the Assassin's Creed against the Templar Order. In this episode, I'm joined by folklorist Juliette Wood to talk about the Templars and the Holy Grail to pick apart where this myth came from and how it might relate to Assassin's Creed. Thank you very much for joining us today, Juliette.
Juliette Wood: You are most welcome.
Matthew Lewis: It's very good to have you here. So I guess the first question around the Templars. In the game, they're kind of wrapped in this myth of the pieces of Eden which is not dissimilar to the idea of the Holy Grail which is something I think the Templars have become connected with over the centuries following their existence. But why do you think the Templars are so embedded in myth and mystery within the collective consciousness?
Juliette Wood: It's because they were repressed under very unusual circumstances and because of the repression, they seemed very glamorous, much more glamorous than they were when they were actually Templars, it has to be said. So you have a kind of perfect, not precisely vacuum, but a perfect sort of ambiguity to do all sorts of things with. And of course, that's exactly what's happened to the Templars.
Matthew Lewis: And what do you think? Is it about their story in particular that inspires myth that kind of attracted that thing? Is it just the way that they fell or is there something about their existence too?
Juliette Wood: I think it's something about their existence, warrior knights going and defending the Holy Land. However historically odd that may seem, certainly in terms of a narrative, is very, very dramatic because it fits very well into any number of folklore and mythology tropes. So here you have these men and they seem, because they're together, because they're fighting, and then because of the odd way in which they were suppressed, they seem somehow to attract our attention. We want to know more.
Matthew Lewis: We feel like there must be a story there that we're not seeing.
Juliette Wood: We are convinced there is a story there that we are not seeing. This is part of the problem, I think.
Matthew Lewis: But also part of the room that gives us all the space to do these kinds of things with them.
Juliette Wood: Oh, absolutely. They're a perfect trope for things like fantasy and fantasy games. I mean, you know, if they didn't exist, someone would have invented them. Fortunately, in this case, we actually have something that did exist that we can turn into all sorts of things.
Matthew Lewis: Fabulous. We always have to be careful, I think, of blurring the lines, though, between history and the fictional elements of them.
Juliette Wood: This is a problem. And as I say, for someone in my position, so I do a lot of popular culture, I do a lot of folklore, I'm constantly saying that there is a difference between a cognitive history, the events that actually happened, and how we would like them to have happened. And as I say, if you're in the realm of fantasy, that's wonderful. But if you're trying to straddle fantasy and history, you're probably going to fall down a hole.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess from a folklore point of view, it's interesting to think about how people like to remember these things, how we build stories around these things, even if we can be aware that it's not the truth. How we try to remember things as a collective is interesting, I think.
Juliette Wood: Well, it is, because, of course, the thing with narratives, which I think are very, very special, is that they follow rules, and they end. So you have this nice, neat, little, included world that you can play around in. When you become lost in it and decide that somehow the narrative is more real than the real, then there can be problems. But it's just such fun to play with. And, of course, we've been doing it, literally, in this case, since the dawn of time. I mean, narratives are something… We narrate our lives, we narrate our adventures, and then we have these sort of mythic folklore narratives as well.
Matthew Lewis: And if we move on to the idea of the Holy Grail, so in the game, as I mentioned, they have the Pieces of Eden, which is described as a relic of a long-forgotten civilization said to possess godlike powers, which isn't all that dissimilar to the Holy Grail. And I think about 21st-century depictions, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code kind of ties the Templars and the Grail together. But what was the Grail to medieval people, both physically and spiritually? What did they think it was?
Juliette Wood: They would have known that the Grail was the cup from the Last Supper. They would have known it as one of the relics of the Passion. It was probably less interesting to medieval people than it is to us, because the idea of going to Eucharist was something that really kind of develops in the middle of the Middle Ages, about the 12th, 13th century. It wasn't all that common. Much more popular would have been the relics of the Holy Cross, for example. But you do have this context. Now, if you want to think what possibly did medieval people think about it, I think the best way, actually, is to look at Malory, who includes in his version of the Arthurian legend, which is one of the last medieval versions, end of the 15th century, this notion of the Grail and the Eucharist and this mass that the knights attend and this whole business of sort of questing after some sort of Eucharistic object. If you actually look earlier in the Grail romances, the theological aspect of the Grail really isn't there, even in the ones that say this is the cup of the Last Supper. It's really something magical and mysterious. And you are gifted in being one of the guardians of the Grail. And curiously enough, it's that earlier non-theological thing that survives into the link between the Templar and the Grail, rather than Malory's sort of lay understanding of what the Grail meant.
Matthew Lewis: Fascinating. And were there many competing ideas around of what the Grail was and what it represented, or did people have a fairly defined view of it?
Juliette Wood: They had a fairly defined view of it as part of the Passion, as the cup that was used at the Last Supper when Christ instituted the Eucharist, the Mass, and what we think of as Communion, basically. So there wasn't a lot of problem with it then, partly because it wasn't as common taking Communion as it is now. So I think that wasn't the problem. Within the romances, the Grail had different meanings and different forms, but there are very specific, about half a dozen or so, sort of stories about the Grail.
Matthew Lewis: So in the game, we see Templars questing for the pieces of Eden. In Malory and writing like that, we see Arthur's Knights questing for the Holy Grail. Do we see people actively searching for the Holy Grail throughout history?
Juliette Wood: Not actively searching, but there is a 7th century reference to someone who went to the Holy Land and says he saw, he doesn't call it the Grail, saw the cup of the Last Supper, and he describes it as a silver object. There are a couple of references to it, but there's no sense that people went out looking for it. There are two objects which are brought back from the Crusades. Now I think one has to think of the context of the Crusades, which basically Europe, let's be blunt about it, lost. And therefore the idea that you could go and see the relics in the Holy Land, well, you couldn't. So suddenly an awful lot of these relics started appearing in Europe, and a lot of the legends come around it. And there's one about a Genoese, Guglielmo Embriaco, who brings back the Sacro Catino, which is not the Grail, but it's the dish that the apostles sort of had the paschal lamb in. And it's supposed to be made of emerald, and in fact it's glass, and it becomes part of the Genoese notion of what our history was.
Matthew Lewis: And how then do the stories of the Templars and the Holy Grail become entwined? Is there a definite origin to the connection, or is it just something we see emerging slowly?
Juliette Wood: There's a definite origin, not an absolutely clear origin, but you can see the period and the circumstances in which it's developing. And it's basically the very end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th as part of the reaction against the Enlightenment, the idea that really life is not all that rational. There are sort of spiritual wells of things. And in particular, there was a reaction, the sort of conservative forces, particularly in Catholic countries, really were a bit afraid of this new rationalism, which seems secular and atheist and all sorts of things. So what you found is people sort of looking at the past and creating what we would call medievalism, an interpretation of the past which basically said, no, sorry, rationalism would be dispersed if only we could find some sort of sacred object. And then not only if only we could find some sort of sacred object, but somebody is hiding this sacred object, trying to prevent us finding it. And, of course, the Templars come into this, not immediately directly, but through the Masons, because the Masons were a secular organization, and therefore there was certain antagonism. And so the Masons, with their passwords and their rituals, suddenly had a secret tradition, and suddenly they were in contact with the Templars, who are supposed to be agnostic. Again agnosticism, being this kind of mysterious, not so much separate religion, but a version of Christianity. So it's slightly complicated in that it's a reaction to rationalism. It kind of drags first the Masons and then the Templars and then the Gnostics. And kind of once you make that connection, you're away, basically, in conspiracy theories.
Matthew Lewis: Interesting, so you've got a whole lot of rabbit holes to start diving down as soon as you start making that connection.
Juliette Wood: You do, you do. It's not straightforward, but it's very clear with a period. And it's about the beginning of the 19th century. In fact, I can almost give you a date, about 1818, a man named Hammer-Purgstall, who was an Austrian Orientalist, published this book in which he showed, in the medieval world, all of these sort of images of Templar idols. It was completely subjective, and absolutely not the way any modern medievalist would look at it. But it really struck a chord, sort of saying, these people are hiding something. They're conspiring against us. They're conspiring against the government and the church.
Matthew Lewis: So this is very definitely not a connection that the Templars would have recognised in their day. This is something that's kind of pressed onto them much later.
Juliette Wood: The Templars were long gone by this time. They were a military order. They were not an intellectual order. There wouldn't be a lot of scholars who knew Latin or the sophisticated works of the day. They just weren't that. But of course, if you decide that history is just a kind of surface mirage, hiding the truth, then it doesn't actually matter that the Templars weren't intellectuals or they didn't have ships that could sail the Atlantic Ocean or various things. In fact, oddly enough, the fact that the facts don't match the fantasy is almost seen as proof of the fantasy, and it makes it very hard to engage in this.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess another critical part of the story within the game is that the Templars continue to exist as this kind of shady organisation. As you mentioned then, perhaps linked to the Masons, all of that kind of thing, they run big corporations. How do you feel about that? Is there any kind of element of truth to the idea that this secret organisation might still exist? I mean, it's a secret, so we don't know if it's a good secret organisation, I guess.
Juliette Wood: This is it. Basically, I'd say, well, there's no proof. But of course, if you're a conspiracy theorist, having an academic say there is no proof is basically a reaffirmation of what you thought all along, that everybody is lying to you, except those who share the secret. So it's one of these things where there's almost no way of crossing over unless you accept that this is a fantasy game that we're playing. And it's a wonderful fantasy. One of the things that I find very interesting and attractive is that the Templars are opposed by the Assassins. Well, the Assassins are the Hashashin, who were just as negatively regarded in the Middle Ages. So here you have two groups, both of which attract terrible reputations, completely undeserved, it has to be said. And here they are sort of working through this wonderful complex fantasy game.
Matthew Lewis: And they both, I think, have that element of mystery to them that nobody really knows what they were about, or people guess and try and push ideas on them that may or may not be true. So again, we're doing that essentially with Assassin's Creed, aren't we? We're building a narrative and a world around these groups because there's the mystery.
Juliette Wood: Absolutely. You kind of take this idea that there are two groups who are mysterious, one good, one bad, and you go from there. And there are all sorts of things you can follow. You can look for these objects. I have to say, the pieces of Eden remind me very much of the treasures of the Tuatha Dé Danann, the Celtic treasures, which include a bowl, a magic bowl, which some people say is the origin of the grail. So all of these kind of bits of culture, and interestingly, cross-culture as well, come together. And it says something about the way we structure stories. We like to structure stories with a purpose somehow, and a purpose that can be completed. I have to say, in the medieval text, the grail is found. Several knights find it, not just one. And then, of course, it then disappears at the end, whereas our modern notion is the grail is always something that we're searching for. It's always disappearing round the corner, up a staircase, into the shadows, whatever, depending on what bit of the fantasy you're in.
Matthew Lewis: Why do you think we do that with stories like the grail? We imagine that there is some secret organisation hiding information from us. Instead of thinking it was lost or it is somewhere, we just haven't found it, why do we want to construct this idea of a conspiracy around it?
Juliette Wood: We love secrets. We particularly like to think, right, I can find the secrets. I can solve the clues in a way that academics can't. I actually, I can sympathise with this, even though I don't buy into the conspiracies. I know reading things like Umberto Eco, one of the things that intrigues me is that as I read it, I think, ah, I know what literary work he got that through. So it's kind of reading something and finding clues and feeling very satisfied that you've done that is, I think, really universal. And I think this is what the conspiracy theory is. It's kind of we are not part of the establishment, but we can find out more than they can. And of course, that's very, I think, seductive is the word I would use for that, quite frankly.
Matthew Lewis: I think things like Dan Brown's writing, which his Da Vinci Code plays into a lot of these theories that we're talking about today. Part of his trick is that he makes you as a reader feel quite clever. You feel like you're getting under the skin of the conspiracy. He's so clever at leading you through that narrative, making you feel like you're the clever one who's solving things. Stuff like the Rosslyn Chapel, we don't know anything about that, but he can construct a story that makes it look like this is hiding great stories of the Grail.
Juliette Wood: Actually, we know a lot about the Rosslyn Chapel and the background to this. It's just that he sort of ignores that. And here is this very, very fascinating imagery, which plays into our ideas of what the medieval world was like. Although, in fact, it's not what the medieval world was like, essentially. And, of course, once you see sort of these mysterious things and, you know, the apprentice, the apprentice pillar, which is probably a pillar name for someone called Prentice, which is so much less interesting, isn't it? And as I say, it's wonderful. I find it very interesting as a medievalist who is old enough to have started studying the medieval period when this kind of fantasy was, well, we all enjoyed it, but nobody took it seriously. Whereas now, the medieval courses I teach, and I'm by no means the only one, always have an element of medievalism in it. And, of course, I think, well, this is really a way to hook students into this stuff. And then, you know, you can show them just how wonderful the medieval material is as compared to some of this modern stuff. So I can see a real change in how we kind of look at the medieval period.
Matthew Lewis: Is that helpful to you as a teacher, to lure people in in that kind of way?
Juliette Wood: Yeah, I think so. I mean, it may simply be that I just happen to like fantasies. And so I feel, look, I can share my enthusiasm for this stuff. And I've always liked fantasies. Whereas when I started doing medieval studies, and I wasn't the only one, you kept quiet about that. You kind of read it in your spare time. And my feeling is these fantasies are really, really interesting. And they really allow us to get into an unreal world and to say, what if? And you can, I know this is going to sound a bit pedantic, but you can learn about yourself doing this. I mean, this is what sort of epics were like. This is what quests were like. And as I say, you're also safe because you close the book, turn off the computer, shut your phone, whatever it is you do to finish this. So no, I think this is a really, really good way of sort of showing students that this stuff is not intimidating. It's not old-fashioned. It's not sort of passe. It really has, and again, this is a terrible cliche, it really, really can speak to us. And it can speak to anyone.
Matthew Lewis: I was just interested as well in the Celtic myths that you mentioned earlier.
Juliette Wood: It's the Tuatha Dé Danann.
Matthew Lewis: How do you think that plays into the idea of the Grail myth? Does it speak to the fact that we've always liked very much the same stories, we just translate them into new themes?
Juliette Wood: Yes, I think with the Celtic myths, with the stories of the Irish Tuatha Dé Danann, who are the fairy people, basically, they're supernatural beings. Of course, we've always been fascinated by the Celts. There's something about the way we think of ourselves. There's this fascination with the edges of our lives. So we're fascinated by the East and the Crusades, and we romanticize them. We're fascinated by the Celts. We create this notion of this kind of Celtic world. And, you know, we kind of sit in the middle of Europe, at least sort of aesthetically. And yes, we like to see the Celtic myths are like the Eastern myths. They had magic objects. The Templars are looking for magic objects in the East. So I think we try to bring these things together. And even where you can't say they're the same thing, this pattern of quest and secret and magic object, and particularly being worthy to find the magic object. And I think this is what Dan Brown plugs into by allowing his readers to think, oh, aren't I clever? I'm finding these things. You're giving them the same satisfaction or a similar satisfaction to someone who is on a quest. And I think this is the reason. And also this idea of the Templars as sort of secret and the idea of the Celts, and particularly the Druid Celts, as being a secret. You find these kind of secret organizations, none of which actually exist, nevertheless merge into one another.
Matthew Lewis: Roughed all these things on, yeah. But I guess that makes the game, you know, like a 21st century evolution of those same things. We've got a game here where we jump into the body of Altaïr, back in the Crusades, and we play out investigating and trying to find these secrets and gather these pieces together as if we're on a medieval quest. And that obviously still appeals to something in us today.
Juliette Wood: We are on a medieval quest. And as I say, this is one of the things I find fascinating about modern games, is that you can participate in an almost very realistic way. I know when I was a child, I thought of myself as going on a quest. I was quite happy to be a knight on horseback. Obviously, I would wear the beautiful medieval dresses. I combined the two. Whereas now, you can turn on the computer and create an avatar exactly the way you want it. So you can actually take it one step out of your imagination and sort of realize it on a screen. And I think that is something which is quite fascinating, even though I don't think I could manage the games particularly well.
Matthew Lewis: I reckon you could give it a go, Juliette. I can see you jumping through the streets of Jerusalem. You have.
Juliette Wood: I have. And I've kind of thought, as long as I've got someone with me to sort of say, push that button and do that way, it's okay. But I think I'd rather study the games and appreciate other people's skill than try to do it myself.
Matthew Lewis: Can you see the Assassin's Creed games as adding to that folklore tradition that we have? They're picking up similar themes and they're just building it in a slightly different way and immersing us in it in a slightly different way.
Juliette Wood: I quite frankly would regard it as a folklore phenomenon. Folklore is very dynamic. There's an old-fashioned way of thinking of it as something in the past, something ancient. But in fact, it's very dynamic. And if it isn't dynamic, it dies out. So in many ways, this is it. And a lot of the information now we get, a lot of the folklore information, comes to us through the internet, comes to us through social media. In a sense, this is our oral tradition now. So I certainly think the Assassin's Creed is kind of reformulating these things and clearly hasn't finished, unlike a lot of the fantasy books, when they come to the end, you know, the book closes. This has the ability to just keep going and going and going as long as there are people who are willing to play them and as long as there are, sort of, gamers and programmers willing to devise them.
Matthew Lewis: And as a medievalist, do you see this as a positive way for people to engage with that past tradition of folklore and storytelling and things like that? I'm kind of thinking, is it any different from when we moved from manuscripts to movable-type printed books that we're now moving to a more interactive presentation on a computer screen? Is it just the next evolution of how we tell stories?
Juliette Wood: Well, I certainly think it is. I have to say, I certainly think that having the manuscript tradition and knowing the manuscript tradition and the movable type, and in fact, knowing that this is part of an evolution rather than just the only phenomena, that, I think, is important as well. I think internet is one of several phenomena. Print and manuscript are two others. And I think sometimes it's a problem that people tend to sort of think the connections between the three of them are broken and they aren't.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, I think it's a really interesting way to think about it because then you can stretch it back 2,000 years from the tradition of manuscripts in the mid-15th century. We get movable type and all of that suddenly changes. And that must have been fairly revolutionary to people then, and they may have sneered at that as we sometimes sneer at the internet and children playing games and things like that today. But it's actually part of the same thing.
Juliette Wood: Yes, I certainly think so. I think one has to be careful not to rate them as if they're sort of, you know, one is better than the other. They are sort of that kind of communication which was suitable for a particular period. And before manuscripts, you also, and you still continue, to have communication which is face-to-face, which is an oral exchange of information. And that, I think, is the one constant that in a sense feeds into all of these other phenomena.
Matthew Lewis: So if I was to put you on the spot, does the Holy Grail exist and will we ever find it?
Juliette Wood: No and no. I say that, I think, with a certain level of regret. But no, it doesn't exist. And no, we won't find it. But that's in a sense the least interesting thing about the story. I think if we get bogged down in, I must find an actual grail, and quite frankly in the course of my research I've come across at least eight objects that claim to be the Holy Grail. And I probably haven't looked all that closely. I could find more. But I think it's this notion, and I think, oddly enough, Wolfram von Eschenbach in writing Parzival, again in the 1300s, expresses it very well. Because he's not interested in the theological grail. He's interested in the notion of there is this magical object. And to be a guardian of this magical object is in a sense the highest calling. And that really is what happens in Parzival. Parzival finds not so much the grail, but he finds his family, who are the guardians of the grail. So it's a very personal story. And that's, oddly enough, I think picked up later on with the Templars. It's picked up by people like Rudolf Steiner, who sees the grail as an internal quest, as an initiation, as it were. And then it's picked up by the, let me be polite and say, more popular speculations on the hidden grail. So as I say, no, the grail doesn't exist. But the concept of the grail is what's important.
Matthew Lewis: And are we missing the important thing isn't finding a cup that Jesus may have once used. The important thing is the quest and what you can learn. And as you said before, more often than not discover about yourself that questing for it is the important thing rather than finding it or not finding it.
Juliette Wood: Yes. And you could see this in the medieval text as well. It's the knights have to find out certain things, answer certain questions, accomplish certain things. And then, of course, the grail in a sense presents itself. So it's achieving these sort of levels of understanding. And then the grail sort of says, well, you know, here I am basically trivializing it a bit. But I mean, that essentially is what's happening in the romances. And that essentially I think is what's happening in some of the modern grail things as well. Even if the language isn't quite as poetic or posh as the romances languages.
Matthew Lewis: And it's not a million miles away from Assassin's Creed. So Altaïr is done a quest. He's tasked with 10 assassinations. And they're trying to find these Pieces of Eden to bring them together to prevent, you know, the end of the world as they see it. So it really is just engaging with that same idea that to some extent the quest is important and what you learn on the quest.
Juliette Wood: And he's very much a grail hero in that he starts out not knowing who he is and not knowing what it is he has to do. And I mean, this is certainly the position that Percival finds himself. He doesn't realize that he's related to all of these grail people. He doesn't realize that he has a mission. He's a rather brash young man who goes crashing through the undergrowth and making all kinds of mistakes. So that kind of hero, what folklorists call the unpromising hero, which is rather a silly name for it because it's a hero with a great deal of promise. He just doesn't know it yet. It's very, very fundamental. And I have to say, I'm using the word hero and let me point out that it doesn't have to be a man.
Matthew Lewis: Absolutely.
Juliette Wood: It's just that there's this character who doesn't know quite how wonderful their potential is.
Matthew Lewis: No, you're absolutely right. I mean, we see Templar sisters and we see female Assassins in the game as well. So the game is with you on that, I think. And I guess to put you on the spot with the other side of what we're talking about, do the Templars still exist? Is there a secret organization out there pulling strings?
Juliette Wood: No, there isn't a secret organization pulling strings. They exist as a kind of society. I was introduced to a gentleman at one of these conferences who was the last Templar, but as a kind of society and priest rather than a sort of secret thing. Do the secret societies ever exist? Yeah, there were conspiracies and they didn't want to be found out, but that's not quite the same thing as secret society. But we certainly both fear the notion that there is a secret society pulling the strings. And we also want the notion that there's a secret society pulling the strings because it's not our fault.
Matthew Lewis: And just to end on, what do you think as a folklorist and a medievalist, what do you think that tells us about us today that we both fear and desperately want these things to be true?
Juliette Wood: Well, I think it simply says that we're human. This is part of the sort of human condition that certainly was expressed in the medieval period, but not just in the medieval period. You could go back farther and see the same sort of thing happening. I think what's special about the medieval period is we can still see it around us. So many of our buildings have medieval elements. Things like the Arthurian legend is very popular in children's books. So it kind of seems closer to us than, for example, the ancient past, the Greek or the Roman or the prehistoric past. And I think it's because certainly in the West, certainly in Europe, and in those countries that were sort of colonized by Europeans, you just see a lot of medieval bits and pieces because that's part of the way we kind of presented ourselves.
Matthew Lewis: Wonderful. I think it's been fascinating to position the Assassin's Creed game as almost a continuation of millennia of tradition of writing and telling stories and encasing them in these mysteries that we want to solve. It's been great to position Altaïr as a kind of grail hero who is on the same kind of quest as grail knights and things like that. It's been absolutely wonderful to pick these things apart with you. Thank you very much for joining us, Juliette, and sharing your expertise.
Juliette Wood: You are very welcome.
Matthew Lewis: Next time on Assassins vs Templars, it's Assassins’ deeds throughout history. We'll be picking apart some of the most famous and infamous assassinations and assassination attempts with John Withington. Make sure you're following the Echoes of History podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts so you don't miss it. And there you can listen to the rest of the series too. This series is a special collaboration between Ubisoft and History Hit with post-production undertaken by Paradiso Media.

Assassins' Deeds

Woman's Voice: History Hit and Assassin's Creed presents Assassins vs Templars Real Histories of the secret orders.
Matthew Lewis: Welcome to the inside of one of history's greatest stories. I'm Matt Lewis and in this collaboration between Ubisoft and History Hit, we're taking you back to the very beginning. The story of Assassin's Creed is one of deadly rivalry between conflicting ideologies that asks whether peace is found through freedom or control. It began with Assassins and Templars racing to gather the pieces of Eden in the fiery heat of the Near East amidst brutal religious upheaval. We're all Desmond Miles now and we've found our Animus, a team of the best historians working in their fields. We'll unlock the memories of the past for us. They'll lead us through their secrets and introduce us to some of the real people who inspired the game. It's time to break into the vaults of two of history's most infamous organizations as we pit the Assassin's Creed against the Templar Order. In this episode, I'm joined by John Withington. John is an award-winning television broadcaster and journalist who is particularly interested in disasters, both natural and otherwise. His most recent book, Assassins’ Deeds, a history of assassination from ancient Egypt to the present day was released in 2020. Thank you very much for joining us today, John.
John Withington: Pleasure to be here.
Matthew Lewis: It's wonderful to have you. So I guess we're talking around Assassin's Creed here, Altaïr's campaign to assassinate the right people during the Third Crusade. And we think of the assassins, but they weren't the first and they certainly weren't the last either. Can you give us an idea of how early in history we can trace back the idea of assassination for political reasons?
John Withington: The first assassination I could track down was a pharaoh called Teti, an Egyptian pharaoh who died in 2333 BC. Now, we have circumstantial evidence and some written evidence. So a historian did write that he had been assassinated, but that historian was writing about 2000 years after the event. So about halfway between where we are now and when Teti died. It could be, of course, that he was drawing on sources that we've since lost. So we've got his account. There's also some circumstantial evidence, which is that a lot of senior officials from Teti's court had their memorials defaced. And this was a terrible punishment in ancient Egypt because it meant you would wander homeless through the afterlife. And if you look then in the Persian kings, between 550 and 330 BC, of 13 Persian kings, 11 were murdered. So I think it's reasonable to assume that as soon as there were people in power or authority, you had assassination. And the fact that we know about ancient Egypt and Persia is probably just to do with the fact that they had better records.
Matthew Lewis: It kind of begs the question whether there's ever not been assassinations.
John Withington: I think that my assumption would be that as soon as there was organised society with some people in power, there probably was. And I think that there was an American anthropologist who examined an Egyptian cemetery which dated back up to 14,000 years. And he found that 40% of those buried there had evidence of wounds from sharp stones. So sadly, I think the world's always been a violent place and assassinations probably always been part of that.
Matthew Lewis: Why has assassination always been a popular tactic throughout history? We see in the Crusades in particular, the Assassins, if we can still call them the Assassins, are famous for sneak attacks, for infiltrating. And if you play the game, it's all about sneaking around, diving from a high distance and assassinating someone by shock. But why has it always been popular? Does it contain this element of fear, confusion and everything else that we can add to the death of a political leader?
John Withington: Well if we go to about a thousand years before the Assassins, so around the time of Christ in the Holy Land, there were a group called the Sicarii. And they're pointed to by a lot of people as, if you want to use this terminology, the first modern terrorist group. And they were trying to resist Roman occupation. And their method was literally cloak and dagger. So they hid daggers beneath their cloaks and they liked to strike their victims at big public festivals for two reasons. One, that they felt this gave them a good chance of escaping by melting away into the crowd. But secondly, because they felt it enhanced the propaganda value of the killing. That it was more scary if the killing happened in full view of lots and lots of people.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess we see that a bit in the game as well. Some of the assassination attempts there are required to be at public events, which as you say, makes it more shocking, but also I guess increases your chances of escape, which must be in the assassin's mind. You don't necessarily want to die in the attempt if you can avoid it.
John Withington: No. You know, you obviously got in more recent times, you've got suicide bombers who plainly don't think they're going to escape. And I think if you look at the history of assassination, there's probably quite a lot of occasions, for example, the people who killed Tsar Alexander II in Russia in the 1880s, I think they probably pretty well knew there was a very slim chance that they would escape.
Matthew Lewis: To be an Assassin, you've got to be willing to accept a personal, a level of personal risk. So can we talk a little bit about what we would classify as an assassination? We have plenty of murders throughout history that we don't necessarily call an assassination. How, maybe when you were writing your book, how did you define an assassination as one that you would look at?
John Withington: Yes. So all assassinations are murders, but not all murders are assassinations. And the definition that I took was that assassination was the killing of somebody rich, powerful or famous because they were rich, powerful or famous. But I also excluded people who were already held captive by their opponents. So for example, Edward II, I wouldn't count him being assassinated, he was murdered, but he was already in the power of his opponents.
Matthew Lewis: Do you think there are categories of reasons that we might be able to divide assassinations into? So in the game, Altaïr is given 10 people he has to assassinate for specific reasons. But do they happen for, is it about revolution? Is it about specific policy? Is it about revenge, personal hatred, or a mixture of those things?
John Withington: Well, I analysed about 260 assassinations. And you're right that motives are complex. And of course, motives are often mixed. There might be a political ideology might be an element, but there might also be an element of revenge or fear in the same assassination. It's quite difficult to come to firm conclusions. But for what it's worth, of the 260 I looked at, about 127 were some sort of political ideology. In the early years in particular, dynastic ambition was very important. So rather than overthrowing a particular form of government, it was more, I'd like to run this form of government rather than the person who's running it. So there were 44 that were what I would call dynastic ambition. They, of course, were very often murders within the family because it was very often a brother, a father, a son who was doing the killing. Religion was important in 24, but anger and resentment was important in 29. There was a man called Edward the Martyr, King of England, who was killed in 978. Now, Edward the Martyr was now a saint. He was rather odd saintly material because he had a terrible temper, and he managed to annoy an awful lot of people. And he was murdered by relatives of his younger brother. And one of the motives may simply be that an awful lot of people hated him. But you talked about fear earlier, and interestingly enough, fear actually can be quite an important motive for assassination. So the Roman Emperor Volusianus was killed by his own troops in 253 AD. And that was simply because they didn't want to be led out to fight against a usurper who was trying to get his throne. They thought they'd probably lose, so they killed him instead.
Matthew Lewis: So they almost assassinated him to save their own lives. Yeah. You can almost encapsulate the entirety of human nature within that list of reasons to assassinate someone, can't you? Fear, ambition, greed, or a desire for change.
John Withington: Revenge.
Matthew Lewis: Revenge. Yeah, absolutely. So in the game, the chosen tactic is normally to assassinate by a hidden dagger. So a dagger that pops out the sleeve at the last minute by which you assassinate someone. Do we see different methods of assassination that are perhaps aimed at achieving different ends?
John Withington: Well, certainly we see that the methods of assassination change. You wouldn't be surprised about that. But one of the things that struck me was how long stabbing remained the preferred method. So for quite a long time after firearms appeared, stabbing still remained the chosen method. And it wasn't really until the 19th century that firearms took over. And even when firearms took over, it tended to be the handgun at close quarters rather than the sniper's rifle. So I suppose if we think of assassination in fiction, the book that often comes to mind is The Day of the Jackal. And of course, he is a very high quality sniper, isn't he? But actually, snipers were very, very rare. I looked, there were about 230 assassinations where I could work out, was it at close quarters? Was it at distance? And only 19 of those actually were done from distance. So yes, the firearm changed the method. But in terms of the modus operandi of the assassin, if you like, very often, it still required you to get up close and personal with the victim.
Matthew Lewis: Do you think that had much to do with the reliability of firearms? Because it took a long time for them to become anything like reliable, whereas a dagger in your hand, you know exactly what you're doing.
John Withington: I think that's almost certainly true. Yeah, I think that's almost true.
Matthew Lewis: If you're going to take the shot, you don't want to miss. If you've got a dagger, you're getting close enough to do the job properly.
John Withington: Correct.
Matthew Lewis: And can you give us a few examples of some of the assassinations that really stuck out in your mind from your research, from your books, some detail of how the assassinations took place and what they were assassinated for?
John Withington: Can I talk first about one that struck me as perhaps the weirdest of assassinations?
Matthew Lewis: Oh yes, please.
John Withington: Well, in 995, in Scotland, the succession was not arrived at by getting the eldest son of the king to take over. So what happened was that the person chosen was chosen from amongst all the male relatives, the adult male relatives from previous rulers of Scotland, from previous kings. Not having the eldest son succeed was supposed to have the advantage that you didn't get an infant taking over with all the potential disorder that could bring. The downside was you got a lot of rival claimants. And King Kenneth II of Scotland wanted to try to secure the throne for his son Malcolm to secure the succession. But there were plenty of other people who fancied becoming king, and one was a man called Constantine the Bald. And Kenneth II was out in Aberdeenshire one day, and he was accosted by a woman who goes by various names, but something like the Lady Fenella. And the Lady Fenella wouldn't be thought to be well disposed to King Kenneth because he'd had her son executed. Anyway, she went up to the king and said, look, you know, I know I was a bit cross with you about having my son executed, but fair dues. I recognize that, you know, he'd done wrong. And just to show that you don't bear any ill will to me anymore, would you come to my house? And the king was a bit iffy but she whispered in his ear, if you come to my house, I will give you the names of all the people who are plotting against you. So anyway, so the king is eventually convinced, and he rolls up to the lady's house. And on the table is this very nice statuette of a little boy. And the Lady Fenella says to the king, if you touch that statue, something really funny will happen. So the king again was a bit iffy, but he thought, well, what's the worst thing that could possibly happen? So he touched the statue and he was immediately hit by a volley of crossbow bolts, because it had been booby trapped and it had been connected to hidden crossbows all around the room. After a little while, the king's retinue a bit worried about why he hadn't come out and what was going on. So they broke in, found his body. The Lady Fenella probably sensibly made herself scarce. She ran off. They apparently cornered her at the top of a cliff above some water and she dived into the water and was killed rather than surrendering. Constantine the Bald did manage to get the throne, but then he was defeated by Malcolm, King Kenneth's son, who took over the throne and ruled for about 29 years, I think. This story may be true or maybe not, but it's a good story.
Matthew Lewis: It's a cracking story. I mean, there's an awful lot of thought gone into there, into building a statue that's rigged to connect to crossbows to try and assassinate the king.
John Withington: Yeah, I think the connecting up to the crossroads probably is quite an engineering feat, yeah. From that sort of era, well, let me try you out on something. Suppose I told you about a very senior churchman who fell out with his king and annoyed his king so greatly that while he was conducting a church service, he was murdered.
Matthew Lewis: I'm going to say Thomas Beckett.
John Withington: And that would be a very good guess. And the only thing that doesn't quite fit in the story is that Beckett was actually preparing a church service, I think, when he was killed. So actually, I'm talking about Bishop Stanislaus of Kraków, who was murdered by the Polish king, possibly even by the Polish king's own hand, certainly at his instigation. But you're absolutely right. It could, of course, be the story of Beckett. And I think that illustrates the fact that what you've got there is you've got these two very powerful institutions, the church and the state, probably the two most powerful institutions in England at that time. And every now and then, these tensions are going to boil over. And Beckett's murder, of course, he'd fallen out with the king. He'd been in exile in France for six years. Henry II managed to persuade him to come back. But when he came back, Beckett seemed completely unrepentant. He started sort of flinging around excommunications of all his enemies. He got a hero's welcome when he came back to England. And he milked that by taking the most roundabout route he could to Canterbury. So this was all irritating the king. And perhaps on Christmas Day itself, the king said words to the effect, you know, the usual formula is, isn't it? Who will rid me of this troublesome monk? Something of that kind. Was that just an understandable expression of exasperation by a man known to be hot-tempered? Or was it an instruction? Anyway, four of his knights took it to be an instruction and cornered, confronted Beckett in his cathedral and then killed him. And one of the things that Beckett's story illustrates is the law of unintended consequences. What was the effect of him being killed? Made him a martyr, made him one of the most celebrated saints in Christendom, meant that Henry couldn't push through the reforms he wanted, which was basically to make sure that clergy who had committed crimes would be tried in civil courts, not church courts, had to give that up and spent most of the rest of his life fighting civil wars with his sons.
Matthew Lewis: I have to say I'm convinced by the theory that Beckett kind of wanted to martyr himself, that he set everything up. It bears very strong resemblances to Christ taking in the Garden of Gethsemane, the way Beckett seems to stage manage that. It's like he almost stage managed his own assassination for his own reasons, which, as you say, were the unintended consequences of what Henry did. As we move on through time, do we find that there are assassinations with better records? Are there things that we have more details of that are perhaps more recent?
John Withington: Yeah, so when I was doing my statistical analysis, if you want to call it that, up to about the 19th century, I analysed virtually every assassination that I felt that I could find sufficient evidence about. By the time I got to the modern age, there were just so many that I just had to choose 100 to do. So yes, obviously, everything is much better documented, isn't it? And maybe that's allied to the thing that we were talking about with the Sicarii. Josephus, a historian writing at the time of Sicarii, said although their killings were damaging, it was the terror that those killings generated that was far more damaging. And so in the 19th century, you began to get this idea of the propaganda of the deed. So it's not that ideas create assassinations, but it's assassinations can create ideas. So this idea that the proletariat is kind of slumbering, not realising that it's oppressed. And so if we can do something like assassinate the Tsar, as happened in the 1880s, then maybe that awakens the consciousness and the proletariat will rise up.
Matthew Lewis: So rather than an assassination aimed at achieving a specific end, it's aimed at sparking something else.
John Withington: Yes, I think assassins have obviously often been disappointed. I mean, if you go right back to Julius Caesar, one of the most famous assassinations in history, I suppose, the conspirators, Brutus and Cassius, believed that if they killed Caesar, the sort of the Roman Republic was sort of somehow spontaneously kind of regenerate. And of course, that didn't happen. Instead, you got 14 years of civil war, which ended with the opposite, if you like, of the Republic with the Roman Empire being created.
Matthew Lewis: I only ask about record keeping, because in the game, one of Altair's targets, William of Montferrat, his son, Conrad of Montferrat, was actually assassinated while Richard I was in the Holy Land. And when Richard is captured on his way back to England, part of the reason for his capture is given as being behind the assassination of Conrad of Montferrat. And we get the Old Man of the Mountains, the head of the Assassins, kind of writes to the Holy Roman Emperor and says, no, Richard didn't engage me to do this. I did it off my own bat kind of thing. But we just don't have the records to understand how much of that is true, how much of it was propaganda by Richard's enemies, and how much of it might have been true. So it must be nice when you get into a time when there's a bit more record keeping, and you can see a bit more clearly what's happening.
John Withington: Yes, I think that's true. And I mean, just going back to the Assassins and their relationship with the Crusaders, you know, it's quite a striking coincidence, isn't it? That the Assassins appear about the end of the 11th century, about in the 1090s. And then 10 years later, the Crusades start. And the great historian of the Crusades, Steven Runciman, said that the presence of the assassins was enough to stop there being a coherent Muslim response to the Crusades. And of course, the majority of the people that the Assassins killed were fellow Muslims, but they were from different sects, different parts of the religion. The relationship with Crusaders is an odd one. I mean, they helped the Crusaders indirectly, because if they're killing prominent Muslims, that helps the Crusaders. But there also does appear to have been a business relationship at times, where they were prepared to take on murders on behalf of the Crusaders. And there's a famous story where they killed the King-elect of Jerusalem about the end of the 12th century. He was only about the second major Crusader figure that the assassins had killed. And so there was a big meeting, you know, to thrash it all out. What on earth's gone wrong here between the assassins and the Crusaders? And the assassins allegedly said, look, we're sorry, that was a mistake. But just to make it up to you, we will kill anybody you care to name free of charge. And of course, they were in real life very worried about the Knights Templar. You know, the Assassins saw the Knights Templar as among the most dangerous enemies they had. And there was one occasion where a delegation of envoys from the assassins had been meeting the Crusader King, and they were all butchered by the Knights Templar on their way home. And there was also the Knight Hospitaller who appeared as a similar military order. And I think the assassins ended up paying tribute to them, and also doing the odd murder on their behalf.
Matthew Lewis: It kind of plays into the reality that the game pits the assassins against the Templars. There was a real rivalry there in the Holy Land. And I think it is interesting that Nizari Assassin clan kind of mirrors the dates of the Crusader States almost exactly. It arrives just before, and it ends around about the same time. And as you say, some of the targets in the game are Muslims as well as Christians. And I think if you didn't know too much about it, that might surprise you that Muslims are actively attacking Muslims at a time when the Holy Land is under threat from Christianity. But again, that plays into the real history that quite often the Assassins were at odds with other Muslim sects rather than Christians.
John Withington: Well of course, you had a similar thing happen with Christianity, sort of 400 or 500 years later when you get the Wars of Religion and the Reformation 1517. And I think, as I mentioned, that religion became a very important factor, a very important motive for assassination. One of the impressions that did sort of come across to me is that those motivated to assassinate by religion tended to be more ruthless than those motivated by politics.
Matthew Lewis: I wonder if there's an element of believing you're securing a place in heaven.
John Withington: Quite possibly. And also maybe, particularly when, you know, heresy was such a thing and the feelings were so strong about that, maybe it's also easier to believe that your opponents are thoroughly evil and have no redeeming features.
Matthew Lewis: So I guess having terrified everybody about the fact that political assassinations of all kinds have happened for millennia, not even just centuries, are there any proven ways that someone might seek to protect themselves or foil assassination attempts? Do we see people surviving maybe more than one?
John Withington: The most consoling thing about assassinations is most attempts fail.
Matthew Lewis: That does make me feel better.
John Withington: In terms of how you protect yourself, one of the things that strikes you actually when you read back in history is how careless, by modern standards, some of the victims appear to have been. So Abraham Lincoln, the night he was assassinated, Good Friday 1865, his regular bodyguard was off on a mission somewhere else and he got a kind of stand-in bodyguard and Lincoln appears to have let the bodyguard go off for a drink and there was no bodyguard on duty when John Wilkes Booth went into his room to kill him. So bodyguards is one thing you can use. They're not foolproof. So Teti was said to have been killed by his bodyguard and he certainly reorganised security, palace security. There's no doubt that a lot of bodyguards do act with enormous courage and do help to keep safe the people they're protecting. So Benazir Bhutto, there was an assassination attempt on her in 2007. Fifty of her security guards were killed and of course she was then later assassinated herself. But bodyguards can be a danger as well, as we saw with Teti. And up to 15 Roman emperors were killed by bodyguards or by troops loyal to them. And if you come forward in time, of course, you've got Indira Gandhi who was killed in 1984 by her bodyguard. There are things, there's technology, things like armour-plated cars. Eduard Shevardnadze, when he was president of Georgia, survived an assassination attempt thanks to his armour-plated car. But they're not foolproof. There was a German industrialist called Herrhausen who was murdered by the Red Army faction, even though he's in his armour-plated car. I think Machiavelli said the best way of keeping yourself safe from assassination is to make sure all your people love you. But that may not be too easy to achieve.
Matthew Lewis: And yet we also know it's impossible to please all of the people all of the time. It's a difficult circle to square. And I guess in the game, you know, part of what players have to do is to infiltrate situations and get under the skin of people and situations. And there's a famously recorded case of Assassins going to visit Saladin. And you know, he sends away all of his bodyguards except the last two who he most trusts, at which point the Assassins say, what would you do if we asked you to kill Saladin? And they both say, we'd kill him because we're Assassins. So I guess there's an element there of always, even bodyguards, you have to be wary of who they are. And as you said, they're absolutely no guarantee and they could be your worst enemies.
John Withington: Yeah, well, there's a story that Saladin was saved from assassination because he wore a chainmail cap under his turban. And I think, as you know, the Assassins wanted to kill him and made a couple of attempts. And there was this famous episode where he was sleeping in his tent one night, awoke in the middle of the night, saw a figure creeping out of his tent, and there pinned to his pillow with a poisoned dagger was a note saying, you are in our power, and some cakes of a kind, apparently, that only the Assassins made. But I think one of the attempts on Saladin illustrates another feature of the way the Assassins operated. So when the attempt was made to stab him in the head, which was to stop his cap of chainmail, the Assassins who tried to do that had been fighting in his forces. They'd signed up for his forces and fought with great courage and considerable distinction. And he was at an event to reward them for their bravery. So this business of deep cover, because again, it was one of the assassinations they did of a crusader called Count Raymond of Tripoli. That's Tripoli in Lebanon, not in Libya. But I think the two Assassins had actually gone undercover for a long time, had even got baptized. So they were prepared to take what sounds like quite a modern tactic, doesn't it? Being, if you like, I guess, a sleeper, and of going into deep cover, being very patient, awaiting the right moment to strike.
Matthew Lewis: In Assassin's Creed, Altaïr is tasked with killing a sequence of 10 people. His aim is to get to Robert de Sablé, the leader of the Knights Templar. But he has to kind of perform these other nine to get him access to Robert de Sablé. So do we ever see a series of assassinations as a way to eliminate allies to get to the main target?
John Withington: Well, certainly you see quite a bit of what I suppose we might now call collateral damage. So the 266 assassinations I looked at, 38 involved significant collateral damage, significant other casualties. And the first crusader killed by the assassins, Raymond of Tripoli, the assassins had to kill two of his knights to get to him. Probably the biggest example of collateral damage, or one of the biggest anyway, was the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India in 1991 by a suicide bomber. She killed 25 other people. There's a very famous story from Japan about the 47 samurai. There was a senior shogun official who ill-treated a samurai to such a degree that he committed, Harakiri–killed himself. And then that samurai's followers decided they must take revenge on this shogun official. And to get to him, they had to kill 16 of his men. They did manage to kill him, but then all 47 of them were instructed to commit Harakiri, apart from one who was spared on account of his youth.
Matthew Lewis: It's currently a famous Keanu Reeves film, 47 Samurai[sic].
John Withington: It's been filmed a number of occasions, and there are books. Yeah, it's a very, very important part of Japanese history and folklore.
Matthew Lewis: And perhaps a parallel from which the game draws the idea of having to kill this sequence of people to get to the main target. That did happen in history, we can see clear parallels. You mentioned a little bit earlier, the kind of the law of unintended consequences when assassinations take place. Do we see frequent unintended consequences? What kind of thing might they be?
John Withington: If you take what are perhaps, well, certainly three of the most famous assassinations in history, Julius Caesar, Thomas Beckett, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, all of them had unintended consequences. Now, of course, there's an argument about whether the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand actually caused the First World War. And it was indeed 39 days after his assassination that the First World War broke out. But certainly, that's one of the assassins felt, because one of the assassins said, if I'd known what our deed was going to lead to, I would have sat down on my bomb and blown myself to bits. So, I think, it was Gandalf, I think, in The Lord of the Rings, who says, they're talking about should they murder Gollum? And I think Gandalf says something like, you need to be careful about this kind of thing, because not all ends are known, even to the wise. And societies are very, very complicated things, and predicting the consequences of killing somebody, very, very hard to do. So I think unintended consequences is very, very common.
Matthew Lewis: Do we ever see examples of that being taken into account? Are people ever aware? I mean, I guess the unintended part suggests that they're not. But are people ever aware that there might be bigger, wider, deeper consequences to what they're about to do? Or do they tend to be focused on their very particular reason for wanting to assassinate someone?
John Withington: I suppose that if you've gone ahead with the assassination, you've probably had to have convinced yourself that, on balance, it's worth it. One thing I tried to do, and this is obviously highly subjective, I tried to work out whether, as it were, assassination worked. So, if the people who did the assassination had known what was going to happen, would they have been happy with it? This is obviously an extremely subjective judgment. But for what it's worth, I felt that I'd got enough information in 215 cases, and I reckoned that in 132 of those, people would have been, on the whole, happy with the outcome. In 83, they would have been unhappy. Of course, all the assassinations worked in the sense that the victim was dead.
Matthew Lewis: But interesting that over half probably worked out the way the assassins hoped or would have been happy with.
John Withington: It wouldn't be true to say that in all of those cases, it worked out exactly as they would have expected. But I felt it was kind of near enough to the objective that they would have wanted to achieve. So, I suppose that's a slightly depressing figure to set against the one that most assassination attempts fail.
Matthew Lewis: We'll stick to the most fail as our consolation from this episode, I think. But thank you very much for joining us, John. It's been an absolutely fascinating tour of assassination as a weapon and as a tool of political terror. Thank you very much for joining us.
John Withington: Pleasure. Thanks for having me.
Matthew Lewis: In the next episode, I'm joined by Mike Carr of the University of Edinburgh to discuss the fall of the Templars. It's our last episode, and we've saved the most pivotal moment in the Templar story to the very end. Make sure you're following the Echoes of History podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts so you don't miss it. And you can listen to the rest of the series there, too. This series is a special collaboration between Ubisoft and History Hit, with post-production undertaken by Paradiso Media.

The Fall of the Templars

Woman’s Voice: History Hit and Assassin's Creed presents Assassins vs Templars Real Histories of the secret orders.
Matthew Lewis: Welcome to the inside of one of history's greatest stories. I'm Matt Lewis, and in this collaboration between Ubisoft and History Hit, we're taking you back to the very beginning. The story of Assassin's Creed is one of deadly rivalry between conflicting ideologies that asks whether peace is found through freedom or control. It began with Assassins and Templars racing to gather the pieces of Eden in the fiery heat of the Near East, amidst brutal religious upheavals. We're all Desmond Miles now, and we've found our Animus. A team of the best historians working in their fields will unlock the memories of the past for us, lead us through their secrets, and introduce us to some of the real people who inspired the game. It's time to break into the vaults of two of history's most infamous organisations as we pit the Assassin's Creed against the Templar Order. In this episode, I'm joined by Mike Carr from the University of Edinburgh to talk all about the fall of the Templars. Thank you very much for joining us, Mike.
Mike Carr: Thank you very much for having me.
Matthew Lewis: It's great to have you on to talk about the climactic fall of the Templar Order. Can you paint a picture for us to start off with, of just how powerful and wealthy and influential the Templars were, kind of at the height of their power? When is this and just how powerful are they?
Mike Carr: Okay, I mean, there's two ways to think about this. The Templars, they're sort of an international order that have possessions all across Latin Europe but also in the Middle East as well. So in terms of their wealth and power, it's worth taking these two sort of regions together and comparing them and seeing how it all works out. So at the time of their arrest in 1307, they have very extensive possessions all across Latin Christendom, so predominantly in France, but also in Iberia, in Italy, England, places like that. And we're talking about almost a thousand different Templar estates. And these would have been sort of made up of mills and farms and things like that for sort of agricultural production, other kinds of production, which would have generated the wealth of the order. And then they also have their military side, which is sort of mostly to do with the defence of the Latin East. And probably the height of their sort of military power is a little bit earlier. So in the 12th and 13th centuries, and it's said that the Templars probably by the end of the 12th century, in terms of a sort of military context, have something like 600 knights in the Holy Land in the different Crusader states, with around 2000 other fighting men as part of the Order. So they're a considerable fighting force. I mean, it's difficult to sort of put it in context, but they form quite a considerable and important part of the armies of the Latin East and in the Crusader states. So you have this sort of two facets, you've got these extensive possessions in Western Europe, and the money that's generated by them is supporting the armies in the East and also garrisoning castles and other strongholds and things like that in the East. And in addition to that, the thing that links it together is the ships and the transport and the, I suppose, the logistical networks that stretch from Europe to the Eastern Mediterranean. So I think that hopefully paints a picture of the sort of scale and the international scope of the order, really at its height. So it's extensive territories in the West generating money for this military activity in the East. And in terms of their sort of their influence, I mean, it is partly financial because of the possessions they have in the West and the money that they're generating, and also military. So a lot of it's to do with crusading. So they're advising monarchs about crusading strategy, they're giving advice and taking part in the leadership of crusades in the East. But whether or not they have extensive influence in terms of domestic policies within Europe, I think that's more debatable. Maybe the sort of more common and sort of modern perception of the Templars are of groups that really are influential in European politics. And I think maybe that's an overstatement, but they are very important in terms of the crusades and the military activities in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess even if they're not directly involved in domestic policy, their focus on the crusades necessarily drives some domestic policies and financial policies and things like that.
Mike Carr: Exactly.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess in the game, you know, the Templars still exist and they're an organisation that are fronted by a huge multinational corporation. That seems like a fairly reasonable modern parallel for what the Templars were at their height.
Mike Carr: Yeah, exactly. And I think in some ways, there's not really many or any other medieval entity that sort of has this multinational status that the Templars do. I mean, the other military orders, I suppose, are comparable, like the Hospitallers and the Teutonic Knights, but the fact that they have territories that are sort of scattered throughout Europe, throughout the Mediterranean, throughout the East, and they're not sort of tied to any particular kingdom, they are sort of answerable to the papacy, they're a transnational corporation. So yeah, in many ways, that does sort of match up with our perception.
Matthew Lewis: And by the start of the 14th century, they've accumulated and acquired all of this land and property in Western Europe predominantly. How have they acquired that? Is that just people giving them land as a way of supporting the crusade without going on crusade?
Mike Carr: Exactly. Yeah. I mean, that's a large part of it. People, yeah, making donations, obviously monetary donations, but also, yeah, donations of land they give to the Templars, yeah, in lieu of crusading or even people who have gone on crusade, but still want to leave land and territories and houses and things like that to the Templars after they die. So yeah, they receive a lot of donations from the sort of aristocratic class in Europe, which really helps them to extend and sort of establish these territories in the West.
Matthew Lewis: It's incredible just how much they acquired from people just giving them.
Mike Carr: Yeah, exactly. I mean, they do purchase land and things like that, but it's, yeah, the sort of driving force behind this, especially in the 12th century is the donations.
Matthew Lewis: And is there a moment when we see the tide begin to turn against the Templars? Can we see a pivot moment or is this a slowly changing attitude towards them?
Mike Carr: It's a bit of both. So on the one hand, the popularity and the reputation of the Templars, it's really tied in with the fate of the Holy Land. So in the, you know, sort of up to the mid 12th century, the Templars are, you know, obviously seen as being very effective militarily and the Holy Land is, you know, things are generally going quite well. But when Saladin retakes Jerusalem in 1187, and you have this sort of decline of the Crusader states, temporarily at least, the Templars get a lot of criticism for that because their sensible aim and objective to defend the Holy Land. So when you have things going badly in the Holy Land, the Templars are blamed for that.
Matthew Lewis: And I suppose you can get all these people at home saying, I gave you loads of stuff to help.
Mike Carr: Exactly. And that's the problem for them. It's sort of Catch-22 where they have all these donations and all this money that's generating in the West. And then, yeah, therefore people are, you know, blaming them for things that are going wrong in the East. So in that sense, it's a sort of more gradual decline, and obviously in the 13th century, when things are sort of starting to look even worse in the Crusader states, again, the Templars and the Teutonic Knights and the Hospitallers, Talia merchants also are criticised for this. But having said that, I think there's also particular moments and particular events which exacerbate the situation. And I suppose the main one would be the fall of Acre in 1291. So the fall of the Crusader states. And at that point, the Templars are obviously blamed partly for this, along with some of these other people that I mentioned. But also what they're unable to do really is to change their focus and, I suppose, maintain their relevance in the post-Crusader states world. Because obviously, yeah, their raison d'etre is gone. There's no Crusader states to defend anymore. They do try and recover the Holy Land and they take part in various ventures to do this. But these are generally failures. So I think 1291 is quite an important point at which I think, yeah, the Templars sort of failed to reimagine themselves. And that leaves them open to criticism in the West.
Matthew Lewis: I was trying to think of a modern parallel, and I guess the one in the game works, a pharmaceutical company that fronts the Templars, if they're suddenly not allowed to make drugs, you have to find something else to do. And the Templars are guilty of just having no other focus, but all of this wealth that attracts attention, I guess.
Mike Carr: Exactly, yeah. And as I said before, it's this Catch-22 when you've got all this money and yeah, this sort of seeming wealth in the West and all these possessions, and then you failed in your objective and you're not really seen to be, I mean, they're spending great amount of money trying to recover the Holy Land, but it's unsuccessful. So yeah, it just leads them open to this kind of criticism. And I think an interesting comparison there is to the other military orders. So the Teutonic Knights, they're able to go to Prussia and to Northern Europe and they carve out their own territories there, and they're fighting the pagans there. The Hospitallers in 1306 embark on the conquest of Rhodes, and they're seen as taking on the Turks and also the Byzantines on the sea. So these two military orders, the other two main ones, they're able to reinvent themselves and give themselves relevance in terms of defense of the faith, however that might be conceived. Whereas the Templars, the odd ones out, they're not able to do that, unfortunately for them. And I think that, yeah, it really leaves them open to criticism.
Matthew Lewis: It makes you wonder what might've happened if Richard I had left them Cyprus and he gives them Cyprus and then takes it back, which would have been the equivalent of Rhodes, I guess, for the Hospitallers. Exactly.
Mike Carr: I mean, Cyprus is a funny one because obviously the Templars and the Hospitallers relocate to Cyprus after the fall of Acre in 1291, but the Templars fall out with the Cypriot Kings there. But yeah, I think at that point, Cyprus is seen as this really important bastion of the Latin East. And actually, yeah, if they'd kept hold of it, then that may have been very beneficial to them.
Matthew Lewis: And do we see any kind of, as their reputation is waning, do we see a kind of a propaganda campaign against the Templars? And if so, does that influence their reputation today and perhaps the way that they're portrayed in the game as this sort of slightly shadowy organization?
Mike Carr: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, in terms of the propaganda campaign against them, it's pretty much led by the French King and his advisors, Philip IV of France. So it's very much a French thing and the propaganda outside of the Kingdom of France and also the French propaganda and how it's perceived outside the Kingdom is not really as effective. And I think this sort of negative view of the Templars is predominantly a French thing. So yeah, in terms of the propaganda, the kinds of things that we see in it are these accusations of heresy, along with also the Templars having money and not really doing anything with it. And in terms of the heretical accusations, they're the things that start to come up in the trial a couple of years later, a lot to do with the reception ceremony, so secretive reception ceremonies where apparently they are denying Christ, spitting on the cross, engaging in sort of inappropriate kissing with the receiver sort of on the navel, on the base of the spine and things like that. And then when they're joining the order, they're engaging in sodomy and also idol worship and things like that. So it's these kinds of heretical accusations that are starting to emerge in the French propaganda in the years before the trial. As I said before, this is spread within France. It's also, there are attempts to spread this more widely in Europe, but I mean, it's difficult to gauge popular perceptions of propaganda and impact, but it seems that it's not really believed by people outside of France in any great way. But in terms of the reputation and yeah, how it's impacted on modern views of the Templars, then absolutely, I think a lot of this idea of them being secretive and potentially heretical or engaging in occult activities and that kind of stuff, that I think very much derives from this sort of propaganda campaign that the French royal agents are embarking on in a few years before the trial.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess it's not dissimilar to what we see around the Masons and things like that as well. You know, wherever there's the potential for secrecy, people will read into that whatever they want. And if you want to destroy someone, a secret place is a good place to go.
Mike Carr: Exactly. Yeah, yeah, 100% right. And what's interesting with the Masons is they, yeah, they sort of really buy into this idea of the Templars being sort of secretive and they invent all this sort of crazy stuff to do with the Templars. But actually, the sort of propaganda is almost flipped and the negative portrayals of the Templars are almost cast in a more positive light by the Masons. So they're sort of saying, yeah, okay, the Templars are secretive, but actually, they have the secret wisdom that they're trying to protect against the papacy and the king and these authorities that are trying to persecute them. So in a way, it's taking ideas of the French propaganda, but sort of flipping it and turning it into a positive. And for the Masons themselves, they track their lineage back to the Templars. So it's sort of, yeah, they're seeing this in a far more positive light than the French propagandists were. But it's the same kind of ideas surrounding secrecy and blasphemy and things like that.
Matthew Lewis: So it sounds like the efforts to bring the Templars down were really focused in France and led by Philip IV. Why was he particularly harsh on the Templars? Why did he target them?
Mike Carr: Yeah, that's a really important question. So with Philip himself, there's a few things going on, a sort of background to the arrest in 1307 that I think need to be understood to work out why he was doing this. I mean, the first thing that's worth mentioning is that Philip has form in terms of opposing the papacy and trying to sort of assert his authority over the church. So at the turn of the 14th century, there's this big conflict between Philip IV and the Pope at the time, Boniface VIII. And this is essentially over church financing, Philip's trying to get hold of taxation of the French church. And eventually this results in Philip accusing the Pope or Philip's advisers accusing the Pope of similar crimes to what the Templars accused of. So idol worship, consorting with demons, sodomy, blasphemy, all sorts of trumped up heretical accusations. And eventually this results in Philip sending one of his advisers, Guillaume de Nogaret, with a small army to Anagni, where the Pope is based at the time, to basically arrest him and bring him back to France to stand trial for these accusations. And actually what happens is that the French army sort of rough up the Pope. The Pope actually escapes, but he dies a few weeks later. So the French and Philip IV have confronted the papacy, accused the Pope of heretical accusations similar to the Templars and actually resulted in the Pope's death. And afterwards, the years after this, the accusations against Boniface are written up and expanded on by the French royal court. And they are put to successive new popes and the sort of pressure is put on the popes to allow the French to try their predecessor, Boniface VIII, for heresy. So there's this big cloud that's cast over the papacy during the trial of the French and Philip IV basically trying to exert his power over the Pope. So that's the first thing. And obviously the Templars, as a military religious order, they're answering to the papacy. They've lost their main protector and the papacy is unable to stand up against Philip. So that's the first thing that allows Philip to go after the Templars. And the second thing, probably more important, is finance. So when Philip becomes king, he inherits a lot of debt from his father. His father had died on a crusade against the Aragonese in 1285. And there's lots of debt from that. Philip's also engaged in wars against England and later on against Flanders as well, which are very expensive. And then to add to this, there's problems with the amount of silver circulating in Europe. And this is causing economic difficulties within the Kingdom of France. And Philip is essentially debasing the coinage in France. He debased it six times in the two years running up to the trial, just to give you an idea of the problems there. And actually there's riots in Paris about the economic problems in December of 1306, so a few months before the Templars are arrested. And what Philip actually does to try and alleviate this is he seizes the property of Lombard communities a couple of times in France and then also of the Jews in 1306. And he actually expels about 100,000 Jews from France in order to get their money and to get their silver, especially so he can sort out his own coinage. So there's a pattern here where this guy has massive debts, real problems with the coinage. He needs precious metals, he needs money in order to sort this out, to sort out the economy of his kingdom.
Matthew Lewis: I think what you can see there, though, is quite a populist, what we might call today a populist agenda, that he's targeting people who are easy to target, driving hatred towards them, pushing them away. But it's actually all about getting power and money out of them.
Mike Carr: Exactly. And in a way, what Philip's doing is comparable to what we see throughout history, really. And he's very good at doing this, how they prosecute this propaganda campaign. And also the seizure of the goods of these minority groups is very effectively sort of carried out. So with the Jews, he manages to sort of arrest and sort of seize the properties of the Jews in almost a day in 1306. And with the arrest of the Templars as well, this happens in a day. And it's sort of this incredibly sort of fast and efficient way of moving against the group without them really having any idea that this is going to happen. So, yeah, he's very effective and he combines this with the propaganda and things like that.
Matthew Lewis: Like he's got his top 10 heresies and a playbook that works and he just rolls it out against the Templars when the time's right.
Mike Carr: Exactly. And everything else fits in. The Templars, you know, with the fall of the Holy Land, they're an easier target than they would have been pre-1291. The papacy is not going to be able to help them because of what's happened with Boniface VIII. So really, when you look at it from a historical point of view and you see all these things happening, it almost looks inevitable that the Templars will be the next target. But it's all about Philip. If Philip wasn't king, the Templars wouldn't have been arrested. I mean, it's purely down to his need for the money, in my view anyway. However, I want to just sort of complicate that slightly. And I think, yes, he's financially motivated. But also, I don't think we should necessarily presume that he doesn't believe the accusations of heresy as well. And this idea, these sort of trumped up accusations that I mentioned before, they are sort of quite widespread within European thinking at that time. And I think from what we know of Philip's character, he is very religiously conservative and pious. So he might have actually had a sort of genuine belief in the accusations that his advisers and he was hearing about the Templars. And it was probably very convenient that this also was a means of him being able to get their money while supposedly suppressing this heresy.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, we can be quite cynical about the medieval aspect or opinions on religion. You know, it was such an important part of what they do that it doesn't have to be religion was using an excuse to do something. It can be that I have a genuine religious belief that this is happening. It's also quite convenient for me.
Mike Carr: Exactly. Coincidentally. Yeah. And I think those two motivations can work hand in hand. And yeah, it's very tempting to separate them out and see that seeing them as being somehow opposed.
Matthew Lewis: One is a cynical excuse for the other when it's not necessarily the case.
Mike Carr: Exactly. Yeah.
Matthew Lewis: And so how does all of this come to a head? What happens to the Templar? You mentioned before that there was a trial.
Mike Carr: Yeah. So basically on the Friday the 13th of October 1307, the Templars are arrested in France. It's a pretty amazing and fast operation. Barely any of the Templars escape and then they are tried. So what happens is before the arrests are made, Philip's actually circulated letters to all his sort of royal advisors and the people are going to carry out these arrests in different regions of France. And this actually has a list of the accusations that are being made against them. So this is something that these agents know in advance. And they're told basically to arrest the Templars, to imprison them, to sort of separate them as well so they can't communicate with one another, to torture them or threaten them with torture and to basically treat them very harshly. And at the same time, try and get them to confess to these crimes which have been drawn up. And in addition to this, he also wants an inventory of their various estates so he knows how much money, how much good stuff that he can get off them. And unfortunately for the Templars, they are a lot of the Templars in France. They're not your fighting men. They are, you know, just a standard people who work on these estates. You know, they work on the mills and the farms or whatnot. And they're completely unprepared for this. It takes them by surprise. They're either tortured or threatened with torture and a lot of them confess to these crimes, as you probably would when you're set in with torture. And really, as soon as that happens, it's very difficult for the Templars to go back. And it's very difficult for anyone to defend them because they've confessed to these heresies, or a lot of them have. If you retract your confession, you can then be deemed a relapsed heretic and burnt. So it's very difficult to go back on the confession once you've made it in these kinds of situations. And also from the papacy's point of view, what Philip's done is completely against the right sort of order. I suppose it's illegal in many ways in that he's imprisoned a religious order that's answerable to the papacy and sort of tried them himself. And actually, this should have come under the jurisdiction of the church. But again, once Philip's able to say to the Pope, well, look, they've confessed to a lot of this stuff, it's very difficult for the Pope to actually really step in and help them. And he does try and step in and support the Templars. But because of the difficult position that the Pope's in at the time and the sort of influence that Philip's able to exert over him, there's not really much that can be done. And the other rulers of Europe, the King of England, King of Aragon, they're a lot more sympathetic towards the Templars, but they're not willing to sort of confront Philip over this. He's the most powerful monarch in Europe. So essentially, once he does what he does and he forces these confessions, the order is doomed, pretty much.
Matthew Lewis: And what do we know about, so Robert de Sablé is the Grandmaster of the Templars in the game, in the First Crusade. What do we know about the last Grandmaster? How much of a fight does he put up to protect the Templars?
Mike Carr: Yeah, well, he's an interesting character. So Jacques de Molay is the last Grandmaster. I mean, he's really received quite a lot of criticism in scholarship, more recently, some more supportive reassessments of him. But really, he's unable to effectively defend the Templars. He's quite an old man. By the time of the arrest, he is tortured. And he also confesses very early on in the trial. And he does sort of backtrack and he sort of flip flops a little bit over his confession and sort of retracting it. But ultimately, he's not able to really sort of mount any kind of defense. And one of the problems is that the Templars are kept in isolation from one another. So it's difficult to see what Molay really could have done in that situation anyway, because he couldn't necessarily communicate with his fellow members of the order. But I think one of the problems for the rank and file is that they hear that Molay has confessed and they know that the other sort of high ranking Templars have also confessed and are not able to mount this resistance. So it does make it difficult for the Templars to mount their own defense, although they do try and do this. And there are sort of groups who are able to sort of mount some semi effective defense. But ultimately, nothing comes of this. And actually, what's interesting is that from the French perspective, there's a point in the trial around sort of 1310 or so where things start to get delayed because the papacy is insisting that the interrogations come under papal jurisdiction and so forth. And actually, the French start to burn some of the Templars as relapsed heretics, and about 50 of them are burned in Paris in 1310. And this really scares a lot of the other members of the order who are thinking about defending themselves. And a lot of them just hold their hands up and say that they're guilty and will take the punishments that don't result in their execution.
Matthew Lewis: I was going to ask how so many of them got burned, because the first instance of heresy doesn't normally carry a death penalty. You have to commit heresy the second time to get burned. So is this a case of them relapsing and perhaps under more pressure and torture confessing again? So then they're relapsed heretics, that second defense is what gets them burned.
Mike Carr: Yeah, yeah. So it's often that they've yeah, they've confessed and then they retract their confession and then they are deemed to be relapsed heretics. So that's the risk. Whereas if you confess and you accept your confession, you can be maybe you get perpetual imprisonment. That would be a particular harsh penalty. But otherwise, you know, you get smaller terms of imprisonment. And a lot of the Templars actually sometimes give them pensions and they join other religious orders sometimes. And they, you know, a lot of them survive the trial. They're not executed and they're not necessarily imprisoned for any great deal of time. So, yeah, I think for the sort of rank and file, it takes a lot of a lot of strength and a lot of courage to really stand up against torture. And if you have already confessed under torture to then retract your confession, because it's a good chance you'll be burnt as a result.
Matthew Lewis: And how then if this is mainly focused in France, and as you mentioned, the King of England, the King of Aragon, the Pope, other rulers aren't as hostile to the Templars. How does the international element of it collapse if it's brought down in France, why doesn't the rest of it survive?
Mike Carr: Yeah, that's a good question. I think from the point of view of the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Aragon, that's sort of the two sort of interesting case studies in the sense that these are two areas where you have, you know, large numbers of Templars, and they're in close communication with the French and with the papacy and that sort of neighbouring French territory. So they're very much integrated in what's going on, and they're very aware of what's going on in France. And both the Kings of Aragon and the Kings of England, they, yeah, they sort of oppose what Philip's doing, and they don't necessarily agree with it. And in England, for example, you also don't have torture being used as part of common law. So, and the Templars are treated a lot more leniently, they're not forced into confessions in the same way for, and there are sort of people who come forward and support them and defend them. But ultimately, with the trial going so badly in France, I think the other kings realise that ultimately, the order is probably going to be suppressed at some point, because the Pope is going to have to do that. It's very difficult to, you know, suppress an order in one region and not in its totality.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess also, when there's confessions that they're doing all of these things, that's exactly their fate.
Mike Carr: Yeah, exactly. And I think for, and again, I don't want to sort of sound overly cynical here, but for the kings of England and Aragon, there is the opportunity of making the best of a bad situation. The Templars have accused of this, they're probably done for anyway, might as well play along with this and try and get some of the territories and some of their possessions for yourself and their money as well. So I think there is a point where other monarchs are willing to support the Templars, but when they see that really the game's up and their days are numbered, they're happy to sort of go along with what the Pope suggests and what the King of France is essentially pushing for.
Matthew Lewis: I suppose there's a bit of frightening kind of Realpolitik in there that they're going to fall anyway. If I go along with what Philip's trying to do, I might be able to get all of those lands and properties that they have, maybe get Philip on side a little bit.
Mike Carr: Exactly. Yeah. And Philip's, he's the most powerful monarch in Europe. So he's sort of a person who probably wants to keep on side.
Matthew Lewis: And as you mentioned there, not all of the Templars were executed. I think sometimes we think that they were all killed, you know, on that Friday the 13th. In the game, we see the Templars living on as a secret organisation kind of fronted by this multinational company. Do you think the Templars continued in any kind of guise or did they just disappear completely?
Mike Carr: There's two ways to think about it. I mean, on the one hand, the members didn't disappear, as you said, they survived. So there is the continuity in that, yes, these people are still there, but the organisation is completely suppressed. So there is no pseudo-Templar continuation, but you do have things like in Iberia, there's a couple of orders that were established in the years after the trial, which have Templar estates and have ex-members of the Templars forming part of them. Likewise, some of the Templar estates are meant to be handed to the Hospitallers as it doesn't really happen in reality. So the Hospitallers do absorb some of the Templar estates as well. So there is a continuity in that sense, but in an organisational sense, the order is no more.
Matthew Lewis: I guess it's just that the game plays into that kind of idea that they weren't wiped out and something could have continued, you know, if they were reluctant to leave the Templar order, they could have kept going in secret. We can't disprove that, can we, I guess?
Mike Carr: No, no, I suppose not. And I think a lot of idea also comes from the 18th, 19th century, the Masonic reimagining of Templars and the idea that some of the Templars fled from France to England and Ireland and Scotland and established these secretive orders. And I think there's no historical evidence for any of this. So from a historical point of view, it's not true. But yeah, you can see why people believe that and why that's been constructed.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess just to end on, I wonder why you think we're so interested in the Templars. I think it's possible to position them as kind of, you know, they drove religious war and strife in the Near East, were powerful, wealthy landlords in Europe, and then they fell having confessed to this whole ream of crimes and heresies and were relatively short-lived in the grand scheme of history, yet they seem to have this hold over the collective imagination. Why are we so obsessed with the Templars?
Mike Carr: Yeah, it's a really good question. And I think a trial has so much to do with it, the fact, as you said yourself, the fact that you have this prestigious order that they're defending the Holy Land and all that, and then they are tried and suppressed as heretics, essentially, which is sort of anathema to what they were meant to be doing. And I think the secretive nature of the Templars, which we've alluded to a few times, is a big part of that. It just makes them so open to this kind of myth history, this sort of pseudo-history that's developed over the years afterwards, which I think has sort of fuelled this fascination with them. And even at the time, in the years just after the trial, you have the curse of Jacques de Molay, the idea, because Jacques de Molay is executed in 1314, and shortly after Clement V, the Pope, and Philip IV, the King, die as well in the same year. And there's this idea that Jacques de Molay, when he's been led to the stake, he sort of says, you're both going to die in the same year. And this is sort of propagated by chroniclers in the years after the trial. So this sort of Templar myth and the curse of Molay were sort of contemporary ideas as well. So I think it shocked Europe at the time, undoubtedly. And it led to these myths and these legends, which I think are perpetuated. And it's such a ripe area of history for this kind of myth history, if you like.
Matthew Lewis: It's almost a perfect story as well, isn't it? You know, we can see the birth, we can see the expansion, the growth to these great heights, and then we can see this huge fall, which kind of seems to close the book, but sort of leaves a bookmark in there that conspiracy theories can wheedle into.
Mike Carr: Exactly. And also, I think just looking at the sort of history of the Templars, from a historian's perspective, they sort of fit into most aspects of the medieval world, you know, they're involved in the Crusades, but they're big sort of landowners in the West. They're a monastic order, they're a military order, they're part of the church, but they cross into so much of the medieval world in some way that I think they are a very interesting topic to study as well. So I think I suppose that's another reason why people are sort of fascinated by it.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess also in a world that's almost always been obsessed with chivalry and knights and things like that, they're seen as the pinnacle, the ultimate fighting force of the medieval world as well.
Mike Carr: Exactly. Yeah, there's all the sort of chivalric side of things and the romantic side of things as well.
Matthew Lewis: Fascinating. It's been brilliant to dive into the, well, unfortunate for them that they fell, but brilliant for us to dive into it. And thank you so much for sharing all of that with us, Mike.
Mike Carr: No problem. It's my pleasure. Thanks so much.
Matthew Lewis: That's the end of our series on Assassins vs Templars. Thank you for listening to the fall of the Templars and make sure you haven't missed any of the rest of this special series. There's eight episodes of Assassins vs Templars for you to enjoy.

Make sure you're following the Echoes of History podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts to listen to the rest of the series. There's episodes with world leading experts on the Crusades, the Knights Templar, and the rise of the Assassins. This series is a special collaboration between Ubisoft and History Hit with post-production undertaken by Paradiso Media.

Baghdad Soundwalks[edit | edit source]

Hammam

Deana Hassanein: Baghdad Sound Walks Hello fellow travelers, I'm Deana–
Ali Olomi: –and I'm Ali. Where should we travel to today, Deana?
Deana Hassanein: To be honest Ali, I'm feeling like taking it easy, maybe something more relaxing after the marketplace and the mosque. I just want to chill.
Ali Olomi: I've got just the thing for you. Let's make our way to the hammam.
Deana Hassanein: When you say hammam, you mean the bathhouse, a public house, right?
Ali Olomi: Right. But Deana, the hammam is so much, much more than that.
Deana Hassanein: I know that they were very popular back in the day and still are in lots of places around the world.
Ali Olomi: They're called the Thermae, if I can remember my Latin. It's been a little bit, but they were really popular and they were a hangout spot for the Romans, particularly wealthy ones. In fact, some of the oldest hammams in the world are found in old Roman territories, like Syria and then eventually Baghdad and the rest of the Islamic world.
Deana Hassanein: Please tell me, what would I see?
Ali Olomi: Well, first the hammam would be located relatively close to the mosque or sometimes near the marketplace. You want it nearby because everyday activity would be around it. So it's easily accessible.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah. Especially for Muslims, you know, throughout the day they have to maintain a certain level of hygiene. It's very important Islamically and even before they pray, they have to perform wudu. So I get that. That makes sense.
Ali Olomi: Yeah. So hammam served in some ways, a religious function, like you're pointing out, but they also had access to baths and cleanliness more broadly. And they were also incredibly social.
Deana Hassanein: Surprise, surprise. Everything is social in Baghdad.
Ali Olomi: Extroverts through and through. They like to hang out and relax at the same time. Honestly, it may actually be better to see them as a sort of spa rather than like a bathhouse. So if we were making our way to the hammam, we would see a structure with some type of a dome and a courtyard on the outside leading to the doors.
Deana Hassanein: Okay. Tell me more.
Ali Olomi: But this is where we're going to have to part ways, Deana.
Deana Hassanein: Okay. That makes sense. We can't enter together.
Ali Olomi: Yeah. Like the harem, hammam was a pretty gendered space. In the marketplace and in public, you've got men and women that did intermingle with one another, but not the hammam, not the bath space.
Deana Hassanein: That's still quite similar to spa places nowadays as well. You have different spaces for different people.
Ali Olomi: Right, yeah.
Deana Hassanein: So did they have different spaces like spas do today?
Ali Olomi: Sometimes I think, but mostly in Abbasid Baghdad, what we're seeing is different times of the day for men and different times for women.
Deana Hassanein: Okay. So we'd walk in at separate times, but we'd both have access to the same hammam. Shall we take a peek?
Ali Olomi: All right. So up first, we're going to see the outer chamber. This is where we take off our clothes and wrap ourselves in small cloths.
Deana Hassanein: That's why there are different times for men and women.
Ali Olomi: Yeah. And in addition, there's going to be a sort of successive layout that's a Roman inspiration.
Deana Hassanein: What would that be like?
Ali Olomi: There would be rooms right after one another. So one room back to back.
Deana Hassanein: Okay. Let's keep exploring the space. I'm excited.
Ali Olomi: All right. Once we've started to undress ourselves or we've gone through the undressing room, the first room up is called the cold room, cleverly titled because this is the room that has no heat in it. It has the attendance with the fans to keep you cool in that Baghdad heat. It’s got benches and cushions so that you can sit and chill and relax. And of course, people congregate and chat and play. There were board games, sometimes music, food, and even...
Deana Hassanein: Oh, I know what you're going to say.
Ali Olomi: Shisha
Deana Hassanein: Shisha.
Ali Olomi: You know me too well, Deana. You know me too well.
Deana Hassanein: Just before you carry on, Ali, what do you mean there was food?
Ali Olomi: They would eat in these places.
Deana Hassanein: Like food, food, not snacks?
Ali Olomi: Mostly fruit.
Deana Hassanein: Okay.
Ali Olomi: So you'd have some grapes, you'd have some oranges, citruses, and chilled drinks called sherbets.
Deana Hassanein: Okay. What comes next?
Ali Olomi: After the cold room comes the warm room. So you can see there's a logic here. Things get even more comfortable. Here you've got fragrant incenses and steam that keeps the room warm as you lounge and just let the worries of the day melt away.
Deana Hassanein: My eyes are closed. I'm visualizing it.
Ali Olomi: Oh, there's more. There's more. This is the massage parlor.
Deana Hassanein: A massage parlor?
Ali Olomi: Yep.
Deana Hassanein: For free?
Ali Olomi: For free.
Deana Hassanein: No.
Ali Olomi: Yes. This was a public service.
Deana Hassanein: Oh my God. Okay. Everything's changed. I'm now a hundred times more excited. I thought this would be somewhere that people go to buy these services.
Ali Olomi: Nope. This is a public service because hygiene is a public service. You want a healthy population. So let them get into those baths.
Deana Hassanein: Okay. We're not calling it a bathhouse anymore. This is officially a spa. And you said that there are different rooms with different experiences. One's social and one's relaxing.
Ali Olomi: And the more you move through the hammam, the more relaxing it gets, the more intimate it gets.
Deana Hassanein: What do you mean intimate?
Ali Olomi: Well, if you're going from eating and chatting to massage, that's pretty intimate.
Deana Hassanein: I could really do with a massage. I haven't had one since like 2017.
Ali Olomi: Just keep in mind though, massages and hammams tend to be really vigorous with like lots of joint pulling and hard rubbing. The idea was to kind of get the blood flowing as much as it was to relax you. I mean, I've experienced a hammam in Istanbul. First of all, one of the most awkward experiences in my life. And two, he pulled my limbs in directions that my limbs don't go in.
Deana Hassanein: Sad story aside of your experience in Istanbul, I feel like what you're describing is, as you mentioned, a health center, because I'm not going there for a nice relaxing Thai massage. I'm going to fix my body.
Ali Olomi: That's actually a really great way to think about it, because in addition to the massage, you have three other big services. First, you go in there, you're going to get a nice trim. You're going to get your beard lined up, your hair done. This is where the barbers were hanging out and they made sure you look pretty. Then you had your physicians. So while the massage person is moving your limbs in directions that they don't go, the physician is telling you, all right, you need to watch your diet and eat this particular medicine and make sure you get lots of exercise. And then they have one of the coolest, cupping. Cupping is really, really popular. Have you ever heard of cupping before?
Deana Hassanein: I have. You'll probably be able to explain it better than me.
Ali Olomi: They're still in Cairo, right?
Deana Hassanein: Definitely. And there's a lot of people that do it in the UK as well. It has become quite popular, but it's this sucking method that kind of brings the blood to the surface, right?
Ali Olomi: I've seen it. I've never had it done. I don't think it looks too relaxing, but people swear by it. They say it's really good for your health.
Deana Hassanein: I'm just still not over the fact that I could go into a spa, get a massage, get some fruit, get my hair cut all for free. They really had it all.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, totally.
Deana Hassanein: You can see how the hammam wasn't just for religious cleansing, because this was actually more of a social function. And you even mentioned about the physician. So this is actually connected to health.
Ali Olomi: I love that you actually called it a health center. It's changed my whole world right now. I'm going to call it a health center going forward because it really was what it was. It was tied to health. We even have examples from medieval doctors that say and prescribe, you need to go and visit the hammam. It was the most common flu remedy. If you get feeling a little congested, go and hang out in the steam rooms. And it was also recommended after childbirth as a deep cleansing for the woman, but also to really restore her muscles and her joints after childbirth.
Deana Hassanein: You know, it's kind of sad to hear this because I don't feel like we take care of ourselves anymore hearing this.
Ali Olomi: They really had it good with this hammam.
Deana Hassanein: Oh my God. So after our massage, cupping and haircut, what comes next?
Ali Olomi: Logically after the warm room, the hot room.
Deana Hassanein: The shock. This is where we get to the bath portion. I'm already a little bit iffy on.
Ali Olomi: I'm iffy about this too. But after the scrubbing and the rubbing, there comes the washing down with hot water and steam.
Deana Hassanein: And is that communal, Ali, or are you still in separate rooms for this?
Ali Olomi: It's communal.
Deana Hassanein: Okay. The technology and architecture here is actually very interesting. To get different temperatures in each room to move around steam, to keep the water hot for the hot room, you'd really need a lot of precise designs.
Ali Olomi: This is the magic of engineering. It's something that even I try to wrap my head around sometimes, just how advanced it was. I mean, the use of furnaces and vents, it was really ingenious how they were able to create the different temperatures. I read that they even had special shafts in the dome of the hot room so that it would get natural light and allow some of the steamed escape so it wasn't too hot, but hot enough.
Deana Hassanein: I love that they think of everything.
Ali Olomi: Right?
Deana Hassanein: So it's a health center, a community center, a bathhouse. Who was paying for all of this?
Ali Olomi: Mostly the caliph. The Abbasid Empire saw it as a public good, and so it was accessible regardless of wealth or class, though obviously the wealthy had better services.
Deana Hassanein: What more could you have?
Ali Olomi: Probably better quality oils and incenses and better masseurs.
Deana Hassanein: Okay, that makes total sense. And now that we've dived into what the bathhouse is, or as you want to call it now, a health center, it does make a lot of sense because hygiene is always connected to both religion and health. So I'm guessing the caliph frequently visited the hammam.
Ali Olomi: We do see some change here. Originally, the caliphs did. Later on, we're going to see some private hammams for the caliph, but originally, the caliph and his family would use the exact same hammam as everyone else, just at different times of the day.
Deana Hassanein: I still find that so weird.
Ali Olomi: It's a little weird. In fact, I got a story for you. The hammam, because it was public, was one of the few places that the caliph could probably be attacked. And in fact, one of the caliphs were. Al-Ma'mun, supposedly there was a plot in order to kill him when he went to the hammam. But he was warned of the plot in advance by his advisors and the court astrologers. So he sent someone else in his place, his advisor, al-Fadl. And what happens to poor al-Fadl? They mistake him for the caliph and he ends up getting killed. Horrible, messed up story, huh?
Deana Hassanein: Yeah.
Ali Olomi: But it shows that these spaces were still very political spaces.
Deana Hassanein: I can always rely on you, Ali, to give me a random exciting story. I had fun in the hammam. We got a chance to relax, socialize, get a massage, wash away all our problems. And thankfully, I'm not on anyone's assassinations list. Next time, let's go somewhere even more exciting. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast so you don't miss the next episode of Baghdad Soundwalks. See you next time, fellow travelers.

The Caravanserai

Deana Hassanein: Baghdad Sound Walks Hello fellow travellers, I'm Deana–
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. How are you feeling today, Deana?
Deana Hassanein: I'm feeling very well, thank you, Ali. How are you feeling?
Ali Olomi: Pretty good, I'm happy to be here.
Deana Hassanein: Where are we off to today?
Ali Olomi: So, how about we take a jaunt to an ancient structure that was what made Baghdad what it was today. The Caravanserai or the funduq.
Deana Hassanein: Ancient? So you're saying this existed before Baghdad and the Islamic empires?
Ali Olomi: That's right. What do you know about the Silk Roads? Because this is something we're going to be talking about a little bit.
Deana Hassanein: This is my favourite thing to say whenever this comes up. Spoiler alert, it isn't an actual road. It's not one single road. It refers to a network of trading routes that links the Middle East, Asia and the Western world.
Ali Olomi: Oh, I love that.
Deana Hassanein: Thank you.
Ali Olomi: My historian heart got so happy. Yeah, the Silk Roads aren't really a road, it's a network. The trade is mostly local and it's really about the movement of various goods. How about another question for you? Because this is all about trade. Do you know that there are different types of camels?
Deana Hassanein: There's actually only two true types of camels, right?
Ali Olomi: That's right. Arabian camels or dromedaries, which have one hump and Sogdian camels from Persia, which have two. I'm very hesitant here because that's the extent of my camel knowledge.
Deana Hassanein: Today is your lucky day, Ali, because I'm going to add some facts for you so you can add it to your list. Camels are born without humps. They store water in their blood. They have three sets of eyelids and two rows of eyelashes to keep sand out of their eye. They can shut their nostrils completely and they can survive up to 15 days without water, which makes them the perfect animal to transport goods on the Silk Roads.
Ali Olomi: You're blowing my mind a little bit here. Do you know the camel experts? I love it. And you're right, they're absolutely excellent for carrying heavy burdens and they could go long distances without food.
Deana Hassanein: Exactly, but back to the Silk Roads, they existed well before the Islamic empires and I remember studying how the ancient Persians, Romans and Chinese were all part of it, right?
Ali Olomi: Yeah, there were a series of roads that existed, but they were really expanded under the Achaemenids, which were an ancient Persian empire and it was part of their royal road project.
Deana Hassanein: Exactly, and since Baghdad is the inheritor of those old Persian empires, it makes sense why it was smack bang in the middle of those roads. Shall we do a bit of sightseeing? What would we see?
Ali Olomi: You would see merchants and caravans of camel which would move goods from all over the region. We know, for example, that they brought paper and porcelain from China. In fact, we even have evidence in China itself of the Silk Roads connecting Baghdad. There's this famous burial of a Sogdian, which is a Persian person in China and the inscription says this person is from the Persian world. They were very good at bartering and trade and negotiating.
Deana Hassanein: Wow, what a nice little comment to leave about someone. What's so striking about history is how we have these like little traces of life stories carved on stones, paper, images of people traveling, doing business. They leave things behind, you know, vases, coins, jewelry.
Ali Olomi: It really makes you wonder what traces we'll leave behind. In a hundred years from now, what evidence of our life will there be?
Deana Hassanein: It doesn't sound exciting because obviously we live in this era, but I'm guessing cars, coffee receipts, sprawls, electronic devices.
Ali Olomi: Snapchat, Instagram selfies. Gotta think about those things as a historian.
Deana Hassanein: You're right. There's going to be a lot of online content for them to delve through and maybe future historians will hear these podcasts as well.
Ali Olomi: That is a comforting thought. Hello, future historians.
Deana Hassanein: You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm really stunned by the long distances these caravans covered. And just to be clear, I know obviously caravans now are vehicles, but back then it was a term used to basically describe groups of people traveling.
Ali Olomi: And this is actually where the funduq comes into play. They were probably originally built by those Persians, the Achaemenids, as roadside taverns or inns. They were dwellings that connected all these roads together. In fact, that's where the idea of hostels come from.
Deana Hassanein: Did they invent them?
Ali Olomi: Not really. They pre-existed.
Deana Hassanein: I would love to know what it looked like. Can you describe it to me?
Ali Olomi: They're pretty simple structures. They're kind of a rectangle with walls that has a space for your horses and camels, a place where you can eat and a place where you can sleep. Not really how we would imagine a nice hotel today.
Deana Hassanein: What was it built from?
Ali Olomi: Generally wood, sometimes clay, sometimes mud. They're very simple. When you look at them, they're minimalist design. Just a square wall that you can hide away from thieves, brigands, and the weather.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah. It's not giving Four Seasons. It's giving a hut.
Ali Olomi: No pool, no gym, no continental breakfast.
Deana Hassanein: Well, I mean, it makes sense. Travelers do need a place to stay.
Ali Olomi: There's the first rule of history. You need to eat. And then the second rule of history, you got to build places to eat and sleep.
Deana Hassanein: Pretty straightforward. And these rules also apply to me.
Ali Olomi: Me too. And that's where these funduqs came into play. They were organizing these roads, but it was also about providing food and shelter. It's what made trade along distances possible. If you're traveling along miles and miles of roads, you need to stop somewhere to eat and somewhere to sleep.
Deana Hassanein: So when the Abbasids built Baghdad, they incorporated these caravanserais.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, the early Islamic dynasties made use of them even before the Abbasids. In fact, given how important trade was to the beginning of Islam, I mean, Muhammad was a merchant after all, before he became a prophet. All of these funduq were instrumental to actually the rise of Islam. Before Muslim armies and empires ever showed up onto the scene, Muslim merchants were there first.
Deana Hassanein: And then with Baghdad, it would be right in the center of those roads and the different roadside inns.
Ali Olomi: That's a good point. By the time of the Abbasids, they had incorporated these funduq into their trade system. But also they built many of their own, generally around Baghdad.
Deana Hassanein: Why around the city? Was it because of the way the trade flows?
Ali Olomi: Definitely. It helped with the overflow. Over time, the city grew beyond the initial bounds of Mansur's design in 762. You have this sprawling city with millions of people connected to the flow of roads, people, and goods. In fact, the medieval traveler Ibn Battuta gives us a fascinating description. He says, after sunset or nightfall, the director comes to the funduq with his secretary and writes down the names of all the travelers who will pass the night there. He seals it and locks the door of the funduq. In the morning, he and the secretary come and call everybody's name and write down a record. He sends someone with the travelers to conduct them to the next post station, and he brings back a certificate from the director of funduq, confirming that they have all arrived. So it's a system that connects all the funduqs together, one to the next to the next.
Deana Hassanein: Oh my god, this isn't just super efficient, but this is literally a postal system with bodyguards.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, that's exactly what they were. This is what allowed their communication to happen in the empire, a relay system that allowed you to send a message quickly, because rather than one person running the entire distance, they would run to a funduq, someone would take over the message, then they would run to the next funduq, someone else would take the message. So you always had fresh horses, fresh messengers, and you were able to travel long distances very quickly.
Deana Hassanein: And were the guards really that necessary? Was it that dangerous?
Ali Olomi: Yes, very dangerous. I mean, you're out in the deserts, you're out in the mountains, you're out in the plains, you're looking at a variety of different topographies and geographies, and that's where all the thieves were hanging out.
Deana Hassanein: This is literally a postal system with bodyguards. And I get it, because I imagine these merchants were targets for brigands and thieves on the road.
Ali Olomi: Absolutely. The funduqs were the safest way to travel and the fastest way to travel. Without them, you want to avoid the roads, because that's where the thieves would be hanging out. That's why we call them highwaymen, right? They're on the highway. But now with the funduqs, you can travel that road and be safe. So it was a quick way to travel and a fast way to send your messages from funduq to funduq to funduq.
Deana Hassanein: Here's me thinking a funduq is just a hotel, but it's actually so much more. It creates a good deal of safety. You record everyone that's staying. You then guide them to the next funduq and check that everyone's off your roster. What an efficient system.
Ali Olomi: Very efficient. But I've got to say, they could also be quite rowdy, the funduqs, that is.
Deana Hassanein: What do you mean they could be rowdy?
Ali Olomi: Yeah, I mean, we see a lot of stories of things going wrong in funduqs. If you've got a lot of people gathering together after a long day of travel in the heat and in the desert, and you've just come together to eat and drink, maybe sometimes with strangers, things are going to go wrong. Tempers are going to flare.
Deana Hassanein: Give me a story. You can't just tease them, not tell me a story.
Ali Olomi: I have a great story about one of these trips to the funduqs. So there is this famous astrologer known as Abu Ma'shar. He is an icon and a legend and we'll be talking about him in the future. But he's traveling to one of these funduqs with a bunch of different merchants. They spend the night and the next morning, Abu Ma'shar wakes up and he casts his horoscope and he goes, the stars do not look good today. We should not leave the funduq. And the merchants are like, oh, we don't need to listen to you. That's silly. We're going to leave. They leave. Abu Ma'shar says, no, I'm going to follow the advice of the stars. And he hangs out in the funduq only for the merchants to come back a couple hours later. Some of them are bleeding. Their goods are missing. They had been attacked by thieves and brigands. But in their mind, Abu Ma'shar was part of the thieves and brigands. Somehow he had caused it. So they took their anger out on him. They took out their sticks and attacked him. The guards had to intervene. Abu Ma'shar fled for his life and famously wrote in his diary, never again shall I share wisdom with fools who will not listen.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, my God. Plot twist.
Ali Olomi: Plot twist. The astrologer gets blamed for the funduk's troubles.
Deana Hassanein: To be fair, as someone who's not hugely obsessed with horoscopes, it kind of does sound like he was involved.
Ali Olomi: It does sound shady. And Abu Ma'shar was slightly shady. Let's be real.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, travel and trade. That is good advice for all of us, though. Avoid the troublemakers.
Ali Olomi: That's right.
Deana Hassanein: It was so nice that we got a chance to travel outside of Baghdad today. It's the first time in the season. And I'm in awe of these super efficient systems, this postal service slash bodyguard system that allowed trade to flow so well. Yes, they did exist before Baghdad and became a huge part of the city, the role in its trade. It's all tied into these repeated themes that we keep seeing. How Baghdad was built on history of the region, but also expanded in it. Next time, let's travel to its political heart, the Palace of the Golden Gate. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast so you don't miss out the next episode of Baghdad Soundwalks. See you next time, fellow travelers.

The Palace of the Golden Gate

Deana Hassanein: Baghdad Sound Walks. Hello fellow travelers, I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali, ready to continue our tour of medieval Baghdad.
Deana Hassanein: I'm always ready, Ali. Little by little we are seeing this city come to life.
Ali Olomi: We've been to its walls, its market, its bathhouses, the inns, and the great mosque.
Deana Hassanein: And it's finally time to head to the palace. As you can hear in my voice, I'm very, very excited about this. A theme we keep seeing throughout the different locations is how much politics was woven into each part of the city. From handling trade to the sermons said on behalf of the Caliph. And now it's time to get right to the center of it all. The Palace of the Golden Gate was in the center of Baghdad, near the mosque.
Ali Olomi: That's right, a stunning structure really meant to impress. Imagine with me, you're a new visitor to the city, or you're a traveler coming in from one of the funduq. You've traveled for miles, perhaps stopping at the various caravans sarai along the way, slowly making your way into the Round City. There's a bustle as the crowds of visitors like you wind their way from the many roads to the gates of Baghdad. As you pass the entry, you see it right in your line of sight. The palace in the center of the city, rising above all the other buildings with its gleaming green dome that stands out against the backdrop. Atop that dome is a figure of a horseman with a lance. The traveler next to you whispers into your ear, legend has it the figure is enchanted. When enemy armies march on Baghdad, the Caliph turns the figure to face the oncoming horde. It's eye-catching, inspiring, and it lets you know who's in charge.
Deana Hassanein: The Caliph, it makes it very, very clear. The idea of a Round City is making more and more sense. In a way, all the roads lead to the Caliph. You can see the city from afar, and you know the most important person is right in the middle. It would also make the palace the center of city life. It's basically giving main character energy.
Ali Olomi: I love that, that's really important to know. The palace is not just this private residence of the Caliph.
Deana Hassanein: Right, because that's technically the harem where the household including the wives and all the children live. The harem is the private quarters of the Caliph.
Ali Olomi: And the palace was the official seat of power.
Deana Hassanein: And as we've talked about this before, the palace was built alongside the Great Mosque, so it was technically accessible to the public.
Ali Olomi: You know, the palace and the mosque were probably the first two structures built by al-Mansur, allowing him to move in quickly.
Deana Hassanein: Set right in the center of the Round City.
Ali Olomi: Like Ba Sing Se.
Deana Hassanein: Gosh, you really love your Avatar: The Last Airbender, right?
Ali Olomi: It's a good analogy.
Deana Hassanein: I can definitely see the symbolism though. Building a circular city and putting your palace right in the middle lets the world know who is in charge.
Ali Olomi: Definitely, Deana. It puts you in the center of the world symbolically. But it was also about drawing the people right into that center.
Deana Hassanein: This is why the mosque was adjacent to it. Putting the palace and the mosque together, or at least next to each other, sends a clear message. It's the center of religious life and political life. It was probably a powerful sight seeing the Caliph walk next door to join in the prayers as well.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, the palace was the Caliphal residence, but it was also the public administration. It had this sort of wide open courtyard, or a maidan, with surrounding gardens, a structure, a house, the hujariyah, or the horse guard. That is the private guard of the Khalif, these people who would protect him. And then there were smaller residences for administrators, the captain of the shurta, or the city guard, bureaucrats, and even palaces for the princes, all next door to that mosque.
Deana Hassanein: Do you know what really stands out to me, Ali? The city design tries to balance prestige and access. So the closer you get to the center, the closer you are to the center of power. I can just never imagine popping to the center of London and casually running into the king.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, the structure of the city, this round city, it tries to balance it all. It tries to create prestige for the Caliph, while technically also being accessible, because the mosque is also in that center. So it would draw everyone to stand before God in prayer equally. But it's a non-subtle way of reinforcing who's in charge, because the Caliph is right next door.
Deana Hassanein: Exactly, the people with all the real power. Think about it. The Khalif only has to walk next door to the mosque, but anyone else would have to walk much further if they wanted to visit it. The design of the city really highlights access, who has it and who has to work for it.
Ali Olomi: Over time though, we should point out that Caliphs really built other palaces. So there was this central palace that was a symbol of their power, but they weren't always at home in that central palace.
Deana Hassanein: Were these palaces within Baghdad itself or elsewhere? Because I'd imagine there is a difference between having other palaces within the city walls versus having to travel outside the city. This actually reminds me of why the rivers were probably so important, easy access up and down the Tigris.
Ali Olomi: That's a really good point. You could take a leisurely barge up to your palace. And some of these Caliphs did have winter palaces and other locales they'd like to visit, like Anbar. But they also built palaces inside Baghdad, like Qasr al-Khuld or the Palace of Eternity, which was built right on the river.
Deana Hassanein: That is prime time waterfront property. It reminds me a little bit of the Thames in London and how it was used to travel the length of England and how kings sailed on barges.
Ali Olomi: Royals do seem to love taking trips on barges for some reason.
Deana Hassanein: I love being on the water, so I get it. If you were a Khalif, you could enjoy a leisurely trip on the river while hanging out in your waterfront palace. Doesn't get better than that. Why don't we go inside the palace? Maybe we can paint a bit of a picture and see how the other half lives. What can we see?
Ali Olomi: Well, the first thing you would see are the guards. The Khalif, despite claiming this title, like the shadow of God on earth, had to manage a lot of different power blocks. He had to navigate big, powerful alliances.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, and the guards were one of those. This is an empire after all. So you had scholars and administrators and advisors, but you also had to deal with the people who kept security in the city itself.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. The Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads in 750 CE and they established their own dynasty, but they were only able to do that with the help of other factions. In fact, they initially didn't even have a centralized army, but relied on different units.
Deana Hassanein: And each of these had their own political interests as well.
Ali Olomi: Very much so. You had three big units, the Anba, which were the old guard. These were the Arabian Muslims that had come out of Arabia and settled in the region. There's the Maghreba, who are mostly East and North African soldiers, and the Khorasaniya, which were local Persians, each with their own political intentions and their political goals.
Deana Hassanein: I remember a story that you mentioned before about how the troops once revolted and it took the queen intervening to settle them down. I believe it was Queen Khayzuran. She intervened to ensure her chosen successor.
Ali Olomi: And that's because they were paid troops. And so they did rebel from time to time. Each faction had its own politics and interests that the Caliph would have to navigate. The Anba, for example, as I mentioned, were the oldest and most powerful faction. They were made up of the Arabs who had settled into this region. And they intermarried with local elites, so the Caliph would have to make sure that he kept them on his side.
Deana Hassanein: These are houses that are run by hereditary lords or ladies. They hold titles and land and have a great deal of power and influence within the family. Think Bridgerton, but less entertaining.
Ali Olomi: All right, confession. I've never actually seen that show.
Deana Hassanein: Oh my God, Ali. But you've watched Avatar and the Airbender like 70 billion times.
Ali Olomi: That should tell you all about my personality. Look, lineage here really matters. And there were certainly noble families, but it really wasn't exactly an aristocracy like we would imagine in, say, Europe. Instead, what we have were powerful families that were originally local rulers, kings and commanders and generals that eventually sided with the Abbasids, one being the Tahirids.
Deana Hassanein: So the first thing we'd see was a show of power by these groups. This was their way of showing they were in the center of political life. They weren't just servants of the Khalif or his aides, but powerful in themselves.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. As you walked up to the palace, you would then be greeted by the hujariyah who patrolled the grounds and they had their building nearby. Then you'd actually see the anba and they always wore black, which was the Khalifu colors, and they represent the old guard. Then you would enter the palace itself and you would come across the chamberlain who's known as the Keeper of the Doors. I love all these titles. He would manage the number of visitors who could see the Khalif.
Deana Hassanein: Did the Caliph sit on a throne and wear a crown like how I imagine kings and queens?
Ali Olomi: Not exactly. What's funny?
Deana Hassanein: It's a valid question.
Ali Olomi: Because I could envision the Caliph sitting on a throne, but it isn't exactly like that. He had a cushion that he would be on, but more likely he had a formal seal, a special ring with an insignia. He had some type of staff of office they would care and he wore a mantle of power that they claimed actually came from Prophet Muhammad.
Deana Hassanein: What is a mantle of power?
Ali Olomi: It's like a cape, if you will, that you wear over your shoulders, but it goes down the front as well.
Deana Hassanein: You made it sound so cool. Then I was like, wow! And then it's a cape.
Ali Olomi: They have fancy names for everything.
Deana Hassanein: I love that. It sounds very grand and I can see the Khalif sitting in the palace decked in his royal garb. Confessionally, when I was younger, I was convinced that I was a princess and that my family had kidnapped me and my real family were out there looking for me and that one day they'd find me and I'd be decked out in gold from head to toe, still waiting.
Ali Olomi: If you didn't imagine some type of escape or fancy life, did you really have a childhood?
Deana Hassanein: Exactly.
Ali Olomi: All right. Imagine the space that is underneath the green dome of the palace. You've got elaborate silks, wooden panels carved with geometric designs that cleverly let in air and light, elaborate embroidery and fine clothing. And within all that finery, there is the Caliph, recognizable with his staff and mantle. You knew who he was by sight.
Deana Hassanein: Who would be with the Caliph? The palace has a lot of buzz to it, people coming and going, but there wasn't in a court, people who advised the Khalif or ran his empire for him, the government, if you like.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, there were scholars and philosophers and viziers. Remember, the Abbasids were warrior nerds. They loved to surround themselves with philosophers and host debates even.
Deana Hassanein: Kind of like the debate with Timothy.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. The court played chess, they debated philosophy, they listened to recited poetry, they even smoked...
Deana Hassanein: I know what you're going to say.
Ali Olomi: Shisha.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, I knew that was coming.
Ali Olomi: And of course, they argued policy and strategy all while hearing petitions.
Deana Hassanein: It sounds very lively, Ali.
Ali Olomi: Lively, but also dangerous. Powerful families often vied for power in the court. One of them that started really early on with the Abbasids was the Barmakids. Let me ask you, have you ever seen Aladdin? Do you remember the vizier Jafar?
Deana Hassanein: It's only one of my favorite Disney movies. Of course, I remember Jafar with his black snake staff and Iago, his parrot.
Ali Olomi: Well, Jafar is based on an actual historical character.
Deana Hassanein: No.
Ali Olomi: Known as Jafar of the Barmakids. He was an advisor to the various caliphs and he was a patron of the arts. He supported different poets. And at one time, Harun al-Rashid, wanting to keep him close, marries him off to his sister just so that they have some type of political alliance. But it was not meant to be a love marriage. There was just meant to be a marriage of convenience so that the families were tied together. But Harun al-Rashid has no control over the matters of the heart and Jafar falls in love. And eventually, the caliph's sister ends up pregnant. And when Harun al-Rashid discovers it, he has Jafar executed. And this brings the Barmakids to an end. One great family destroyed by marriage.
Deana Hassanein: I'm sorry, we're gonna have to back up here. So he was expecting them to be married but not actually ever procreate.
Ali Olomi: Yes, he was very clear about that. It was a political marriage. No, no, no, you can get married, but don't you dare touch my sister.
Deana Hassanein: Oh my God, so that's the inspiration for Jafar.
Ali Olomi: It is.
Deana Hassanein: I feel like we've just scratched the surface of the messy politics of the Abbasids. There is so much depth to this palace. The location, the architecture, and the symbolism. The way it was more than just a private residence. The tricky navigating of power at the heart of it. The families like the Barmakids who were in the heart of power, all inside a palace at the center of a round city. In future episodes, we are going to dive even further into those politics. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to Echoes of History podcast so you don't miss the next episode of Baghdad Sound Walks. See you next time, fellow travelers.

War between the Brothers

Deana Hassanein: Hello fellow travellers, welcome to Baghdad Sound Walks, I'm Deana–
Ali Olomi: –and I'm Ali.
Deana Hassanein: You know Ali, we've travelled all around Baghdad and almost everything we've talked about is touched by politics, from the marketplace, to the mosques, to the harem, even the hammam.
Ali Olomi: Politics was everything, Deana. Muslims spilled a lot of ink pondering what good government should look like, what a wise ruler should be like, and why it all mattered for society.
Deana Hassanein: And we got a little glimpse of this when we visited the palace, the caliph, the viziers, and all the different powerful groups who are right in the centre of the political intrigue. We know throughout history how messy succession can be.
Ali Olomi: I mean the issue with the caliph is that technically he's not a king. Muslims in fact were initially very averse to monarchies, that's why they invented the concept of the caliph, because he was supposed to be a custodian of sorts, if you will, the social and political leader who guided the Muslim community and guarded their realms.
Deana Hassanein: A very good way to get around the label, even in Arabic, caliph doesn't mean king, but vice-sergeant if I remember right. But honestly, it sounds exactly like a kingship. Power wrestled with them and they were part of the dynasty that passed the rule down and they lived in a palace.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, a king in all but name. Names can be deceiving, for example, Baghdad was called the City of Peace, but really there were some skeletons in the closet.
Deana Hassanein: I'm glad you finally said it. Ali, I can tell you're gearing up for a story.
Ali Olomi: Do you remember the founder of Baghdad?
Deana Hassanein: Al-Mansur and his dream of a round city, yes.
Ali Olomi: Well, this story goes right back to him. Apparently, once he had built the city, he gives the key to the vault to Raita, a future queen, and he says to her, do not open these vaults until I have passed. And Raita being a faithful woman said, all right, I won't. And once they heard news that Al-Mansur had died, she goes to her husband and says, listen, Al-Mansur gave me this key and he told me not to open up the vaults, but now he's dead. Let's go see what's inside the vaults. So they go down, put the key in, the door creaks open, and they discover wall after wall of bodies. The bodies of the Talibit, a powerful dynasty that were the rival of Al-Mansur. He had kept all the skeletons in the vault with tags on them so that you could identify whose body was whose. Eventually they buried them and gave them a formal funeral.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, my God. So literal skeletons in the closet. That's so disgusting. Can you imagine what that smelled like?
Ali Olomi: And with that heat, ooh.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, my God. The politics of this time period was no joke. Putting the bodies of your enemies in a big vault with a label.
Ali Olomi: It's a tale as old as time from the ancient Achaemenids to the Romans to the Huns. One of the universal constants of history is that human competitions for power are always lethal.
Deana Hassanein: And it's this type of political intrigue that will make Baghdad, the city of peace, into a place of civil war. I know that Baghdad is technically destroyed several times throughout history.
Ali Olomi: Destroyed and rebuilt. The War of the Two Brothers is one of those instances. But to know that, we actually have to go to the Night of the Three Caliphs first.
Deana Hassanein: I love how dramatic all the names are from this time period. The Palace of the Golden Gate, the House of Wisdom, the Night of the Three Caliphs.
Ali Olomi: They really, really don't name things like they used to.
Deana Hassanein: Literally.
Ali Olomi: This night sets the stage for everything. So al-Hadi, the caliph, rules for one year. The reason for only one year is that he tries to sideline his powerful mother Khayzuran, who we visited before. He doesn't like women being in charge. Like all dunderheads, he thinks that women shouldn't be involved in politics. So what does she do? She has him killed. It's unclear how. Some say she hired his favorite wife to smother him with a pillow. Others say poison. But on that night, his brother Harun al-Rashid will hear that he has been named caliph in 786. He gets this news. The old caliph is dead. You are the new caliph. And at the exact same moment, he also hears about the birth of his son al-Ma'mun, who will be caliph later. So you have one dead caliph, the ascension of another, and the birth of a third.
Deana Hassanein: That is one busy night.
Ali Olomi: It really is. Imagine hearing all that. By the way, the old king is dead. You're the new king. And the future king has been born.
Deana Hassanein: What stands out to me in that story as well is Khayzuran, who we've spoken about a few times. Like Zubaydah, she stands out as one of the powerful women of this time. She quelled the rebellion of the guards in the marketplace by paying them off. She changed the whole succession of the caliphate from one son to another. And Zubaydah managed the marriage of al-Amin and built the roads around Baghdad for the pilgrimage and the caravanserai. Talk about exceptional women.
Ali Olomi: Truly.
Deana Hassanein: So I'm guessing this is where the war begins.
Ali Olomi: I mean, it's certainly when the seeds are planted, but actually Harun al-Rashid will rule over a pretty peaceful period. In fact, some call it the golden period of al-Rashid. It's his golden rule because of how prosperous it was, how stable it was. He moves out of the palace of eternity and moves back into the palace of the golden gate, which we talked about. And he's the one who really builds the house of wisdom and is responsible for the cultural renaissance that is taking place.
Deana Hassanein: I can't wait till we cover the house of wisdom. But for now, back to the brothers. They were the sons of Harun al-Rashid.
Ali Olomi: Yes, al-Amin and al-Ma'mun, night and day.
Deana Hassanein: Isn't that always the case of siblings? Do you have any brothers or sisters?
Ali Olomi: I have two sisters and I can tell you night and day.
Deana Hassanein: I'm the exact same. My brother and I, we are so different.
Ali Olomi: I mean, we already know that families can be pretty messy. But then you add in the politics and you can just imagine.
Deana Hassanein: This all came down to a sibling rivalry between two brothers over their father's throne, both competing to see who should rule.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. And this is what Harun al-Rashid feared. He actually woke up one night from a nightmare where he saw his empire in flames and he called for his dream interpreters who warned him of a coming civil war. To stave it off, he named al-Amin his successor with the promise that after al-Amin's death, al-Ma'mun would rule. So he's trying to balance the brothers out. The problem was al-Amin was the younger brother.
Deana Hassanein: I can imagine this was a really big deal because back then dreams and astrology were so important.
Ali Olomi: They were omens.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, exactly. And I find it quite weird that Ma'mun, al-Ma'mun was older. Why wasn't he first in line?
Ali Olomi: Al-Ma'mun was the son of a Persian concubine. So even though he was older, he's technically a half-brother. And so that's the reason.
Deana Hassanein: That makes sense. So it was a lineage issue.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, this succession would really come to haunt Baghdad, honestly. I mean, Harun al-Rashid made the whole court swear to this particular succession when they went on pilgrimage to Mecca. In the meantime, al-Ma'mun would be given governorship of Khorasan. This is a region in the eastern parts of Persia, but it's a really important region for the Abbasids since that's where their power originally comes from. That's how they overthrew the Umayyads from Khorasan.
Deana Hassanein: Well, that would make al-Ma'mun very powerful. That's a very large piece of land. Eastern parts of Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. He'd be a king in his own region, basically. So he'd have his own army base.
Ali Olomi: You bring up a good point because added to the tensions around this succession is those different military factions that we talked about when we discussed the palace. You had the Anba, the oldest army block based in Baghdad, who would become al-Amin supporters. But al-Ma'mun would have the backing of the Khorasaniyah, the Persian troops.
Deana Hassanein: Oh my God, this is getting real messy real quick. Despite these rulers basically being kings, the Khalif has to manage the different power blocks and navigate tricky courtly politics. That has to take some strong political instincts.
Ali Olomi: And that honestly is what al-Amin lacks. Originally, his reign is sort of peaceful for about two years. He wasn't a bad caliph. He just had some really bad political instincts and really bad advisers. Namely, the powerful and conniving al-Rabbi. Think of him as the Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings. He begins to sort of provoke brother against brother.
Deana Hassanein: Uh-uh, bad move. He sounds like my brother always picking fights with me that he can't win.
Ali Olomi: I could see that.
Deana Hassanein: It's probably also a really bad idea to piss off the guy who's basically got his own kingdom at this point with armies and territories that are loyal to him.
Ali Olomi: It was a big mistake, Deana. Al-Ma'mun removes the Khalif's name from the Friday sermon prayers.
Deana Hassanein: No.
Ali Olomi: Yep.
Deana Hassanein: That is a big move. We already saw how important that was. It literally gives legitimacy to the caliph.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. And al-Amin responds. So you got a bit of a tit for tat. He responds by removing al-Ma'mun from succession, naming his own son and therefore breaking their oath to their father. That's when al-Ma'mun declares himself imam or the prayer lady. And this, of course, increases the tension. Al-Amin ups the ante, declaring a new governor of Khorasanah, Ali ibn Isa, who is under orders to arrest al-Amin's brother. It becomes a tit for tat, which eventually spirals into a civil war in 811 CE.
Deana Hassanein: So on one side, we have al-Amin and his Anba troops and the powerful families of Baghdad. And on the other side, we have al-Ma'mun and the Persian troops and the powerful families of Khorasan.
Ali Olomi: And al-Ma'mun had much better advisors. He had this guy named Fadl ibn Sal, and a very powerful general known as Tahir. Fadl was way more clever than the advisor al-Rabi, who was actually counseling al-Amin.
Deana Hassanein: When we looked at the Palace of the Golden Gate, I remember you saying how powerful viziers and advisors were. They made up the core of the court. Did they have their own Jaffars, and were they evil like him?
Ali Olomi: They were a little bit. Al-Rabi definitely falls into that mold. I mean, a good advisor could make all the difference in the world. Al-Fadl was a good advisor. He in fact, counseled not to push the battle, but to wait and to take up a defensive stance, letting al-Amin's forces come to al-Ma'mun. Al-Rabi, on the other hand, who is like this Jaffar-like character you mentioned, pushes for the war. He told al-Amin, dispatch your army and quickly depose your brother. And so what does al-Ma'mun do? He listens to advisor. He waits. He has Tahir wait with the army from Baghdad coming to them, and then they fight them on familiar ground. And despite the fact that al-Ma'mun's forces are much smaller from the troops in Baghdad, al-Ma'mun wins the day.
Deana Hassanein: That has to change the game on the ground. Losing the first battle of war would literally sap your soldier's motivation and weaken your support, no?
Ali Olomi: The momentum was al-Ma'mun's. Tahir won that battle and then battle after battle after that. Until at one point, even al-Amin's own troops begin to rebel in a mini coup of sorts. Now al-Ma'mun tries to hold on for a little bit, but the damage was done.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, there's really no coming back from something like that, is there? No. If your own troops and supporters abandon you, then that's the final nail in the coffin.
Ali Olomi: It was a disaster for al-Amin. Tahir is given this fancy title, the one with the two headships, along with his commander Hathama, and they press their advantage. And slowly, bit by bit, different territories fall under their control. Arabia joins al-Ma'mun, as does Egypt, your hometown. That's a big deal. Now you have North Africa. You have Arabia, the place of Mecca, siding with you. Then falls Mosul and Basra and Khufa. And eventually, that evil Jafar-like advisor al-Rabbi, he resigns.
Deana Hassanein: Like a rat on a sinking ship. He also flees after he was the one who pushed for the war in the first place.
Ali Olomi: Right.
Deana Hassanein: The one who set the whole thing in motion. Usually, I say, if you can't handle the heat, don't step in the kitchen. But he literally thought he could handle the heat. Overconfidence.
Ali Olomi: That was his big failure. He saw the writing on the walls, though. Hathama swept in from the east and Tahir came in from the west of Baghdad. And the city was caught right in the middle of it. Al-Amin tried to call upon the ordinary people to kind of rise up. But this time it was over for him. It was too late. Tahir took Harbiya.
Deana Hassanein: And Harbiya is the suburb where a lot of the Persian and non-Arab population lived.
Ali Olomi: Right. So the base of power for al-Ma'mun. And because of this, by taking Harbiya, we're going to actually see a suburb versus suburb war. The civil war will become a year-long city fight between these different factions.
Deana Hassanein: It's like the war focused on the city. The fight outside of Baghdad was brought into Baghdad, which must have been devastating.
Ali Olomi: Ah, it was brutal. In 811, Tahir managed to cut off the bridges to the river and cut Baghdad's support. Al-Amin tries to flee, but he's caught and he's executed.
Deana Hassanein: By his own brother.
Ali Olomi: By his own brother's troops. So his brother's hands are technically clean.
Deana Hassanein: We've heard of caliphs who were killed or poisoned, but execution must have been a completely different experience, especially if it's your brother.
Ali Olomi: It was. It fractured the caliphate pretty severely. It would take al-Ma'mun nearly eight more years before he got the caliphate back under control. But really, it would never be quite the same. In 819, he finally, after bringing it all under control, marches into Baghdad with his whole retinue wearing green. But his reign would be fraught.
Deana Hassanein: We all know that putting together the pieces after a civil war is very hard. Not everyone manages it. Countries break up from civil wars.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, it would be a completely different caliphate from then on. Still powerful and wealthy, but new factions would arrive, new powers and families. You'd have more power in the Turkic mercenaries and slave soldiers, while a lot of the regions would actually begin to have dynasties of their own, loyal to the caliph, but with their own power base.
Deana Hassanein: The civil war is the turning point. There is no going back. You can almost see old Baghdad, the city of peace, fade away for this new one to emerge. Ali, does Baghdad survive it?
Ali Olomi: It does. It's rebuilt, but it will continue to be full of strife. Within a generation, it will be caught between the anarchy in Samarra, where a troop rebellion will remake the entire politics of the Abbasids, and then the Zanj rebellion, a great slave rebellion, which will shake the caliphate to the core. What ends up happening is that the Abbasids, originally the most powerful family, would simply become one among many powerful families.
Deana Hassanein: So even though it continues on for centuries more and as a huge cultural hub, the city of peace has now changed. It's more tense than ever before. Baghdrama. Did you like that?
Ali Olomi: I love it.
Deana Hassanein: I love a good pun. The intrigue and drama is intense. This should be a miniseries or TV show.
Ali Olomi: I would absolutely watch that.
Deana Hassanein: Of course you would, warrior nerd. From the night of the three caliphs to the war between two brothers, it was all so intense. I'm looking forward to something a bit more peaceful next time. Thank you for joining us. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History Podcast so you don't miss the next episode of Baghdad Soundwalks. See you next time, fellow travelers.

Education & The House of Wisdom

Deana Hassanein: Hello fellow travellers, welcome to Baghdad Soundwalks. I'm Deana–.
Ali Olomi: –and I'm Ali.
Deana Hassanein: And we've made it, we are at the end of our journey. Where are we headed for our final stop in Baghdad?
Ali Olomi: Deana, I have saved the best for last, the House of Wisdom.
Deana Hassanein: AKA the Great Library, where we finally get to dive into the cultural and intellectual achievements of medieval Baghdad.
Ali Olomi: I mean, for nerds like me, the House of Wisdom is the dream. This is my Library of Alexandria.
Deana Hassanein: The Library of Alexandria was built by Cleopatra, by the way.
Ali Olomi: Oh yeah, and interestingly enough, we have something similar here. Arun al-Rashid, the famed caliph who ruled over that golden period of Abbasid Baghdad, he's often credited with building the House of Wisdom. But in actuality, it was his wife Zubaydah who founded it. She was a major patron of the arts and sciences.
Deana Hassanein: Do people know that it was Zubaydah or is it?
Ali Olomi: Historians know, but the average person probably not.
Deana Hassanein: Wow, Zubaydah is one of those queens whose name keeps popping up across our journey. She was also the one funding the pilgrimage roads and the caravanserai roads too.
Ali Olomi: We all aspire to have her impact, Deana.
Deana Hassanein: Seriously, so the House of Wisdom was a library?
Ali Olomi: It was the private library of the caliph that housed his books originally, but it was also an institution that funded scholars, learning, and most importantly, translation.
Deana Hassanein: I remember you mentioning that translation is such an important process. Is the only way we know what we know? I mean, even the information in this episode is only possible because someone somewhere translated important texts like the writings of Euclid, Aristotle, and Plato. What we know about science and mathematics are all part of the process of translation.
Ali Olomi: That's a pretty important point. I mean, it makes you really think knowledge throughout history is really a product of a collective process of people working together across cultures and centuries.
Deana Hassanein: That makes total sense for Baghdad, Ali. We talked about how medieval Baghdad was made up of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Africans, and Syriac people, and even location reflects that blending.
Ali Olomi: You know, that cultural sharing that you're talking about, Deana, becomes so important for the Abbasids. Even their predecessors, the Umayyads, were interested in knowledge of other cultures and societies, but it's really the Abbasids that would take it to the next level. They'll translate the great works of Greek and Persian thinkers, stuff that had been sidelined to some degree in Europe, but now they would be brought back into the public debate and learning in medieval Baghdad.
Deana Hassanein: This reminds me that the city design was partly based on Euclid.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, we see all these old classics, Plato and Aristotle, Galens and Ptolemy, Hipparchus.
Deana Hassanein: So, the House of Wisdom was home to both the translation movement, bringing Greek and Persian knowledge into Arabic, and it was home for the texts themselves.
Ali Olomi: Now that I'm thinking about it, it's probably more of a learning center plus a library, or maybe a public academic center.
Deana Hassanein: Did it start that way, or did it gradually evolve into that?
Ali Olomi: I mean, under al-Mansur, who was the founder of Baghdad, it starts off really as a private library for the caliph, but under Harun al-Rashid, it becomes this public learning center, thanks to the patronage of his wife, Zubaydah.
Deana Hassanein: She's the money behind the whole operation.
Ali Olomi: Absolutely, this was a cushy time to be a scholar, especially under either Zubaydah and later under al-Ma'mun.
Deana Hassanein: The man who ends up winning the war of the two brothers. So, after he's established himself as caliph and restored his empire, he turns his attention to the House of Wisdom.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, al-Ma'mun really fancies himself as a sort of philosopher king, so he expands those translation efforts greatly, and he even used to hold regular scholarly debates himself.
Deana Hassanein: You weren't kidding when you said the Abbasid caliphs fancied themselves as warrior nerds.
Ali Olomi: I mean, the whole society was like this. Knowledge was deeply, deeply valued. The result of this was that knowledge spread throughout society. You saw philosophers engage in public debates, translated works, wouldn't just be hidden away, but even copied, so that they were made for reading. We had high literacy rates, and scholars held positions of power.
Deana Hassanein: Just like the mutanabi, or the street of booksellers, I can still envision the books piled high as people sought through them.
Ali Olomi: Oh, a dream.
Deana Hassanein: All right, Ali, why don't we step into the House of Wisdom? Who would we meet there?
Ali Olomi: So, scholars from all over would be drawn to Baghdad. The House of Wisdom was a magnet. If you could land a job there, the chance of learning the mysteries of the universe and engaging with your fellow scholars, that's ace.
Deana Hassanein: In the same way, young people applied to certain colleges today, like Oxford, or Cambridge, or Sorbonne, or Harvard.
Ali Olomi: Like those kids, education was a way to get ahead in life, to go up the social ladder, so to speak. But it was also a way to participate in something deeply valued, learning. So you'd have people from all walks of life. You had Fabet ibn Qurra, who was a haren, a special religion that worshipped the stars. He would translate Euclid and Ptolemy. You had Ibn Ishaq, who was an historian Christian, a physician, and he would translate Galens and Hippocrates. You have original, brand new types of mathematics from al-Khwarizmi, and you'd have fusion Islamic and Aristotelian philosophy under al-Kindi.
Deana Hassanein: The combination of translation and original work must have had major consequences, though, Ali. We talked about how there was such a big advancement in science and technology in this time. I'm still imagining those beautiful water clocks and mechanical clocks.
Ali Olomi: Right, the one that I want in my garden and you want an elephant.
Deana Hassanein: Good memory.
Ali Olomi: Yeah. I mean, in a lot of ways, Deana, this is the birth of modern science and mathematics as we know it. Ibn Sina's Qanun of Medicine is the standard of medicine for the next thousand years. I said that right. A thousand years. His model will be used. The idea of quarantining, the idea of germ theory all comes from Ibn Sina. Al-Khwarizmi will give us the algebra and algorithm, modern mathematics as we know it, the ones and the zeros. And Ibn al-Haytham gives us the scientific method.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, so I have al-Khwarizmi to thank for my math classes in school.
Ali Olomi: Al-Khwarizmi had to be a nerd, and now we are all suffering for it. But as much as he's a pain, he's the man who introduces the zero from India. Sefer. It's part of the Arabic mathematics of this time period. That alone is what makes technology like computers, cell phones, and any technology really that relies on ones and zeros possible.
Deana Hassanein: So much of what we study in school is really only possible because of the advancement in this moment. I mean, without the house of wisdom, there goes a lot of science and medicine, maths, and chemistry. School would be really different without them.
Ali Olomi: And we've got to throw in astronomy too. I mean, we see such a massive advancement in astronomy. One of Al-Mansur's closest friends is a guy named Yahya ibn Abi Mansur. And he creates the most advanced solar eclipse calculations the world has seen to this date. And of course, advancements in astrology. The only reason we know what our star signs are is because people of Yahya ibn Abi Mansur and Abu Ma'shar who write them down.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, astrology. We've seen the importance of that in the founding of Baghdad itself. Ali, do you want to try and guess my star sign?
Ali Olomi: All right, all right. Based off of your positive energy, I'm going to guess a Gemini. But based off of your ability to keep me and this podcast in line, I'm going to guess Virgo. So it's one of those two.
Deana Hassanein: I don't know where to start with the compliments you're giving me or the fact that you actually did guess my star sign.
Ali Olomi: Oh, did I?
Deana Hassanein: You did. I am a Virgo, but I don't trust you. I reckon you found my date of birth somehow.
Ali Olomi: I'm not that technologically literate. So that's a-it's totally a guess. Here, let's actually read what the most famous Abbasid astrologer says about your sign. This is a man named Abu Ma'shar who in the ninth century writes the most important text of astrology. He says, those born under Virgo or Al-Adra are said to be pleasant, but anxious about the future, playful, but restrained. They grow to be wise, are just, generous, judgmental, and cultured. They enjoy music and have good manners.
Deana Hassanein: I'm currently speechless because I need to ask you, are you making this up?
Ali Olomi: No, no, I swear.
Deana Hassanein: That's a little too true. It's quite scary how accurate that was. I don't really know how to feel about that.
Ali Olomi: I mean, there's a reason astrology was the queen of the sciences for them. In fact, they actually build some of the world's first and most amazing observatories so that they can watch the stars.
Deana Hassanein: You know, my homework tonight is going to be hunting your star sign down. I'm going to use any evidence that is out there to get it because I'm actually in awe of what just happened.
Ali Olomi: It's classified.
Deana Hassanein: What I really want to know, Ali, is did they share this knowledge? Because they built a society that genuinely valued knowledge. All of medieval Baghdad is caught up in it, but what about the rest of the world?
Ali Olomi: You know, remember when we talked about Abbasid diplomacy and how they relied on trade routes which allowed them to send lavish gifts? Well, some of those gifts that they were sending were engineering marvels and whole treasure troves of books. One of those mechanical clocks makes its way to Europe, in fact.
Deana Hassanein: I still want the gift of an elephant. I remember how access to paper from China made books cheaper so they could produce more and more books.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, that was the effect on the outlying regions as well, from Cairo to Cordoba, Samarkand, Balkh, Damascus. All of these are going to become major centers of knowledge. This is an Islamic impulse that is shared amongst all of them.
Deana Hassanein: Who are some of the other scholars we would see in the House of Wisdom?
Ali Olomi: So, in addition to the cultural mix, we talked of Muslims, we talked of Christians, we also saw that knowledge was open to women at this time. You had Zainab al-Shada, who was the first jurist. In fact, some argue that she might have been a sort of the equivalent of a Supreme Court Justice at this time period, the High Court. You have Fakhr al-Nisa, who was a Hadith scholar. And as you know, the Hadiths are the sayings of Muhammad. So, she was incredibly important for religion. And of course, you had Zumarud Khatun, who creates her own mosque and becomes a patron of it. So, you have women justices, women scholars, even religious leaders in this time period.
Deana Hassanein: It's so exciting to see women participate in intellectual culture like this, because we don't have many cases of women theologians and scholars in medieval Europe at this time period, at least not for another several centuries.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, I mean, women were legally entitled to an education under Islamic law. And given that the Abbasids had this great love of learning, it makes perfect sense for them. That's why you end up with female theologians and female scientists like Sutayata, who's working on And, you know, these are only the women that we know about.
Deana Hassanein: I imagine there were even more whose names we don't know or who lived quite scholarly lives.
Ali Olomi: I mean, we know that there were many women translators, for example. We don't know all their names, but the very texts that we read today were made possible by them.
Deana Hassanein: Now, that is what I call leaving an impact.
Ali Olomi: You know, the House of Wisdom's influence cannot be overstated. It was culturally, intellectually one of the greatest turning points in history. Without it, our civilizations today would look vastly different.
Deana Hassanein: Ali, you really did save the best till last.
Ali Olomi: I love it.
Deana Hassanein: The House of Wisdom was everything I imagined it to be. When you have a name as fancy as that, it's hard to live up to it, but it really did. And what's even more exciting is that we'll be diving further into some of these intellectual figures in our next season as we continue our journey. For now, we've studied the layout and design of the city, like fellow travelers walking through from Baghdad's winding streets to its palaces.
Ali Olomi: From its mosque to its House of Wisdom.
Deana Hassanein: We've seen a lot, but there is still so much more. Thanks for joining us. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is Ubisoft Podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Follow Echoes of History wherever you get your podcasts. See you next time, fellow travelers.

Figures of Baghdad[edit | edit source]

Who were the Banū Mūsā brothers?

Ali Olomi: A jewel in the desert.
Deana Hassanein: A round city full of merchants, rulers and scholars.
Ali Olomi: The great minds of the Abbasid Empire.
Deana Hassanein: This is Figures of Baghdad. Hello fellow travellers. Surprise! We're back with a whole new season dedicated to the different figures of Baghdad as found in the game Assassin's Creed Mirage. In this season, we'll be exploring the rich world of the Abbasids and their capital city. Ali, I'm glad to be back and excited to get to know some of these cool people.
Ali Olomi: Oh, I'm so excited to be back too. We have some fascinating people to visit with rich stories full of drama, intrigue and mystery. As you say, Deana, in every episode of this season we'll be covering characters that feature in Assassin's Creed Mirage. And today we're kicking it off with the three brothers of dubious origin who are actually adopted by the caliph. Raised in the court, they become famous scientists and scholars and eventually political figures amidst the chaos of warring factions.
Deana Hassanein: Okay, I'm ready. Yalla, let's do this. In the last season, we left off at the House of Wisdom. So now let's meet some of the scholars who studied in this incredible institution. Let's meet these three brothers. Disclaimer though, they have no links to the Night of the Three Caliphs from last season's episode, The War Between Two Brothers.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, no relation whatsoever. But for whatever reason, they do love the symmetry or the harmony of three for all of their descriptions. You're gonna frequently see three this, three that.
Deana Hassanein: So it's good to get out of the way.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, true. The three brothers of the Banu Musa were actually a family of brilliant engineers and scientists with a really interesting history.
Deana Hassanein: I'll be honest, Ali, that sounds super predictable. I'm not even surprised that you said that because growing up Egyptian, all I ever heard is that this person's graduated in engineering. Oh, your cousin's become an engineer. So I know that feeling all too well.
Ali Olomi: It's honestly the same. My mom wanted me to become a doctor, a lawyer or an engineer. I became a professor. Sorry, mom.
Deana Hassanein: I don't see how that's not amazing. I'm sure she's oozing with pride. My mom and dad...
Ali Olomi: I hope.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, I'm sure she does. I mean, my mom and dad still don't really fully get what I do.
Ali Olomi: I had to explain what being a professor was actually like to my mom.
Deana Hassanein: Really?
Ali Olomi: Yeah, she's like, so you're a teacher. And I'm like, sort of.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, she wasn't happy with the professor title. She's like, so you're just a teacher, basically.
Ali Olomi: Yeah.
Deana Hassanein: Okay, Ali, so did the Banu Musa's mom want them to become engineers too?
Ali Olomi: You know, we don't actually know a lot about their mom, but I will tell you, their dad was a con man.
Deana Hassanein: A con man?
Ali Olomi: Yep.
Deana Hassanein: I did not see that coming. Now I know this story is going to be very good. How'd you go from being a con man to a dad with three engineer sons?
Ali Olomi: Well, the funny story is their father is a man named Musa ibn Shakir, and he was originally a highwayman. And he used to steal from people. There's actually a really interesting story. Is during Friday prayers, while everyone was congregating during those times, he would sneak out of the mosque and then steal from their possessions, from the houses. And he would come back before the prayers were finished. For whatever reason, at some point, he comes across caliph al-Ma'mun and he impresses him. And so al-Ma'mun hires him to be his personal astrologer. So from thief to astrologer.
Deana Hassanein: When you say impresses him, what do you mean as in his ability to steal while people are praying?
Ali Olomi: He ends up being very smart. For whatever reason, like they have this conversation and Musa is like an intelligent person, not just a thief, but really well-read.
Deana Hassanein: I can't get over the contradiction, by the way, of people praying and then him stealing while they're doing a religious act. Okay, Ali, I've come across a lot of job titles in my time, but that one is definitely out there. Talk about strange evolution. How can you go from being a thief to a personal astrologer to the caliph? Not only is that an upgrade, but I'm sure that came with a lot of perks.
Ali Olomi: Oh yeah, it's kind of goals. I mean, why can't a rich patron of the arts give us a cushy court position?
Deana Hassanein: Maybe they will after this podcast, but...
Ali Olomi: Maybe.
Deana Hassanein: What would you want to be, Ali?
Ali Olomi: Definitely court astrologer, but I'd probably get in trouble for rousing the rabble against the caliph. How about you?
Deana Hassanein: I'd be chilling in the palace as a queen, duh.
Ali Olomi: Of course.
Deana Hassanein: So the Banu Musa grew up very close to the court.
Ali Olomi: They did. When their dad died, the caliph takes over their education, so they were practically raised in the house of wisdom, which we've talked about.
Deana Hassanein: That means they would have got a really high quality education. We know from the last season that the house of wisdom not only has the best translations in the world, but access to the latest theories in mathematics, science, philosophy, and they're working with the brightest minds at such a young age.
Ali Olomi: They got one heck of an education, Deana. They were taught by the head of the house of wisdom, Ibn Ishaq, who was an historian Christian. And so each brother actually goes on to develop their own unique expertise. Jafar Muhammad becomes an expert in mathematics, astronomy, and astrology. Ahmed becomes an expert in engineering and mechanics. And Al-Hassan is an expert in geometry and algebra. It's really cool.
Deana Hassanein: Wow, their parents must have been really proud of them. And they covered a range of subjects. From what I remember from the house of wisdom episode is that these are predominantly Greek sciences. So you can really see their interest coming through.
Ali Olomi: Their love of the Greek sciences was very, very real. I mean, you can see in what they mastered. They even traveled actually on behalf of caliph al-Ma'mun, collecting various points. And at one instance, even goes to the Byzantine Empire to collect some books and return them to Baghdad.
Deana Hassanein: And collecting books was a big deal for the Abbasids. They are, as you always say, warrior nerds.
Ali Olomi: Like me.
Deana Hassanein: Exactly. And this isn't just a trip for books for them. There's so much more to it.
Ali Olomi: Totally. Knowledge is political. In the same way that empires build great monuments and statues as their legacies, for the Abbasids, it would be their knowledge. And so they would hire people like al-Hajjaj who will translate Euclid.
Deana Hassanein: And his theories were important for Baghdad itself because the round city was a homage to his mathematics.
Ali Olomi: Euclid inspired them. So the Banu Musa traveled west to the Byzantine Empire, to your hometown, in fact, Egypt, and even to East Africa because they were inspired.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, they acted like agents of the caliph. You don't always think of scholars in that way. But for the Abbasid scholars, learning and education was really important.
Ali Olomi: It was part of their imperial project, in fact, to create an empire of learning.
Deana Hassanein: Now I can see why you really like these warrior nerds, Ali.
Ali Olomi: Mm-hmm. What can I say? They are people after my own heart.
Deana Hassanein: So in their travels, what did they do? You know, who did they meet and what books did they translate?
Ali Olomi: They actually gathered quite a bit, Deana. They focused mostly on the Greek translations that you mentioned, but they also had original works of their own.
Deana Hassanein: And that's a good point to make because it wasn't just about translating and preserving knowledge. The scholars of Medieval Baghdad were advancing it. They were coming up with their own theories and own inventions.
Ali Olomi: Yeah. For the Banu Musa, they wrote important treatises around the degrees of the Zodiac constellation. They even calculated the astronomical years so they got the exact timing of how long it takes the sun to revolve around. We even have some brilliant mechanical feats that are inspired by Phylo of Byzantium. One of which is a mechanical tree made of gold and silver with birds that sing. And all of it was mechanical.
Deana Hassanein: What was the purpose of that?
Ali Olomi: It was just to demonstrate they can do it. Some of it was for timekeeping measures, but others was to demonstrate the mathematical accuracy of this moment.
Deana Hassanein: Like the water clocks and mechanical clocks that we talked about last season. I remember those because I have to get you a sundial.
Ali Olomi: And I got to get you an elephant.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, you're taking your time though, aren't you? Okay, Ali, math keeps coming up. Can we talk a bit more about just how much investigation and study was dedicated to math?
Ali Olomi: Allah, I mean, the medieval scholars were totally obsessed with math. They saw it as the harmony of the universe. Just don't ask me to explain the math because I'm a history major and it flies completely over my head.
Deana Hassanein: Both of us know though, those calculations were super important for medieval scholars.
Ali Olomi: Very much. So for example, the biographer Ibn Khalqan talks about how the Banu Musa go out to the Sinjar desert and they use the pole star and measuring stakes and ropes. And with it, they're able to calculate the circumference of the earth, which is 24,000 miles. And that's incredibly accurate. So when I say investigate, that's what I mean. They're carrying out these intense experiments.
Deana Hassanein: So many of the theories, calculations, and measurements from this period still stand up.
Ali Olomi: Totally.
Deana Hassanein: Something I've been thinking about actually is what the politics of the House of Wisdom was like, because we've talked about their achievements, but if you've got that many different personalities trying to win the favor of the caliph, it must get spicy.
Ali Olomi: Honestly, it's not too different from the cutthroat life of universities today.
Deana Hassanein: University life then seems way more interesting though.
Ali Olomi: It's a story for another time, but it really, it was the same with the House of Wisdom. So when I read about this time, Deana, I recognize it because the politics could be incredibly fierce. Now, while the patronage was great under al-Ma'mun, his, and of course, his immediate successor, by the time of al-Mutawakkil, things got a bit tense. Mutawakkil was a much harsher ruler. He curtailed some of the rights of non-Muslims, for example, and he was way more demanding of the scholars. So it really depended on the caliph.
Deana Hassanein: And that's really important to know, Ali, because the Abbasids were generally known for their tolerance. It's what makes medieval Baghdad so unique. But those rights all depended on whether the caliph was a tyrant or not. And that wouldn't just affect the targeted group. It also affects everyone.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, and the Banu Musa used this to their advantage. They were very close friends with the court astrologer, Abu Ma'shar.
Deana Hassanein: His translation of my Zodiac we read last season.
Ali Olomi: A bit of a legend, that Abu Ma'shar. But he and the Banu Musa had a little bit of a rivalry with al-Kindi, who's the father of Arabic Aristotelian philosophy. We'll mention him a little bit later.
Deana Hassanein: So each of these people are incredibly important in their own ways. Abu Ma'shar is the court astrologer, al-Kindi is a famous philosopher, and the Banu Musa are scholars and agents of the caliph.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. And the Banu Musa in particular ended up hating al-Kindi. He criticized one of their calculations at one point, and that pissed him off.
Deana Hassanein: Never hurt a man's ego.
Ali Olomi: That's what the Banu Musa said. So they actually had Mutawakkil confiscate all of al-Kindi's books and his library.
Deana Hassanein: That's got to hurt.
Ali Olomi: Yeah.
Deana Hassanein: Books were so important in this time and cherished by all. So the labor that went into that book, the knowledge, and having it taken away is a huge deal.
Ali Olomi: Oh, they get a little bit of their own kebab, or just a tad. Because shortly afterwards, the Banu Musa end up getting in trouble with the very same caliph. They're put in charge of a canal in Jafariyya, and they're supposed to calculate how to build this canal so that it keeps the water. But they end up miscalculating it. And so the caliph tells them, if this canal doesn't work and the water doesn't stay there, we are going to have you executed. So an even worse punishment than al-Kindi. But the Banu Musa get lucky. The court astrologer predicts that the caliph is going to die soon. So they just wait him out. He dies and they survive.
Deana Hassanein: Saved by astrology again.
Ali Olomi: In the end, for all their exploits, the Banu Musa would become really, really wealthy and powerful. And they're going to play a role in future politics.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, I love how scandalous the scholars were. We dived into the rich history of the Banu Musa, their work, their schemes. And there is so much more to come as we learn more about the people who lived and plotted in medieval Baghdad. What's great about this season is we're going to be talking about other people with surprising origin stories and how they go on to achieve great things or leave a mark on history. Thanks for joining us. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast so you don't miss the next episode of Figures of Baghdad. See you next time, fellow travelers.

Who was Al-Mahani?

Ali Olomi: A jewel in the desert.
Deana Hassanein: A round city full of merchants, rulers and scholars.
Ali Olomi: The great minds of the Abbasid Empire.
Deana Hassanein: This is Figures of Baghdad. Hello fellow travelers, welcome to Figures of Baghdad. I’m Deana–
Ali Olomi: –and I'm Ali. Who shall we visit today?
Deana Hassanein: I really liked how messy the Banu Musa were, so I'd like more of the same please.
Ali Olomi: I've got just the guy. A mysterious figure at the heart of Baghdad's intellectual culture, Al Mahani. We really know very little about his life except for the amazing body of work that he leaves behind. You'll meet him in your travels in Mirage.
Deana Hassanein: But first, I want to know more about how Greek philosophers and thinkers were brought into medieval Baghdad because we've mentioned Euclid a few times in previous episodes. From the round city of Baghdad to the translations of Banu Musa, so who was Euclid?
Ali Olomi: Good question. Let's take a look at some of these Greek thinkers who inspired Abbasid scholars.
Deana Hassanein: Give us the big ones, the ones who were translated the most, whose ideas really shaped Baghdad.
Ali Olomi: Alright, the top four would have to be Galens, Ptolemy, Euclid and Aristotle.
Deana Hassanein: I definitely remember Aristotle from school. Each of these represent different strains of thought and different fields of knowledge.
Ali Olomi: That is precisely why they were so influential. They were each representative of different fields of knowledge which the medieval scholars were interested in. You had medicine, which was Galens. You had astronomy, which was Ptolemy. You had mathematics, which was Euclid. And you had rational philosophy, which was Aristotle.
Deana Hassanein: So how did Euclid's mathematics become part of medieval Baghdad? Because if you think about it, Euclid lived centuries and centuries before Baghdad was even built. How his ideas show up in this period is interesting.
Ali Olomi: Totally, Deana. We talked about this a little bit last season, but translation of knowledge is so incredibly important in this time period. It was their way of bringing what they saw as the ancient past into their present. And so the first translations are people like al-Hajjaj who brings Euclid into the Arabic. And then al-Mahani in 860 or so will write further translations and commentaries on Euclid.
Deana Hassanein: But we're not just talking about word-for-word translations. This wasn't a copy and paste job. They were expanding and adding their own thoughts and ideas.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, in fact, al-Mahani writes an extensive commentary on Euclid. If we think about it, there's really two impulses that are happening at the same time. There's an encyclopedic impulse, which is about cataloguing everything, recording everything. And the second is an experimental impulse.
Deana Hassanein: Wait, are you saying they were doing experiments like Dexter's laboratory type experiments?
Ali Olomi: Funny enough, that's exactly what they were doing. We talked a little bit about the Banu Musa's experiments out in the desert, but they also did mathematic experiments like al-Mahani's equation, which, surprisingly enough, he actually fails to solve.
Deana Hassanein: Sometimes, Ali, that's just the way it is.
Ali Olomi: In fact, that's my motto. It is what it is.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, solid motto. Mine is out of sight, out of mind.
Ali Olomi: Like that one.
Deana Hassanein: I've got to ask, though, why was there such a focus on maths? Because I'm an ex-maths teacher, but it was more of a surface-level thing. I wasn't in love with it. I didn't have a passion for it.
Ali Olomi: You know, Deana, this is what I've wondered myself. And it wasn't until I read al-Mahani's work or the works of others like Juarezmi, because then you start to see that they saw God in the beauty of math.
Deana Hassanein: Sorry, what do you mean they saw God? In maths? That's a completely different way of looking at maths.
Ali Olomi: I mean, for them, math shows the harmony of the universe, a perfectly created cosmos by the hands of the creator. So they really did see math as beautiful.
Deana Hassanein: That's such an interesting way to talk about it, because I just remember when I taught in a school, all I heard was, Miss, when am I ever actually going to use this?
Ali Olomi: Yeah, I mean, it's a different way of looking at it. When I was in high school, my algebra teacher was talking about solving for x. I was thinking about lunchtime.
Deana Hassanein: Wow. It's a good thing they did care about maths, though, because without them, we'd live a completely different life.
Ali Olomi: Too true. I mean, what would the world look like? In 825, al-Juarezmi introduces the Indian and Arabic numerals with zero. And think about it. What happens if we don't have that zero?
Deana Hassanein: Our maths would look entirely different. The hands on the clock, the numbers in your car's mileage, how you'd calculate your taxes, and of course, how you count your money. What would our dollar bills look like?
Ali Olomi: Yeah, totally. Even our technology would be different. Our digital technology uses binary code. So without the introduction of that zero, which literally comes from the Arabic word sifr, would we even have the technology that we have today?
Deana Hassanein: No phones, no tablets, no computers, no podcast. Boom. There goes our job.
Ali Olomi: So thank God for these medieval thinkers then. But this is why this time period is so incredibly exciting. We are looking at a moment that changed the very course of history.
Deana Hassanein: What I love is this sort of a bridge between the ancient knowledge of the past, transformed in the medieval period, then connecting and shaping our world in the present.
Ali Olomi: That's a really cool way of looking at it, Deana.
Deana Hassanein: And of course, al-Mahani wasn't alone. He was part of this wider intellectual culture. I remember the descriptions of the House of Wisdom and the back and forth between the scholars.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, the dialogue and debate and the collaboration is what makes this such a unique moment. You have al-Mahani working on Euclid, while al-Khwarizmi is working on algebra.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, that's who we have to blame.
Ali Olomi: We can really blame him. He's the one that gives us our 8am math classes. But also, he developed some of the world's first algorithms and complex formulas that we've never seen in history before.
Deana Hassanein: Just like the concept of zero, we take that for granted, but it's so impactful on algebra and algorithms. It really, really does impact our lives. It changes everything.
Ali Olomi: Right. I mean, like our entire digital system, our system of information, our militaries, our banking system, our whole way of modern life relies on algorithms.
Deana Hassanein: I wonder if they ever considered things like AI, artificial intelligence.
Ali Olomi: Oh yeah, it's a hot topic, but for sure they did. We have this fascinating set of writings from this time period that discusses automatons.
Deana Hassanein: Automaton sounds like a warrior robot, by the way.
Ali Olomi: It is a little bit.
Deana Hassanein: A little bit, but it's just like the ones built by the Banu Musa, the mechanical tree with the birds.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, there was this fascinating way in which all knowledge was practical. Their mathematics was a practical. There was, of course, a theoretical component. They believed knowledge was beautiful for its own sake. And of course, any learning was worthwhile on its own, but they were really, really interested in practical applications.
Deana Hassanein: So this could be maths you would use for different purposes, just like with the Banu Musas, that meant engineering and the building of the canal.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. And for al-Mahani, new calculations in math allowed him to improve the astronomy of the time period.
Deana Hassanein: Baghdad itself was meant to reflect the order of the heavens, so astronomy was paramount.
Ali Olomi: Astronomy and astrology were the queen of the sciences, they say.
Deana Hassanein: So what was the practical application for al-Mahani?
Ali Olomi: He was able to use his new advancements in calculations to get the exact time of the eclipse. He could get the timing down to just a few minutes. And like the circumference, it's impressive.
Deana Hassanein: Wow. This is a huge deal because if we think about it, they didn't have the type of technology we did. No computers, no telescopes. So getting that type of accuracy is very impressive.
Ali Olomi: I mean, what gaps they had with technology, they made up with mathematics. Using algorithms, Euclidean geometry, algebraic equations, all of that helped them improve precision, whether it was engineering with the Banu Musa or astronomy with al-Mahani. I think for me, what makes al-Mahani so interesting is that he represents the lineage of knowledge that is forming in this time period.
Deana Hassanein: Right. Like we said, he's bringing knowledge of the ancients into his present world.
Ali Olomi: And the connection is paramount for understanding the learning and scholarship of this time period. They created bridges between that Greek past and their Muslim present. For al-Mahani, this was through Euclid and his translation and commentaries of those works.
Deana Hassanein: Which then would be picked up by someone after him, the future scholars.
Ali Olomi: That's the lineage of learning we are talking about. Al-Mahani is important in his own right, of course, but he's also important because of the influence that he has on later scholars.
Deana Hassanein: They probably relied on the work of al-Mahani for their own calculations, right?
Ali Olomi: That's too true. Al-Mahani and his near contemporary al-Khwarazmi were instrumental in developing the math of this time period. A century later, al-Khazn would actually use al-Mahani's math to solve Archimedes' problem. Then, a century later, al-Biruni would take it even further.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, I can tell we're gearing up for a good science story, Ali. Let's hear it.
Ali Olomi: All right, so al-Biruni was a Persian scientist, just like al-Mahani, and he would rely on the mathematic groundwork laid by al-Mahani and al-Khwarazmi for a stunning calculation. In fact, he would use an astrolabe, a tool that we've actually mentioned before.
Deana Hassanein: I remember it, the medieval iPhone. It was used for calculations, for navigation, architecture, astronomy, timekeeping, and of course, a lot more.
Ali Olomi: The very one. It was incredibly important. You know, sometimes I wonder if people in medieval Baghdad would have waited in long lines to get the latest astrolabe in the same way that we wait for the latest iPhone.
Deana Hassanein: The astrolabe 14 or 15, worth the wait.
Ali Olomi: Kind of a perfect ad. All right, I'm sold. Okay, so al-Biruni would take this astrolabe, maybe version 14 or 15, and with it, measure the degree of a mountain using angles. He then used the formula from algebra and trigonometry with the calculated angles to get the exact height of a mountain.
Deana Hassanein: You've already lost me. This is incredibly complicated.
Ali Olomi: Look, I'm not a math person and I'm already lost. But there's more. He used these measurements to imagine a triangle with its point being the top of the mountain, then the other point being the horizon, and the final point being the center of the earth. So I just sort of imagine a giant triangle going from the mountain to the horizon, and then the horizon to the center of the earth. With algebra, he was then able to calculate the circumference of the earth, roughly around 25,000 miles. And guess what? He was right. He got the calculation down to barely a percent of an error, even more accurate than the Banu Musa calculations.
Deana Hassanein: Wow, wow, wow. What I love is how we see each generation of scientists improving on one another, leaving knowledge for the next person to come along and further their research.
Ali Olomi: Oh, wait, Deana, there's more.
Deana Hassanein: Really? You sound like a cheesy game show host, by the way.
Ali Olomi: With his calculations, Al Biruni was able to theorize that there was actually another continent besides Africa, Asia, and Europe, that another continent lay beyond them.
Deana Hassanein: Ali, stop, hold up. Are you saying he figured out the Americas?
Ali Olomi: That's right. Hundreds of years before Christopher Columbus or anything in Europe, Al Biruni was able to use the mathematics to figure out the continent of America.
Deana Hassanein: My mind is blown right now. So school lied to me, to us.
Ali Olomi: That's why these lineages of learning matter. The way Al Bahani brings Euclid into his present world and then how his work is passed on to later generation of scholars like Al Biruni. It's like they're collaborating across time and the mathematics that they are doing has practical applications, like determining the radius of the Earth or the existence of other continents.
Deana Hassanein: We're slowly bringing you around, looking at the people who lived in medieval Baghdad. We see a wide range of scientists who, like Al Mahani, are engaging and reconnecting with the knowledge of the past, but in new and exciting ways. And the impact is huge. It really was a turning point in history. All our contemporary math and science can be traced back to this. Thank you for coming along. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast so you don't miss the next episode of Figures of Baghdad. See you next time, fellow travellers.

Who was Hunayn ibn Hishaq?

Ali Olomi: A jewel in the desert.
Deana Hassanein: A round city full of merchants, rulers and scholars.
Ali Olomi: The great minds of the Abbasid Empire.
Deana Hassanein: This is Figures of Baghdad. Hello fellow travelers, welcome to Figures of Baghdad. I'm Deana–
Ali Olomi: –and I'm Ali.
Deana Hassanein: So Ali, who shall we visit today?
Ali Olomi: Who do you want to hang out with? We visited the engineering nerds and the math dorks.
Deana Hassanein: You know, it's time for the doctors. When we chatted last, we talked about the major sciences of this time period. So I want to hear about them. Astronomy, mathematics, philosophy and medicine.
Ali Olomi: And with all these sciences, they were related to each other in some way. We can see that in the form of Hunyan ibn Ishaq.
Deana Hassanein: We met him briefly last season where he was in charge of the House of Wisdom and one of the lead translators.
Ali Olomi: That's our guy. He was an historian Christian who lived from 808 to 873.
Deana Hassanein: Which again really stresses that we are looking at cultures sharing with one another. Jewish and Christian scientists working alongside Muslim ones. Now, what does the job of the head of the House of Wisdom involve, Ali?
Ali Olomi: Ibn Ishaq basically had about four responsibilities. He needed to collect new texts. He would then translate texts. He also directed the research and translation projects of the entire House of Wisdom. And then either he or his agents would educate the students.
Deana Hassanein: And I really have to say this again. The House of Wisdom really is so much more than a library. It's a learning center. It doesn't just house the world's knowledge, but they're also expanding it in different ways. We talked about how al-Mahani was commenting on Euclid.
Ali Olomi: This is true of Ibn Ishaq too. He was commenting and expanding the knowledge he was encountering. His origins though are actually quite humble. He's originally a Syriac and an Arabic native speaker.
Deana Hassanein: That probably helped with the translations. Most of these scholars were multilingual, but it was in languages they were native speakers in. What were some of the common languages scholars at this time spoke, Ali?
Ali Olomi: You know, Deana, we believe that most of them were at minimum trilingual. I mean, that kind of blows your mind considering that some of the struggle being bilingual or even monolingual. But the most common languages here were Arabic, Greek, Syriac, and Persian.
Deana Hassanein: And they were each specialists in their own languages. Did Ibn Ishaq work mostly in Syriac and Arabic?
Ali Olomi: Greek too, actually. His origins are really interesting here. His father was a pharmacist, so that probably indicates why he had such a deep interest in medicine.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, so that is the start of his medical journey. I've noticed that frequently there is a family connection for the scholars. They either learn from their fathers or they develop an interest early. Nowadays, we don't really pick a major until university. Or as you'd say, Ali, college.
Ali Olomi: What was your major? I know we talked about engineering, but what did you want to be?
Deana Hassanein: I majored in economics. I actually wanted to be the first female president of Egypt. Obviously, not going well. What about you?
Ali Olomi: I was really interested in politics, but I was always a history major all through college.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, I found politics quite frustrating as a subject. That's exactly why I majored in economics.
Ali Olomi: Makes sense. But if you think about it, our system is very different from what we see in medieval Baghdad. While the House of Wisdom is a learning institution, and there were certainly classes, we're really looking at more of an apprentice-style structure.
Deana Hassanein: So it's more like a one-to-one tuition, learning from an expert or master who then passes their knowledge on to you.
Ali Olomi: And it wasn't always one-on-one, we should be clear. I mean, it could be a class or group setting, but it was always focused on the individual teacher rather than the subject. In fact, if you think about it, a lot of our graduate school education today is based off of this structure. You pick an advisor and then they guide you through until you get your master's or your doctorate. For Ibn Ishaq, this was Ibn Masawi.
Deana Hassanein: And through one-to-one instruction, you get a really high quality education. Having the attention of a teacher and their focus on not just the education, but your learning style is incredible. You can see a passing down of knowledge from teacher to student in so many of the people we have discussed before.
Ali Olomi: True enough, but that didn't quite work as well with Ibn Masawi. Ibn Ishaq was a bit of an annoying student. Apparently, he kept asking question after question after question until his teacher, Ibn Masawi, kicked him out of class.
Deana Hassanein: He was that student. But thinking about that as a lecturer, as a professor, would you not love it when students ask you questions?
Ali Olomi: I love students like that.
Deana Hassanein: Do you think it was maybe an ego thing?
Ali Olomi: Maybe.
Deana Hassanein: I can kind of see you asking a lot of questions, Ali, as a student.
Ali Olomi: Nah, I was too rebellious.
Deana Hassanein: You? Okay, warrior nerd. But obviously, Ibn Ishaq was brilliant regardless of how things went down with Ibn Masawi. He goes from humble but annoying student to the head of the house of wisdom. And that's quite a climb.
Ali Olomi: In fact, they actually reconcile at some point. Ibn Ishaq goes away to master more languages, specifically Greek, so that he can get a strong grasp over medicine. And he comes back to Baghdad where he meets his old teacher and he shows off by reciting the complete works of Homer in Greek.
Deana Hassanein: That must have felt so good to be able to come back and show up your teacher. It's definitely something I would have loved to do. I can see why he goes on to become the head of the entire house of wisdom project. He worked so hard to get to where he did.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, and under him, the house of wisdom really flourishes. His translations were numerous. He translated more texts than absolutely anyone, adding new contributions to the field. He actually had a very interesting approach to translation. He was the expert in Greek and Syriac, so he would translate from Greek into the Syriac. And then he would have his son and his nephew translate from the Syriac into the Arabic.
Deana Hassanein: That's probably why he was so prolific. He had a conveyor belt like technique. I love that he collaborated in that way. You know, each book is a product of not just one person, but many people working on it together.
Ali Olomi: A true community of scholars all working in partnership. But of course, his greatest works were in the field of medicine.
Deana Hassanein: That is what he's known for after all. In addition to being the head of the house of wisdom, he was the personal physician to many caliphs.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, he advised al-Ma'mun, but from al-Mutawakkil on, he would be the court physician, the chief physician, in addition to being the head of the house of wisdom. Though I don't know what it says about him that he outlived so many of his patients.
Deana Hassanein: Or maybe he actually took his own advice. Maybe those patients didn't listen.
Ali Olomi: I mean, he did have a pretty long life.
Deana Hassanein: And he accomplished a lot in his time.
Ali Olomi: He definitely did. But it was also a very, very cushy job. I mean, you had to keep the favor of the caliph, but if you managed to do so, it was a good way to live. The Banu Musa, who were students, eventually become very wealthy, and they added on top of what the caliph did, which is why he's so interesting, because it tells us the ordinary life of a scholar.
Deana Hassanein: So what was a normal day like for him?
Ali Olomi: We have a biographer who talks a little bit about Ibn Ishaq's day. So I'm going to quote, after writing, he would have water poured on him. He would lie down until he stopped perspiring. Sometimes he would fall asleep. Then he would get up and burn perfumes to fumigate his body and have dinner brought in.
Deana Hassanein: That sounds like a nice life. Go for a nice ride, bathe, nap, eat. But despite all of that, he's still got a lot done, which is something I couldn't even imagine trying to do.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, he really did. Just his theories of medicine alone were incredibly important. He translated the most definitive work of Galen's, which laid the foundation of medicine.
Deana Hassanein: So he's the founder of a new school of medicine. Well, an Islamic science of medicine.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, it's called Tebunoni. It's a fusion of Greek, Arabic, Indic, and Syriac medical techniques, drawing upon Galen's and Hippocrates. It actually theorizes that everyone is made up of four different humors. And maybe we can take a look and see which humor you are, Deana, and which humor I am. So the four are hot and dry, cold and wet, hot and wet, and cold and dry. So hot and dry is someone who is inflexible, but passionate, and they are sort of aggressive, impulsive. Cold and wet is a person who is adaptable, but reserved. Hot and wet is a person who is adaptable, but social. And cold and dry is a person who is inflexible, but reserved.
Deana Hassanein: Which one are you, Ali?
Ali Olomi: I think I'm cold and dry. I'm very reserved, but I'm very set in my ways.
Deana Hassanein: I'm hot and wet, definitely. I'm very adaptable, I'm very social.
Ali Olomi: So you've got that social component.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, I have a lot of hot and dry friends, though. I don't know if you can relate. A lot.
Ali Olomi: I can definitely relate. And this entire scheme was the key to health because it was the balance of the humors, the harmony between mind, body, and spirit.
Deana Hassanein: So tell me a bit about the techniques they use for maintaining that balance in their health.
Ali Olomi: So they had a few different techniques. First was dietary and nutrition, changing the way you ate and what you ate. They had medicinal compounds that they would take. They even had cupping and body manipulation.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, like in the Hamem?
Ali Olomi: Yeah, and then they also had surgery and bloodletting.
Deana Hassanein: Surgery sounds very dangerous. Even today there's always a risk of infection and recovery can be a real challenge.
Ali Olomi: They do mention that surgery was the most dangerous approach and so they were very sparing when they were doing it and very careful in applying it. But they also developed some really new antiseptic techniques which they could use in some of those surgeries.
Deana Hassanein: Having said that, Ali, we do hear a lot of horror stories about amputations.
Ali Olomi: I mean, mostly they did things like C-sections and eye surgery for cataracts, but there's actually a funny story about an amputation that I gotta tell you. So there's this guy named Usama ibn Munqith who's living during the Crusades and he's in Jerusalem and he comes across a man who has an abscess on his leg and he and a Crusader doctor try to treat this man. Usama ibn Munqith, being an expert in Islamic medicine, he applies a poultice, an herbal mixture wrapped up in a bandage and places it on the abscess and says, we will cleanse it, purify it and it will go away. The Crusader doctor on the other hand goes, nope, you've got to lose the leg. You have a choice, die with two legs or live with one leg. So he calls for an axe and there goes the man's leg. Usama ibn Munqith is so shocked by this that he says, never again will I treat these barbarians. But if I'm being honest with you, I think Usama ibn Munqith was exaggerating a tad.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, so he likes to brag.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, a little bit.
Deana Hassanein: Okay, let's get back to the eye surgery because that really stood out and blows my mind. Surgery on the eye back then?
Ali Olomi: Yeah, this is ibn Ishaq's specialty. His contributions to eye medicine were incredible. His diagrams, in fact, were so advanced that they became the standard for the next 900 years.
Deana Hassanein: I really wanna know more about some of the other treatments. Can you give me some recipes from Islamic medicine? For example, if I have a headache, what should I do?
Ali Olomi: All right, so I'm gonna read some of his formulas. If you have a headache, particularly a headache from heat, what you're supposed to do is get a towel with cool water. You're supposed to put camphor oil on it or fumigate it with camphor and place it upon your head as a compress until the headache goes away.
Deana Hassanein: Okay, what if I had tummy problems or like a common cold?
Ali Olomi: All right, here he says, take one teaspoon or one part violet flowers and boil them in three cups of water for several minutes, then strain them and take it on an empty stomach.
Deana Hassanein: So not a cold and flu tablet then?
Ali Olomi: No, but we're getting complex and simple medicine techniques here. Very interesting.
Deana Hassanein: Totally, really intriguing stuff. And we're really seeing a turning point in knowledge and science in this time period and Ibn Ishaq's influence is all over it. This humble Christian man who learned Greek and became a translator and physician would transform the world of medicine and learning. And we still have so many more cool people to visit. Thank you for coming along. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast so you don't miss the next episode of Figures of Baghdad. See you next time, fellow travelers.

Who was Arib al'Mamuniyya?

Ali Olomi: A jewel in the desert.
Deana Hassanein: A round city full of merchants, rulers and scholars.
Ali Olomi: The great minds of the Abbasid Empire.
Deana Hassanein: This is Figures of Baghdad. Hello fellow travelers, welcome to Figures of Baghdad. I'm Deana–
Ali Olomi: –and I'm Ali.
Deana Hassanein: Ali, we've visited some interesting scientists and scholars the past few episodes. I'm ready to change it up.
Ali Olomi: I feel you. Let's hang out with one of the most interesting people of this time period and probably one of my favorite, Arib al-Mu'miniyya.
Deana Hassanein: Finally, let's talk about the women. We've already got a glimpse of some of the interesting women of this era in the last season. We talked about brilliant queens like Khayzuran and Zubaydah, politically savvy with rich lives.
Ali Olomi: And Arib lives up to that as well. Hers is an interesting tale and one that is linked to a story we've already looked at, the fall of the Barmakids.
Deana Hassanein: I remember them. The Barmakids were a powerful family of viziers who were in charge of the politics of the court. The Abbasids relied on their expertise until there was a falling out with Harun al-Rashid and they were stripped of their power.
Ali Olomi: Right, and with the war of the two brothers, the power of the Barmakids came to an end. But while their power was gone, it was not the end of their story. Supposedly, Arib was the daughter of one of the Barmakids who had been stolen away in the dead of the night from the family and so survived the fall of her house.
Deana Hassanein: The last survivor of a great house. What happened to her, Ali?
Ali Olomi: Supposedly, she was sold into slavery and lived the early portion of her life as an enslaved woman. For all the achievements of the Abbasids, this was still a slave society, very much like the empires that came before them, like the Persians and the Romans.
Deana Hassanein: Okay, let's talk a little bit about this so we can understand Arib's life a bit better. How was the life of a slave like in this time period?
Ali Olomi: The life of a slave was hard. They had little to no freedom and were sold to the wealthy. They often occupied the lowest rung of society, though not always, as some could become advisors and members of the royal court. Most slaves were taken into captivity during war or conquest and some were enslaved on a contractual basis, kind of like an indentured servitude. In either case, they were stripped of their freedom and put into mostly domestic labour. It was a hard life and an unjust one.
Deana Hassanein: Tell me a bit more about the jobs that slaves did, because you just said that some of them could be found in the royal court.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, I mean, some were soldiers who occupied a position similar to mercenaries. They received booty and a stipend in turn for fighting.
Deana Hassanein: When you say booty, you mean treasure?
Ali Olomi: We mean treasure, yes, that booty. Most were domestic servants in the household. They too were kind of paid a small amount and others were in the royal court as advisors, counselors and even some entertainers.
Deana Hassanein: So they could be advisors, not just doing domestic work in the palace?
Ali Olomi: Yeah, because they were enslaved, they were part of society, not just outside of it. It was a social class that meant that they could move up in the social ranks. Certain enslaved people, while still not free, held a lot of power. Eventually, some of them, like the Mamluks, would found their own dynasty and rule over places like Egypt for centuries. But those were exceptions on the whole because slaves had little to no freedom.
Deana Hassanein: Okay, I'm trying to understand this a little more. How could a slave have power if they weren't free? You have a system in place to enslave people, but some of those same people can become rulers. I don't get it.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, I think it's partly because the enslaved were sometimes treated as the most trusted members of society. Unlike political figures, a ruler could rely on those that were directly under his command and under his pay. So there was a trade-off. You lost your freedom, but you gained access to the caliph or ruler. But it's not like you had much choice either.
Deana Hassanein: So that's important to understand Uribe, I'm guessing, because she starts off as a daughter of a noble household and then is sold into slavery. So it's a big change in her situation, the loss of her freedom and the challenges of a life as a slave. You usually hear the reverse.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, her origins are a bit murky at best and we don't actually know if she was sold into slavery or born into it. But either way, large parts of her life were enslaved. She was part of those entertainers who were enslaved. She lived from 798 to 890, so a pretty long life. And at some point, she catches the eye of Al-Amin, the caliph who was particularly interested in poetry. And Uribe was well trained in poetry.
Deana Hassanein: Al-Amin was one of the caliphs who fought in the war of the two brothers, the loser of the two.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, I mean, that's fair. He did lose the war pretty spectacularly.
Deana Hassanein: So she was caught up in the civil war. What happened to her afterwards?
Ali Olomi: Once Al-Ma'mun wins, he ends up buying her and it's possible she becomes his concubine or his lover.
Deana Hassanein: We know how important poetry was to the Abbasids and in Islamic culture. So being a poet was very important. I'm thinking this is why she became a favourite of the caliphs.
Ali Olomi: I think so too. If the Barmageddon connection is true, then she may have been trained by Mukharik, who was already the most famous poet and musician of the time. Uribe would go on in her own right to become the most famous, especially with the oud.
Deana Hassanein: We have ouds in Egypt. They're this stringed instrument with a small neck and a roundish body. They have a beautiful sound. I could honestly just sit there for hours and listen to someone play the oud.
Ali Olomi: Oh yeah. And along with the lute, the oud is really the predecessor to the guitar, which surprisingly enough, comes from the Arabic qitara. So that's your fun fact of the day.
Deana Hassanein: I love a fun fact. I also like the idea that the oud, which we know today, would have been played in the streets and courts of medieval Baghdad. That's a really nice thing to think about because they make such beautiful music. I would have loved to sit there and listen to some of the music from this moment in history because Arab and North African music is a huge passion of mine.
Ali Olomi: Oh, me too. And Arib was said to be the best of them. She once held a competition between her and her students versus a rival, a young group poet and musician, Sharia.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, like a music competition, kind of like The Voice, medieval Baghdad style.
Ali Olomi: Yes. Can you imagine? All the drama too. This competition actually took place in Samarra. The city was divided into two teams, hashtag team Arib and hashtag team Sharia, and each side used applause to show their support. They took turns with like cutting verses and clever lyrics, each side rising in thunderous applause, almost like a rap battle.
Deana Hassanein: Who won?
Ali Olomi: The legend herself, Arib.
Deana Hassanein: Okay. I liked her before, but now I'm loving her even more. What's not to like about a woman who can kick ass with music and poetry?
Ali Olomi: I mean, she impresses caliph after caliph, from Al-Amin to Al-Ma'mun. Al-Ma'mun's successor and younger brother, in fact, Al-Mutasim, will grant her manumission, letting her go free.
Deana Hassanein: From an enslaved woman to a free woman, she used her wits to work her way up Abbasid society until she's free.
Ali Olomi: And she makes the absolute most of it. She goes on to earn a reputation not only as the favorite singer and poet of the Caliphs, but as a savvy businesswoman.
Deana Hassanein: And we know from our previous episodes and previous discussions that women could participate in trade and own their own wealth in this time period.
Ali Olomi: She becomes an incredibly wealthy woman, actually.
Deana Hassanein: The arc of her life is fascinating, though, because I'm trying to think of a more compelling life to go from enslaved, where your freedom is stripped, to becoming a powerful and wealthy free woman.
Ali Olomi: I mean, it speaks to the tenacity and willpower, but also the complexities of Abbasid society.
Deana Hassanein: I just really want her to have a happy ending at this point in time. She has been through too much, and I'm rooting for her.
Ali Olomi: Your wish comes true. She ends up taking on many, many lovers over time, and several powerful people, including the Caliphs, are among her patrons, and some are even her lovers. She goes on to live to the ripe old age, roughly around over 90 years.
Deana Hassanein: Wow, what a full and rich life. She really lived by her wits, and her ability in poetry and music helped her ascend to new heights.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. In a time where literacy was prized and learning was valued, she was intelligent, educated, literate, a lyrical genius, skilled in chess, calligraphy, and poetry. It's no wonder she became a medieval rock star. And like a rock star, she was also pretty controversial.
Deana Hassanein: A little bit of controversy makes life worth living, though, Ali, right?
Ali Olomi: So according to Matthew Gordon, once, during the time that she was enslaved, she ran away from her master to be with her lover, Ibn Hamid. So her master takes the matter to the Caliph, where Ibn Hamid, who's brought before them, refuses to reveal where Arib is. So the Caliph plans to have him flogged. But right before that punishment, Arib shows up in dramatic fashion and shouts, I am Arib. If I am a slave, then he should sell me. But if I am free, then he has no claim on me. This he being her master, of course. She, in fact, forces the matter to court. On top of all that, her poetry and music was really, really raunchy, and she even bragged about sleeping with something like seven to eight Caliphs during her lifetime and spurning many others.
Deana Hassanein: That must not have gone down well.
Ali Olomi: She's all over the place.
Deana Hassanein: She is. She's so chaotic. But at the same time, she's fighting for her freedom in court, and even the Caliphs were her groupies, and I think that's pretty cool. I can see why they were obsessed with her. It's hard not to be obsessed with a woman like this. Ali, we have to do proper justice, though. Can you read me some of her poetry, please?
Ali Olomi: All right. Why don't we take turns? I'll read one from Uthari's translation. To you, your treachery is a virtue. You have many faces and ten tongues. I am surprised my heart still clings to you in spite of what you put me through.
Deana Hassanein: That's quite deep. I quite like this one translated by Matthew Caswell. As for the lover, he went away. In spite of and against my will, I erred in being separated from one for whom I have found no substitute because of his absence from my sights.
Ali Olomi: That's so good. So there's this one poem by Arib that's one of my favorites, because it goes right to what we're all experiencing, even in today's world. And it's about a cold and distant lover, and she talks about how she apologized, but he didn't accept the apology, and how her body aches for him in a bad way. Deana, why don't you read the Arabic for us? Oh, straight to my heart. I'm telling you, a rock star.
Deana Hassanein: I know, Ali, and I think we can all relate to heartbreak, but they just don't do poetry quite like that anymore. You know what, Ali? Arib is definitely my favorite so far. Her life is so interesting and complex, from an enslaved woman to a wealthy and powerful woman. She freed herself, and with her wit and poetry, winning music battles and winning the hearts of the caliphs. I'm looking forward to meeting more historical figures, but good luck, Ali, finding someone who impresses me more than Arib. Thank you all for coming along. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast so you don't miss the next episode of Figures of Baghdad. See you next time, fellow travelers.

Who was al-Jahiz?

Ali Olomi: A jewel in the desert.
Deana Hassanein: A round city full of merchants, rulers and scholars.
Ali Olomi: The great minds of the Abbasid Empire.
Deana Hassanein: This is Figures of Baghdad. Hello fellow travellers and welcome to Figures of Baghdad. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali.
Deana Hassanein: Ali, the life story of Arib has really sparked my curiosity and I am ready for more. Can we visit another scholar maybe? Someone as interesting as Arib?
Ali Olomi: Let's do it. Let's take a walk to Al-Jahiz's house which is really nearby.
Deana Hassanein: Hold on. Al-Jahiz? Doesn't that mean...
Ali Olomi: Bug-Eyed. It's a horrible nickname.
Deana Hassanein: Ouch, poor guy. Honestly, a nickname can really affect you.
Ali Olomi: It really can.
Deana Hassanein: Did you have one growing up, Ali?
Ali Olomi: No, but that Prince Ali song was the bane of my existence. Kids could come up with the most creative lyrics, let me tell you. How about you, Deana?
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, kids can be really mean. I had loans because I had a monoprow when I was in school. So I'll let you run wild with your imagination and what the kids could have called me. But, I mean, Bug-Eyed, that must have been a really tough childhood for Al-Jahiz.
Ali Olomi: It was not an easy early life for him. I mean, he grew up very, very poor in the city of Basra. He used to fish in one of the canals in order to help support his family.
Deana Hassanein: A very different life from the Banu Musa who grew up in the courts and enjoyed the power and wealth of their patrons, the Caliphs.
Ali Olomi: Al-Jahiz and the Banu Musa come from two completely different social worlds, but they really were united by their love of learning.
Deana Hassanein: And I remember you mentioning that the House of Wisdom is open to everyone, even if you're poor. But I know that it would be a lot harder to have access to the type of knowledge and learning that the wealthy and powerful have. The Banu Musa had one-on-one tuition in the House of Wisdom. So what did Al-Jahiz have?
Ali Olomi: I mean, access was so different based on class. But I mean, thanks to that Abbasid cultural renaissance and that availability of paper that we talked about, books became increasingly accessible. What the House of Wisdom would produce would eventually be sold in local bookshops, and that's how he would gain access. So sort of filtering down, if you will.
Deana Hassanein: And we know very well that Medieval Baghdad really valued, as a culture, learning and knowledge. They would want books to be widely spread. They would want people to learn. And thanks to the availability of books, there were more and more people who were literate.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, I mean, learning and education was one of the few ways that the Abbasids had real social mobility. If you became learned, it didn't matter what your background was, actually.
Deana Hassanein: So you could be a poor kid fishing in canals, but still become a scholar. A very meritocratic society.
Ali Olomi: And that's Al-Jahiz. He actually used to hang out near the local mosque where he and his other young friends would listen in to the latest theories and the philosophies. Basra, the city that he was in, was reputed to be a major intellectual centre for language and grammar. So they would listen in, and then Al-Jahiz and his friends would have debates of their own right out in the streets.
Deana Hassanein: Like a medieval version of those dude podcasts, but less annoying.
Ali Olomi: Definitely more interesting.
Deana Hassanein: So Al-Jahiz worked his way up. He earned his knowledge bit by bit. That can't have been easy.
Ali Olomi: Quite literally. His learning was really hard. And he had to gain his knowledge little by little. But he was an incredibly prolific writer. In fact, at one point he supposedly wrote a treatise about the Caliphate and that captures the attention of Al-Ma'mun.
Deana Hassanein: And we should all remember that Al-Ma'mun was the Caliph who really treasured scholarship, just like his father. So all the Caliphs loved knowledge, but Al-Ma'mun, as we know, hosted debates and even was a bit of a scholar himself.
Ali Olomi: He fancied himself a philosopher king of sorts.
Deana Hassanein: So catching the attention of Al-Ma'mun would have been huge for Al-Jahiz. It could literally change his life.
Ali Olomi: And it did. He was invited to Baghdad, where he would now be among the very scholars he was reading. He would no longer need to fish for a living and instead live off his knowledge and his books.
Deana Hassanein: I really love the stories of people who work hard at what they're really passionate about and are rewarded for it. Al-Jahiz's humble origins are somewhat similar to Arib from the previous episode, who started off as a slave and became wealthy in her own right.
Ali Olomi: And what's fascinating is that we're seeing these people change their social class, like you mentioned, Arib. From medieval city or a time and place that's bound by lineage and dynasties, there are these people who absolutely change their lot in life, whether through skill or knowledge. And that's partly because of the Abbasids themselves, because they cherished learning.
Deana Hassanein: When I look back at history and society, I never really think about people climbing social ladders. Something that's beautiful from the discussions we've had is that there really is a chance for people to gain knowledge and change their life.
Ali Olomi: Right. For Al-Jahiz, it meant that he could now live the life he loved more than anything else, the life of a scholar. And he truly loved learning. He truly loved knowledge. And now he could make a living off of it.
Deana Hassanein: He's a scholar's scholar then. With some like the Banu Musa, they put their research and studies in service of the Caliph, but Al-Jahiz seems to do what he does for the sake of learning itself.
Ali Olomi: I love that. I'm going to borrow that from when I describe Al-Jahiz, Deana. So the biographer Ibn Nadim tells a story of how Al-Jahiz would stop at a bookstore, pick up a book and read the whole thing right then and there. Nothing could stop him from reading. He was truly a book nerd.
Deana Hassanein: They didn't make him pay for the book he just read?
Ali Olomi: He would just pick up a book and read it right there.
Deana Hassanein: He must have loved Baghdad then, because I remember last season, we talked about Al-Mutanabi, the book markets overflowing with books.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, he was in his element. And honestly, many of those books he wrote himself.
Deana Hassanein: Did he write even more than Ibn Aisha, the head of the House of Wisdom?
Ali Olomi: Maybe. I mean, he's credited with writing over 200 books covering a range of topics from grammar to humour to religion, politics and science.
Deana Hassanein: 200 books in a single lifetime?
Ali Olomi: Uh-huh.
Deana Hassanein: Oh my God, I think that really drives home how different this time was. If the Khalif or someone wealthy patronised you, you then could spend your entire life writing.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, I mean, it's a good life.
Deana Hassanein: I mean, today, even if someone is prolific, Ali, 200 books is huge. I'm not over that.
Ali Olomi: It is a really wild number. It's kind of goals, to be honest, if you're an author. But that was, you know, the life he always wanted growing up. We mentioned that learning in the Islamic period had kind of two impulses, remember?
Deana Hassanein: Yes, I remember. It was encyclopedic knowledge and investigative knowledge.
Ali Olomi: Right. So Al-Jahiz was drawn to that encyclopedic style of knowledge and writing. He saw himself as a witness recording the world around him. So that's why he was so prolific.
Deana Hassanein: OK, so he wrote books on his observations, what he saw. Can I then say that's ancient medieval journaling?
Ali Olomi: I love that. That's a great description. These were medieval journals of sorts.

These were medieval versions of encyclopedias, cataloguing the knowledge of his day while also, of course, expanding it.

Deana Hassanein: And these aren't small texts. I'm talking encyclopedic-like books. He's writing in a large scale, large texts.
Ali Olomi: With multiple volumes.
Deana Hassanein: I can envision it now, a medieval version of the Encyclopedia Britannica spanning multiple volumes, thick with knowledge.
Ali Olomi: Oh, that's perfect. I always wanted those Encyclopedia Britannica in your house. That's how you knew you were a real book nerd is when you had those collections. And it's really that love of books that he had that made him one of these great book collectors. So not only an author, but an amazing book collector in his own right. It's said that his library, his personal library, was absolutely massive.
Deana Hassanein: And I guess that makes total sense. He grew up very hungry for learning.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, he would have to earn these books the hard way, gather sort of snippets of knowledge here or there from passing scholars.
Deana Hassanein: And now when he's made it, he enjoys the wealth he spends on the things he wanted the most growing up, books. That's beautiful. Ali, let's talk a little bit about the books he wrote. We can't just skip past this 200.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, they cover a wide range of topics from grammar to religion to rhetoric and to science. One of his most favourite books and probably his most famous, in my humble opinion, is the Kitab al-Hayawan or the Book of Animals.
Deana Hassanein: I love animals, as you know. What's your favourite animal, Ali?
Ali Olomi: I'd have to say cats and otters. Don't you have a very cute dog?
Deana Hassanein: I do. I have a stubborn Shiba Inu called Leela. She's beautiful and she's cute and fluffy and white.
Ali Olomi: That's so cute. So the Book of Animals is this massive encyclopedia cataloguing all the different species of animals there are out there. It also has, and this is the most fascinating bit, some early hints of the theory of evolution. Maybe not the complete theory, but Jahiz really speculates on the role of the environment on different animals. Why some animals have fur, some have horns, that the environment shapes them that way.
Deana Hassanein: I really love how the thinkers of this time were always looking at changing the way they see the world or trying to take notes of what's different. Am I right in saying that his theory came before Darwin's theory of evolution then?
Ali Olomi: Oh, yeah. He's almost a thousand years before Darwin. That really puts into perspective how radical what he's doing is. It kind of blows your mind. Again, it's not like the full theory of evolution, but a thousand years before Darwin, he's already introducing this environmental component that wouldn't be picked up in the rest of the world a thousand years later. He even uses that same environmental theory to talk about his fellow humans. He talks about race. He's one of the earliest thinkers talking about race and why people are different. He rejects some of the racist theories about, for example, Africans being cursed by God. He writes, in fact, I quote, the Zanj, which is the name for sort of East Africans or people from Africa, and we'll talk about the Zanj in a future episode. He says that the Zanj say that God did not make them black to disfigure them. Rather, it is their environment that made them so. The best evidence of this is that there are black tribes among the Arabs. I mean, we're talking about stuff from a thousand years ago, and he's talking about scientific theories of difference.
Deana Hassanein: That is honestly so amazing. And his observations line up even today. We are shaped by our environment. That is true. And maybe he didn't explicitly talk about evolution or name it evolution, but he knew about the impact of the environment.
Ali Olomi: Oh, absolutely. And he takes his theories even further. The idea that the environment and the climate has an impact on your health, so that if you felt sick or poorly, it wasn't just that you were cursed or you were facing a demon or a spirit, but maybe it was from the heat. Maybe it was from the climate that doesn't mesh with your own internal climate.
Deana Hassanein: That reminds me of Ibn Ishaq's theory about hot and cold, dry and wet.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, so they're really thinking of a holistic understanding of health, climate, diet. So you can see that Ibn Ishaq and al-Jahiz are lining up their theories, whether they're talking about your internal balance or they're talking about the environment around you. It's a really, really brilliant time, and al-Jahiz is a brilliant guy. And I got to say, I would like to think that he went out the way he wanted.
Deana Hassanein: Ali, what do you mean? I'm almost afraid to ask.
Ali Olomi: Do you remember that massive library of his?
Deana Hassanein: Oh God, yeah.
Ali Olomi: Well, when he was in his 90s, one of the piles of books toppled over and it ended up killing him.
Deana Hassanein: No way. Ali, we can't end the podcast on that note.
Ali Olomi: Honestly, I kind of would like to go out that way as well.
Deana Hassanein: You and your warrior nerd stuff. Stop saying that.
Ali Olomi: All right, you're right. We can't end it on that note. So let me just end it by saying, in addition to his scientific writings, al-Jahiz was a really, really funny guy. He was a humorist. He, in fact, wrote a book called The Book of Misers, where he complains about all the greedy people and stingy people in the world. And one of the people he complains about is al-Kindi. Do you remember al-Kindi?
Deana Hassanein: Oh, the man who had his books confiscated by Banu Musa.
Ali Olomi: That's right. Maybe now, once you hear this story, we'll say, okay, he deserved to have his books confiscated. Because according to al-Jahiz, one time he had guests over in his nice house and the guests came with their family members. All went well until the end of the visit when al-Kindi slaps them with a bill for all the food and board. This is like a medieval version of Airbnb from A Nightmare.
Deana Hassanein: That is a huge no-no in Arab culture. We're very much, we'll cover the bill. We're inviting you into our home. It's all on us. So I can't even imagine someone doing that.
Ali Olomi: Oh, yeah. I mean, breaking taboos around generosity and hosting, it's al-Jahiz gives them a poke for a reason.
Deana Hassanein: And what's worse is that al-Jahiz has written it. And you're going to see that forever. He will always be known as the stingy, stingy person.
Ali Olomi: Yeah. In addition to being a great philosopher, we will always remember that al-Kindi had this other side to him.
Deana Hassanein: What a life al-Jahiz had from a poor boy selling fish to one of the greatest scholars in medieval Baghdad, author to hundreds of books, an encyclopedia thinker, and a bookworm. Thinking about the scientific impact of the natural world on humans and animals as well. And I can see why we visited al-Jahiz. Little by little, we are seeing all the diverse people of this historic city, figures that are part of Assassin's Creed Mirage. Thank you for coming along. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast so you don't miss the next episode of Figures of Baghdad. See you next time, fellow travelers.

Who was al-Mutawakkil?

Ali Olomi: A jewel in the desert.
Deana Hassanein: A round city full of merchants, rulers, and scholars.
Ali Olomi: The great minds of the Abbasid empire.
Deana Hassanein: This is Figures of Baghdad. Hello fellow travelers, welcome to Figures of Baghdad. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali.
Deana Hassanein: You know Ali, I've loved hanging out with all the scholars, but I'm sort of missing the juicy politics, especially after all the drama of the war of the two brothers.
Ali Olomi: How about this Deana, let's visit in with the Caliphs and see what they've been up to since we last saw them.
Deana Hassanein: Yes, let's visit the palace. Who's the Caliph now?
Ali Olomi: Well, here's the issue. We first have to decide which palace.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, good point. We have the splendid palaces, the Palace of the Golden Gate or the Palace of Eternity.
Ali Olomi: And by this time in the ninth century, there were even more. You see, after the war with the two brothers, something had shifted in the Abbasid empire.
Deana Hassanein: Al-Ma'mun stabilized the empire after the civil war and had re-established the Caliphate. But things were different now. The Abbasids were a powerful family still, but they had to manage even more factions.
Ali Olomi: And that would become a major challenge for them. So after Al-Ma'mun dies unexpectedly, his younger brother Al-Mu’tasim becomes Caliph. And he does something extraordinary. He builds a new capital.
Deana Hassanein: Wait, wait, wait. But what about Baghdad? What about its symbolism, its location and its history? That's literally like a president deciding to build a new capital instead of D.C. or a prime minister deciding a new capital instead of London.
Ali Olomi: That was kind of the problem. Baghdad had too much history. Mu’tasim wanted a clean break, somewhere he could consolidate power for himself. So he moved a little north by about 60 miles or so and established Samarra in 836 CE.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, so close enough to Baghdad that he could travel there, but somewhere completely his own that was still connected to the round city. How did everyone react, Ali? I mean, Baghdad was such an important symbolic force in Abbasid politics.
Ali Olomi: I mean, there was definitely a great deal of controversy, but Mu’tasim had created a private army of sorts. The war of the two brothers had highlighted that tension between the different political and military factions. So he wanted an army directly loyal to him.

And when you have an army directly loyal to you, people can't say too much.

Deana Hassanein: Ah, now I'm starting to see. New city, new army, a very clever strategy that would centralise power in the caliph.
Ali Olomi: So he brought in these Turkish soldiers described as mercenaries or slave soldiers. Our old friend, actually, al-Jahiz, called them the best of warriors, masters of the horse and archery.
Deana Hassanein: Wow, that would make them a very strong base to build your support on. A strong, loyal army, your own capital. Al-Mu’tasim was changing the caliphate completely.
Ali Olomi: And Samarra would reflect that. As we arrived, we would see these grand palaces larger than the ones we've seen in Baghdad. A beautiful new grand mosque with a spiralling minaret and fortresses of guards all around.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, there's actually a mosque in Cairo, Mosque of Ibn Tulun, and it has a spiral there as well. Is that what inspired it?
Ali Olomi: Yes, inspired from Samarra.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, okay. So Samarra would be the military and political capital and Baghdad would be the capital for the people, the cultural hub.
Ali Olomi: Very much so. But this new militaristic warrior caliphate could only be supported if the caliph himself was a warrior who could command the loyalty of this new powerful elite guard. So for example, Mu’tasim himself would lead expeditions. In 838, he would lead his new Turkish army against the Ophilos in the battle against the Byzantine Empire. He would defeat them and personally take the gates of the city back to his new city and set it up as the gate to his own palace.
Deana Hassanein: Wow, really cementing a new style for the Abbasids here. A warrior city for a warrior caliph. But if you weren't a warrior caliph, you could get into trouble. The same force that was meant to be loyal could also be difficult to manage.
Ali Olomi: And that's what happens to Mutawakkil. So let's travel to Samarra. We take a comfortable barge up the river, floating out of Baghdad with its bustle and cacophony of color and sound. We make our way up north to the new city of Samarra. It's entirely different. It's a city of palaces and soldiers, where Baghdad was a city of science, of mathematics and celestial harmony, all reflecting the glory of God and of course, subtly the caliph. Samarra was purely about the caliph. One medieval historian describes it and says, the caliph had it decorated with great images of gold and silver and made a great pool whose surface inside and out was in plates of silver. He put on it a tree made of gold in which birds tweeted and whistled. These were the birds and trees we talked about with the Banu Musa, that mechanical tree that they made. This is the description of it. He had a great throne made of gold, which there were two images of huge lions and the steps to it had images of lions and eagles and other things, just like the throne of Solomon.
Deana Hassanein: I love your descriptions, Ali. It's my favourite part of this, by the way. And I love...
Ali Olomi: Credit to the medieval historians.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, but it's the way you delivered it. Let me get this straight. Samarra is a city of soldiers. It's a military city. It's a city that completely centres the Caliph and a city that's separate from the population of Baghdad, separated by a wall of soldiers.
Ali Olomi: And I mean, think about what that means when the palace is surrounded by military garrisons. Under Mu’tasim, it was a symbol of how powerful the Caliph was. Under Mutawakkil, it would be a threat to the Caliph himself.
Deana Hassanein: It's a real shift from what we've discussed about everything being accessible, like the palace or the house of wisdom. And I can already see where this is headed. I'm assuming Mutawakkil is a very different sort of Caliph than his father.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, where Mutasim was a warrior Caliph, al-Mutawakkil was an artsy Caliph. After his brother died, he was appointed by several powerful members of Samarra's court and he immediately began ousting those figures.
Deana Hassanein: Probably not a good idea to take on powerful figures right at the beginning of your reign. It sounds like a really good way to make enemies. I mean, we talked about the difference between smart management and bad management. Don't change things too quickly.
Ali Olomi: True, but al-Mutawakkil had some grudges to settle. In fact, there was this advisor, Ibn al-Zayt, who he had come to and asked for help and Ibn al-Zayt had publicly embarrassed him. So Mutawakkil waited, keeping those hate fires burning until he became Caliph and then he stripped him of all his possessions, threw him in jail and kept him alive for days until he died from lack of sleep.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, now that is a dish best served cold. Maybe not a good idea though to piss off someone who's eventually going to be a ruler?
Ali Olomi: Never a wise idea. But I mean, it really speaks to Mutawakkil's insecure position also. He did not command the same loyalty of others. Only a year later, he would do the same thing to Ettach, the head of the Guard. In 848, the head of the Turkish Guard would be forced to go on pilgrimage and once there, all his property would be confiscated. So when Ettach returns, it's easy to execute him.
Deana Hassanein: It sounds like he is consolidating his power in a way. He's removing all the powerful members of Samarra's court and establishing a new base.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, Mutawakkil is moving that capital away from a military one established by his father and creating a new one based off of this idea of splendor.
Deana Hassanein: I like the idea of splendor. I'm envisioning imposing but beautiful courts, people with colorful robes, poets reciting poetry, elaborate feasts, and courtiers flocking around the caliph.
Ali Olomi: Ah, your visions are true. For Mutawakkil, he would adopt this more Persian style of monarchy and prestige and the culture adapted with him. It became more luxuriant, more ostentatious. They went from this warrior, scholarly elite of Furosiye that we talked about last season to Zarifa or Zarif.
Deana Hassanein: In Arabic, Zarifa would mean interesting. This is still true to this day. It is the art of conversation, of symbolism and interaction. Everything has a meaning. You know, the gift you give, the color of the clothes you wear, the food you present. It's a culture of communication where everything you do conveys something. It governs hospitality and parties and social interactions and all of it is tied to poetry and its symbolism. We're a deep people.
Ali Olomi: That's very true. It's a very beautiful and artistic style of etiquette. I mean, even the gardens would have further symbolism in this time period. New types of flowers and plants were introduced by Mutawakkil. He was particularly obsessed with the rose.
Deana Hassanein: The rose! Is that why so many Middle Eastern gardens have roses today, Ali?
Ali Olomi: Yeah, a lot of the cultural values we've talked about, whether that spiral minaret or now roses or even the culture of Zarifa and Zarif come from this time period. He, in fact, used to call the rose the king of flowers. So he had them planted everywhere. He was also obsessed with oud.
Deana Hassanein: Oh my God. Middle Easterners are still obsessed with it, Ali. They love oud. It's in like every fragrance. It's a deep woody smell and it's burned in incense on burners, especially if you go into a home, but it's also put in a lot of perfumes and it's super expensive.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, I think it's called black gold or something like that, right?
Deana Hassanein: Correct. Yeah, that's right.
Ali Olomi: So al-Mutawakkil actually heard about this scent that was so heavenly and so he sends his envoy all the way to India to go and get some for him.
Deana Hassanein: That's passion right there.
Ali Olomi: It really is. Go to India and get me some perfume.
Deana Hassanein: I know, right? If only... I mean, we can do that now online shopping, right? The gardens have been so fragrant and beautiful with all the importing of flowers and resins and plants. We have a little bit of garden revolution on our hands.
Ali Olomi: I mean, gardens were always important, but now they became even more so. It became a cultural practice, in fact, to nap in your garden near the running water fountain to keep cool. And that makes sense. It's a very hot area. So the garden with the water would be the coolest place. There was a very famous poet, Ibrahim al-Musali, who would nap in this garden where two jinn in the form of cats would come and teach him poetry. But they warned him that if he ever taught his poetry to anyone else, they would turn those people into cats.
Deana Hassanein: Is that a bad thing?
Ali Olomi: I don't think so.
Deana Hassanein: To be turned into a cat?
Ali Olomi: I kind of like cats. It's a good life.
Deana Hassanein: I was just going to say they have a very sweet life. Cat teachers. I mean, that is a new one. Honestly, this all sounds very heavenly. Beautiful gardens, luxurious courts, fun poetry. I just don't see the problem, Ali.
Ali Olomi: Well, if you build a military city with a new type of politics based on the military and then you spend your times building gardens and having parties, you're probably going to piss off that military.
Deana Hassanein: And in a city like Samara, you are literally surrounded by the new soldiers you've elevated. Garrisons all around. But I have to ask, Ali, why were they so annoyed that he was enjoying his time in the gardens?
Ali Olomi: Well, they wanted war. They're soldiers. They wanted more action. Because if they get action, they get booty. They get treasure. They get gold. And that was Mutawakkil's undoing. One night when he had gathered with his close friends, he was drinking and eating. His own Turkish guards decided that they were going to bring him to an end. They wanted a new caliph, a warrior caliph that would lead them into battle and bring them new wealth. So in the dead of the night, when the caliph had been just a little drunk, having just a little bit too much wine, they snuck into the palace. They were the guards who were going to question them. Led by Bugha the Ox, they march into the caliph's throne room. The caliph's friends throw themselves over the caliph in order to protect him. But they swing with their swords, killing them first. Then they strike at the caliph. For the first time, the white robes of the caliph would be stained with blood.
Deana Hassanein: The murder of a caliph. Caliphs have been killed before, but this seems very different, Ali. Your own troops turning on you. It also really makes clear how powerful the Turkish soldiers were at that time. Even if Mu'tasim and Mutawaklil were trying to consolidate the power of the caliph again, the Abbasids were very different. They are not as powerful as they once were.
Ali Olomi: It's a completely different political landscape. The death of Mutawakil would usher in the anarchy in Samarra. After that, there would be a massive succession crisis between Al-Muntasir on one side and Al-Mutaz on the other side.
Deana Hassanein: So even though Al-Ma'mun stabilized the empire in his lifetime and his successor Mu'tasim consolidated the power for a brief time, the fractures were too big. Things had changed too much. The civil war had changed the Abbasid empire. There would be no anarchy in Samarra without the war of two brothers.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, and the fact that they now had two capitals was emblematic of that fracture. Baghdad would continue on. The Abbasids would continue on. They would still be a powerful empire, but something had changed. Their power was waning.
Deana Hassanein: The politics of this time period is so fraught. From civil wars between brothers to rebellion from your own troops to even competing capitals, Mutawakkil's cultural innovations couldn't stem the changing politics. What a fascinating time with fascinating people. And we have so many more cool people to visit that you will encounter in the game. Thank you for all coming along. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast so you don't miss the next episode of Figures of Baghdad. See you next time, fellow travelers.

Who was Qabiha?

Ali Olomi: A jewel in the desert.
Deana Hassanein: A round city full of merchants, rulers and scholars.
Ali Olomi: The great minds of the Abbasid Empire.
Deana Hassanein: This is Figures of Baghdad. Hello fellow travelers, welcome to Figures of Baghdad. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali.
Deana Hassanein: Last episode we left Baghdad and we're still not returning yet.
Ali Olomi: Not yet.
Deana Hassanein: You and I visited the city of Samarra and I want to visit the harem in this city. I'm curious to see how different it is to Baghdad.
Ali Olomi: And the last time we talked about the harem it was very different than expected, no?
Deana Hassanein: Completely. It wasn't just a place of relaxation, rejuvenation and pleasure. It's the private quarters of the Caliph and his family.
Ali Olomi: And it's important to note that the harem probably emerged gradually rather than being a sort of fixed institution in Islamic societies.
Deana Hassanein: Originally the harem was part of the Middle East and older empires. Once the Muslims came on the scene they adapted some of the local customs like the harem.
Ali Olomi: Right. In fact in the early periods of the Abbasids the harem wasn't particularly common. Even among the Caliphs. In the 8th and the 9th century most of the queens and princesses had their own palaces. I mean you remember Khizran?
Deana Hassanein: As if I could forget her. The queen who started off as a slave and shaped the entire succession of the Abbasids when she chose Harun al-Rashid over her other son.
Ali Olomi: And she had her own palace. While she probably had some type of private quarters with the Caliph, she had her own palace. We also know that Zubaydah had her own on the banks of the river.
Deana Hassanein: And that makes perfect sense to me. If the harem was developed because of changing social conditions for the Caliph and the adoption of older Persian institutions then of course the queens and princesses would have their own palaces. But as with most things in this world Ali, it eventually changes.
Ali Olomi: It's really around that late 9th century that we start to see more and more the use of the harem among the Abbasid Caliphate. It really coincides with a clear shift towards this Persian style of monarchy that we saw under Mutawakkil in the last episode. So you have a Persian style monarchy, a Persian style city and now a Persian style harem.
Deana Hassanein: So more and more elite and royal women would be secluded through social convention. They were still politically powerful but they were adapting to new cultural norms.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, cultural norms is a really good way of thinking about it. There wasn't a law that prohibited royal women out in public but social pressure and convention were really powerful motivating forces. And as you said, they could still shape politics from inside the harem.
Deana Hassanein: So the harem would also become a place of politics. Families are already messy Ali but add in politics and I can only imagine the drama. The place that was supposed to be the refuge of the Caliph could become pretty intense.
Ali Olomi: And out of that harem politics, we would see some incredibly fascinating women emerge.
Deana Hassanein: We've already talked about Khayzuran and Zubaydah, compelling and interesting figures.
Ali Olomi: And Buran, who was the advisor to her husband al-Ma'mun.
Deana Hassanein: I remember her. She was also a scientist and a scholar in her own right.
Ali Olomi: That's her. And in Samar, we would have another powerful woman, Qabiha.
Deana Hassanein: Now wait a minute Ali, doesn't Qabiha mean ugly in Arabic? I mean beauty is in the eye of the beholder but did people think she was unattractive?
Ali Olomi: The opposite actually Deana. She was supposed to be stunning, beautiful physically and in manner. Her name was probably meant to be ironic.
Deana Hassanein: Well that's a little confusing. Was she more like Khayzuran or Zubaydah?
Ali Olomi: Khayzuran. Qabiha was another one of these politically powerful but very deadly queens.
Deana Hassanein: Now we know how deadly the politics of this time period could be. So of course it would be the same for the harem politics. The stakes were just too high. You were competing for who would become the next Caliph. And for queens like Khayzuran and I'm guessing Qabiha, it was about making sure their sons inherit.
Ali Olomi: And through their sons, they could shape the entire empire Deana. Qabiha, like Khayzuran, had these humble origins, probably Greek we think and she was likely a concubine. She quickly would become the favorite of Mutawakkil, enchanting him with her manner. One night when he comes to visit her, she has tattooed his name in henna on her face.
Deana Hassanein: Would you ever get a tattoo on your face Ali?
Ali Olomi: No, no. My face can't. I have a beard already so I can't support any tattoos.
Deana Hassanein: That was a risk and I mean it paid off. Honestly, I've seen some face tattoos and maybe Qabiha had a good idea there but that wouldn't work for me.
Ali Olomi: I mean yeah. What would even happen if you get your partner's name tattooed and you then break up? I mean at least with henna it washes off eventually.
Deana Hassanein: That's true, that's true. But it's still a risk.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, but it definitely worked for Qabiha. Mutawakkil was smitten. With her direction, he appointed her son Mu’tazz to be his successor and he gave her full control over the court festivities.
Deana Hassanein: And from the Zarif or Zarafa culture we talked about, parties and planning all carried important meaning now. Nothing was casual. Everything was intentional.
Ali Olomi: Everything had symbolic power. Now add to this that she was a bit of an architect. So she designed large palace audience halls.

She created this open and beautiful space to celebrate her son and for Nowruz.

Deana Hassanein: On a side note, I love how these figures that we're learning about all have multiple talents and occupations.
Ali Olomi: They're very talented.
Deana Hassanein: You mentioned Nowruz. Nowruz is a Persian word. It means new day or new year.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, it's the Persian new year which along with these other customs we've talked about, the palace, the harem, the city, they were all adopted by the Abbasids.
Deana Hassanein: I really love how every culture has new year celebrations and variously beautiful ways of looking to the future.
Ali Olomi: And the Persian new year is actually celebrated on the spring equinox we should point out.
Deana Hassanein: Which makes sense more so than the random calendar date that we've picked.
Ali Olomi: I mean, I quite like Nowruz. People put out these special tables with symbolic items to draw in good fortune for the year. You've got mirrors and fruits and sweets. They read poetry in their horoscopes and hope for a good year.
Deana Hassanein: My best friends are actually Persian and they always get goldfish too. That's part of the spread, right?
Ali Olomi: Yeah.
Deana Hassanein: It sounds like such an important festival and Qahiba plays a big part in shaping it. We really can't overlook how important cultural power like that could be. Especially in Samarra where symbolism and formality would become part of the court culture.
Ali Olomi: Right, and Khabiha was the master of that. Her influence even extended to the issue of succession. She had already secured the Caliphate for her son. But with the death of Mutawakkil in 861, the anarchy in Samarra would begin and last until 870.
Deana Hassanein: I can see how like the War of the Two Brothers, the anarchy would pit faction against faction. The Turkish guards, which were loyal to the Caliph, turned on Mutawakkil and chaos would ensue.
Ali Olomi: It was bad. There was a series of rapid succession Caliphs. First, Al-Muntasir was elevated to the Caliphate by the soldiers who had supported him over Qabiha's favourite, Mu'tazz. But he was poisoned within about six months. Some say he died of natural causes, some say poisoned.
Deana Hassanein: Which one do you think it is?
Ali Olomi: I think poison. I always think it's poison. And then you had Musta'in, who was a cousin and he was appointed. But the situation was rocky. So along with his supporters, led by Bugha, the guy who killed Mutawakkil, they would flee to Baghdad. That allowed Mu'tazz to be named Caliph in Samarra. So now you have two Caliphs. That means the anarchy would become civil war.
Deana Hassanein: It really seems that killing Mutawakkil unleashed something. Caliphs had been murdered in the past. That's not new. But it was always hinted at a secret plot. The outright killing of a Caliph, however, by his own troops is such a different affair.
Ali Olomi: It marked a new type of political force. The Mamluk Turkish soldiers were now kingmakers.
Deana Hassanein: Two Caliphs, two capital cities, two warring factions. It sounds really familiar, Ali. It's like the war of the two brothers with the new factions and a new capital. Yet another civil war.
Ali Olomi: And this civil war would be brutal, Deana. Some historians actually think it was worse than the war with the two brothers. The forces of Samarra under Mu'tazz raised the agricultural grounds and cut off the canals leading to Baghdad.
Deana Hassanein: And that's important because the canals were the lifeblood allowing trade and resources. The entire movement of goods and people is through the winding roads and canals.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. In the end, it would be Qabiha, actually, who works out a truce of sorts. She sends a message to al-Musta'in and convinces him to abdicate and return for his safety. And in fact, she relies on some old friends that we visited earlier, the Banu Musa.
Deana Hassanein: Wow. So Qabiha literally ends the war. That's a huge diplomatic win.
Ali Olomi: And she gets even a bigger win from there. So first she works behind the scenes with the Banu Musa. You can see how the Banu Musa and Qabiha become the powers behind the throne. But then it's not enough that al-Musta'in abdicates. She turns to one of the Turkish guards, ibn Tulum, and says, kill him and bring me his head. And he does. Musta'in is killed. His head is brought to Mu'tazz, her son, who's busy playing chess. So he says, throw it over there. And that is the end of the previous caliph.
Deana Hassanein: Talk about securing your son's position, Ali. Qabiha was taking no prisoners.
Ali Olomi: Literally.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, she does give me Khaizeron vibes. A powerful queen playing a lethal game of politics.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, and Qabiha ends as one of the most powerful people in this time period. She's also super wealthy.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, now that gives me more Zubaydah vibes, who used her wealth to support the different projects of Baghdad.
Ali Olomi: Well, sort of, but not exactly. She has a slightly different use for her wealth. Mu'tazz's power is not particularly secure. And at one point, the Turkish guard will put him under arrest and demand a ransom. So he turns to his mommy, he turns to Qabiha, and says, Qabiha, you've got to help me out. But Qabiha says, I have no money. And this pisses off the Turkish guards. So they put him in prison until he dies. Angered, they storm her palace, only to find it empty. She had disappeared. Where did she go? They start to tap on the walls, and they discover a false wall. Pushing it open, they find a secret tunnel where she had escaped. And wall to wall, gold. They were so angry, they accused her. For a few dinars, you had allowed your son to die. And so she's exiled to Mecca and Medina.
Deana Hassanein: Number one, these Turkish soldiers are really problematic.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, I know.
Deana Hassanein: They're causing a lot of issues.
Ali Olomi: Caliph after Caliph.
Deana Hassanein: I know, right? And number two, Qabiha, you didn't value your son?
Ali Olomi: Apparently not. She put him on the throne, but she didn't work. And she even gave him the throne a second time, when she forces another Caliph to abdicate. But then in the end, abandons him. It's possible the story is a little bit made up to malign her.
Deana Hassanein: To make her seem like an evil mother.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, a retroactive, oh, she was actually a bad mom.
Deana Hassanein: I don't even know what to say. She's such a complicated, but interesting figure. No doubt, Qabiha was powerful. We'll give her that. She shaped the succession, secured power for her son, even commanding the Turkish guards before they turned on her. I do want to hear more about her son though, because I get a feeling that there is even more to the anarchy in Samarra. But we'll leave that for the next episode. Thank you for coming along. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast, so you don't miss the next episode of Figures of Baghdad. See you next time, fellow travelers.

Who was al-Mu'tazz?

Ali Olomi: A jewel in the desert.
Deana Hassanein: A round city full of merchants, rulers and scholars.
Ali Olomi: The great minds of the Abbasid Empire.
Deana Hassanein: This is Figures of Baghdad. Hello fellow travellers, welcome to Figures of Baghdad. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali.
Deana Hassanein: Ali, the chaos of the anarchy in Samarra is even more intense than the war of the two brothers. I liked how you put it.
Ali Olomi: From anarchy to civil war.
Deana Hassanein: And the people involved from Musta'in to Qabiha and all Martas are in a lot of ways caught up by different factions.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, we can see how people like Al-Mu'tazz try to navigate the politics of the Turkish guard only to really become victims of it. You'll see some of these guards actually in the game.
Deana Hassanein: We had a bit of a spoiler because we kind of know what happens to Al-Mu'tazz.
Ali Olomi: And he has an interesting story and a really messy life.
Deana Hassanein: Those are my favourite.
Ali Olomi: And he's Mutawakkil's favourite too. Probably because of his love for Qabiha. Mutawakkil increasingly favours Mu'tazz over his eldest son, Al-Mu'tasir.
He even makes moves to make Al-Mu'tazz his successor.
Deana Hassanein: Which is what started the anarchy in Samara. The Turkish guard sided with Al-Mu'tasir and assassinated the Caliph.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, on that night Al-Mu'tazz is actually pressured by the powerful factions backing Al-Mu'tasir to relinquish any claim he has on the Caliphate and to give an oath of allegiance to his brother. Now these oaths of allegiance are incredibly important in medieval society. It's what forges the relationship between people and groups. But it doesn't seem to be enough this time.
Deana Hassanein: If everything had gone smoothly that should have been the end of it.
Ali Olomi: But Al-Mu'tasir is killed or maybe he dies. Only a couple months later though and without an heir.
Deana Hassanein: So technically Al-Mu'tazz should be Caliph now. He was his father's favourite son and he was a younger brother to Al-Mu'tasir.
Ali Olomi: Right, but again the Turkish guard intervene. Instead his cousin is appointed Caliph, Al-Musta'in.
Deana Hassanein: So the Turkish military basically takes over succession entirely. They're deciding who gets to be Caliph. That's how powerful they've become. Because they were a separate faction built by the Caliph to be loyal to the Caliph. They end up having more direct influence and power over the Caliph.
Ali Olomi: And of course add to that the geography of Samarra.
Deana Hassanein: That's right, where Baghdad was a city full of all sorts. But Samarra was built as a military and administrative city.
Ali Olomi: Right, and we definitely can't overlook how the military structure of Samarra lent power to the troops over Khalda Caliph. In a lot of ways the Caliph was at the mercy of those troops. He's quite literally surrounded by them. But which of the troops is the question?
Deana Hassanein: You had grand Caliphal palaces that displayed the power of the Khalif, surrounded by the military garrisons of the Turkish troops. The garrisons projected military power, but that military power now was directed at the Caliph himself.
Ali Olomi: And then there were the main rivals to the Turkish Mamluks, the Shakariya, elite cavalry troops.
Deana Hassanein: Because in addition to the Turkish Guard, there were other factions like the Anbar and Khurasaniyya. Let's break these down a bit more. Some of these we've heard about before Ali.
Ali Olomi: That's right. The Anbar were the elite old guard who descended from the Arabs who had settled in the region. The Mamluks were the Turkish slave soldiers who came to dominate in Samarra. The Khurasaniyya were mounted Persian troops. And the Shakariya were an elite cavalry unit. Some of these you'll actually get a glimpse of in the game.
Deana Hassanein: That is a lot of different military factions.
Ali Olomi: That's what makes the anarchy in Samarra so chaotic. The Shakariya in fact at one point rebel on behalf of Al-Mu’tazz and have to be put down. They charge the honor guard of Musta'in. The Caliph tries to buy them off, but it quickly gets out of hand and fighting breaks out in the streets. The losses are heavy on both sides.
Deana Hassanein: The position of the Caliph is a lot weaker than in the past. We have the assassination of one Caliph, the attacking of another and chaos in the streets.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. To secure his position, Musta'in places his cousin Al-Mu’tazz under house arrest. He needs to keep him under close watch just in case he's behind the various unruly troops.
Deana Hassanein: So he puts him in jail. Actually Ali, we haven't really talked much about jails until this point.
Ali Olomi: It's a little tricky because there isn't exactly a prison system as we imagine it today. Long-term imprisonment is not usually sanctioned by Islamic law. The only prisons that existed were usually military institutions that dealt with prisoners of war. For everyone else, detention was relatively short-term and pretty insecure. I mean, the oldest prisons of the Caliph were like literally house dwellings.
Deana Hassanein: That sounds very different from the prisons with bars that we see today. It doesn't sound very secure at all actually. I think anyone could escape.
Ali Olomi: They weren't very secure and you know, the mention of escape is bringing up a funny story for me. And during one of the early Caliphates, there were two twins and one of which was imprisoned. But because the dwellings weren't particularly secure, they would switch spots so that they could have a weekend off. Literally pulling off the old twin switcheroo.
Deana Hassanein: Weekends off, that's actually really funny. It sounds like something straight out of a TV show. So when the records say the Caliph was imprisoned, they don't actually mean a prison system with bars or gates, something else basically.
Ali Olomi: It's more akin to a type of house arrest. Still probably unpleasant though, but Almutaz was placed in this type of house arrest and likely kept in one of the palaces in Samara.
Deana Hassanein: Mu’tazz’s fortunes really fluctuate from the favorite son of his father to being imprisoned by his own cousin. Talk about bad luck.
Ali Olomi: And we've got another twist to his story, because along comes Abu Ma'shir.
Deana Hassanein: The famous astrologer. I remember you reading one of his horoscopes for my star sign.
Ali Olomi: That's right. Our boy, the man, the myth, the legend himself. Apparently, Abu Ma'shir had gotten in trouble with Al-Musta'in, which is, you know, typical of Abu Ma'shir. At one time, the Caliph asks him for the prediction of a particular event, and Abu Ma'shir does so, but the outcome is unfavorable to the Caliph, and that pisses him off a little bit. But worse, the prediction comes true. So not only is it unfavorable, but Abu Ma'shir is right. So what does Al-Musta'in do? He has him flogged, to which Abu Ma'shir responds quite humorously, I hit the mark, so got hit.
Deana Hassanein: I'm really starting to like Abu Ma'shir. He has such a mischievous personality, and he's so quotable. From his troubles in the fondot back in season one, to his problems with the Caliph.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, he's one of my favorites. So he was down on his luck, because he had gotten flogged by Al-Musta'in. So he took a gamble, a big one. He cast a horoscope on a napkin, and predicted that Mu'tazz would be elevated to the Caliphate eventually. Then, in the dead of the night, he secretly passes that napkin to the imprisoned Mu'tazz through a window, telling him, be patient, you will be Caliph soon. And sure enough, Mu'tazz does eventually ascend to the Caliphate.
Deana Hassanein: Abu Ma'shir coming through again, I bet it must have been a huge relief for Mu'tazz to receive that type of news. And of course, that helps Abu Ma'shir too. He'd be back in favor with the new Caliph.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. Mu'tazz appoints Abu Ma'shir to the position of court astrologer, and gives him a handsome reward. But Mu'taz's turn of fortune is not really an easy one. In 865 CE, Mu'ta'in takes his supporters to Baghdad, having increasingly lost control of some of the Turkish soldiers in Samarra.
Deana Hassanein: The anarchy forces him to leave his military city, so he goes to Baghdad.
Ali Olomi: Back to the old capital, hoping to gather with his supporters there. With Al-Musta'in gone, the remaining troops free Al-Mu'tazz and name him Caliph, just as Abu Ma'shir predicted.
Deana Hassanein: Okay, let's recap this again. So he goes from favorite son, to passed over for succession, to imprisoned, and now Caliph.
Ali Olomi: But a Caliph facing a civil war.
Deana Hassanein: And we know from the life of Qabiha what happens. With his new position, he lays siege to Baghdad, and thanks to his mother Qabiha, he's able to force Mu'ta'in to relinquish his claim to the Caliphate.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, but by that time, the damage had been done. Even though the civil war really only lasted a year, a lot shorter in fact than the war of the two brothers, it was devastating.
Deana Hassanein: We heard about the damage to the city. The once glorious round city was scarred by war, broken roads, damaged canals, and destroyed buildings.
Ali Olomi: The damage was devastating, Deana. We have historians at the time mentioning how long it took to rebuild the city. Even the great mosque was damaged. And of course, the political situation would continue to deteriorate as well. Despite winning the civil war, Mu'tazz would be the next victim of the anarchy in Samarra.
Deana Hassanein: Navigating politics was tricky enough, but having to balance the loyalties of the different military factions is even more fraught. The addition of the Turkish troops that were initially loyal directly to the Caliph, but who became a power block of their own, meant now the Caliph had to manage their interests too. In other words, the Caliph's own guards had to be managed carefully.
Ali Olomi: And Mu'tazz really tries that. He slowly replaced the heads of the various Turkish troops, Burgha, Wassef al-Turki, and others, consolidating his power, trying to manage the different factions. But he's unable to pay off the troops who had lifted him up to the Caliphate.
Deana Hassanein: The anarchy in Samarra, plus a year-long civil war, would have depleted the treasury for sure. The money it takes to buy off troops, to mobilize a war, and then the funds needed to rebuild would be incredibly costly. I also imagine if the Caliph's position is weak, then it's hard to bring in further revenue from the territories. He's trying to manage the unruliness of Samarra and Baghdad, which leaves little time for anything else.
Ali Olomi: Too true, Deana. That becomes his undoing, really. He tries to sideline the powerful Tahirid family in Baghdad. We'll actually talk about them next. And eventually, the son of Wassef, Saleh, comes to power.
Deana Hassanein: That's when they demand their payment, and al-Mu'tazz has to turn to his mother, who, for whatever reason, ends up abandoning her son.
Ali Olomi: And once she doesn't pay, he's imprisoned and dies in 869 at the hands of the very troops that put him in power in the first place. He ruled for roughly three years. I mean, this time, the troops take great pains to demonstrate they didn't directly kill him. They put his body and white cloak on display to his family to show that it was not stained with blood, like in the case of al-Mutawakkil. But the reality is that they likely abused him in prison, and he died of either thirst or their brutality.
Deana Hassanein: Yet another caliph killed. How many caliphs come into power and fall during the anarchy in Samar, Ali?
Ali Olomi: Well, from al-Mutawakkil, you have al-Muntasir and al-Musta'in, al-Mu'tazz. And then there's al-Mu'tadi, who only really rules for about a year. And then finally, al-Muta'mid, who, along with his brother, puts an end to the anarchy in Samar. So in total, we're looking at like five or so caliphs who die or are murdered by one faction or another.
Deana Hassanein: Gosh, that really highlights how badly things have changed. The Abbasid caliphate, now with two capitals, was more divided than ever.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, too true. Al-Mu'tawakkil would really stabilize the empire again. But you're absolutely right. The politics were just so different now. The Abbasid dynasty was fractured. And though they would continue to be a powerful force for several more centuries, in fact, to the 13th century, the politics would be fraught. This was their new reality. Baghdad would continue to be intellectually, culturally, and even politically important. But the power of the caliph himself was waning. The empire remained strong for centuries still, but something had changed.
Deana Hassanein: Mu'tazz's changing fortunes from favorite son to passed over to imprisoned to caliph to betrayed by his own troops highlight the changing fortunes of the empire itself. Caliphs were now being appointed by the very guards they brought in to protect them. They had become just another player in the game of politics rather than the player. And the chaos doesn't end with Anarchy and Samarra. Stay tuned for the seeds of rebellion. Thank you all for coming along. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast so that you don't miss the next episode of Figures of Baghdad. See you next time, fellow travelers.

Who was Muhammad ibn Abdallah ibn Tahir?

Ali Olomi: A jewel in the desert.
Deana Hassanein: A round city full of merchants, rulers and scholars.
Ali Olomi: The great minds of the Abbasid Empire.
Deana Hassanein: This is Figures of Baghdad. Hello fellow travelers, welcome to Figures of Baghdad. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali.
Deana Hassanein: Ali, visiting Samarra has been chaotic. The courts and palaces sound beautiful, but the scheming and never mind the anarchy, makes me miss the good old days of Baghdad. Not that it was any more peaceful, but I'm kind of feeling nostalgic.
Ali Olomi: I feel you, Deana. Why don't we take a barge and float down to the city of peace? It's been a while.
Deana Hassanein: That sounds like a beautiful plan. Back to where our journey began. Back to the round city with its palace, its mosque and the house.
Ali Olomi: But fair warning, the chaos of the anarchy in Samarra, it's likely going to follow us to Baghdad.
Deana Hassanein: Of course, this is a time of two caliphs in two cities. A contest between al-Mu'tazz on the one hand versus al-Musta'in, between Samarra versus Baghdad.
Ali Olomi: Too right. And the real power in Baghdad wasn't even the caliph. When the caliphate moved to Samarra, Baghdad came under the control of the powerful Tahirid family.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, so like many things, this goes back to the war of the two brothers from last season.
Ali Olomi: Exactly.
Deana Hassanein: Al-Ma'mun didn't just revive the caliphate, but had such a strong influence on the politics that would come after him. So many of the caliphs tried to emulate him, but failed. And so many of the powerful families and factions that emerged go back to his time.
Ali Olomi: Couldn't agree more. It was really him who elevated the Tahirids. Tahir and later his son, Abdullah ibn Tahir, were originally al-Ma'mun's most important political allies. The Tahirids helped al-Ma'mun, in fact, restore order to the region after the civil war and buttress the power of the caliph. They likely originated from the eastern parts of Persia known as Khorasan, so there are deep roots and connections that they could call upon to support al-Ma'mun and stabilize his empire.
Deana Hassanein: What really stands out from the war of the two brothers is just how competent and influential the supporters of al-Ma'mun were. The Abbasids, for all their power, relied on effective administrators and allies.
Ali Olomi: Which is really how all large empires were. If you ruled over big swaths of territory, even if you had a strong army, you needed loyal and competent allies who could handle the different regions for you.
Deana Hassanein: And for al-Ma'mun, this was the Tahirids.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. They became an incredibly influential family. Eventually, they are going to be appointed the governors of Khorasan, where I mentioned they're probably from.
Deana Hassanein: And that was originally al-Ma'mun's own power base. Khorasan is a large region that includes so many different countries today, from Iran to Afghanistan to Uzbekistan. And it was from there the Abbasids initially drew their power. So giving the Tahirids Khorasan is a huge deal.
Ali Olomi: Right. It links the Tahirids with the Abbasids and it cements them as the most important dynasty and allies of the caliphate. Eventually, they would even have control of Baghdad itself.
Deana Hassanein: With the caliphate moving to Samarra, the Abbasids would need someone to manage and run their old capital. After all, Baghdad was still the cultural and intellectual heart of their empire, the place of the house of wisdom. So it makes sense they turned to their oldest allies.
Ali Olomi: In the 9th century, Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Tahir is going to be appointed governor of the city and general of the shurta. That's the city guard. And he would hold that position, in fact, for 15 years.
Deana Hassanein: Ali, being governor of Baghdad must have been an incredibly important position. They are like the courtiers around the caliph himself. But Baghdad is still Baghdad, symbolically, culturally, and financially central to the empire. All roads lead to Baghdad after all.
Ali Olomi: And ibn Tahir would make the most of that. In fact, you're going to see him as an important character within the game itself. And in history, he builds even more roads leading to Baghdad, establishes even more canals, and under his policy, Baghdad thrives. Even if Samarra was where the caliph was, Baghdad doesn't lose any of its importance.
Deana Hassanein: So Samarra may have had its grand palaces, but Baghdad was still the city of peace. The dream of Al-Mansur and where all the merchants are hanging out.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. And that's what makes it a wealthy city, Deana. All that tax revenue is flowing through the city.
Deana Hassanein: And with the house of wisdom, all the scholars and intellectuals are coming to Baghdad still.
Ali Olomi: As we see in the game itself, ibn Tahir will become an important patron of the arts. Like all who participate in the Khasa culture of Baghdad, he was literate, a poet, in fact, and a great patron.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, I remember the Khasa from last season. It was the elite chivalrous culture based around art, poetry, and nightly pursuits like archery and horse riding, right?
Ali Olomi: That's right. Ibn Tahir was the embodiment of that, in fact. He was one of the patrons of the Bana Musa, our old friends. After the death of Al-Ma'mun, he continues to support the three brothers in their endeavors.
Deana Hassanein: My favorite three brothers, Muhammad, Ahmad, and Hassan. They were physicians, engineers, mathematicians, astronomers, and political schemers. And now Ibn Tahir was their patron. So they went from one powerful patron to another.
Ali Olomi: By this time, they were already independently wealthy. But Ibn Tahir relied on Muhammad of the Bana Musa to run his treasury. His use of al-Jarrah would make the treasury and the tax system incredibly effective. Empires always care about taxes. You know what they say, the two things you can't avoid.
Deana Hassanein: Death and taxes.
Ali Olomi: That's right.
Deana Hassanein: You know, Ali, one of the things that stand out to me is how wealthy the scholars become. Some have very humble origins like al-Jahiz, but in the end, many of them become wealthy themselves. It really speaks to how highly prized scholars were. I mean, no judgment, but the Bani Musa are the sons of a thief and con artists and now are independently wealthy.
Ali Olomi: You know, that's a good point. We see a great example of why this is, in fact, with Ibn Tahir. He hires one such scholar, the historian, Faleb, to be a tutor for his son. And the historian describes how cushy that job was. He says that he teaches the son for four hours a day. He has extravagant meals with banquets. And he says, quote, he gave me a salary of a thousand dirham per month.
Deana Hassanein: Four hours a day, extravagant meals and a thousand dirhams. That must have been so high for that time period.
Ali Olomi: It would be enough that Faleb would go on to become an incredibly wealthy man, in fact, owning land of his own.
Deana Hassanein: And the extravagant meals must have been a sign of Ibn Tahir's generosity and part of that elite khasa culture.
Ali Olomi: Right. Ibn Tahir, like many Baghdad leaders, was an intellectual, but one who would use his wealth to support poets, scholars and other intellectuals. So it was a sign of his generosity, but also his duty in the pursuit of knowledge and culture. It drives home just how much Ibn Tahir and others like him valued scholars. The rich and the powerful genuinely wanted to spend their money on learning and knowledge. It also is a demonstration of his own power. I mean, think about it. It's power through generosity. Demonstrating how much you can give.
Deana Hassanein: And as a governor, he would have the wealth and power to truly show off and in turn, it could be taken as a sign of his influence. We already saw with Zubaydah how influential a person can be by supporting the scholars.
Ali Olomi: And it's matched by his political power. He would play a central role in the anarchy in Samarra.
Deana Hassanein: That's right, because the anarchy eventually leads to a battle between the forces of Samarra and the forces of Baghdad.
Ali Olomi: Yeah, when al-Musta'in flees Samarra for Baghdad, he will take up residence in Ibn Tahir's palace.
Deana Hassanein: So in other words, he turns to the most powerful ally of the Caliphate, the Tahrids.
Ali Olomi: And just like in that last civil war, it will be the Tahrids, the ones who had supported the Abbasids in the first place and the people who had stabilized their empire, who will come through. But this time, it would be Ibn Tahir who will have a large hand in shaping the outcome of the conflict.
Deana Hassanein: Gosh Ali, it's so interesting to see how similar elements and themes keep popping up.
Ali Olomi: Right. To paraphrase Mark Twain, history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
Deana Hassanein: Oh, I like that. And it's so true for this. So Ibn Tahir would have organized the defense of Baghdad on behalf of his caliph, right?
Ali Olomi: And when Mu’tazz comes down from Samar, he's confronted by that organized resistance. He has a fully fortified and prepared Baghdad waiting for him. Ibn Tahir even recruits the local citizens to defend the city, giving them bows and arrows and clubs and paying them from the treasury.
Deana Hassanein: And I remember from season one with the War of the Two Brothers, just how crucial the local population can be. They can hold out against invading forces.
Ali Olomi: And they did for a long time. Ibn Tahir was able to rally the troops several times. He gave important speeches from the balcony of his palace and personally would walk the caliph to the mosque of Al-Mansur in the center of the city for Friday prayers, which would motivate the troops.
Deana Hassanein: And we've spoken before about how important the Friday prayers could be. The symbol of the caliph walking to those Friday prayers was equally important. But in the end, it just wasn't enough. Al-Mu'tazz still defeats them.
Ali Olomi: Yeah. After a year of fighting, hunger begins to set in the city and the people demand that either Ibn Tahir rallies the troops to defend Al-Musta'in or he negotiates peace.
Deana Hassanein: And that's when Qabiha steps in. She sends representatives to negotiate a peace deal.
Ali Olomi: That's right. Under Qabiha's influence, the two sides meet under a great red pavilion set up by Ibn Tahir, where they negotiate a truce that involves Al-Musta'in abdicating the caliphate.
Deana Hassanein: One of the many reasons I love Qabiha. So Ibn Tahir does in fact save the city. After defending it, he does what he has to do to ensure Baghdad survives.
Ali Olomi: And really, he walks away stronger for it. He is reconfirmed as governor of Baghdad and he's to receive a third of all the revenue, which would make him incredibly wealthy. And he'd enjoy that position until his death.
Deana Hassanein: So politically savvy. Imagine fighting a war that you'd technically lose, but still walk away a winner.
Ali Olomi: It really is a win-win for Ibn Tahir. And his influence is just another one of his lasting legacies. Like the emergence of that military faction, the Tahirids would mark the beginning of the rise of the great families. While the caliphate would be stabilized after the anarchy in Samarra, the end of course the empire will survive and thrive for several more centuries, it would now be dominated by two factions. A professional military class, that's the influence of the Turkish Mamluk, and the powerful families like the Samanids and the Buyids, that's the influence of the Tahirids.
Deana Hassanein: It's also interesting how despite the caliph being the ruler, a lot of the power rests with the people behind the scenes, the people pulling the strings.
Ali Olomi: Exactly, from Qabiha influencing the succession and intervening in civil wars, to Ibn Tahir and his influence over al-Musta'in, together they would manage to get a caliph to abdicate and likely save the empire from even further chaos.
Deana Hassanein: I've said this so many times, but this period of history is so interesting and full of surprises. So let's recap. The Abbasids continued to rule, but they would have to rely on new powerful factions. They would be caught between the military elite and the political elite. Ibn Tahir and his political acumen not only shaped the intellectual culture of Baghdad, but he quite literally saved it from ruin, and in turn would usher in a new type of politics. The consequences of the anarchy of Samarra were long-lasting, and the chaos doesn't end there. Thank you all for coming along. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to the Echoes of History podcast so you don't miss the next episode of Figures of Baghdad. See you next time, fellow travelers.

Who was Ali ibn Muhammad?

Ali Olomi: A jewel in the desert.
Deana Hassanein: A round city full of merchants, rulers and scholars.
Ali Olomi: The great minds of the Abbasid Empire.
Deana Hassanein: This is Figures of Baghdad. Hello fellow travellers, I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali.
Deana Hassanein: Ali, I'm hearing something in the distance. Can you hear it too?
Ali Olomi: I do, I hear drums, the drums of rebellion.
Deana Hassanein: Away from Baghdad and Samarra and the politics of the court and military, something new was stirring. Tell us what we'd see, Ali.
Ali Olomi: If we travel just a little south, we would see large marshlands with people working in. These were mostly enslaved people and the heart of the agricultural world of Baghdad.
Deana Hassanein: We've touched on slavery here and there. Some of the queens we discussed were enslaved. And even some of the historical figures either owned slaves or were one themselves.
Ali Olomi: That's right. The Abbasids, like most societies of this time period, were a slave society. But historians debate the terminology a bit.
Deana Hassanein: In school, we talked about different types of slavery throughout history. When we think of slaves today, we generally think of the slave trade that kidnapped Africans to the Americas.
Ali Olomi: Right, we think of the transatlantic slave trade, which was especially brutal. Slavery in the Abbasid world was complicated. The enslaved were part of the society and had certain rights. They were even paid. We saw how some of them could become kingmakers, viziers, own land. And some even owned slaves themselves. But that doesn't make this system better or more humane. It's still slavery. These individuals were not free. They were exploited and abused. They couldn't suddenly decide to stop being a slave. Any system that owns another is going to be brutal.
Deana Hassanein: True, and the nuances and differences don't make it better, but it's important to note because they matter in the context of this period.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. When we arrive in the marshes beyond Baghdad, we would see enslaved people working the land, many of whom were Zanj, a region in Southeast Africa, but also people of other backgrounds.
Deana Hassanein: And as you said, the marshes are a place of agriculture. I would imagine with the connection to the Tigris and the Euphrates, it was prime real estate for farming. I know that's how Egypt used the rich soil around the Nile.
Ali Olomi: Exactly. But here there would be farming, building various platforms, draining the marsh, and other activities. That's because the Tigris and the Euphrates were far more volatile than the Nile.
Deana Hassanein: And anyone who's done farm work can tell you it's hard work. Add to that that this is forced labor by people who are not free, and these are not ideal conditions.
Ali Olomi: They are extremely hard conditions, Deana, and it would be those exact conditions that plant the seeds of rebellion. For you see, if you look closely among the marshlands, you will see a man preaching to the Zanj.
Deana Hassanein: When you say preaching, do you mean like religiously?
Ali Olomi: Yeah, like a messiah. This is Ali ibn Muhammad, a man of mysterious background who had been rabble-rousing against the Abbasids around their empire for a while. Now here in the marshes, he's found his audience.
Deana Hassanein: And the conditions would be just right for this. The Anarchy in Samarra and the civil war would have weakened the Abbasids. We already discussed how a lot of outlying territories in the empire became increasingly autonomous and basically difficult to manage.
Ali Olomi: It was the perfect conditions, Deana. Ali ibn Muhammad would also invoke religion to support his cause. He reminded the Zanj that by religious law, they had the right to good nutrition and safety in their bodies. Abusing the body of a person was forbidden by law. But the Zanj, they had faced abuse.
Deana Hassanein: And as we've mentioned before, culturally, things like slapping someone's face is considered an extreme taboo.
Ali Olomi: Right, and the conditions of the Zanj were even more deplorable. Not only were they an enslaved people, but they didn't even have the same rights that other enslaved people did, like, say, in the capital. While others, like the Mamluk soldiers, which we've discussed, could get wealthy or powerful, the Zanj dealt with back-breaking work, poor working conditions, and poor food.
Deana Hassanein: So, Ali ibn Muhammad's message was perfect for the conditions. The Abbasids had mistreated the Zanj even by their own rules.
Ali Olomi: And he was a charismatic figure, a firebrand who really tapped into these powerful themes. And like all good messianic figures, he had a very clear message. He got the timing right for sure, Deana. His message was also effective, though. God is great. God is great. There is no God but God. There is no judgment except by God. And in this particular formation, it actually goes back to the Kharijites, a deeply controversial movement that sparks a lot of anxiety for Muslims. They were a puritanical group that led to the first civil wars in Muslim history. Good memory, Deana. Their civil wars led to the death of two different groups. Two different caliphs, at least. But their message was extremely attractive. They were radically egalitarian. They rejected the idea of dynasties completely. They believed that anyone, so long as they are righteous, they could be caliph. And of course, all were equal before God, and God was judge.
Deana Hassanein: That is a powerful message, and the Kharijites are willing to fight for it. They spread a lot of chaos and dissension and violence with those early civil wars.
Ali Olomi: Their message might have been attractive, but their methods were pretty extreme. They were an openly violent movement.
Deana Hassanein: So Ali ibn Muhammad is making it very clear what his intentions are. He is demanding freedom for the Zanj, and he's willing to go to war for it. With his slogan, he's connecting himself to the Kharijites of old, right?
Ali Olomi: True. By invoking the Kharijites, he's declaring war. He wants a brand new Caliphate open to all. But at least, or perhaps at least, presumably for him, because he sees himself as a messianic figure.
Deana Hassanein: And if there was discontent with the Abbasids from all the chaos and infighting, then other rivals would see this as an opportunity too.
Ali Olomi: That's exactly what happened. In 869, Ali ibn Muhammad led the Zanj on the first outright revolution against the Abbasids. And he was quickly joined by various Arab and Bedouin tribes, all demanding to be free from the Abbasids. All the groups who felt disenfranchised or exhausted from the high cost of the political turmoil quickly joined with the Zanj.
Deana Hassanein: Oh gosh, this was a full-fledged revolution then. Unlike the past conflicts between political factions, these are the people themselves who are rising up.
Ali Olomi: It's a coalition of people, Deana, a social revolution of sorts. It included the enslaved Zanj, laborers, tribes of people, and everyone else who wanted to see a different government than the Abbasids. While the Zanj initially referred to a place in Africa, in this moment, in this time, it likely refers to the coalition of rebels from a variety of backgrounds. They may not have all had the same goals, but...
Deana Hassanein: But they share one thing. They want the Abbasids gone. And that was a powerful incentive to band together.
Ali Olomi: The Zanj rebellion would last for 15 years and be one of the most ferocious wars the Abbasids fought. His initial attacks gained him a lot of support. He would target slave caravans and slave owners, capturing them and then rebuking them publicly in front of the enslaved. According to the historian al-Tabari and related in an article by al-Naim, he says to them, I want to kill you all for the way you have treated these slaves in a way that Allah has forbidden.
Deana Hassanein: Wow, that must have been such a sight.
Ali Olomi: Exactly, I mean, he got the right message and it's really the right time for this movement.
Deana Hassanein: After the years of political infighting and all the conflicts and civil wars, the Abbasids would have been militarily vulnerable.
Ali Olomi: And economically stretched thin, in addition to being militarily exhausted.
Deana Hassanein: So I'm guessing the rebels were initially successful and because they came from outside the capital, the military factions with Samarra and Baghdad would not have been able to put it down easily.
Ali Olomi: Right, their tactics would also help here. They fought a guerrilla war that the Bedouin in particular were masters at. They'd raid villages and gather weapons from the garrisons they attacked, adding tribal allies. And so with each attack, they grew.
Deana Hassanein: Ah, and I remember how important momentum was when we talked about the war of the two brothers. If it's on your side, you can press your advantage and increase your military victory significantly.
Ali Olomi: Add to it that Ali ibn Muhammad effectively brought together all the social classes yearning for something different. There was a great apocalyptic fervor brewing.
Deana Hassanein: Yeah, I can see that. If you've had a powerful empire that has lasted hundreds of years and then it's rocked by war after war, civil strife, and your great capitals are laid under siege, you'd probably feel like the world was coming to an end.
Ali Olomi: Too right. Ali ibn Muhammad really taps into that. In 871, he proclaimed that he would take the city of Basra under a lunar eclipse, tying the celestial symbolism to his movement. And we've already seen how important that type of symbolism was in the founding of Baghdad.
Deana Hassanein: And Basra was an important city. One of the major gates of Baghdad was named after it. Now, does that mean they came close to taking Baghdad too, Ali?
Ali Olomi: Very close, Deana. Basra was a big coup for them. After laying siege to the city for a year, Ali ibn Muhammad claimed that he had a vision that he would take the city under the eclipse I mentioned. He divided his troops into two, coming at the city in a pincer move. The weakened city put up a valiant defense, protecting the mosque and even pushing back the rebels to the cemetery. But by attacking on multiple fronts after a long siege, the city could not hold out. The rebels swept through the city, looting it victoriously.
Deana Hassanein: The loss of Basra would have been huge. A major Abbasid city under the control of rebels, large parts of the marshlands now part of the rebellion, and a coalition of people all rising up against the Abbasids. That's a lot to handle.
Ali Olomi: It was. The Abbasids really struggled to respond effectively.
Deana Hassanein: The fact that it lasted 15 years is major too. That's almost as long as the War of the Two Brothers.
Ali Olomi: The Abbasids were fighting multiple conflicts. After all, they were trying to stabilize their empire after the civil war between the Caliphs.
Deana Hassanein: They also had to contend with different internal factions, powerful military groups and powerful families.
Ali Olomi: But they did finally manage to cobble together a defense. In 879, they met Ali ibn Muhammad's coalition in open combat and were able to turn the tide in their favor.
Deana Hassanein: Of course they did. That seems to always be the solution.
Ali Olomi: It is. Pay them off. They offered really good terms to anyone who would lay down their arms. Over two years, Muwaffa cleverly broke away and chipped away at the coalition of Ali ibn Muhammad. Because they were such a diverse group with different aims, he was able to play into that until only a small core group was left. And then he was able to take their base and end Ali ibn Muhammad for good.
Deana Hassanein: And so ends the Zanj Rebellion, one of the most interesting social revolutions in Abbasid history. Ali, I feel like we've only scratched the surface. There is so much more to this history.
Ali Olomi: That's so true, Deana. We could never hope to cover all of Abbasid history in a couple of seasons. But we hope that we've whet your appetite, that we've sparked your curiosity, and maybe you'll dive into the history even more and hopefully have a bit more context behind the game, Assassin's Creed Mirage.
Deana Hassanein: Honestly, I wish we could keep going forever. But Ali, I've loved our short trip into medieval Baghdad and its amazing history and people.
Ali Olomi: It's been a blast hanging out with you, Deana, my travel companion, as we wander through the great city of Baghdad.
Deana Hassanein: We visited this city's historical figures, scholars and scientists, queens and viziers, soldiers and rebels. And if you want to stay in touch with us, your guides, you can find me on my socials @deannahassanein.
Ali Olomi: And you can catch me everywhere @aaolomi.
Deana Hassanein: Thank you for exploring with us. I'm Deana.
Ali Olomi: And I'm Ali. This is a Ubisoft podcast produced by Paradiso Media. Be sure to subscribe to Echoes of History wherever you get your podcasts so you can hear the full two seasons of our journey through medieval Baghdad. Until our paths cross again, fellow travelers.

Shadows[edit | edit source]

Civil War in Feudal Japan: The Sengoku Period

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. This is the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. The next episodes are very exciting as we venture into the heart of an era that has shaped legends. In case you hadn't seen it, the world premiere trailer for Assassin's Creed Shadows was released recently and we can see that it's situated in feudal Japan, a time renowned for its samurai and ninjas, a time of rich history, culture and stories. So for the next seven episodes, we wanted to spend some time dedicated to exploring this fascinating period in history. We'll navigate the intricate landscape of power and ambition, which you'll be able to explore in Shadows and introduce you to the figures who dominated and dared to defy. From the warring states of the Sengoku period and the unification of Japan to the first encounters with Portuguese missionaries, we'll explore a period in time that continues to fascinate. We'll also take a closer look at the remarkable story of one of Shadows' two playable characters, Yasuke, the first black samurai. Today, we embark on this epic saga with a focus on the Sengoku period, a time of warfare where the very fabric of society was tested and the period in which the game is set. I'm joined by Dr. Chris Harding from the University of Edinburgh, who will help us peel back the layers of history to reveal what life was like in these turbulent times and how this period laid the foundations for a unified Japan. Chris, can you help us to locate Assassin's Creed Shadows in the world? We know we're in Japan, but we're in the Sengoku period. What does that mean in terms of when we are? And I guess for a bit of context, can you tell us a bit about what else might be happening in the world that we might be familiar with?
Christopher Harding: Yes, so this is the 1460s in Japan, running for at least a century into the 1560s, and some historians would give it another few years after that. So at least a century or more of this all-against-all warfare between some of the different fiefs that we're going to be talking about. And for context elsewhere, you've got the Tudors in England, beginning with Henry VII's seizure of the crown in 1485. You've also got, I suppose almost but not quite midway between England and Japan, India, where from the 1520s you have the rise of the Mughal dynasty, who are in power there for a good couple of centuries. So relative dynastic stability in England and India, but pretty much chaos in Japan.
Matthew Lewis: Sounds like an ideal place to set an Assassin's Creed game. And what was feudal medieval Japan like before the upheavals of the Sengoku period? How is Japanese society ordered?
Christopher Harding: For a while, for a few centuries, thinking about maybe the 600s through to around 1100 or so, Japan is ruled more or less by an emperor based in what we now call Kyoto, alongside an aristocracy, most of whom are based in Kyoto and own these vast tracts of land elsewhere. And then across the 1100s, you have the rise of these warrior bands, who initially are just employed by aristocrats as bodyguards in Kyoto or to look after their concerns out in the countryside, where a lot of aristocrats really aren't very much interested in going. They might write poetry about it, but they wouldn't spend much time there. And I think that partly explains why you get the rise of warrior bands who, after a while, don't just work for an aristocratic employer, but actually have loyalty to one another within their groups. So this concept of vassals starts to develop. This gets to the point actually from the late 1100s onwards, where Japan is ruled de facto by warrior governments, what we would call shogunates. A Kamakura shogunate from the late 12th century through to the early 14th, and then the Ashikaga shogunate after that. So just before this era of chaos breaks out, Japan has had a few centuries of warrior rule.
Matthew Lewis: So during those shogunates, does the position of the emperor still exist? Is he still there or is he pushed aside completely during those periods?
Christopher Harding: So the emperor is always there in Kyoto. The story that the imperial family tells about itself is that it's divinely descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu. So that story, plus centuries of history, I think ensures the imperial family a good deal of respect. But what's interesting is that runs alongside the shogunate, the successive shoguns individually, being willing to really push them around to quite an extent. The notion of a shogunate means something like barbarian crushing generalissimo. So there in the title is the fact that this individual officially works for the emperor. His role is to go out there and crush the emperor's enemies. Normally the people who are at the periphery, for example, in the far north of Japan, considered to be barbarous and dangerous and in need of being kept on a bit of a leash. So in theory, that's what the shogunate does. And successive shoguns in taking that title are playing up to this idea that they are acting in the interests of the emperor, who is far too important and refined a person to get their hands dirty, basically in politics and military activity. But in fact, it's the shoguns who organize taxes, the shoguns who says who gets which pieces of land, and the shoguns who issue these legal codes and oversee a system of judgment. So in every meaningful way, the shoguns are in charge.
Matthew Lewis: So I guess being divinely descended provides you with some kind of protection, but it sounds almost like the emperor was someone we could think of as a constitutional monarch during that period, perhaps.
Christopher Harding: I think that's right. Certainly, it's someone who is mostly behind closed doors in the imperial palace in Kyoto, performing rituals which are thought to be for the good of the nation, what we now call Shinto, the way of the gods. This is the cosmology within which the emperor or the emperors operate. So I think people consider that to be important. And without a degree of legitimacy conferred by the emperor, the shogunate would struggle. Then again, they are at pains to make sure that the emperor, and at no point, use that prestige to try and gather an army around themselves. So there are stories of emperors dying and their families being unable to afford even to give them a decent burial because they simply don't have the income because tax, trade, and all the rest of it is being controlled by the shogunate. So there's a kind of refinement, but it's an impoverished refinement for sure.
Matthew Lewis: And so if that's the role and the position of a shogun, essentially he's the head of government, just thinking of another couple of words that might crop up when we think about medieval Japan, what is a samurai? I mean, samurai has got to be a word that everybody knows, but what does it really mean?
Christopher Harding: So it comes from the verb meaning to serve. So initially, the ethos was that these people were trained bodyguards, so they might stand outside the door of a particularly high strung aristocrat just to make sure that nothing would befall them during the night, or they might look out for people's interests. A lot of the aristocrats based in Kyoto would own land in far-flung places which they weren't, as I said, terribly interested in actually visiting. So they would look after those sorts of concerns. And it's the sense of being, I think, a professional warrior on that basis and passing on those skills to the next generation. The key change that I think happens across the 1100s is that the object of loyalty for the samurai changes from being the employer who pays them to actually being a senior member of their band, maybe related by blood, and you start to have these hierarchies within the samurai. That really is the focus of their loyalty, of their entire ethos. So the whole samurai culture that develops is quite divorced from this idea of basically a paid bodyguard, which is how they begin.
Matthew Lewis: During the medieval period, we can think of the idea of a samurai as still in evolution. It's something that's changing and developing throughout the period.
Christopher Harding: Yes, I think that's right. And I think it even changes during the Sengoku period and then in the period that follows. I think it is always evolving, particularly, and we'll probably come to this at the end, in the aftermath of the Sengoku period. Once Japan enters this period of settled fiefdoms, which are almost completely independent, the fact that the top samurai in each fief, called the daimyo, is more or less an autocratic ruler with nothing to do with anybody else outside his fiefdom. The samurai structure underneath him, I think, comes to matter all the more. So I think there's that shift all the way through, and it probably reaches its height in the period just after the Sengoku era, I would say.
Matthew Lewis: I think it's one of those things we tend to, maybe from the outside, we view it as quite a static thing. We think a samurai is a thing, but a samurai is actually a concept, an idea that evolves and changes throughout the period. It's quite interesting. Another word that you mentioned there, daimyo. Can we get a bit of an idea of what the daimyo was and what he did?
Christopher Harding: Yes. When the old shogunates were working properly, I was saying a moment ago, you've got the Kamakura shogunate, then you've got the Ashikaga shogunate after that. These are two different shogunates with two different families controlling them. One follows on from the other. In theory, in that system, the way they control the rest of Japan is they send out what are called shugo, these warrior constables, you could call them. So people in there employ, they'll send them out to these provinces, and they'll say, you look after law and order for us out there. Make sure you hold on to this province. If we need to raise troops out there, you can take care of that. Those sorts of roles for the shugo who may, when they initially went out to that part of Japan, have had no family connection at all. But what happens, I think, during the Sengoku period is that some of these warrior constables, they actually put down roots in these areas. They make alliances. They perhaps marry. They come to have much more autonomy and control over what goes on within that territory. Then they initially did when they were parachuted in by the shogunate. So a fully-fledged daimyo, which is what emerges at the end of this process, is someone who is in absolute control of his province or his domain and who needs to answer to nobody else. So some of the really wealthy daimyo, when we're getting into perhaps the mid-1500s, for example, might now and again lend the shogun a bit of money or pay for an imperial palace to be done up if it's been damaged. But that would be charity rather than something you have to do. So it's that sense of real, complete independence within their fiefdom.
Matthew Lewis: They sound a little bit, I might be showing my ignorance here, but they sound a little bit, when they start off, not dissimilar to English sheriffs in that they're the royal representatives in the regions who go out, enforce law and order, collect the taxation. But then in Japan, they perhaps managed to get more power than the sheriffs in England ever did.
Christopher Harding: Yes, I think they absolutely do. I suppose what's key to it is at the beginning of the Sengoku era, we have what's called the Ōnin War, running from 1467 to 1477. Huge damage done to Kyoto in the process of this war. It begins as a kind of succession dispute within the shogunate, but an enormous proportion of Kyoto is destroyed in fire. Lots of these different warrior constables from around the country end up coming to the Kyoto region to get involved. When that war ends, some of them go back to their provinces to find that someone else has usurped them. And that someone else who has usurped them manages to solidify their own power until they become what we would call daimyo, this real independent warlord. And in other cases, the warrior constables, when they go back to their provinces, they're the ones who manage to do that. Because this war, this Ōnin War, this 10-year conflict, pretty much destroys the idea of a functional shogunate. And so there really is no one in Kyoto anymore that you have to answer to. So it becomes easier to build up these independent power bases.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess if we get into then what the Sengoku period really was, it's also sometimes called the Warring States period. What precisely is it? When we talk about the Sengoku period, what are we really talking about?
Christopher Harding: So it's a period when central authority in Japan has completely gone. So you've still got the emperor in Kyoto, but as we were saying a moment ago, they're kind of impoverished and not really able to do very much politically or militarily. You've also still got a shogun in Kyoto. So if we go to the end of the Ōnin War, 1477, which is also pretty much the beginning of this Sengoku era, you've got a shogun there, but they're also extremely poor. If anyone listening to this has been to Kyoto, and they've been to see the silver pavilion, they may have been disappointed to find that there's no actual silver on it. It was supposed to be covered in glorious silver, the way that the Golden Temple is gloriously covered in gold. But the pavilion was built in the early 1480s. This is the exact period after the Ōnin War, when the Ashikaga shogunate is descending really into complete impotence. Their writ doesn't run far outside Kyoto, and they haven't got much income. So they simply couldn't afford to put the silver on there. So instead, people appreciate it for this withered wooden look. So against that backdrop, where you don't have a shogunate that can really extend its authority beyond Kyoto, what you have is these regional leaders becoming daimyo, as we were saying a moment ago, trying to secure their fiefs, in some cases trying to use warfare, marriage alliances, other kinds of dealings to extend their power against their neighbours. So it's pretty much an all against all. It's not warfare wall to wall for an entire century, but certainly on and off it becomes quite bloody.
Matthew Lewis: It must be quite embarrassing to call something a silver palace and build it, and then have to kind of publicly display the fact that you can't actually afford to cover it in silver anymore. It's a great big elephant in the room at that point, isn't it?
Christopher Harding: Yeah, you wonder why they stuck with the name, but for some reason the name stuck.
Matthew Lewis: And how does the Sengoku period really start? So you mentioned the Ōnin War there, 1467 to 1777, a bit of a succession crisis. Should we view that as the catalyst for the Sengoku period? I think that's right, yes.
Christopher Harding: So after that period, the shoguns don't have terribly much power at all, even actually within Kyoto, they are under the control of the Hosokawa family. So the shoguns themselves are all but puppets at this point. So I think that's certainly the beginning of it. You have the freedom in the rest of Japan for people to sort of do what they like.
Matthew Lewis: How then do those local daimyo begin to assert their more independent authority, and I guess consolidate their power? And how do they go about drawing samurai to them? Presumably the samurai have previously been loyal to the government, and now they're looking to draw their loyalty to something more local. How do they go about doing that?
Christopher Harding: Well, I think the evolution, as you were saying, the idea of the samurai is always on the move. I think there was a strong idea of loyalty within these samurai groups, probably going back as far as the late 1100s. So that's always been the case. But more and more these families or clans are separating themselves out from the shogunate as being a real kind of locus of loyalty for them. And instead, it's much more about the hierarchy within each province. So I suppose to give you an example, one of the most famous daimyo from this period would be Oda Nobunaga. We'll have a lot to say about him later on, I think. But he's from the small province of Owari. But he's a really good example of someone who was able to use a combination of smart tactics, smart use of weaponry, judicious use of alliances to gradually expand beyond that province. So he takes another province for himself quite early on. This is the middle of the 1500s. Then he makes some alliances. By 1568, after really only a few short years, and he's still, relatively speaking, a young man, he's able to do what most daimyo ultimately wanted to do, which is to mount a successful march on Kyoto and have the emperor under his beady eye and also have the shogun under his control.
Matthew Lewis: It'd be really good to understand the kind of weaponry and tactics and the military mindset that prevails in Japan as they move into this period.
Christopher Harding: Yes. So I think early on, if we're going back centuries and centuries, you have a sense of samurai warfare where the ideal would be for a samurai mounted on horseback to call out to someone on the opposing side and to have this, what we might think of as a kind of gentlemanly one-to-one combat. But during this period, that changes. It comes to be partly all about numbers. So a really important feature of warfare in this period, I think, is the humble foot soldier, ashigaru in Japanese. At the beginning, they're thought about pretty much as cannon fodder. They're not really given much armour, much protection at all. They're thought to be pretty replaceable. They're just pretty much peasants who are fighting in exchange for loot, you know, for whatever they can pick up on the battlefield. But then things start to change. They do become of more value because you can see they're being given armour, they're being given specific roles on the battlefield. And I think one of the most important roles they're given, this is certainly true of the armies that Oda Nobunaga runs, is they are trained in firearms. So in the middle of the 1500s, first contact is made with the Portuguese. They arrive off Japan's southern shore. And one of the things they're bringing alongside Christianity is firearms. Quite quickly, the Japanese are able to develop their own version of these firearms. And quite soon, the battlefield's used by people like Oda Nobunaga in great numbers. It's a bit controversial as to how far those firearms really helped someone like Nobunaga go from quite small beginnings to the very good heights that he eventually reached. But I think it's certainly true if you were a top samurai in this period and you really valued your life, one of the things you would look for is a suit of armour that perhaps has a few little dents in it because it's proof that it can withstand a bullet as opposed to letting one through. So I think they certainly have a role to play. Certainly the body count is higher as a result. Oda Nobunaga was an extraordinarily ruthless individual anyway. So I think the foot soldiers are important. I think the firearms are important. I think also there's a role for civil engineering, building things like pontoon bridges so that you can get your troops where they need to be as far as possible. And I think also just a degree of strategy. Oda Nobunaga mounted the kind of attacks, sometimes at night, sometimes against an overwhelming enemy who wouldn't have thought he would have tried it. Those sorts of things that come down to, I suppose, just a quirk of leadership and of ruthlessness on the part of someone like Oda Nobunaga. All those sorts of factors, I think, loom large in this period.
Matthew Lewis: I think it's always interesting to think about whether people like Nobunaga are a product of a period that he lived in or someone who drives the period that he lived in. He sounds like he was keen to adopt new technology and to think about his armies and his tactics in a different way to everybody else during that period. So is that a product of desperately trying to find new ways to win or is the fact that he's so good at what he does driving this period further forward?
Christopher Harding: I think from what we know of him, from the biographies that are out there, the people who met him, including actually one of the Jesuit missionaries out in Japan who became a bit of a friend of Nobunaga and gave us kind of a pen portrait of him, I think he really was a standout character. One of the stories told about him when he was a young man, just after his father left, all the Buddhist priests who had been tending to his father, praying for him, looking after him before he died, legend has it anyway that Oda Nobunaga had them all locked inside a single building and then shot to death for what they did, i.e. failing to keep his father alive. He also had a reputation as a teenager for being just quite strange, swaggering around town, eating nuts, letting them fall out of his mouth. He had sort of dishevelled hair. At his father's funeral, he's said to have picked up a fistful of incense and just thrown it and walked out. So quite a strange character, probably an unpromising character early on, but he was given this motto of rule the realm by force. And I think that carried him through. He had a strong sense that he was always going to do this, that he was always going to succeed. And I think there's a combination of deep self-belief and ruthlessness, and I suppose a degree of luck as well, that really seems to carry him forward. By the time that he died in the 1580s, as a result of treachery on the part of some of his own men, actually, he had controlled most of Japan's main island of Honshu, and he was on the verge of going to its second biggest island, Kyushu, down south. He actually, at that point, looked unstoppable. So through a combination of all those factors, I know the great man in history can be a bit of a cliché, but I think there is something in that when it comes to a warlord like Oda Nobunaga.
Matthew Lewis: And apart from those kind of battlefield tactics and the men who are being deployed around the place, I guess when we think about Europe during this period, we're maybe seeing a move away from castles and castle warfare and sieges. They're becoming less important. Where did Japan stand during this period in terms of castles? What did castles look like in Japan, and how important were they still during this period?
Christopher Harding: I think castles remained really important in Japan for this time, I suppose for a number of reasons. Most obviously, their defensive value. So in Japan now, if people go, lots of these old castles have been more or less faithfully rebuilt, so you can see them. But you have these enormous, many feet thick, sloping stone walls, a series of stone walls around the castle. You've got a series of moats as well. You've got the central donjon, it's called, which can be six or seven storeys high. So I think they were really important for defensive purposes. Extraordinarily difficult to successfully attack a castle like that. I think what they also provided is a degree of security, not just for armies, but also for ordinary people, if there were to be a sudden attack on a particular domain. So in some of these castles, what you see is a mini town growing up around it. So these castles, if they were felt to be secure places, they would draw lots of people, lots of different crafts people, trades people, merchants, et cetera, to come and set up their homes and shops all around the castle, which in turn is very useful for someone like Oda Nobunaga, who wants to try to raise these enormous armies. Obviously that costs money. So if you have a thriving economy around your fortified castle, a fortified castle town, basically, then it allows you to raise the kind of money that you need to gather together tens of thousands of troops and feed them and equip them. So I suppose in all those ways, castles were quite important in this period.
Matthew Lewis: Do we see a lot of siege warfare during this period in Japan? And I guess how different might that look from European siege warfare at the time?
Christopher Harding: You see, now and again, I suppose there's a really good example of siege warfare involving Oda Nobunaga. So in Japan, you have these different Buddhist sects, and one of them, Jōdo Shinshū, was particularly powerful and particularly worrying for Oda Nobunaga, because the people in this particular sect could be almost pitted out at the last minute to become a kind of pop-up army, so that the patriarch, for want of a better word, of this particular sect could issue a statement against Oda Nobunaga as he did, declaring him an enemy and saying that people would be rewarded in the next life if they stand up against him. And followers of this sect included some fairly wealthy merchants who could effectively equip themselves and feed themselves. So the danger of these pop-up armies appearing almost out of nowhere was extraordinary for Oda Nobunaga, and he worried about it, and he actually resented it very much, and so he launched a siege against the main compound in Osaka of the Jōdo Shinshū sect, which lasted actually for a while. It wasn't entirely successful, because Osaka, of course, is on the water, and so the patriarch had allies, pirate daimyo, I suppose you could call them, who for a while would supply the castle by sea, but Oda Nobunaga managed to defeat those pirates at sea, and so after a while, the Jōdo Shinshū sect, holed up in this fortified temple complex in Osaka, had to give up. They did at the last minute. The son, I think, of the patriarch, if I've got it right, when he was forced to come out, set fire to the place just before he came out, on the basis that if the Jōdo Shinshū sect cannot have that fortress anymore, then Oda Nobunaga certainly can't have it either. So there were quite remarkable sieges along the way. A company that has to be said, certainly in the case of someone like Nobunaga, with extraordinary slaughter. I think he particularly hated the idea that Buddhist sects would interfere in the running of the country. So there's another Buddhist sect, the Tendai sect, which he attacked on their mountain base called Mount Hiei, sent thousands of troops up there, killed everybody, burned everything, just destroyed the entire sect, including people unrelated to the sect who were living on the mountain. So it just gives you an idea of how bloody and uncompromising some of this warfare could be.
Matthew Lewis: And so for the Sengoku period, we seem to have a situation where the power of the shogun has kind of fractured and we get numerous local daimyo then establishing their own power bases. But I guess we call it then warring states because they start going after each other. So are we looking at sort of the fracturing of power, but also a lingering drive to bring it back together and for someone to conquer everybody and reunite Japan? Or is everyone happy with the idea that it's split into lots of different states at this point?
Christopher Harding: I think there is always the idea that Japan has been a single polity in the past and should be again. I don't think there is a celebration of war for the sake of it by any means. And so what anyone at a serious level, any way of influence in this period would like to see is the nation, nation maybe not quite the right word, but the country anyway, brought back together that Kyoto should be the natural center of power, but that ideally certainly someone like Oda Nobunaga, he would want to be the person who is fully in charge of that. So although it's a long period of time, it's a century, the Japanese, I suppose not unlike the British actually, have a very long history, are very conscious of that history. You have chronicles, you have poetry, you have songs, you have all sorts of things there in the culture that remind people of what the natural, if you like divinely ordained state of affairs ought to be. So there's certainly a desire to return to that, but shuffling the deck in terms of who is actually at the top of the hierarchy.
Matthew Lewis: And how does Japan think about the Sengoku period today? So I'm thinking we think about things like the Wars of the Roses and the Civil War and the effect that they had on this country. And I think we're probably still quite conscious of that in Britain, maybe. How do the Japanese think about the Sengoku period today?
Christopher Harding: I think there is a certain amount of affection for it, partly because although, you know, in the West we have an obsession with samurai, there's a pretty serious obsession with samurai, I think, in Japan as well. So if you're a dramatist, novelist, film director, the idea of setting a drama in a period like this where you've got spies, you've got skullduggery, you've got romance, you've got epic battles, you've got tales of honour and treachery, etc. I think it's enormous fun on that level. Maybe that sounds a bit superficial. I think it's also a period where you could say that some elements of Japanese culture, the core of Japanese culture, in terms of deep loyalty, in terms of having values and acting upon them, in terms of a culture that's pretty much, not entirely, but pretty much untouched by Western influence. All of these things, I think, make it quite an attractive period for the Japanese. It's also worth saying that alongside all the spilling of blood that we've been talking about, there are also great developments in the arts. Things like Zen Buddhism are developing just before and then during the Sengoku period. You've also got art, you've got the tea ceremony. You have an enormous degree of cultivation and an emphasis on self-cultivation in the arts and in religion in this period. So it's not all about fighting and the spilling of blood. So I think for all those sorts of reasons, people can remember it quite affectionately. And then especially the idea that you then have these great unifying figures, beginning with Oda Nobunaga, men, it's said, of great foresight, people who really have ended up setting Japan, actually, on a settled, peaceful footing for the next two and a half centuries.
Matthew Lewis: One more thing, if I can ask before we finish as well. What source material do we have for this period in Japan? Do we have to be slightly careful about where it's coming from? Is it the voices of the powerful, those daimyo who are in conflict? Or do we have fairly good source material that allows us to get to the bottom of what's really going on?
Christopher Harding: We have, for example, for some of the battle scenes, we have painted screens, which show roughly what was going on and how these battles were being fought. I think within some of the larger families, you have chronicles of what their great members have done. Certainly someone like Oda Nobunaga has that. You have individual writings by some of the samurai. For a while, part of the way things went on a battlefield was that whatever your deeds were, as a samurai, if you wanted to be rewarded for them, you had to have some kind of a record of them. Whether you were writing down what you'd done, whether you kept some kind of trophy from the people who you've killed, whatever it might be, those sorts of things, I think, become records as well. We also have records from within some of these great Buddhist sects that are kept. You have official histories with the imperial household. I think you could say, couldn't you, thinking about them, they are largely elite sources for the most part. But nevertheless, I think it's quite a lot of material, both written and visual, that gives us a real feel for what was going on.
Matthew Lewis: It's really interesting to think about that flourishing of art and that cultivation of core elements of Japanese culture and identity during a period that looks like it's just a lot of war. It's fascinating how much is going on during that period.
Christopher Harding: You know, I think it really is. And I think it's something that Westerners thinking about Japanese history always struggled with. I mean, even if you were to fast forward just very briefly to the 20th century and the Second World War, the idea that a country that was known for the tranquility of Kyoto, this gorgeous architecture, these quiet lakes, meditation, all these sorts of things, could yield fighting forces that were so zealous and that behaved as they did. I think that's always fascinated people in the West, that you can have those two things be true of a culture at the same time. And it really goes all the way back, at least to the Sengoku period, I think.
Matthew Lewis: I guess it's that fundamental dichotomy that we in the West struggle to get our heads around, but which seems absolutely natural to Japanese people.
Christopher Harding: It does. I suppose I would just ask you a quick question because I don't really know the answer myself. I have a vague image of Europeans getting their blades in their hands dirty and then wandering into a church, maybe still bloody, to thank God for the victory. Would that be anything vaguely comparable or is that just a completely different culture, do you think?
Matthew Lewis: No, I guess I think there is lots to be said about Western European understanding of warfare as it related to religion. How do you square that circle that thou shalt not kill? But actually, aren't I great because I've just killed 15 people on this battlefield today and God has given us this victory. You know, there was this association of God giving victory to people by way of slaughtering your enemies. But God doesn't want you to kill people and doesn't want you to have enemies. So I guess that's a very similar juxtaposition that perhaps we can compare to that idea in Japan that there is tranquility, but there is also fierce war.
Christopher Harding: Yes. Yeah, I think that's a very useful comparison. Absolutely.
Matthew Lewis: That seems like a really nice place to leave it. There's plenty to think about there. Thank you very, very much for joining us, Chris. It's been great to talk to you.
Christopher Harding: Thank you for having me.
Matthew Lewis: Thank you for listening to this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. Next time, we'll be discovering more about the unification of Japan at the close of the Sengoku period. So join us for the next episode to find out more about the history behind the world of Assassin's Creed.

The Unification of Japan

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. This is the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. The next seven episodes continue our exciting adventure into the heart of an era that has shaped legends. In case you hadn't seen it, the world premiere trailer for Assassin's Creed Shadows was released recently and we can see that it takes place in feudal Japan, a time renowned for its samurai and ninjas, a time rich in history, culture and stories. Over the next few weeks we'll navigate the intricate landscape of power and ambition which you'll be able to explore in Shadows and introduce you to the figures who dominated and dared to defy. In our last episode we delved into the chaos and upheaval of the Sengoku period as we began our journey exploring the fascinating period in history in which Shadows is set. Today we pick up where we left off, delving deeper into the final years of the Sengoku period to explore how the actions of a few pivotal daimyo led to the unification of Japan. I'm joined again by Dr Chris Harding from the University of Edinburgh to discover how these ambitious warlords, some of whom you can meet in Shadows, ruthlessly subjugated their rivals and brought about the unification of a region that had been riven by civil war and social upheaval for over a century.
Chris it's great to have you back to talk about the conclusion I guess of what we talked about before and cover the unification of Japan. So just in terms of where we're coming at this from, we've gone through this Sengoku period, the Warring States period, what I guess are the main characteristics of that period and how did it lay the groundwork for the eventual unification of Japan?
Christopher Harding: I think the background for the Sengoku period was the disintegration basically of any central authority in Japan. There had been a shogunate functioning based in a particular neighborhood of Kyoto and really from the 1460s onwards for at least a century the writ of that shogunate no longer ran across the rest of Japan and so you have a kind of all against all of these more or less independent fiefdoms. That's really what makes up the Sengoku period.
Matthew Lewis: So it's really an effort to get back to where it started almost but the question is who's going to be on top?
Christopher Harding: Yes I think that's right. So there's always the thought amongst certainly some of the higher ranking of these warlords that the aim is to gather together a coalition of people, conquer enough territory so that you can have control of Kyoto where the shogun still rather feebly sits, where the emperor is still based, who attracts of course an enormous amount of respect amongst people, divinely descended also with a centuries-old history. So that Kyoto really does need to be the centre of this unification project but with perhaps new people de facto in charge.
Matthew Lewis: And who were some of the main players in the process of the unification? We've talked a bit about Oda Nobunaga. Is he the first significant figure that we should think about and what do we know about his background and how he becomes a central figure in the story?
Christopher Harding: So I think he is certainly the first significant figure here. People in Japan, school children actually, when they're learning about history they'll learn about three great unifiers who sort of came along one after the other. So you've got Oda Nobunaga first, you've got Hideyoshi Toyotomi afterwards and then finally you've got Tokugawa Ieyasu. There's a lovely little rhyme that some people learn which goes something like this Nobunaga pounded the rice, Hideyoshi baked the cake and Ieyasu ate it. So there's a sense that each person builds on the other and the final rewards as we'll see go to Tokugawa Ieyasu. Each man with a slightly different character which we'll probably get at along the way. So in terms of Oda Nobunaga, not an especially promising background I think. If you think about the into which he's born there are roughly 120 of these states. Some of them at war with others, some of them in alliance etc. But his state or province Owari is just one of those and quite a small one at that. Plus I think it's 1551 his father dies when Oda Nobunaga is still quite young, still a teenager and he inherits control of this state and the people around him don't see him as an especially serious figure and especially compromising figure. You can imagine some of the senior vassals a little bit older than him thinking goodness me I don't know what's going to happen to our little province with this person in charge. He was I think just seen as being slightly mad, a bit of an idiot, not really able to take life terribly seriously and yet within a few short years he proves himself to be this master strategist who becomes by the mid 1560s really the main player in Japan out of all these warlords. So an unexpected and very rapid rise for this man.
Matthew Lewis: Was there anything in particular about the territory where he's based that makes that rise easier or perhaps more likely? I'm wondering if having a small province sounds like a disadvantage but I guess to some extent you have less to worry about spreading your control over than in a big territory. Does he have a really firm grip on his own lands that allows him to look outwards quicker than some other people can?
Christopher Harding: That might well be the case, yeah. He doesn't seem to have a great deal of trouble within his province and he's able to look out from it elsewhere I think quite quickly. What he succeeds in doing is very early on gaining control of a neighbouring province and then he makes a very fortuitous alliance with the man who becomes Tokugawa Ieyasu. He doesn't yet have that name at this point in the 1550s but that's a great alliance it allows Oda Nobunaga not to have to worry too much about the territory to one side of his own province and so he can look elsewhere for his focus. But I think other things that seem to go in his favour include a real talent for strategy, choosing the right moments to attack, I think an extraordinary ruthlessness to him as well, a certain amount of luck. One of his arch enemies Takeda is his family name, is taken ill and dies just on the verge of attacking Oda Nobunaga so there is an element of luck involved here. I think a lot of his enemies would probably say also of that there is a willingness to be extraordinarily brutal in going about his aims. So he has this motto Tenka Fubun which means something like rule the realm by force given to him by a Zen Buddhist priest and he really seems to completely take that to heart that's entirely how he behaves. There's actually quite a nice almost a kind of phrase or proverb perhaps that gives people a sense of the character of these three different people these three different unifiers that I was talking about early on and it goes something like this it says what to do with a cuckoo that refuses to sing. So Hideyoshi who's thought about as being clever and charismatic you will encounter him later on would find some way to persuade it to sing. Tokugawa Ieyasu famously patient and canny and wise would watch and wait while he worked out what this bird was all about and when it might find its voice. What would Nobunaga do? The bird would have to die. So those are the three different approaches amongst these men and Nobunaga certainly has I think the bloodiest reputation of all three.
Matthew Lewis: It's amazing how many people in history that we still consider to be great men are influenced both by luck but are also just incredibly brutal and cruel figures that we probably wouldn't like to see in the world today.
Christopher Harding: I think that's right it's odd when I come across Japanese reflections on Oda Nobunaga. I think people are aware of the brutality but I think there's a sense of someone who can almost by sheer force of will accomplish all that he did. I think in any era when you're worried about your own country disintegrating or going backwards looking back in time to a figure who seemed to be able to put the pieces together however they went about it I think is still something that people are very tempted to do and perhaps even say that in an era like that a shrinking violet wouldn't have got very much done it takes someone of the character of Oda Nobunaga to make anything happen.
Matthew Lewis: And so when does Nobunaga die and how close to unifying Japan is he by the time he dies?
Christopher Harding: So I think by the time he dies in 1582 he has control of large parts of Japan's main island you know the long thin island of Honshu contains places like Tokyo as it's now called Kyoto of course, Osaka. For centuries really the central part of that central island really across from Osaka and Kyoto up to what we now call Tokyo has been considered as it were the business end of Japan that's where a lot of the power plays go on the culture is developed the economy is at its strongest and Oda Nobunaga has control of most of that certainly between himself and his allies in any case and he's thinking about moving into two other of Japan's main islands Kyushu which is towards the southwest and also the smaller island of Shikoku. So he's got lots of plans he's still a relatively young man he's in an extraordinarily powerful position and he's just setting out in early part of 1582 for the next part of that campaign staying at a temple called Honnoji in Kyoto when he's attacked actually not by his enemies but by someone who is supposed to be on his side one of the famous treacherous figures I suppose in Japanese history man by the name of Akechi Mitsuhide who persuades his men to turn their guns on Oda Nobunaga and his own men and so you have these stories of Oda Nobunaga shouting out treachery or traitors or something like that trying to fight them off himself the temple ends up in flames and Oda Nobunaga retreats further into the temple and dies by his own hand so pretty much an unexpected turn of events given the 20 years or so almost 30 years actually of extraordinary success that he's been enjoying up until that point even just the year before actually in 1581 he was doing so well that he managed to stage this enormous military parade involving loads and loads of his troops just near the imperial palace in Kyoto with the emperor looking on I think something like 130,000 men an extraordinary display of power under the gaze of the emperor the imperial family really having not much choice but cozy up to Oda Nobunaga who is clearly the person in the ascendant in Japan but then yeah a year later there he is dying by his own hand and the next unifier comes along.
Matthew Lewis: I suppose yeah it sounds a little bit like I mean I know he dies by his own hand but it sounds almost like the Julius Caesar story doesn't it it's not his enemies who manage to defeat him on a battlefield. It's actually his allies who betray him.
Christopher Harding: Yes absolutely and perhaps it counts against Oda Nobunaga slightly you know this is someone who's often revered for his strategic nous and his abilities on the battlefield that perhaps when it came to his own personal security he wasn't as tight as he might have been he always had his own horse guards around him he had a group of extraordinarily loyal figures who would always be around him but perhaps having enough intelligence on potential rivals within your own ranks that's somewhere where he may have fallen short there towards the end a result of overconfidence I'm not really sure but perhaps
Matthew Lewis: yeah so what comes next what follows Nobunaga's death? Christopher Harding: Another kind of rags to riches type figure, although even more rags than in Oda Nobunaga's case a man called Hideyoshi Toyotomi is the name that he eventually uses in any case very lowly foot soldier we were talking in our previous episode about the importance of these foot soldiers or ashigaru to battles in this period so Hideyoshi Toyotomi was one of those now and again he carried the sandals of Oda Nobunaga Oda Nobunaga used to refer to him affectionately as that bald rat Hideyoshi's famously sort of short on a bit of hair but nevertheless he rises through the ranks to be a senior and trusted man under Oda Nobunaga so immediately he rushes from where he's been fighting over to take care of the traitors and he brings the traitor's head back to Kyoto to effectively lay at the feet of Oda Nobunaga's body to say here we are you know I've taken care of this for you and Hideyoshi really then becomes the inheritor I think of this project to try to unify Japan and his major next step one of the steps that Oda Nobunaga would have taken had he lived was to attack Kyushu so people think about the map of Japan at the top we've got what we now call Hokkaido not of great strategic interests in this period then you've got the long arcing island of Honshu which is where most of the action has been taking place and if you carry on with that arc you've got this quite substantially sized island of Kyushu which is home to Nagasaki and here the provinces in this part of Japan and again this links back to something we said in a previous episode have been under the control in large part of the families the descendants of the people who were originally sent there under the Kamakura shogunate back in the 12th and 13th centuries to oversee that part of Japan so they're incredibly embedded in Kyushu a real sense of their right to control that place and yet for Hideyoshi Kyushu is a part of Japan that he simply must have so he sends around a quarter of a million men over to Kyushu to take it for himself which he manages to do in fairly short order in 1586 and 7.
Matthew Lewis: Does Hideyoshi then model himself on Nobunaga to any extent given that he was previously his master and how successful Nobunaga had been does he kind of try to pick it up or do we see differences in their approach?
Christopher Harding: I think they're different characters. Certainly, Hideyoshi as that phrase I offered earlier on the saying suggests quite a canny operator and someone who I think faced challenges of his own actually in this period we mentioned in a previous episode that Oda Nobunaga had this powerful hatred for these Buddhist sects who were wealthy enough some of them had their own warrior monks at their command as well others we mentioned one sect Jodo Shinshu who could effectively get peasants and merchants to rise up as a pop-up army and fight for them. Oda Nobunaga had a really powerful hatred and fear of these powerful Buddhist sects in Japan. Hideyoshi for his part had a powerful dislike of Christians so the island of Kyushu in this period was probably the part of Japan where Christian missionaries Portuguese and Spanish mainly the Jesuits but also others as well had since the 1550s been making quite a large number of converts so some of the warlords the daimyo in Kyushu were actually Christians who had a mixture of Portuguese and Spanish and Japanese names and Hideyoshi was astounded to find when he got to Kyushu that he found some Christian missionaries offering him to kind of broker deals with warlords help him take over the island these people as far as Hideyoshi were concerned were foreigners preaching a foreign faith he discovered that Nagasaki had been raised up into this great port city by the Jesuits who had effectively been given Nagasaki by a local warlord so the extraordinary influence that a foreign power preaching a foreign religion had in Kyushu I think upset Hideyoshi very much he liked Portuguese fashion he now and again wore the kind of baggy trousers Portuguese might wear the reliquaries hanging around them the daggers hanging off them the Portuguese fashion of the time he loved all that but he had a very powerful dislike of I think foreigners generally Christians in particular something I think distinguishes him from Oda Nobunaga I think one other thing that distinguishes Hideyoshi probably is the sheer scope of his ambition so for Oda Nobunaga what he wanted to do was to try and maintain power in the central part of Japan on Honshu. Kyoto at the center as we've said Hideyoshi once he's taken Kyushu just a few years later launches invasions of Korea so he sends troops across including some of Christian warlords commanding them across to Korea wanting to use it almost as China's driveway if you think about the geography of it send these troops up through Korea take over the peninsula eventually invade and take over China and after that he also wanted to take over India as well so he saw himself as this ruler across a large what we would think of being a large swathe of the eastern part of the world so in many ways an even more ambitious character than Oda Nobunaga
Matthew Lewis: I was going to say he does seem to have that genuine ambition beyond the unification of Japan you know he's thinking okay once that's done here's all the other places I'm going to go to next so there is no sense that the job is unification of Japan that's almost like a stepping stone to all of the other things he wants to do.
Christopher Harding: Absolutely and he writes these threatening letters to the rulers of Korea the Philippines of course under Spanish control at this point and China the one use I think he does have for Christian missionaries is as a source of intelligence on these other parts of the world I suppose the Jesuits in particular have quite a big presence in places like India also in China so they can be quizzed to find out what makes these places tick and how they might be dealt with it's almost as though for Hideyoshi you know the establishment of his power in Japan has pretty much been achieved once you've got Honshu you've got Kyushu this northern island what we now call Hokkaido isn't of terribly much interest it's pretty much job done I think by 1590 which is when his final major opponent in eastern Japan is overcome so perhaps it's natural that he would start to look outwards and think where next?
Matthew Lewis: So is Hideyoshi the individual that we should think about as the final unifier of Japan the man who successfully achieves what's taken more than 100 years to get to.
Christopher Harding: I think some people would probably see him as that major figure because he manages to fight what seemed to be those last battles but I suppose there is one final figure who most of us would consider to be the man who really establishes things because although Hideyoshi has done very well by 1590 as I say he pretty much has most parts of Japan wrapped up under his control and he's starting to think about internal administration he introduces measures for example to disarm the peasantry so if you want to end this period of all against all warfare he wants to return to a position where most people cannot bear arms and it's very clear who can and who aren't and where you sit in these various samurai hierarchies so he does all these bits of internal administration too I suppose another thing he starts to do is to launch these surveys of the land something that Oda Nobunaga had started to an extent but Hideyoshi really goes for it to get a sense of who going forward owns what in Japan what kind of tax you ought to pay so the things that you know maybe strike some fans of history as a bit dull but nevertheless are a sign I think of a new order starting to entrench itself so he does all that but his Korean campaign goes badly wrong in the 1590s the Chinese finally put some men in the field and they push the Japanese troops all the way back down the Korean peninsula so it doesn't go anywhere except for poisoning relations with Korea for a very long time to come and then in 1598 Hideyoshi dies and the one thing he doesn't manage to do and I suppose fans of history from Europe and elsewhere there's similar things happen here one thing you want to do if you're a newly established ruler is make sure that the succession is in place that when you're gone your family will continue your work after you unfortunately he dies when his son Hideyoshi is still too young to assume power and so you have this council of elders who are controlling things until Hideyoshi is old enough to rule by himself but unfortunately on that council of elders is one Tokugawa Ieyasu who while you know professing a certain amount of loyalty to Hideyoshi is plotting and scheming instead to take it all for himself and so he becomes our third major figure the man who you mentioned before gets to eat the cake exactly yeah so I think the beginning of that eating of the cake is probably with one of these great battles in Japanese history the battle of Sekigahara which happens in 1600 so you've got a couple of nervous years or a bit less than that after the death of Hideyoshi this council in place but people are wondering really whether it will stick and what happens instead I think is you get the build-up of two sides that take the form in the end of an eastern and a western army and Tokugawa Ieyasu is at the head of the eastern army and in the autumn of Sekigahara he wins out and really everything goes to him and shortly afterwards he has himself appointed shogun so you have the return of that title that's been so powerful centuries before in Japan and again that sort of looks like he's wrapped things up you know we're thinking about around the period of 1603 or so by this point and one thing he does manage to do I think quite successfully is he stations some troops in Kyoto to keep the emperor under a watchful eye not necessarily because of what the emperor might do but what people might use the emperor for some of his western enemies you know as in in the western part of Japan might potentially take the emperor as a figurehead and launch a further action against him it's not as though after a great battle like that everyone on the losing side thinks fair enough you know you've got me I'll walk away and agree to this so he has that power established in Kyoto his own power base is Edo this castle town that is now the great city of Tokyo so his shogunate is really run out of Edo that's where his advisors are his castle is his strong economy is and he manages to really build up Edo I think in short order the other thing he does which is really establishing this process of unification really establishing the new Japan is he does this enormous reshuffling of territory in Japan I think it's the biggest reshuffling of territory in terms of who controls what in Japan's history so lots of the people who are on the losing side of the battle of Sekigahara either lose everything or their territory is drastically cut down or they're shipped off to another part of the country entirely perhaps all these things that are designed to damage their power he also as part of that reshuffle takes over a system that Hideyoshi used to use called Sankinkotai basically it's an alternate attendance system is what it means in fact it's a hostage system and under that system the daimyo has to be in Edo each alternate year and when the daimyo isn't there when he's back in his own domain key members of his family have to be in Edo instead so that if he does anything back at home you know he launches some kind of attack on Tokugawa Ieyasu then his family will all be slaughtered so all these different moves that he starts to make I think in those early years after Sekigahara really give you the impression anyway of someone who's starting to entrench their power and launch Japan on this brand new path.
Matthew Lewis: What do you think motivated particularly these three men I guess but also their enemies is there anything beyond the simple desire for power and to be back in that position of shogun to be the one man who's on top is there any real broader motivation than that?
Christopher Harding: I think some of the daimyo would have said that their primary objective was to defend what was theirs so ensure that the territory they controlled was peaceful was profitable wasn't in danger of being impinged upon by anybody else. I think certainly the more modest daimyo you know he fancied a quiet life would have said that. I think others would have said that there is something disordered about a country where the central authority in Kyoto no longer really works and so for some of them there is that sense of mission to try to restore that but of course also then with people like Oda Nobunaga and Hideyoshi Toyotomi it's power isn't it it's that prospect of being at the top of a brand new hierarchy in Japan albeit one that's more or less according to the old rules you know you still need to have the blessing of the emperor and for Tokugawa Ieyasu it's still important to take the title I think of shogun but nevertheless that yearning for power and the sense that in the past Japan had been unified and that that's a natural state for it to return to.
Matthew Lewis: I'm conscious that we've talked about a lot of men. Are there any significant women that play a role in the unification of Japan?
Christopher Harding: Some of the significant women in Japanese history tend to come mainly in earlier eras to be honest that said I suppose for the role of elite women at least in this period you often see in Japanese dramas for example they're there as wise counsel for the men especially mothers of younger leaders giving advice in private they're quite good at pulling the strings of various men I think they're very good in negotiations trying to sort of grease the wheels of some of these alliances that are important to this period you don't see as many women on the battlefield I think in this era in previous years of Japanese history you found women who are serving as empress you found women who are effectively controlling the shoguns as though they're naughty little boys and you found women who will be out there on the battlefield fighting alongside the men and claiming their rewards but I think for this period there aren't too many standout women but I think there's a lot going on behind the scenes.
Matthew Lewis: I'm struggling not to imagine a Japanese version of he's not the messiah he's a very naughty boy.
Christopher Harding: I think you kind of work that way it's always the peril isn't it when you've got a system that relies on succession that if you don't have promising figures you know someone like a mother has to sort of take them in hand and provide the wise leadership or it can all go wrong I think even with various shoguns in the new shogun at the shogun certainly when that shogun it starts to fall apart later on you do find people saying it's a kind of inbreeding all these shoguns are brought up in such luxury that they don't really have any kind of hard won wisdom at all so I think it is very much that and when men are failing it's often women who sort of step in and prop them up isn't it.
Matthew Lewis: We've talked about the preference it seems like in Japan for it to be a unified country again that that was the end goal of a process of 100 years of war given that that seems to be what most people wanted were there any real obstacles along the way were there those who would have preferred things to stay fractured were there those fighting against the unification of Japan.
Christopher Harding: I think there were those certainly after 1600 who resisted the idea of the Tokugawa dynasty establishing itself and taking over Sekigahara in 1600 you've got a lot of these western daimyo who are to put it colloquially I suppose seriously cheesed off about what has happened and very importantly you know I talked about the emperor being possibly one potential figurehead if they were going to launch an attack on the Tokugawa and their allies because of course seen from our point of view the Tokugawa dynasty lasts for 250 years but in 1600 in 1601 in 1602 this is a blip this isn't necessarily something which is going to last any time at all so whether you might gather around the emperor or whether you might gather around the still surviving son of Hideyoshi this young boy Hideyori who is holed up in Osaka castle there is still that sense of a prospect for having another Sekigahara having another go at that conflict and if possible getting a second outcome so I think probably this is why some historians don't think about 1600 as being the end of the Sengoku period they would probably go on another 30 or 35 years and I think that's for a couple of reasons one is that Hideyori is still around and that really isn't taken care of until a very famous incident 1614 to 15 which is the siege of Osaka it's one of these events in Japanese history which is told and retold on the stage in books in films in art even where the forces of the Tokugawa and their allies gather around Osaka castle trying to do some kind of deal trying to force Hideyori and those around him to give up but in the end the siege turns bloody the castle is on fire and we have these famous scenes of Hideyori and his mother huddled together as everyone around them is burning up and dying so the siege of Osaka I think is a really big event because that is probably the last moment at which you've got a really credible figurehead for opposing the Tokugawa so once that's done 1615 and then Tokugawa Ieyasu passes away the next year a lot of people would probably see that as being more or less the end of things but I think there's probably one final chapter that's worth thinking about even just quite briefly because we mentioned earlier on that Hideyoshi particularly disliked foreign Christian power in Kyushu so he had a powerful dislike for them but after the takeover of Tokugawa Ieyasu he early on at least thought more in terms of using these people as allies so you can have dealings with the Portuguese and the Spanish the Spanish in particular if you want to understand more about New Mexico or the Philippines if you want to develop Japan's own minds the Spanish have great expertise in mining that's quite useful the English and the Dutch start to turn up in the early years of the 1600s there again there's a sense of Japan early on under the Tokugawa wanting to reach out with these friendships and alliances across the world be a kind of global power if they could be it would be the first truly global power I think in East Asia but what seems to happen across these early decades is that there's a sense that Japanese Christians most of them living on Kyushu as we've said aren't entirely to be relied upon there's always been the sense in Japan as they put it in the modern era that you can't simultaneously be loyal to two J's Jesus and Japan and although they wouldn't quite put it like that in this era there's still that sense that these people aren't fully loyal to the traditional authorities in Japan and this really comes home I think to the Tokugawa shogunate in the 1630s in Kyushu where you have what's called the Shimabara rebellion 1637 to 1638 where basically a ragtag bunch of peasants with a little bit of samurai leadership managed to hold themselves up in a castle and fight off wave after wave of samurai who come in to try and pacify them and take the castle and it's extraordinarily embarrassing you know these samurai try everything they send ninjas into the castle they send spies in who get caught they try and dig tunnels under the castle but the people inside the castle fill the tunnels with feces and urine they try all sorts of things and it takes months and months and months and reinforcements to finally get this rebellion under control and the story that the Tokugawa tell after the Shimabara rebellion is that this was a case of foreign interference you know these people these peasants couldn't possibly hold off samurai unless they were somehow being supported and orchestrated by these nefarious foreign Christian powers and so probably the last development in this long process of unification is the shutting down almost completely of Japan's orders they'll still deal with China and Korea at particular points within Japan they'll have that trade with Southeast Asia they'll have a limited trade as well but the Portuguese are thrown out the Spanish are thrown out the English aren't terribly interested in the end anyway the Japanese will only deal when we're thinking about European powers with the Dutch and only at this little artificial island called Dejima just a few feet worth of wooden bridge off the coast of Nagasaki so this process of warring states then these long years of unification ends up with a sense that Japan's going into the future relies to some degree on preventing foreign interference and those edicts effectively creating a country that's at least partially closed are issued across the 1630s and I think it's probably at that point that the new Tokugawa dynasty is relatively secure.
Matthew Lewis: It's an interesting example of one of those periods in history that's really hard to nail down an end date to isn't it it's easy to say it's 1590 let's move on but it sounds like you could stretch that for almost half a century further if you really want to.
Christopher Harding: I think that's true yes in retrospect it's easy to say 1590 if you were an advisor to Tokugawa Ieyasu or one of his sons and if you were of a slightly nervous temperament you probably wouldn't date it until maybe 1615 the end of the siege of Osaka or potentially once you've secured those borders and these foreigners who are rumored to want to colonize Japan certainly where the Portuguese and the Spanish are concerned once they are under control once they've fully got the message then perhaps you might start to relax.
Matthew Lewis: And once unification is complete whenever we decide that that might actually have been does that represent a change for Japan I guess what I'm getting at is do they view this as going back to the way things should have always been done or is this seen as a new start for a new country?
Christopher Harding: I'm going to give you the boring historian's answer and probably say that it's a bit of both in terms of it being new certainly new in the context of the past century or so if you were you know your average cultivator out in the fields you no longer had that same risk of being called up as a foot soldier having your fields trampled over having your money your crops taken to feed an army I think there's an enormous degree of stability that Japan begins to enjoy from the early 1600s and you see the economy start to boom as a result a couple of other things that I think are probably quite important to this period one we mentioned that hostage system earlier on you know with the daimyo either the daimyo or a member of his family key members of his family have to be in Edo at any particular time under the watchful eye of the Tokugawa that involves an enormous amount of travel obviously across Japan to and from Edo so you get these roadside developments opening up you have shops restaurants inns people selling all sorts of things now because you can travel across Japan goods from different parts of Japan are being traded in much greater numbers than they were before so there's the creation of a really strong economy in Japan and probably the last big part of it here maybe two last big parts of it here one is the creation of a social hierarchy which in some ways grows out of the past but it's enforced down to the letter even in terms of what grade of cotton or silk you might be able to wear depending on where you fall in the hierarchy at the top of course you've got the samurai then you've got farmers because they're considered to be producers and below them you have the merchants who aren't really thought to be of they're certainly interesting for the things they offer in their shops because they don't produce anything they trade in the work of others they are below farmers and crafts people and this is quite rigidly enforced as I say these various edicts also in terms of who can and can't travel across Japan pilgrimage becomes quite popular because that's considered a legitimate excuse for doing a little bit of travel and sightseeing but there's a sense that just as you secure your borders so you also secure yourself socially from the inside by having a relatively stratified society and really trying to keep to that I suppose a very last thought about what this means for Japan in the early decades of 1600s and onwards is that in cities like Edo, Osaka and Kyoto you start to have the flourishing of a beautiful urban culture it becomes called the culture of the floating world eventually originally a Buddhist term to mean you know that nothing stays the same everything is passing away but it loses that sense and takes on a sense of enjoying the moment having fun so you have tea houses you have geisha you have kabuki plays you have puppet theatre you have the production of these beautiful pieces of woodblock art you have books you have medicine you have people interested in science and in philosophy so a real flourishing of intellectual and artistic culture which had been there before but once you've got peace and you've got the chance to reflect and take a little bit of a rest you really see a boom for this so Japan has I think real golden years the second half of the 1600s in particular which if you compare I suppose to what's going on in Europe at the time it's quite an enviable level of peace that Japan enjoys.
Matthew Lewis: I was going to say this moment of unification but let's maybe call it this process and period of unification how significant is that to Japan today is that something that they reflect on today that they think about a lot today?
Christopher Harding: I think it is partly because of what came next and without going into you know enormous amounts of detail I suppose the next major point in this history came in 1853 1854 with the arrival of the Americans soon after you got the arrival of the British the French and the Russians really trying to persuade Japan or to be a little bit more honest about it I suppose forced Japan into a global system of diplomacy and trade which for some people in Japan I think especially after close of the second world war was seen in the long view to have been a mixed blessing for Japan this opening up to the west all the political economic cultural military problems that Japan had to go through as a result of that process incredibly difficult for them and for a lot of people there's a certain amount of nostalgia I think for the period before that which is the 1600s 1700s early 1800s the sense of Japan as peaceful settled cultivated a high literacy rate of course for some people life was drudge you know out in the fields you can't go anywhere you have a certain limited diet not just your clothes but even your diet was limited at least officially by some of the Tokugawa edicts so maybe not tremendously entertaining unless you had a certain amount of money to spend but nevertheless it was peaceful settled and identifiably Japanese for people who worry and many in Japan do about whether Japanese culture certainly in the modern era is really Japanese anymore given all the other influences that have come in the Tokugawa era stands as a time you only have to look at a 20-minute drama look at their clothes look at the architecture look at how they do their hair speak to each other the food none of these foreign loan words in there anymore it seems thoroughly and straightforwardly Japanese I think there are a lot of people who appreciate that period for those sorts of reasons.
Matthew Lewis: so is the Tokugawa period then something like Japan's rose-tinted spectacles that they will measure everything else against you know that period where they consider forget all of the drudge of everyday life but that's when Japan was at its pinnacle at its most Japanese.
Christopher Harding: yeah I think it's probably one of two I think certainly in particular the early part of the Tokugawa era so from later on you know from I think certainly mid-1700s onwards when Tokugawa Japan faces various problems you can see lots of people wanting to ask how do we go back to a time when Tokugawa Ieyasu in his great wisdom was organizing this place was setting an example was effectively writing our laws even you know offering us our morality our standards of behavior so really from the middle 1700s certainly after that people are already looking back to the early Tokugawa era as a kind of golden age I suppose the other golden age just briefly would be around the time of the year 1000 when you have the tale of Genji being written by Murasaki you have a sense of classical Japan in that period where everything is about art life aristocrats poetry romance people with such a high degree of sophistication to them yes it's partly based on Chinese culture that's come in lots of people will be reading their books and poetry in Chinese alongside Japanese but nevertheless there's a sense of that period being quintessentially Japanese I think that would probably be the other great period unless you're a particular fan of samurai films in which case the Sengoku era and the unification era would be very much up your street.
Matthew Lewis: And I would question who isn't a fan of samurai films
Christopher Harding: Well exactly, it's nice because whenever I think oh dear we're always going on about the samurai can't we think about something else when we think about Japan but then you go to Japan and you see all this fantastic interest in the samurai there was a little drama I was watching a while back where the premise was that a rather spoiled teenage boy from our own times in Japan gets sent back and I think he did the body swap or in some other way came to be confused with the young Oda Nobunaga and suddenly he has to face all the challenges that Oda Nobunaga did effectively living in an age which makes greater demands especially on young men so just a little illustration that it's not just westerners who really think about these periods and the excitement and the drama and the values that go alongside them.
Matthew Lewis: Well it's been absolutely wonderful to think about the long end of unification what I've learnt I guess is that we can't pin unification down to a single date when something was done and that's it it's over it was a long period which I guess helps to forge this idea of Japan and being Japanese that is still in Japan and with the world today I guess for a lot of people that's what we think of as Japanese as well.
Christopher Harding: yes absolutely I think it's a really formative period for Japan and its reputation abroad I'd certainly agree
Matthew Lewis: Well thank you so much for joining us again Chris it's been great to talk to you.
Christopher Harding: Thank you.

Matthew Lewis: Thank you for listening to this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. Next time we'll be discovering more about the first contact between Japan and Europeans in the form of Jesuit missionaries from Portugal. So join us for the next episode to find out more about the history behind the world of Assassin's Creed.

Portuguese Missionaries in Japan

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast and the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. The next six episodes continue our exciting adventure into the heart of an era that has shaped legends. In case you hadn't seen it, the world premiere trailer of Assassin's Creed Shadows was released recently, and we can see that it situates itself in feudal Japan, a time renowned for ninja and samurai, a time rich in history, culture and stories. Over the next few weeks, we'll navigate the intricate landscape of power and ambition, which you'll be able to explore as a player in Assassin's Creed Shadows. And we'll introduce you to the figures who dominated and dared to defy. From the warring states of the Sengoku period to the unification of Japan, we've explored a period in time that continues to fascinate. Next week, we'll take a closer look at the remarkable story of one of the two playable characters in Assassin's Creed Shadows, Yasuke, the first black samurai. But today, we continue our epic journey through the contours of time, focusing on Japan's first encounters with Portuguese missionaries. I'm joined by Fredrick Cryns, Professor of Japanese History at the International Research Centre for Japanese Studies in Kyoto, to discover how Europeans first reached Japanese shores and uncover the momentous impact these missionaries had on feudal Japanese society and culture. Welcome to Echoes of History, Fredrick. It's wonderful to have you here.
Fredrick Cryns: Thank you for having me. It's an absolute pleasure. I can't wait to talk about this aspect of Japanese medieval life, and it's sort of their first real contact with Europeans.
Matthew Lewis: Can you tell us a little bit about when Portuguese missionaries first arrived in Japan? When does that contact begin?
Fredrick Cryns: Well, that begins in the middle of the 16th century, in 1549 to be correct. The Portuguese, they travelled to the east from the 15th century on, and in 1498, I think, they established a sea route to India. And they went even further, and in the beginning of the 16th century, they already were in Malacca, but then it still took some time for them to reach Japan. It was in 1542 or 43, it's still being disputed, that the first Portuguese merchants reached Japan. And at the same time, you had the Society of Jesus, which started in 1540. And soon after the papal bull was ordained, Francis Xavier, who was a Jesuit and one of the founding members of the Jesuits, he was asked to travel to Asia to begin doing missionary work there. He was asked, especially by King John III of Portugal, because he was very keen on trying to get as many Asians adhering to the Christian religion. So Xavier had quite a correspondence with King John about all what he did in Asia, and it wasn't what he expected. In 1542, he came to India, but he didn't get good results, so he tried to go to Malacca. But there also, there was not much interest for his propagating of the faith. And there he met with a Japanese called Anjiro, probably his real name was Yajiro. And he told him about Japan, and also some Portuguese merchants who had gone to Japan told him that that will be the country where you really are going to get a lot of people converted to Christianity. So he had a lot of expectations for Japan. And in 1549, he finally set foot on Japan. So that was really the first time that the Jesuits arrived in Japan, only six or seven years after the first Portuguese came there. So very soon.
Matthew Lewis: So the initial contact is really about merchants looking for places to trade, but it very quickly turns into a religious mission. And there seems to be an element there that Japan was identified as somewhere that might be sort of ripe for Christianization, that there might be a will there to be converted to Christianity, which would have been a draw, presumably, for the Jesuits.
Fredrick Cryns: Yes, so the Jesuits thought, and it was true, of course, that the Japanese were very intellectual people. Because Xavier first met with Anjiro, and this guy could speak Portuguese, and he learned a lot of languages. He went to the seminary in Goa. So he became very proficient in the Christian faith. So he had very high expectations of Japan. And when he came in Japan, he first thought that the Japanese religion, which was Buddhism, was a kind of Christianity. Because the Jesuits and Europeans thought that in earlier times, Presto John and all those people went to Asia and established Christianity there. So they thought that in Japan, they would find the sort of ancient form of Christianity. And he met people from the Shingon sect, which is an esoteric Buddhist sect, which adhered to Dainichi-no-Rei, which is a cosmic sort of Buddha. So Xavier himself, he preached Christianity and talked about the Christian God as Dainichi. Of course, after a time, he found out that this was not Christianity at all, that this was a totally different religion. So he changed into this. But still, he found, and the other Jesuits who came after him, found a lot of similarities with Buddhism in Japan. So they thought that if the Japanese knew about the true faith, that those Japanese would readily convert to Christians.
Matthew Lewis: Interesting. So their understanding of Buddhism made it feel like it would be an easy move to Christianity that might be quite an easy sell after failing in India?
Fredrick Cryns: Yes, that was certainly one of the things they thought. And also they had seen that when Xavier came in Japan, he landed in Satsuma, Kagoshima, which is in the southern part of the Kyushu Islands. And you had a warlord there, Shimazu Takahisa. And he welcomed Xavier very much because he had a motive. If the Jesuits would come, he thought the Portuguese merchants would follow. So he treated Xavier very well and he gave him permission to preach the gospel in his domains. But after a year, no Portuguese ship arrived. So then he prohibited Christianity and Xavier was compelled to go to another domain, which was the Hirado domain of Matsuda Takanobu. And just at that time, there was a Portuguese vessel there. And when the Portuguese saw the Jesuits, so Xavier and his companions, they greeted them with the utmost respect. And Takanobu saw that. So he thought, OK, I have to treat them also with respect so that the Portuguese traders could come. Because those Portuguese traders, they got a lot of products. One was weapons, especially arquebushes, so rifles that the Japanese could use. And they also had silk of China because Japan wasn't allowed to trade with China directly. But the Portuguese could purchase goods from China and send those goods to Japan. And those silk goods were very in demand in Japan among the samurai class. So brought very high profits.
Matthew Lewis: It's interesting that the Japanese response was, I guess, fairly cynical. They're willing to welcome the religious people because they want the trade that they hope will follow, willing to kick them out when that doesn't materialize. But then for Xavier as well, when he moves on and this merchant ship anchors at the same time that he's arriving, that must have felt to him like a sign from God that he's in the right place and doing the right thing.
Fredrick Cryns: Probably, yes. And he thought that if he goes to the emperor in Kyoto, in the capital, that the emperor would give him permission to preach in all of Japan and that he would have a lot of success because he saw that the lord of a small domain, when he gave permission, he got the chance to convert a few people. If the upper lord of the country would give him permission, he thought he would be in a good position to convert a lot of Japanese. So he went to Kyoto, but that materialized not very well because Kyoto at the time was in the midst of warfare. So he didn't have the chance to meet with the emperor nor with the shogun. And he had made a mistake. Well, a mistake not from his standpoint. He tried to look as frugal and simple as possible to convey to the people that he was a pure religious at heart. But the Japanese at the time, they didn't like poor people. So he was not treated very well on the way to Kyoto. And he had the same experience when he was in Yamaguchi, which was then a very thriving city on the way to Kyoto, where he went to the lord, Ouchi, Yoshitaka. And this lord didn't like him because of his poor appearance. So afterwards, he went back from Kyoto. He got back to Hirado, where he put on very expensive clothes and then went again to the court of Ouchi. And then he was received very well. He also gave a lot of presents which he had brought from Portugal. And Ouchi was very pleased with that and gave permission for the Jesuits to preach their gospel in his domains. So there Xavier saw how he had to arrange the missionary work in Japan. It was different from Europe. They had to appear like the Buddhist monks, which were also very expensive clothes. And in this way, they had to impress the Japanese.
Matthew Lewis: It's really interesting in those early contacts how they both seem to have their own motives and they're both willing to adapt their approaches to fit with each other. So the Japanese are willing to welcome Christians because they think it'll bring trade. And the Jesuits are willing to portray themselves as something they wouldn't normally as wealthy men, well-dressed men in an effort to make sure they get in with the Japanese. So there is this kind of trying to click and work together from both sides.
Fredrick Cryns: Yes, I think that both were adapting to the other. Perhaps the Jesuits more than the Japanese, because as you say, when they saw that there was nothing to be gained from a relationship with the Jesuits, they just cut them out. And you also had problems, for example, in Hirado, when some Japanese became Christians, they became quite aggressive against the Buddhists. So you got internal strife in the Hirado domain. And that was the reason why Takanobu prohibited Christianity from then on. So you have really different motives from both sides and probably a stronger position from the Japanese than the Jesuits. So they were really encouraged to change some of their Western methods to better please the Japanese.
Matthew Lewis: And given that Japanese cynicism, I guess, about wanting the Christians there because it will bring trade. What do we know about what the Japanese thought of those early arrivals from Europe? What did they make of European people?
Fredrick Cryns: Well, I think that at the time you have some words like Nanbanjin, which means southern barbarians. So they saw perhaps the Portuguese more as barbarians than as equals. But still, as a whole, I think they really loved new things in Japan like they do now. New knowledge, new rare objects, and so on. They really like those stuff because they have a long tradition from importing a lot of things from China, Korea, and so on. So this was a new culture presented to them with new artifacts, all kinds of Christian artifacts like paintings and crosses and statues and so on. And I think they got a liking for the exotism that those Western objects brought to them. And the century is called the Christian century in Japan because they adapted so much in their culture at the time. So I think they were positively disposed towards those Jesuits and Portuguese or Western culture as a whole.
Matthew Lewis: It's interesting in calling them southern barbarians, it does suggest that the Japanese felt that they were exploiting the Europeans, that they were just getting from the Europeans rather than working with them, that it was an unequal partnership from the Japanese point of view.
Fredrick Cryns: Yes, I think they saw it really as some exotism. But you have the strange effect that when they became Christians, and that is something that the Jesuits wrote in their reports about Japan, it was quite different from, for example, India. If you converted an Indian to Christianity, it had to be done with a lot of force. And when they became Christians, they were not that faithful. While the Japanese, when they became Christians, they attended church and the sermons, and some of them really became very fervent Christians. So in a sense, when they get used to this new culture, to those new people, some became very close. You have, for example, Otomo Yoshishige, who became a Christian after a long time, but he was very well disposed against the Jesuits. You have other people like Takayama Ukon, who became a very fervent Christian and all his samurai also. So they were very fond of them and they listened to the Jesuits. They asked them a lot about politics, how they could manage this or that issue. So the Jesuits got a lot of influence with some warlords and also with a lot of the peasants and the lower ranked people. So they really had some success, success that they didn't experience in other countries.
Matthew Lewis: It's an interesting view on Japan, I think. We often view it as quite a closed society, but they were clearly willing to welcome a lot of these things in. Who else during this period were important missionaries? We've talked a lot about Xavier as the first to arrive there. Were there other important Portuguese missionaries that followed him?
Fredrick Cryns: Well, you have a lot of colourful figures among the Jesuits. Xavier left in 1551, but soon there came more and more Jesuits. I think Caspar Vilela is one who stands out. He was a very keen propagator of the Christian faith and he could convert some warlords to Christianity. One of them was Omura Sumitada, who eventually would give a port to the Jesuits, which was called Nagasaki. You have Almeida. Almeida was a merchant and a surgeon. And he came to Japan in connection with the Silk Trade between China and Japan. And he was very wealthy. But in 1555, after three years in Japan, he decided to become a Jesuit himself. And so he gave all his wealth to the church. And he was also instrumental in establishing a hospital and an orphanage in Funai, which was the capital of Bungo, which was the domain of Otomo Yoshishige, a very powerful warlord in Kyushu. So a lot of Jesuits who really cared about their faith and who really did a very good job in charity, in converting a lot of Japanese to Christianity. And then you have, of course, Vanignano, which was the visitor, as he was called, to the Orient. So he was the head of all the actions in the Orient. And he spent a lot of time in Japan because Japan was the place where the Jesuits thought they would have the best results. Freus is another one, Louis Freus. He was the historian of the Jesuits. He wrote all the lengthy reports about Japan. Every year, the Jesuits wrote a report about what they had done in Japan, about the political situation of Japan and all the Christian communities in all the places, especially in Kyushu. And that was a very lengthy report. It was mostly over 100 pages every year. And those reports are very valuable because Freus wrote too much for the liking of his superiors. They always said it's too much. You have to make it more compact. But because of all those reports, we have vivid impressions of what Japan was like at the time and also all kinds of political developments within Japan.
Matthew Lewis: It's interesting that his superiors were probably thinking, this is a meeting that could have been an email. But we have to be grateful, I guess, that he does give us all of this colour and all of this additional information that we otherwise wouldn't have.
Fredrick Cryns: Indeed. And that information was used by the Jesuits in Europe for propaganda. So they published, after some censorship, Louis Freus and Uleras and other letters in Italy. And they were also translated in several languages like Latin, German, French and so on for the Catholic Reformation in Europe. They would say, see what we can do in Asia and especially in Japan. We probably have lost England, but we have gained another island in the form of Japan. So they did a lot of propaganda, which gave them additional financial resources and many European Jesuits who wanted to join the efforts in Japan, which was good for them for a time, but could work as a double-edged sword.
Matthew Lewis: And you mentioned that the Japanese partly welcomed the Portuguese because they bought new things. They bought access to silk that they couldn't get from China because trade there was barred. Did the Portuguese and that contact with Europeans bring anything to Japan that really changed Japanese society?
Fredrick Cryns: First of all, I think fate. So the Christian religion, they converted probably the most in the best time. It was probably 200,000 or 300,000 Japanese, which is a phenomenal figure. So those Christian Japanese became quite a force to be reckoned with. They also brought in firearms, which were copied right away, which became a crucial factor in samurai warfare. So probably those two were the most important things that the Portuguese brought to Japan that changed history. You see Otomo Yoshishige. You see the Miyoshis in Kyoto. You see Oda Nobunaga incorporating those firearms in their armies. And I think before that, you really had more one-on-one combat with the samurai. But with the introduction of those firearms, it became more of standing armies shooting at each other from a distance. So the way of warfare of the samurai really changed a lot through that introduction.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess reflects the way warfare was changing in Europe at the time as well, where there was much more of a move towards the gun and away from the sword. But it's interesting that contact with the Portuguese maybe brings that to Japan at roughly the same sort of time too.
Fredrick Cryns: Yes, I think so too.
Matthew Lewis: How did the missionaries sort of operate in Japan? Were they holding sort of big scale baptisms? Were they establishing churches or was it much more quiet than that?
Fredrick Cryns: They would first establish a church. And you have to think of a church as a Buddhist temple because they didn't import Western architecture. So they had to do what was available for them. And at first they would use abundant Buddhist temples and afterwards they would build their own temples. But those temples would be in the same style as the Buddhist temples with the only difference that they put a cross on top of the roofs. Also, the interior was quite the same, but they put a lot of Western furniture in the interior. But that was really the only difference with the Buddhist churches. So they first started to teach the Japanese Christian religion. And they did that mostly through the help of the Japanese. So they had a lot of Japanese lay brothers, which they called iruman. They also had dojuku, which you could translate as people who lodged with them or were guests with them. And those people were aspirant priests. So Japanese who wanted to become Jesuit priests, which was something that the Jesuits didn't like very much. They really hesitated to ordain Japanese as priests. I think around 1600, there were two Japanese who were ordained priests. So that's already 50 years after the Jesuits first came. So that's a long time.
Matthew Lewis: Why were they so reticent to do that? Because it would seem like the more Japanese priests you could get, the easier it might be to spread the religion. Why were they so cautious about that?
Fredrick Cryns: Because the Jesuits needed a long period of education. In Europe, when you wanted to become a Jesuit, you had years and years and years that you had to train in all facets of Christianity. You had to learn Latin and so on. And for the Japanese, it wasn't possible to learn Latin when they were in Japan. So that was a stumbling block. And that made the Japanese very willing to serve the Jesuits and to propagate the Christian faith. But as lay brothers, aspirant priests, and that was something that irritated the Japanese. This information we can find in the letters, for example, of Valignano. But still, the Jesuits weren't very eager to make them priests. But I would say that most of the work was done by those Japanese lay brothers. Because you had the problem of the language. And the Jesuits themselves, they would also preach by themselves. Some would learn the Japanese language very well. But mostly, they would be in charge of teaching the Japanese lay brothers how they have to do it.
Matthew Lewis: It's an interesting juxtaposition between the Jesuit desire to get there and convert as many people as possible. But also that kind of cultural and spiritual break on the fact that, hang on, not everyone can be a Jesuit priest. So they're almost holding themselves back a little bit.
Fredrick Cryns: Yes, but really that was a problem that we had in Europe too. So it wasn't easy to become a Jesuit in Europe itself. So then for the Japanese to make them Jesuits very easily would have had some backlash in Europe, I think. So everything what Valignano and his fellows decided had to be sent to Europe to be approved. So there they had a problem. And they also had a problem that after a while you have Cabral, you have Coelho. So two Jesuits who became the head of the Japan sector. And they weren't very keen to adopt Japanese customs. They wanted to be as strictly Jesuits as in Europe. So they already have a problem from the Jesuit side. And many like Villera or Freud were more inclined to adopt Japanese customs. But the heads of the provincials, as they called them, were against that. So a lot of problems within the Jesuit mission of which way to go in Japan.
Matthew Lewis: And do we see many of the leading members of Japanese society, the daimyo for example, do we see them converting to Christianity? And if we do, do we think that's genuine conversion? Or is it for political or economic purposes to attach themselves to the trade?
Fredrick Cryns: Well, I think you have three or four warlords in Kyushu who converted to Christianity. And some of them were very fervent Christians like Omura Sumitada, for example. Otomo Shorin or Yoshishige also in his later years became a very fervent Christian. So you had other lords who became Christian who weren't that fervent, who just wanted the trade. But still, Takayama Ukon was really an ardent, tough Christian to say so. So some really got into it, but many didn't convert. So you had, for example, Oda Nobunaga, which showed great familiarity to the Christians, to, for example, Floyce, who he invited in Kyoto in Gifu in his castle and showed him around in the castle. So he was very positively inclined towards the Christians, but still he never adopted the Christian faith himself. You also have his successor, Hideyoshi, which also was positively inclined in the earlier years towards Christianity. But he too, he didn't become a Christian. So you had the two opposites to say so.
Matthew Lewis: And we talked a little bit about the challenges that the Jesuits faced from within their own movement, about how they should interact with the Japanese culture and communities. Did they face any challenges from Japan? Was there lots of resistance to the appearance of Christians?
Fredrick Cryns: In the beginning, not so much, but when they got more and more converts, they had a lot of opposition from the Buddhist monks. And the problem really was that when they converted Christians, they began to attack the Buddhist monks and the Buddhist temples. And a lot of Buddhist temples were destroyed, especially in Omura, which was the domain of Omura Sumitada, who was a fervent Christian, so he just lets the Christians do what they wanted. And some Japanese began to dislike the Christians. So we got more and more opposition when there became more and more Christians.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, so I guess there's an element there of the Christians being victims of their own success, because as soon as you succeed, you swell numbers, you become a political threat and a religious threat to other people, and therefore you become a target. So they almost fall into a trap of their own success.
Fredrick Cryns: Yes, indeed.
Matthew Lewis: And in terms of their relationship with the government of Japan, how do Christians get on? Because they seem to have that early success, but then there seems to quite quickly be some persecution, which will eventually lead to a ban on Christianity.
Fredrick Cryns: Well, Oda Nobunaga, which is seen as the first unifier of Japan, was very positively inclined towards the Jesuits. And then you have Hideyoshi, and Hideyoshi was continuing the unification of Japan. And there was one area which he had to continue was Kyushu. So Kyushu wasn't conquered yet. And you had Otomo, which was a very powerful clan in the east of Kyushu, and then you had in the southwest, you had the Shimazu. And Otomo was losing against the Shimazu. So he asked Hideyoshi to intervene. And sometime before Hideyoshi marched towards Kyushu, he met with Coelho, which was then the head of the Christian mission in Japan, together with Freud. And he treated Coelho very well, just like Oda Nobunaga had done with Freud. So Coelho was really pleased with that. And then Hideyoshi asked him, I want to invade Korea. Can you provide two Portuguese ships to help me in this invasion? And if I conquer Korea, I will make it that there are a lot of churches being built. So Coelho said, yes, I will do that for you. And I will make sure that we have two Portuguese ships, the Karak ships, as they were called by the English, gigantic ships. So Hideyoshi could very well use them for his invasion of Korea. And then he went a step further and he said, I will make sure that the Christian warlords in Kyushu will also support you. And I think at that moment that Hideyoshi, that there was a ring belling in his head that the Christians, the Jesuits had too much influence in Japan. If they could influence some warlords, then they posed a danger to his reign. But he didn't mention that. And he marched into Kyushu and when he had conquered Kyushu, he again met with Coelho on a Portuguese ship. And Coelho again said that we will support you in whatever endeavor you will take. But the night suddenly he sent a questionnaire to Coelho asking him why they came to Japan, why they are making so much converts and why are they destroying the Buddhist temples? Of course, Coelho was really shocked with that. He was so well treated and suddenly everything changed overnight. So he gave his answer that, well, they came to Japan just to propagate their faith, in good faith, and that it was not them who destroyed the Buddhist temples, but the Japanese converts. To that answer, the answer of Hideyoshi was that he made a decree that the Jesuits had to leave Japan in 20 days. So suddenly, after so much success, the Jesuits now had to leave Japan immediately.
Matthew Lewis: And it sounds like the real reason behind that was that entanglement of religious success looking like political power. So if they can provide ships to help him invade Korea and they can direct the actions of some of the Japanese warlords, suddenly they're not religious missionaries, they're a political power, which are a threat to Hideyoshi.
Fredrick Cryns: Indeed. And at the same night, Takayama Ukon, who was a fervent Christian warlord, was deprived of all his domains and eventually banished. So that makes clear that Hideyoshi was afraid of political power of the Jesuits. But he didn't enforce the order very strictly. And that was the same reason why the other warlords welcomed the Jesuits, because he didn't want to disrupt the trade with the Portuguese. So he promulgated that decree. But afterwards, the Jesuits stayed in Japan and still continued their missionary work there. So at that time, the Jesuits didn't have that much problems. But still, it was an early warning for what was to come.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, sort of an official warning shot across their bows to make them wary of what they were up to. I guess you mentioned that this is still called in Japan the Christian century. What is the legacy of this early contact with Christianity and with the Jesuits in Japan? Is that still felt today?
Fredrick Cryns: Well, in the beginning, they had a lot of influence in the arts. So you have nanban bijutsu, so nanban art or southern barbarian art. Southern because they came from the south, of course, to Japan. A lot of influence also in technologies, in surgery, in cosmology. But afterwards, the successor of Hideyoshi, which was Tokugawa Ieyasu, he forbade Christianity totally. And all influence of the Jesuits was erased very systematically from then on. So in the Edo period, the long period of Tokugawa peace, there were not much remnants of the Christian faith in Japan. You had the hidden Christians, the kakure Christians, who continued in secret their devotion to Maria and Christ. But apart from that, you really have in the Edo period many Japanese who don't know anything about the Christian faith anymore. So that's how roughly the faith was erased. I've been to Hirado domain to search the official documents of the Hirado domain, and I haven't found anything related to Christianity. So all of those documents were destroyed. And then the same in the other domains, I think.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah. So it's kind of a little blip that goes away as quickly as it arrived, almost?
Fredrick Cryns: Yes.
Matthew Lewis: It's been absolutely fascinating to talk about this early contact between Europeans and Japanese people and the influence that they were both having over each other. So thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much. And I would say as well, if anyone wants to know a little bit more about this kind of period, Frederick has a new book coming out called In the Service of the Shogun, which examines early contacts between Europeans and Christians, particularly in this case, the first Englishman to reach Japan. And I've been really, really enjoying the book. So thank you very much, Frederick.
Fredrick Cryns: Thank you very much.

Yasuke: The First African Samurai

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by HistoryHits. This is the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. In case you haven't had the chance to see it yet, the world premiere trailer for Assassin's Creed Shadows was released, and you can see that it takes place in feudal Japan. This is a time famous for its samurai and ninjas, an era rich in history, culture, and stories. For the next few episodes in this series, we'll be exploring this fascinating period in history. So far, we've travelled back in time to the Sengoku period, sowed the seeds for the unification of Japan, and seen cultures collide with the arrival of Portuguese missionaries on Japanese shores. Today, we're tracing the story of a key figure in this era of upheaval, Japan's first black samurai, Yasuke. As one of the main two characters in Assassin's Creed Shadows, you'll get to see the world of feudal Japan through the eyes of the legendary African samurai. But how and when did Yasuke end up in Japan? What was his journey to becoming Japan's first black samurai? And what can his story tell us about life in Sengoku, Japan? To find out more about this notorious and yet mysterious figure from Japanese history, I'm joined by Thomas Lockley, Associate Professor at Nihon University in Tokyo, and author of African Samurai, The True Story of Yasuke. Welcome to Echoes of History, Thomas. It's great to have you on.
Thomas Lockley: Thank you very much for having me. It's a true honour to be with you today.
Matthew Lewis: I can't wait to find out more about this incredible figure who is a playable character in Assassin's Creed Shadows. I think our audience would like to know as much about him as they possibly can too. So to start off with, can you tell us a little bit about Yasuke's life or what we do or don't know about him before he arrives in Japan? Where does he come from?
Thomas Lockley: Well, we know that he's from Africa, but we don't know for certain which part of Africa, apart from that it would have been on the East Coast. The descriptions we have from Japanese descriptions are very much of somebody from what is now South Sudan. Very tall, very black, very strong. Whereas there's a couple of sources which suggest he might have come from the Mozambique area. However, he doesn't fit the description very much of people from that region. There's also the full possibility that he could have been somehow trafficked from the South Sudan area down south and come through Mozambique as well, and I think possibly that might be what we're looking at here.
Matthew Lewis: Okay, so we don't really know too much about his life before he appears in Japan?
Thomas Lockley: We don't know about his exact life. We can work back with research to the life of people like him. The majority of people like him were mercenaries in India. Having been trafficked from Africa, they expressed purpose of becoming soldiers. The highly likely that if he came from the North East Sudan area, that he was employed as a soldier in India, and then employed as a bodyguard when the Jesuits were coming further east to Japan, which is in the middle of a century of war already. Jesuits can't carry swords or weapons, but they can employ people that do. And Yasuke was a perfect employee in that sense, a bodyguard.
Matthew Lewis: Interesting. So we can sort of surmise that he may well have been trafficked, that he's likely to have been in India, and that he's likely to have some sort of a military background, some sort of military training by the time he arrives in Japan too. So then how and when does he arrive in Japan? What do we know about him coming to Japanese shores?
Thomas Lockley: Well, he arrived in May 1579 on a ship from Macau to get from Africa, whichever part of Africa it was, to Macau and then to Japan. He'd already spent time in India. He'd spent time in Malacca in modern day Malaysia. And I think it was about six to nine months in Macau. They're waiting for the winds to go. So he was the bodyguard of a Jesuit, the head Jesuit in Asia, essentially the head of the Christian church in Asia, a man called Alessandro Valignano. And Valiano was on a tour from Rome. He'd been sent by the Pope to tour the new missions in Asia. And of course, Japan was the furthest of these missions. So it was the last place that he eventually got to.
Matthew Lewis: Interesting. So he's coming as part of a Jesuit mission. Could he have been Christian? Do we have any idea of his religious background at this point?
Thomas Lockley: Well, it's highly likely that he would have been Christian, at least on paper. I don't think the Jesuit would have employed him necessarily if he hadn't. And in any respect at this time, let's just say conversion was enforced often. I mean, he would have been taken as a kid and therefore, I mean, he's probably not got a lot to say in exactly the circumstances of his early life. It's only when we get to his adulthood, when he gets to Japan, that he actually has some agency as far as we can tell.
Matthew Lewis: Interesting that the agency comes with arriving in Japan. Hopefully we can come back to that a little bit later. What do we know about how the Japanese react to Yasuke's appearance on Japanese shores? Would he have been perhaps the first African they might have encountered?
Thomas Lockley: Well, you've got to remember, Japan is a big country even today. And the people that would have encountered him first on the West Coast in Kyushu, or this modern island of Kyushu, would not have been the same, even in vague contact, really, with Senda. There was no newspapers, there was no television, there was no podcasts in those days. So the people in the West would have seen many Africans in their ports, through Chinese ships, through Portuguese ships. Therefore, he wouldn't have been such a big thing there. I mean, what the Japanese sources say about him is that he stood out for his size. Not necessarily for the fact that he's African, although of course, the fact that he's black and very different is very, very important, but it's his size. He would have been considered a very big man today in those days. He was considered a giant, about six foot two to six foot four in imperial measurements, which is about 178 centimeters, I believe. He was a big guy, and the average Japanese person was around 150 centimeters at the time. And that's probably an optimistic average. So he would have been literally more than a head above everybody else.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, standing head and shoulders above everyone else. With big shoulders as well. Yeah, he must have been quite a striking figure for them to see for a variety of reasons then. What do we know about how he might have begun to communicate with Japanese people? Presumably he arrives, like a lot of the Jesuits, with a big language barrier.
Thomas Lockley: Probably not, actually. The Jesuits were big linguists, and many of them were trained beforehand to be able to speak the languages of the people they were trying to convert. Yasuke is recorded two years afterwards as having quite a good level of Japanese. I mean, of course, he could have started to learn it when he arrived, too, as before. But Valignano himself, the visitor, the chief inspector of churches, if you like, was a big proponent of learning any language. He started the concept of Asian Studies. Asian Language Studies in Europe was started by him. He was a person who insisted that his missionaries study Chinese, Japanese, various Indian languages. So it's conceivable that Yasuke had already started to learn Japanese before he arrived.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess the big question is, how on earth does this guy who arrives as a Jesuit bodyguard from Africa via India end up being a Japanese samurai?
Thomas Lockley: Well, when I said that in the West they were probably quite used to Africans, apart from the size of this particular man, Yasuke, when he got to the centre of the country, the capital area, what is now near Kyoto or Osaka, they probably had never seen an African before. He was swamped, literally swamped. There's several records of him being mobbed by crowds trying to touch him, see him. Houses fell down because they're getting on top of the houses to get a look at him. In one of the processions in a place called Sakai, basically the procession of people was broken up, it was destroyed, and he had to get on a horse to escape. One can imagine that there was some muscles that got in to push people out of the way. Another one, when getting to Miyako, which is now Kyoto, a huge mob literally surrounded the mission and almost pushed the mission down, throwing stones. There were dead people in the crowd outside. And at that point, Nobunaga, who was the most powerful warlord in Japan at the time, was five minutes' walk away. He heard this huge hullabaloo, if you like. He heard what was going on and he demanded to see who was disturbing the peace, demanded that this person be brought before him. Hence, the date with destiny, if you like. Yasuke is brought to the most powerful man and probably the most infamous man in the whole of Japanese history. It's not just that he was powerful then. This is a man who you go into any bookshop in Japan, there'll be a book about him, even today. It's very difficult to say just how much of a famous figure he is. He's something like a Napoleon or a Winston Churchill in the European sense. They hit it off, bizarrely, perhaps. But also, Nobunaga was a man that thought out of the box. He thought differently. He was the first proponent of mass guns, invented the, supposedly, invented the mass volley, which Europeans later on copied and put to good use all around the world. He also was very, very keen on dressing up in strange clothes, Chinese clothes, barbarian clothes, meaning Portuguese clothes, etc, etc. And there's lots of records of that. So, the fact that he would have employed an African is not actually that strange. He did have Chinese employees and he specifically, although he couldn't employ Jesuits, specifically kept Jesuits near him for fun, to talk about things like maps and globes and building works and things like that, which the Jesuits were very well-educated for Europeans in this era, were very good at doing. And therefore, I don't think it's that strange that Yasuke came before him, they hit it off, they talked in Japanese, and eventually, though, sadly, we don't know the details. I would love to know those details. Somehow, within a few days, Yasuke has entered Nobunaga's service. Within a month, he's gone to Nobunaga's castle town. There's another Jesuit record from there, and there's a Japanese record from there as well that says how much Nobunaga enjoyed talking to him, that he gave him a house, that he gave him a sword, and that's where the idea that he became a samurai comes into it. The idea being, if you give somebody a sword, they are in your service and it's a traditional mark of a samurai. What a samurai was at this point in history is up for debate, and therefore, it's impossible to say 100% what it was that Nobunaga was doing for Yasuke, but what we can definitely say is that he became one of Nobunaga's very close circle. Literally, within the very close 30 people around him, mostly much younger men, teenage mostly, Nobunaga was very fond of teenage men, and Yasuke became one of these close courtiers, if you like.
Matthew Lewis: It's an incredible story for him to arrive there, undergo all of that kind of swamping by people, the reaction to him, but it seems like perhaps it was well-timed in that Nobunaga is a man who likes innovation, he likes new things, he likes engaging with different new ideas, and that perhaps this arrival precisely works for him. Here is something new, something that he can engage with, and a particularly huge guy with some martial experience who you can add to your circle to make you look good.
Thomas Lockley: I'm pretty sure that would have been a massive, massive bonus for him. There's one wonderful picture of Yasuke sumo wrestling with 10 other guys. I can say with 99% certainty that it is the only true depiction that we have of Yasuke. We know that it's him. There are many others of Africans at the time, hundreds, literally, of Africans in Japan at the time, but we can't say with any certainty that they are Yasuke. The beautiful one of him sumo wrestling, and then there's another 10 men waiting their turn, is Yasuke, and that, I think, is what Nobunaga would have seen. He had somebody in his crowd who was not only useful militarily, as you said, but also he's entertaining. There's a specific record that says Yasuke was entertaining for Nobunaga. Not an entertaining in a funny ha-ha, like a jester type of way, like you're stupid, but the kind of entertaining and stimulating entertainment, like your podcast.
Matthew Lewis: Wonderful, thank you. So he's good company for Nobunaga.
Thomas Lockley: Perfect word, he's good company. In my book, African Samurai, we look into how Yasuke might have felt about this that's not necessarily in any documented place, but we do look at how this would have fit in the dynamics of it, if you like.
Matthew Lewis: What do you think Yasuke would have made of all of that reaction to him? You know, you've just said we don't really have it documented, but having studied him so much, what do you think he would have made of all of this fuss about him?
Thomas Lockley: Well, he became a rich man very quickly, in a time where that would have meant an awful lot. He went from being a probably fairly lowly employee, or enslaved, to being quite literally one of the highest in the land, or at least with access to the very highest in the land, next door, if you like. That would have been a big thing for a 26-year-old. It would be a big thing for a 26-year-old today. I think it would have been an even bigger thing in those days. There's another record of their first audience, where Nobunaga gifts him what is essentially 30 kilos of coins. And you can imagine that as a kind of joke as well. Give the strongman 30 kilos worth of money and see if he can actually carry it. It doesn't say whether he carried it away on his own or not, but that was a lot of money.
A lot of money.
Matthew Lewis: You'd have given it a good go for 30 kilos worth of coins. I'd have given it a good go to drag that away.
Thomas Lockley: I think he would have been expected to pick it up. He couldn't drag it. I'd still give it a go.
It's a lot of money. It is a lot of money.
Matthew Lewis: Do we know whether Yasuke undergoes any kind of formal samurai training? So he's often remembered as a samurai. As you mentioned, we don't really know what that means at this time. Does he undergo any kind of training in using a Japanese sword? Or is it literally the case that Nobunaga gives him a sword and then we count him as a samurai?
Thomas Lockley: Well, the romantic in me would like to say yes. Of course, he had training. The historian in me says probably not. The nearest we can get to any evidence is that picture of sumo wrestling. Sumo wrestling is a martial art. It's a preparation for war for warriors. I know there's some evidence that he's certainly engaged within martial pursuits, shall we say. But beyond that, it's impossible to say.
Matthew Lewis: What does Yasuke's story tell us about medieval Japanese society and about their view of foreigners? I think we quite often have this idea that Japan was quite a closed society and culture for large periods of time. But it seems like they're quite welcoming during this period.
Thomas Lockley: I would say so. Partly because at this period, Japan was in the midst of civil war and people were coming from the outside all the time. And they were bringing in all sorts of useful things, technologies to mine silver, which then would be processed into weapons. These are all Chinese technologies, by the way. Technologies for making castles, technologies for increased food supplies so you can feed more soldiers. And then the Europeans come in with these fancy boats and these fancy guns. Japanese immediately copy these guns and start manufacturing on a massive scale to the extent that there is a belief that there were more guns in Japan by the end of that century than the whole world put together. You can time it to about a 50-year period where so many guns are made that it eclipses all the guns in the rest of the world. People have had this idea of disconnection or xenophobia, perhaps. You've also got this country which is doing more to introduce foreign ideas for their own use than probably any other country in the world at the time. So there is a disconnect there. And I'm pretty certain that Yusuke as being part of this new wave of new blood, if you like, would have definitely endeared him to the people around him. And the fact that he could speak is obviously a man who had charm and personality would really, really have made a big difference, I think.
Matthew Lewis: His arrival timed well with Nobunaga being there, who was willing to embrace all of this and welcome it. And I guess if we're being slightly cynical, Nobunaga is thinking about what he can get out of all of this new technology and everything else.
Thomas Lockley: There's no cynical at all. That's 100% of what he was doing. He was a man who was on a mission to end 100 years of war, partly for his own benefit, but partly also for the people under him. And the people who he ruled over loved him, quite literally, because he brought peace. He brought economic prosperity. He brought all sorts of benefits, which when you're in a bandit-ridden place, pirates on the seashore, bandits coming down from the mountains, Nobunaga was the person to sort all those problems out. He did it with an iron fist or with gunpowder and lead. He would have seen all of these as benefits for himself and for his mission.
Matthew Lewis: And in that environment, a six-foot-four guy who knows how to fight is another benefit.
Thomas Lockley: And also, there is one thing that I haven't talked about yet, but the Buddha or various deities are often depicted as black-skinned, even today, but they were even more so in those days, as far as we know. Therefore, this very, very dark, not light brown skin, but very dark skin, he's described as having skin the color of ink, black ink, is, for many people, might almost seem godly or divine in some respect. So Nobunaga would have been a vision of having this divine giant behind him as his bodyguard or as one of his closest circles. I mean, that's one interpretation of it. We can't say that for definite, but it is an interpretation. And of course, that would have made Nobunaga look even more godly than he did before.
Matthew Lewis: Absolutely. Another reason why Yasuke would have stood out, but another reason that Nobunaga would have been keen to draw him near and associate himself with this guy who represents so much.
Thomas Lockley: Absolutely. No question about it.
Matthew Lewis: We've talked a little bit about samurai and the lack of clarity around what a samurai really was and what it meant. Does Yasuke's career inform that at all? I think there's this view that samurai were born and trained all their lives in the arts of being a samurai, and yet we have this guy who arrives and, within days, he's given a sword and termed as a samurai.
Thomas Lockley: Two years, two years. Within several days or a month or so of meeting Nobunaga, but he'd already been in Japan two years.
Matthew Lewis: Okay, sorry. But he doesn't have that cultural background as a samurai. Does that inform our understanding of what a samurai was in the late 16th century at all?
Thomas Lockley: It does. Samurai prior to this era of civil war, which is called the era of the warring states, prior to that is what you talked about, the hereditary training from birth, etc. They had been descended from, essentially, warriors for several hundred years. But during the warring states period, basically, there's a lack of manpower. Anybody that can bear a weapon is conscripted or is rounded up and stuck in an army. Therefore, what it meant to be a warrior or what it meant to be a samurai, only a very, very tiny percentage would have been trained from birth in that traditional manner that you're talking about. At this point, we're probably talking most of them being peasant boys that were conscripted or were forced into it or went into it just so they could have something to eat. I mean, this is a time when people are starving everywhere. Armies would have been the best fed people. And there would have been plunder as well and slaves to take. And there would have been profit. So status was a big thing at this point. And it was one of the most open times in Japanese history. You could make your name. Nobunaga's main retainer, a man called Hideyoshi, was born a peasant. He actually became Nobunaga's successor after Nobunaga died. So he rose from literally the bottom, almost, to the top within his lifetime. He died quite early as well, maybe in his 50s. So it wasn't even a long life. He personifies his era in the same way that Yasuke does. Yasuke comes from abroad, but he's got the right skills at the right time and comes in there and offers those skills. Hideyoshi did the same. Many, many tens, hundreds of thousands of others were doing exactly the same at this time.
Matthew Lewis: We talked about Nobunaga a bit more in a previous episode. He really did focus as well on using the foot soldiers much more than lots of his predecessors. He was willing to equip them and treat them better because they would form a core of an army. So are we seeing a bit of a blurring of the lines between the samurai and the soldier in Nobunaga's reign so that someone like Yasuke can come along as a man who knows how to fight and make it into the ranks of a samurai, which he might not have been able to do previously?
Thomas Lockley: You're 100% correct. Those conscripted peasants, if you like, were called Ashigaru and they were distinct from samurai in the traditional sense, but they were still warriors in that they were fighting. Ten years later, after this, when the wars are starting to finish, when everything's kind of heading towards peace, those men and their families find themselves thrown out of that warrior class. The samurai class becomes a caste or a class again in a more traditional sense and puts the walls up to all of the Johnny-come-latelys, if you like. So we don't know what happened to Yasuke at that point. We don't have any concrete records, but it would have been interesting to find out what happened to him at the same time as all the other peasant soldiers were finding that they were no longer needed.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, so he really does land on a sweet spot in Japanese history for him.
Thomas Lockley: In that context, yeah.
Matthew Lewis: What do we know about what happens to Yasuke then after Nobunaga dies in 1582? Given that he is so close personally to Nobunaga and his relationship is with Nobunaga, do we know what happens to Yasuke after he's gone?
Thomas Lockley: So Yasuke was there at Nobunaga's death. He possibly was the last person to see him alive. Nobunaga was killed in a kudita, essentially. He was heading to the front with this small corps of men, of which Yasuke was one, around 30 people. And one of his generals, basically, we still don't know to this day why, he brought his whole army of 13,000 and attacked. They were all gunned down, essentially. Nobunaga, with Yasuke and his lover Ranmaru, come into the middle of the temple where their last moments are held. The temple is on fire around them, and nobody really is going to know what happened in that room because there's only three people and they all died. Except for Yasuke. But we only know that Yasuke survived because the Jesuits recorded as such. We don't know what he saw, unfortunately. The normal legend goes Nobunaga cut his belly, Ranmaru took his head off as his second, and then one supposes that Ranmaru then cut his belly and Yasuke took off Ranmaru's head. And the supposed last order is Yasuke, save my head. Yasuke runs with the head to Nobunaga's son, who's probably about five to ten minutes walk away, very close in a different temple, also about to be attacked, also just putting up the defenses for a last ditch stand. Of course, that doesn't last very long. He's dead within the hour or so. And all we know from the Jesuit source, there are no more Japanese sources, all we know from the Jesuit source is that Yasuke was there at the last. He was one of the few survivors. He was taken prisoner, he surrendered his sword, and he was then escorted to the Jesuit mission, which was again only five minutes walk away. This is a very small area of Kyoto where all this happens. And the Jesuits give thanks to God for his deliverance. And sadly, that's the final word we have proven of Yasuke.
Matthew Lewis: Ah, that's so frustrating. That must be really annoying for you.
Thomas Lockley: It is. There's a lot of little politics in it. Why was he spared? Why didn't he die? You'll have to read the book if you want to find out the details about that. But essentially, he probably an offering to the Jesuits that the usurper, Akechi Mitsuhide, may have wanted to get the Jesuits on his side, etc. There are a lot of good reasons for that. So that's one possibility. We have no definite record of Yasuke after that. We have lots of records of other Africans, big Africans, very black-skinned Africans, Africans that can speak Japanese, but none of them we know for definite are Yasuke.
Matthew Lewis: Frustratingly, after such a wonderful, glittering, short career, he then just vanishes from the record.
Thomas Lockley: But this is an era, as you know, where people die young. And it's conceivable that he would have been about 27, 28 at this point, maximum 29. He was before 30. But the average age of death among normal people was probably not much more than that. So you say a short life in our terms for today, but in those terms, it probably would have been a normal lifespan.
Matthew Lewis: Given that Yasuke's career then is relatively short, so a few years towards the end of Nobunaga's life, how has he become such a part of popular culture in Japan? Does he have a legacy in Japan that lasts to today?
Thomas Lockley: He does. He was forgotten for a very long time. There are Jesuit records of him repeated as they copied the letters into books, into new books and new books up until about 1712. I think 1799 is the last mention of him in a Jesuit account of the Japanese mission. Then he's basically forgotten about for 300 years after that. There's no mention of him whatsoever until the 1960s when he suddenly appears in a Japanese historical fiction book. The reason for this is that the Jesuit records were translated into Japanese for the first time, essentially during World War II. The scholar that did it, trying to keep his head down and not get involved in all the politics going on, they just carried on translating these records and they were published after the war. So suddenly you've got all this rich history which has been lost for several hundred years just in the open and copies of those Jesuit histories are in virtually every library. All I had to do was walk two minutes downstairs to my university library and get them out. And they were there. That was the records of Yasuke. His story is revealed to the world along with everything else in the Jesuit records, of course. And this lady writes this wonderful children's history, basically. It's called Kurosuke. Kurosu is her name, Yoshio Kurosu. And it's a very, very sympathetic story. It's at the same time as the civil rights movements happening in the US and there's a lot of input from that as well in the book as well. Then in the 70s, another very famous author, the same one who wrote Silence, which was made into a movie by Scorsese, Endo Shinsaku also writes a book about him, which is not quite such a nice book about him. It is almost what we think of it as discriminatory these days. He does silly things. Anyway, then he's gone about again for another 20 years to the 1990s. From the 1990s onwards, he's in television dramas, he's in manga, he's in anime, he's in plays. And then he becomes more and more a main character to the extent where you've got computer games, like the one we're talking about here, where he's becoming a playable character or he's becoming one of the main characters and the main attractions of these computer games and other things. I think, again, his time has come. Japan is now a very, very swiftly multiculturalizing society from having very, very few people of foreign origin 20 or 30 years ago, triple, quadruple. The society is changing very, very quickly here. And Yasuke is a very positive symbol of a previous multicultural era when people were endeavoring to communicate and do things together here in Japan, but also around the world. He's seen as a symbol of this. And again, you said it, he came at the right time in Japan at that time. I think now his time in the modern world has come as well.
Matthew Lewis: He sounds like someone who eats, appearing at the right moments and the right times. He appeared in Japan during his lifetime, but also his sort of afterlife. You know, he appears, as you mentioned with that children's book, around the same time as American civil rights movement is going on. There's a story to be told there.
Thomas Lockley: He was brought into service by the author to emphasize the power of Africans and to emphasize a positive story about Africans in the midst of this era.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, and then again now, he can speak to Japan's previous endeavors with multiculturalism to inform where society is going now. He seems like someone who is always there at the right time.
Thomas Lockley: Lucky man.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, he did really, really well. What an absolutely fascinating life he lived. You can find out so much more about Yasuke in Thomas's fabulous book, African Samurai.
Thomas Lockley: It's published in the UK as Yasuke, by the way, not African Samurai, that was the US edition. Whichever one you look at, it's still the same book. So I hope you enjoy it. And the new book as well, which is a different book, it's called Gentleman from Japan. This is reverse Yasuke about a Japanese man that goes to Britain and meets Queen Elizabeth I.
Matthew Lewis: Well, thank you so much for joining us, Thomas. It's been an absolute pleasure to talk to you and to find out more about Yasuke and his career and his afterlife indeed.
Thomas Lockley: Thank you very much for having me. It's been an honor.
Matthew Lewis: Thank you for listening to this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. Next time, we'll be discovering more about one of the most significant figures in Japanese history. You've heard his name, but we're going to take a much closer look at Oda Nobunaga. So join us for the next episode to find out more about the history behind the world of Assassin's Creed.

Japan's First Unifier: Oda Nobunaga

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. In case you haven't seen it, the world premiere of Assassin's Creed Shadows was released recently, and we see that it sets the game in feudal Japan, a time renowned for its samurai and ninjas, a time rich in history, culture, and stories. As we have been for the last few episodes, we're continuing to explore this fascinating period in history, delving into the intricate landscapes of power and ambition, which as a player, you'll be able to explore firsthand in Assassin's Creed Shadows, meeting even more figures who dominated and dared to defy. From the rise of the infamous warlord Oda Nobunaga to the fortified palaces of the capital Kyoto, and the brutal battles of the Tencho Iga War, we'll dive deeper into this period in time that continues to fascinate. In this episode, we continue our epic journey exploring this turbulent time, focusing on the life of Japan's first great unifier, Oda Nobunaga, who we encounter in the But how did he emerge as Japan's dominant daimyo in an era of incessant social upheaval and civil war? To help answer this, I'm joined by Nate Ledbetter of the Department of East Asian Studies at Princeton University. Nate is an expert on 16th century Japan, so he's perfectly placed to help us peel back the layers of history and explore Oda Nobunaga's storied life. Welcome to Echoes of History, Nate. It's wonderful to have you here.
Nathan Ledbetter: Oh, thank you for having me. Excited to be here.
Matthew Lewis: We have been kind of skirting around this guy, Oda Nobunaga. We've mentioned him several times. He crops up, obviously, a lot during this history. So I thought this was a really good chance to get to know him a little bit better. So we're going to have a whole episode devoted to Oda and everything that we can find out about him. I'm really looking forward to getting under his skin a little bit. And just to set the scene, Oda Nobunaga lives during this period of great upheaval in Japanese history, the Warring States period. What does Japan look like when Oda Nobunaga is born? So before he's politically active, what is the situation in Japan?
Nathan Ledbetter: So this is an age called the Warring States period in Japanese, the Sengoku Jidai. And normally what that means when we describe it is that over the previous centuries, the imperial court in Kyoto had delegated control of the military establishment to a succession of warrior governments that we call shogunates or bakufu under the leadership of a shogun. But by the early 16th century, the current shogunate under the Ashikaga family had lost control over administration of the provinces, mostly due to internecine succession conflicts taking place within the ranks of their major supporters and also of their own house, the succession line of the shogunate themselves. We often hear the phrase gekokujo associated with this period or this idea of the low overthrowing the high. So lower ranking officials or samurai kind of rising up against their masters and establishing local dominance. What's really going on here is that with all the conflict within the shogunate and involving the major military governors that were subordinate to it, they're focused on their power struggles within Kyoto and within their own families. And so more and more they have to designate their subordinates out in the provinces, the deputy governors and such, as the local leadership and delegate that local power to them. So more and more of these higher ranking samurai nobles, military governors, members of the shogunate are more and more separated from what's going on in their actual domains that they nominally control. And so many of these subordinate families, the deputy governors and so on, use this lack of supervision to effectively take over control of the provinces. The Oda family, of which Nobunaga is the most famous, is one of these deputy families having governed Owari province initially in the name of the Shiba family of military governors. So when Nobunaga was born in 1534, the Oda family effectively had control of Owari province at this point, though the family itself was fractured and Nobunaga's branch was interestingly not the primary lineage. So kind of to sum up the whole idea of the Warring States period, we have these fractures at almost all levels of military society.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, so if he's born in 1534, it sounds like he's born in the middle of a pretty chaotic period, but he's also of relatively humble origins. You know, as you say, he's not the primary line of the family. He's not sort of a senior noble figure, which obviously makes it all the more impressive what he goes on to achieve. What do we know about what his early life is like? Who are his family and what position of power are they in?
Nathan Ledbetter: So the Oda family, as I said, they were the deputy governors underneath the Shiba family in Owari. And he's born as the first legitimate son of a man named Oda Nobuhide, who is the de facto leader of the Oda family. Like I mentioned, his line was not the senior line, but Nobuhide was particularly capable and competent and brought his relatives under his control and for the most part, dominated the governance of Owari province. But he was in constant conflict with his neighbors, particularly the powerful Imagawa Yoshimoto to his east and a daimyo named Saito Dosan to his north in Mino province. So Nobunaga's youth would have been one where his family was in constant conflict, both internally and externally. He was designated Nobuhide's heir rather early on. And given the education that you would expect of an heir, he was given four of Nobuhide's high-ranking subordinates as his tutors, so to speak, to raise him up and teach him the ways that he would need to rule, both militarily and politically. But it's often said he was a bit of a wild child who preferred running around with his friends rather than studying, out hunting and raising all kinds of ruckus. Allegedly, he wore outlandish outfits like a tiger skin cloak. And generally, he didn't really act the part of an up-and-coming warlord. You'll often hear that he was called the fool of Owari. And whether this is true or not, if it was true, whether this was an act to throw enemies off guard or accurate and he really was just kind of off in his own little world, it's hard to know for sure. But in 1549, he marries the daughter of Saito Dosan, who is located to Owari's north in Mino province, as part of a peace agreement between Dosan and Nobuhide. And so he's being raised for the role of taking over as the Oda family's heir. It's unclear at this point whether he's really taking that role seriously.
Matthew Lewis: Sounds a bit like one of those annoying rich kids. He's got all dad's money and a nice car to drive around in being flash and everything else, but not taking the role very seriously at this point.
Nathan Ledbetter: Yes. Yeah.
Matthew Lewis: What happens then when Nobuhide dies? So, Nobunaga has been prepared. He's had this education, even if he's not kind of invested in it too much. Does he manage to succeed his father smoothly?
Nathan Ledbetter: Smooth is the last thing that you would probably call it. So, Nobuhide dies in 1551. And despite Nobunaga being his heir, there's some contention based on his pattern of erratic behavior. One of the famous events that is often brought up is at Nobuhide's funeral. Nobunaga shows up allegedly very unkempt, not in the proper formal funeral attire, and acts very disrespectfully, throwing incense at the altar instead of performing the proper respectful rituals. And based off of this, we're told that some of his father's vassals form a faction around his younger brother, while other branches of the family see this as an opportunity for them to seize control, push this loser who's not ready for the job out of the way. Other vassals defect to the Imagawa or plot with the Saito. So, his position upon his father's death is actually very precarious. This somewhat changes, at least according to the stories we were told about young Nobunaga, which we always, of course, have to take with a little grain of salt, being as they were written after the fact, and maybe embellished a bit to build up kind of his legacy. But in 1553, one of his senior retainers, one of these four men who was designated as kind of his tutors and mentors, a man by the name of Hirata Masahide, commits suicide. So, think of the image of seppuku ritual suicide in your head. Can we just go into a bit of detail about what seppuku actually involves? Sure. So, much later in the Edo period, where things have been a little bit more formally codified in terms of what seppuku is, but the word literally means, you know, slicing of the belly, and you'll often hear the kind of more informal phrase harakiri associated with it as well, but it's essentially the idea that the soul of the body is seated in the stomach. And so, as a way to show your sincerity in death, the samurai would often take their short sword, known as a wakizashi, and use it to disembowel themselves, making two cuts in their stomach as a way to both, you know, show their bravery in the face of what must be an excruciatingly painful way to die, but also, you know, releasing their soul, as it were, through both of these avenues, kind of making it a pure death. You know, you'll often hear this act of seppuku being executed in the wake of a defeat in battle that's a little bit overblown. We have this image of the samurai never accepting defeat and always killing themselves rather than surrendering. That is far from the reality. But, you know, certainly in the Edo period, it was often used as a punishment. Sometimes samurai would commit seppuku as a means of following their masters into death if they felt particularly loyal. And at various times, that was outlawed because, well, what's the heir supposed to do and all the senior retainers who are supposed to advise him, you know, as he takes over, commit suicide? Well, you know, he's kind of out of luck. But anyway, another form that this could take was an act called kanchi, which is essentially a suicide of protest, normally done to protest what the person committing suicide would see as, like, unjust policies or maybe unwise decisions by his lord. So in this case, we have Hirata committing this form of protest suicide. And it serves as a way to wake up young Nobunaga to his rather outlandish behavior and how it's being detrimental to both, you know, his own well-being and the well-being of the Oda family. You know, how much of this is actually how things went down, it's almost impossible to say. But it does seem that from this point, there is a bit of a change in attitude. And he does begin to more seriously concentrate on consolidating his control over Owari and the Oda family.
Matthew Lewis: There's a really interesting parallel, I guess, in English history to Shakespeare's version of Henry V, who he paints as this wild child who immediately that he comes to the throne has this real conversion to an incredibly serious and driven person. We don't know how much of that wild Henry V is Shakespeare's imagination. There's not too much evidence of it. And it sounds like Nobunaga falls into that category a little bit, has a bit of a reputation, but we don't know how much he deserves it.
Nathan Ledbetter: Yeah, you could definitely say that, at least according to the traditional narrative, he definitely has his Prince Hal stage. And then once his, you know, his father dies and he takes over, he goes through that a little bit more until this incident. You know, one of the theories of this, of course, is that because he understood his weak position, he was attempting to show that he was not a threat to any of the people who would be tempted to take over and overthrow him. That's out there. I mean, again, it's really hard to know the truth of this, and I'm sure it's some combination of all the above. But yeah, there's this idea out there, oh, he was this mastermind from the very beginning, faking it and acting all crazy so that he threw off his enemies. How much is true? How much isn't? I'll leave it up to the audience to decide.
Matthew Lewis: So having had what's positioned as a wake-up call for him, how does Nobunaga then go about gaining control over the Oda clan? Having sort of seemed to alienate several of the other members, and others are positioning themselves for power. How does he bring all of that back together and establish himself as their leader?
Nathan Ledbetter: So his first fight is to simply gain control of his own family, you know, largely inside of Owari province. There's some pressure from external enemies, the Imagawa to the east. But initially, from 1552 to 1554, he's contending with iterations of rebellion from his uncle, Nobutomo, who conspired to assassinate him and worked with other entities to try to make that happen. Nobunaga catches him and forgives him once. But you know, second time, he continues to plot. Nobunaga captures him and has him put to death. In 1556, again, out of fears that Nobunaga is just not up to the task, several of his major retainers side with his younger brother, Nobuyuki. But Nobunaga, you know, warned of potential treachery. At one point, feigns an illness instead of going to go meet his brother. So his brother comes to meet him. And when he does, Nobunaga has him and his entourage assassinated. So the 1550s is really the story of Nobunaga's consolidation of his power within the Oda family, establishing himself as the leader of the family, and by default, almost the ruler of Owari province. In 1559, his final obstacle is the castle of Iwakura and his cousin, Nobuyasu, who belongs to the senior branch of the Oda line. But he manages to take Iwakura castle and eliminate Nobuyasu. And this ends the internal threats. Now he's the daimyo of the Oda family and in control of Owari province.
Matthew Lewis: It's really interesting to wonder whether people underestimated him all along or whether it was that series of threats that really galvanized Nobunaga into the man that he would become.
Nathan Ledbetter: I think most of the time in questions like this, I tend to say it's a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B, but certainly having to navigate these struggles initially as he did, and likely, you know, as he was growing up underneath his father, he saw the fault lines along which, you know, different elements of the family fell. That certainly was a good training ground for the political and military maneuvering that would happen later on in his life.
Matthew Lewis: So once Nobunaga has control of Owari province, how does he then go about looking outward and beyond his own borders? Because his province is quite a small one comparatively as well, isn't it?
Nathan Ledbetter: Yes, so Owari is small, but it centers on a plain, the Nobi plain. Japan is very mountainous, right? So there's only a few large flat areas where cultivation can take place at large scale and Owari happens to sit in one of these, the Nobi plain. So while it's a small province, it's a particularly wealthy one in terms of agricultural income. So it's a good place to be based out of. It's far enough away from the capital that you're not in the middle of the intrigues and plots going on there, but it's close enough that you can get there if you decide to be part of those plots. So everything is really, as it so often is in history, it's a combination of luck, opportunity, and talent. It's really external forces that first act on him rather than him choosing to go out. Like I said, he consolidates his power by 1559 within Owari. In 1560, the powerful Daimyo Imagawa Yoshimoto to his east, who ruled Totomi, Tsuruga, and Mikawa provinces and came from the illustrious Imagawa line, which was one of the pillars of the former Ashikaga shogunate, he decides, or it's usually assumed at least that he decides, that he's going to make a run at marching on the capital of Kyoto to take charge of the central government. So he gathers together an army of 25,000 troops and begins his march east. The first stop is, of course, his neighbor in Owari province, Nobunaga. So he has to go through Nobunaga's domain. On paper, this is going to be very easy. He's got 25,000 troops, which at the time was a very large army, and Nobunaga only has a few thousand men, maybe 2,500. So we're looking at roughly around a 10 to 1 disadvantage. But Nobunaga, despite the fact that his advisors all counsel him to withdraw into his castle at Kyosu and withstand a siege, he decides that, you know, that's a losing strategy because what's he going to do against an attack by an army that size? He decides that his best course of action is to try to seek an opening and attack. I won't believe in the details of the battle because we have so much to cover, but the Imagawa forces by midday had made significant progress against the Odo forces invading. Though the Imagawa army was much larger, it was rather spread out and divided. The vanguard had taken several of these forts that Nobunaga had, but Yoshimune himself was with only a few thousand troops. And at his command post, they took a bit of a siesta, almost, if you will, in this small narrow gorge called Dengaku Hazama. And they were celebrating. Some of the Imagawa troops had already broken into the celebration sake in anticipation of their great victory that they saw coming, because, you know, how could you see anything else? A little bit after this, there's a rainstorm. This was in the summer, so the rainy season in Japan. And this thunderstorm breaks out, and it really helps Nobunaga maneuver his forces through the mountains, through these narrow passes, into position to attack Imagawa Yoshimoto's headquarters camp. They broke out of the tree line to attack the camp, and at first Yoshimoto assumes that it's a drunken brawl taking place amongst his men. Too late, he realizes that it's not, that he's actually under attack. And shortly after that, two of the Oda samurai relieve him of his head. In the aftermath, the Imagawa forces, deprived of their commander, melt away in confusion. And we have this almost legendary victory by Oda Nobunaga, outmanned 10 to 1, destroying the forces of this, you know, great daimyo. So it kind of makes a name for Nobunaga. Another key thing about this battle though, and the aftermath, is that in the confusion of the Imagawa family, with the loss of their head, several of their more talented and younger retainers, one of which we know today is Tokugawa Ieyasu, are able to claim independence. And Ieyasu establishes himself in his home territory of Mikawa, which is just to the east of Owari, and establishes an alliance with Nobunaga. Thus providing this secure flank to Nobunaga's east, allowing Nobunaga to then look, you know, in other directions as he begins to expand.
Matthew Lewis: Incredible combination of luck and judgment and good timing and bad weather and early celebrations. But it all turns out perfectly for Nobunaga. We know he will establish control over someone who is effectively a puppet shogun for him shortly after this. How does he then move from being under such threat and pressure to suddenly becoming one of the most significant figures in Japan? Right.
Nathan Ledbetter: So first, before I get into that in detail, I do want to say, you know, his father-in-law, Saito Dōsan, had ruled the province to his north, Mino province, but was murdered by his son, Saito Yoshitatsu, who then died since 1561, leaving his somewhat incompetent son, Tatsuoki, in charge. So Nobunaga, his next target is this province to his north, Mino province, which is much larger in size than Owari, and it's somewhat kind of the nexus of road networks in central Japan, where two of the major roads from Kyoto, the capital in central Japan, to the east, run through it. So it's a pretty strategic province to have. So he goes to war against Saito Tatsuoki, and it takes a while, but through diplomacy and bribery of the Saito generals, he's able to convince many of them to join his side, and by 1567, he's weakened them enough to besiege and take the main castle at Inabayama, which he then renames Gifu, to bring it back to the question that you had just asked. This renaming is symbolic, because it's a reference, it's a Japanese reading of the Chinese location where the Zhou dynasty was founded, way back in the BCE era, the early days of Chinese imperial lines. Also at the same time, he begins using his famous Tenkafubu seal, which translates as, all the realm through force. So at this stage, he now is in control of two provinces, which are small, but strategically and economically beneficial. And he's making these things, which in hindsight, we can clearly see are signals of his ambition, and a recognition of the primacy of military power. So was he wearing his tiger skin out hunting with the boys in Owari province, thinking, you know, one day I'm going to march on Kyoto and rule the entire country? I mean, that's hard to tell, right? But at least by the mid to late 1560s, this is his idea.
Matthew Lewis: It's striking that he seems to have such a vision so early on, but also that he's so open about it. You know, he's naming places in a way that clearly establishes a dynasty, and he's using a seal that talks about, I'm going to take all of this.
Nathan Ledbetter: Right. Well, it's also hard though, and again, it's easy to see this in hindsight. It's really hard to say, you know, whether his peers at the time in 1567 took note of this in the same way. Like people across Japan further away, probably, okay, he took another province and, oh, you renamed the city. Okay, great. You know, I don't want to set it up as too dramatic, but certainly whether his peers recognized he had these thoughts, he did. So the victory over Imagawa Yujio Shimoto kind of made his name, but now he has Owari and Mino, which give him a fertile economic base and the two major roads, east-west through Japan. So then he works to consolidate his position by doing some preliminary campaigns into neighboring Ise province and establishing diplomatic relations. So he marries his younger sister, Oichi, to a warlord named Azai Nagamasa, who rules northern Omi province. And this is significant because Omi is the province that lies between Mino and Owari, which he owns, and the capital of Kyoto. So he's, in essence, securing a line of advance for future endeavors. One thing I want to stress is that for us, looking back on it, we have a tendency to look at a society like Sengoku Japan as a game board. If you picture the game of Risk, every territory is controlled by a warlord who is looking to conquer more and more territory until they control the map, and every player has the same goal. But the reality is that most I know were just way more concerned with personal survival rather than national hegemony. They're trying to expand their domain to prevent others from taking it over. They want the next line of mountains so that they can have a more defensible position and deny that to their neighbor. So they're usually conducting military action to eliminate local rivals, strengthen their immediate position. But given what we just kind of noted about Nobunaga, his renaming of his capital with historical reference to a Chinese dynasty at the Tenkofubu seal, we can see that he does have a somewhat more broadly focused goal. But even Nobunaga early on had to work with the existing political framework. As fractured, as dysfunctional as it was, you couldn't just unilaterally decide to start an entirely new government. So we often have the impression that the imperial court in Kyoto was impotent because it had no independent military or economic power, but it still carried immense political, social, and ritual power. And Nobunaga respected that greatly. Likewise, the Ashikaga shogunate had devolved from a relatively strong central government in, say, around 1400 to a shell of its former self by the mid-16th century, when we're talking. But people still thought of it as the legitimate military and political governing structure. The previous shogun, Ashikaga Yoshitaro, had been assassinated in 1565 and replaced by a puppet. So Yoshitaro's younger brother, a man by the name of Ashikaga Yoshiaki, had been traveling around the provinces trying to seek a benefactor who would back his claim and help him march on the capital. So shortly after Nobunaga establishes himself in Gifu, Yoshiaki arrives on his doorstep in 1568, thus giving him a pretext to make his move on the capital. So this is where, you know, how did he get to the point where he was marching towards Kyoto and planning to take control? This is kind of where that comes from. The fact that he can take a legitimate claimant to the Ashikaga shogunate and march on Kyoto under the pretext of putting him into power gives him the legitimacy to do so. So in November of 1568, he enters Kyoto with his army and installs Yoshiaki as the 15th Ashikaga shogun. However, here's where things start to differ from what you might have expected at the time. Because rather than accept Yoshiaki's offer to be his deputy shogun, Nobunaga declines that and any other position that Yoshiaki offers. And we often interpret this as he didn't want to be under the direct authority of the shogun, confined to a specific role. He rather wanted to retain kind of the freedom of action as the real muscle making things happen.
Matthew Lewis: It's fascinating that even with all of his ambition and his desire to reunite Japan to some extent, it's been fractured for more than a century. But he's still not looking to sweep away the idea of a shogun and an emperor and a capital in Kyoto. He's not looking to sweep the board clean and start again to reunify Japan. He's looking to rebuild those existing structures to be the scaffold that holds them up and makes them work again.
Nathan Ledbetter: Absolutely. There's a lot of debate between historians about whether he was a revolutionary figure or a conservative figure. Was he trying to establish a new Japan or was he trying to restore an old Japan? And, you know, there's arguments, I think, for both sides. But I think long term, what he was trying to do was re-establish central control under his leadership. No question about that. But he did want to re-establish that central authority over all of the territory of Japan at this time and end sort of the chaos that we associate with the Sengoku period. But to do that, he needed to do some unusual or unprecedented things. He didn't have this vision of a completely revolutionized society sweeping away the imperial institution. He had great respect for the imperial institution. As we'll see, he didn't have very great respect for Ashikaga Yoshiaki in particular and absolutely intended to use him as a puppet to the best of his abilities. But we don't have this figure of, you know, I'm going to completely wipe away the entire old order. He wanted to buttress the previous order and reform it in ways that were sustainable.
Matthew Lewis: Rather than whether he was a revolutionary or a conservative, we need to try and work out whether he was a conservative revolutionary or a revolutionary conservative. Right. That's a good way to put it. So given his rejection of a role as a kind of deputy shogun or anything official like that, he wants to go off and exercise his own power and authority, no doubt for his own ends. What challenges does he then face to his authority as he becomes more and more of a significant figure in Japan?
Nathan Ledbetter: Well, clearly, you know, when one warlord rises up like this, it's going to engender resentment by others. In 1570, Nobunaga sends an invitation, sensibly on Yoshiaki's behalf, to local warlords for a reception in Kyoto. And this is almost a way to test who was going to accept his authority and who wasn't. And the daimyo of Ichizen province, Asakura Yoshikage, refuses the summons. So Nobunaga launches a campaign to besiege the Asakura's main castle. But unfortunately for Nobunaga, the Azai, his brother-in-law's family, his brother-in-law being Azai Nagamasa, had a multi-generational alliance relationship with the Asakura. So Nagamasa feels obligated to go to the Asakura's aid, and he launches an attack on Nobunaga's army's rear, forcing Nobunaga to break off the siege and retreat while a rear guard held off the Azai and the Asakura forces. So Nobunaga feels personally betrayed by this man who was a relative by marriage, and the Azai and Asakura are one of the initial threats that he faces. The two sides meet in July of 1570 at the Battle of Anagawa, where Nobunaga was joined by his ally, Tokugawa Ieyasu, and they fight this battle in the shallow Anagawa River. Both sides plunging into the water to engage the enemy. So if you picture this dramatic battle in this shallow river, Tokugawa on Nobunaga's right flank managed to rout the Asakura, and then crash into the flank of the Azai, while at the same time, Nobunaga sends his reserves around the other flank, and it causes the collapse of the enemy. It's a great victory, but the surviving members of the Asakura and the Azai forces find refuge on Mount Hiei, which is a mountain just to the northeast of the capital. And it's the site of the Enuryakuji Temple, which is the headquarters of the Tendai sect of Buddhism, and a military power in its own right. You know, we think of the stereotypical warrior monks. There's issues with kind of that stereotypical image, as you might expect. So what matters is that, you know, this was a Buddhist temple that had essentially an army of its own. And so this prevents Nobunaga from cutting off the Azai and the Asakura forces, and completely destroying them, and he has to back off. Which, as we can gather from Nobunaga's personality, does not particularly make him happy. Another group that, around this time, rises up to challenge his authority, and one that will probably be his longest-running enemy, is what's known as the Iko-Iki, or the Iko League. This was a confederation of followers of the true Pure Land sect of Buddhism, and its headquarters was the Ishiyama Hongan-ji, which was located in what is now present-day Osaka. But it had groups of adherents, called these Iki, or leagues, scattered throughout the provinces of central Japan. And in 1570, Nobunaga starts a war with them, because these self-defense groups, these Iki, and the Ishiyama Hongan-ji itself, resisted political and military control by local warrior rule. In fact, in 1486, the Iko-Iki of Kaga province overthrew the local Daigo, and ruled the province without any samurai rule for almost 100 years. Nobunaga's obsessed, at this point, with re-establishing central unified authority, so he sees this as an unacceptable threat. This is a political challenge, not just a military one to him, but a political challenge to the system that he believes in. So for 10 years, until 1580, he's in this constant on-and-off war with the Ishiyama Hongan-ji and their Iko followers in various locations throughout the provinces. And they're really the linchpin of the various coalitions that are opposing Nobunaga. You know, at this point, these are kind of like the main enemies that he's looking at. As we go through his career, he'll have many more coalitions that form mostly around or with the Iko-Iki as this base that they ally with. But in 1571, he realizes that the only way to solve his problem of encirclement is to break the circle. So he starts with Mount Hiei, the Enryaku-ji temple complex that had given refuge to his enemies. And in the fall, he rings the mountain and has his troops advance up deliberately. And according to eyewitness accounts from the time that are written down, his troops are killing anything that's alive, whether it be monks, laymen, women, children, reportedly even every animal that's on the mountain. And they burn almost every building of this massive temple complex. This is undoubtedly a brutal act. And combined with his war against the Iko-Iki, it is often used as evidence of his hatred of Buddhism. But I think more recent scholarship looks at it from a more pragmatic standpoint. He didn't really hate Buddhism. He hated Buddhist institutions that did not accept his secular authority. So he punished the monks of the Enryaku-ji and destroyed the complex because they supported his enemies and they didn't recognize his hegemony. And this is typical of his whole career. Of course, his enemies and many onlookers at the time were horrified and saw this as a sacrilegious act. But I do want to caution everybody from reading too much into it in terms of anti-religion. He was anti anybody who wouldn't submit to Nobunaga, right? Though this did galvanize some of the opposition against him, this is what draws in the Takeda of Kai province as an enemy in addition to others. And of course, in addition to the human toll, which is horrific, this is a massive loss of life, but it's also a loss of culture, of history. This was a major religious complex, so it had important documents, texts, artwork that all went up in flames with the exception of one small building that got overlooked. So, you know, massive events in both his career, but also in the history of Japan in terms of the loss of information we as historians have.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, it's one of those striking examples of how someone really significant in a country's history can be such a complex figure that, you know, he probably didn't hate the religion. As you say, he saw the political threat, but nevertheless, he did something culturally devastating for his own political ends. Absolutely.
Nathan Ledbetter: And, you know, in this, I think we do need to look at him as a pragmatist, but we can still recognize the horror, you know, especially from our modern standpoint of what some of his actions entailed. He was certainly not a merciful man, and if you opposed his authority, he was going to destroy you. That said, I do think it's important as well to keep it in the context of others at the same time would be doing the same things. The burning of temple complexes, especially as a form of political violence, was not unusual. We have many examples of it from Japanese history, so it's easy from the depictions of it sometimes to read that into it. Of course, part of our depictions come from the Portuguese Jesuit missionaries who were there in Japan observing all this, and they're ecstatic that Nobunaga is destroying the Buddhist institutions, so they play that up. And so I think that kind of influences our ideas of, oh, it's against Buddhism. No, he built temples, he supported other religious institutions. It was all political, much more so than any sort of religious idea.
Matthew Lewis: You mentioned that he didn't have too much time for Yoshiaki, the man he kind of installed as Shogun. How does that relationship play out in the end?
Nathan Ledbetter: That's a great question. Early assessments of their relationship by historians assume that Nobunaga's plan all along was to use him as a puppet and then throw him away and take power for himself. I agree with more recent biographers who see it as a little bit more complicated than that. Ashikaga Yoshiaki, obviously, as the Shogun, felt that he should be in charge. So after being installed in 1568, he attempts to rule, but he quickly sees that he cannot do anything without Nobunaga's help. And by 1572, there's some real tension between the two over who's in charge. Nobunaga issued several admonishments, which have been published and are famous, going so far as to note how the people call Yoshiaki the evil Shogun, in scare quotes there, and laying out rules for the Shogun's house to follow. Of course, Yoshiaki takes offense at this and who are you to tell me, the Shogun, how to run things? And so, like I said, early on, historians looked at this as Nobunaga's overstepping his bounds, he's trying to push Yoshiaki out. I think a different reading of it that is more compelling to me is that he really saw that this was the structure that should be in place and was trying to guide Yoshiaki back onto an actual correct path of governance, at least as Nobunaga saw it. And his efforts to maintain relations with Yoshiaki, at least initially, were very sincere. But Yoshiaki is the one who kind of pushes the relationship to the breaking point. In the early 1570s, he's orchestrating coalitions of enemies to move against Nobunaga. In addition to the Ikoiki, he's kind of another linchpin of the different coalitions against Nobunaga, trying to convince different daimyo to turn against Nobunaga, invade, come rescue me and Kyoto and be my savior and I'll grant you XYZ, so forth. This continues until 1573, when it's very obvious that Nobunaga has run out of patience. In 1573, he does march on Kyoto and expel Yoshiaki, which more or less ends the Ashikaga shogunate for good. And then Ashikaga would escape to western Japan, where he would take up residence in the lands of one of Nobunaga's enemies, the Mori family. And from there, he would continue to write different daimyo, constantly trying to create a coalition that could overthrow Nobunaga and reinstall him in power.
How effective that was? Well, we see that it didn't happen, but he certainly was doing his best the entire time to undermine Nobunaga.
Matthew Lewis: He sounds a little bit to me like someone who, even if he wasn't kind of my way or the highway kind of guy, he struggled with people who weren't as gifted and competent and driven as he was. And given that he's possibly one of the most gifted and competent and driven men of his time, kind of no one was able to keep up with him and nobody met with his approval and he was almost destined to fall out with everybody eventually.
Nathan Ledbetter: In a sense, yes. I mean, it would have been hard, you know, the whole metaphor of you can't have two suns in one sky, right? So eventually, regardless of what Nobunaga wanted, there was going to be a fallout with Yoshiaki, I think, as long as Yoshiaki had any pretensions of actually wielding political power. I think that was one difference between Yoshiaki and, say, the imperial court, the Emperor Ogimachi at this time. It had been well established by this point that the emperor was, you know, the head of the imperial court and the sovereign of the nation, but normal day-to-day political power was delegated to, you know, some sort of warrior governing body, one of the previous shogunates, or so forth. So that sort of conflict was not present with the imperial court. It's a good question as to whether or not had there been imperial court resistance to Nobunaga, how would he have handled that? How would he have acted? We don't see it, so we don't know. But all of his dealings with the court, he's very... deferential is not quite the right word, but he is respectful and shows that he wishes to work with the court. We mentioned whether he's a conservative revolutionary or a revolutionary conservative. I would say that he was probably a revolutionary conservative because he does want to keep the structures in place. He just wants that role as kind of the centre of political power. Perhaps it's because he recognises that he's competent and many of these others are not that he recognises he should be the one pulling the strings, right? Who knows?
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, I guess he struggles to share when nobody else is as good at what he wants to do as he is. We know that Nobunaga would not live to see a united Japan. What happens to him in the end?
Nathan Ledbetter: So through the course of the 1570s, he's able to continue defeating enemies, expanding his power, bringing other daimyo into his fold or defeating and removing them. And we get to the end of the 1570s and into 1580, where the Ikoiki finally surrenders through the agency of the court. The court noble is sent by the emperor to broker a settlement and a surrender by the Ishiyama Honranji, which ends that. So he really reaches kind of his zenith, Nobunaga does in 1580, 1581 and into 1582. The Takeda family is finally destroyed in 1582. So we're at this total high point. And one of the few remaining enemies in the main island of Japan that he is concerned about is this family called the Mori family. And he's had one of his generals named by the name of Hashida Hideyoshi, who we would later know as Toyotomi Hideyoshi. One of his generals is leading a campaign against them. And having just completed the campaign in the east against the Takeda, he is given notice by Hideyoshi that a siege of a castle is almost complete, but he's worried that Mori reinforcements are going to come. So please send additional reinforcements to me in order to defeat the Mori. There's quite a lot of emphasis on how important this is. And this could be the master stroke that basically secures western Honshu for Nobunaga. So he's returned to Kyoto, and Nobunaga sends his retainer Akechi Mitsuhide with Akechi's army as the initial force to go reinforce Hideyoshi out west. And for reasons that are not quite clear, but of course lead to lots of speculation and dramatic interpretation, Akechi decides that instead of turning west to go support Hideyoshi, he's going to turn his forces east, march into Kyoto, surround the residence of Nobunaga, which is the Honganji Temple in central Kyoto. It's where he normally took up residence when he was in the city, and attack his own ward. We don't really know why. We don't really get a full explanation of Akechi's motives. There's lots of speculation that it had to do with resentment at court treatment by Nobunaga. One thing that we do know is that Akechi's mother had been killed by a rival clan where Akechi had given them his mother as a hostage, as insurance, essentially, against an attack. And Nobunaga superseded that and ordered the attack anyway. So they killed Akechi's mother. Other things are rumors that he was physically abusive and verbally abusive to Mitsuhide personally. You know, how much of this is after-the-fact storytelling, how much of this is true. I mean, it does kind of fit with Nobunaga's character as we see it. So it's probably, again, a combination of all this. But for whatever reason, Akechi decides that this is his moment while Nobunaga is lightly guarded. He's certainly not expecting anybody to attack him in Kyoto. They surround Nobunaga's residence, set it on fire. Nobunaga and his guards fight back but are eventually overwhelmed. Nobunaga commits suicide. And then his heir as well, who was also in Kyoto, is attacked by Akechi's forces and dies. So in one stroke, the Akechi have eliminated, basically decapitated the Oda family and thus ended Nobunaga's career.
Matthew Lewis: It seems like an odd end for a man who had so much success against all of his enemies to be brought down by someone he would have considered a friend or an ally, even if he hadn't been particularly good to him. What do you think we should consider to be Nobunaga's legacy? You know, he loomed so large over this whole period, yet didn't quite complete his own project. In terms of where Japan would go after his death, what can we see as his legacy?
Nathan Ledbetter: Nobunaga is the first of what are often called the Three Unifiers. We have Nobunaga, then we have Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who kind of picks up the pieces afterwards and carries on the unification of Japan. And then once he dies in 1598, Tokugawa Ieyasu takes over and establishes his own shogunate based in Edo, present-day Tokyo. There's the famous saying where Nobunaga planted the seeds, Hideyoshi harvested the rice, and Tokugawa Ieyasu ate the cake. And there's some truth to that. He's trying to establish order and get back to this previous level of centralized control. He realizes that he can't just do that through winning battles. Things do have to change. So one of the things that he institutes in large scale, though not systematic scale, is land surveys, sending out his administrators to take surveys of the arable land and their rice production yield. What this does is it establishes tax registers, it establishes known income values, and it enables Nobunaga to award rights to the land to his subordinates. And in some ways, assign them or move them based off of income levels. The pieces of land are very modular and he can move his retainers around underneath him. It's really Toyotomi Hideyoshi after him who turns it into a systematic evaluation of the entire Japanese realm. But without Nobunaga having started doing that, who's to say Hideyoshi would have been able to do some of the things he did? So that's one. Also this idea, from a military standpoint, he's one of the first military commanders who is able to have subordinate commanders in control of their own armies, mounting independent campaigns in all directions. And that's something that we don't see before this in the same sort of strategic scale. And then this idea of military force and military being a samurai and they are the political actors, I think is one of his enduring legacies. He destroys independent, non-warrior institutions with the exception of the imperial court. We talked about the Ikoiki and the other religious institutions that he brings under control. This is finished by both Hideyoshi and Ieyasu after him. But it's his notion that everything needs to fall under the central civil authority and that there's no independent religious or other institutions that really matters. In these ways, these are somewhat revolutionary ideas that his successors bring forward and have shaped their policies, which have then, of course, shaped the direction of Japan after him. But I think it's saying too much to say that, oh, he was a revolutionary who wanted to make all these changes. All of these changes came in large part as part of his somewhat conservative goal of re-establishing central authority.
Matthew Lewis: He's such a fascinating and complex figure who obviously has such a complex legacy to him as well, but such a central part to play in the Japan that we recognize after his life and probably even up until today. It's been absolutely fascinating to try and get a little bit closer to Oda Nobunaga. So thank you so much for joining us, Nate, and sharing all of that with us.
Nathan Ledbetter: Thank you very much for having me.
Matthew Lewis: Thank you for listening to this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. Next time, we'll be heading into the mountains to encounter the shinobi who fought Oda Nobunaga in the Tensho-Iga War. How did the samurai fight the ninja? The answer to that just might surprise you. So join us for the next episode to find out more about the history behind the world of Assassin's Creed.

Samurai vs Shinobi: The Tensho Iga War

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. In case you haven't had a chance to see it yet, the world premiere trailer of Assassin's Creed Shadows has been released, and we can see that the game takes place in feudal Japan. This is a time famous for its samurai and ninjas, a time rich in history, culture and stories. For the next few episodes in this series, we'll be exploring this fascinating period in Japan's history. So far, we've travelled back in time to the Sengoku period, sowed the seeds for the unification of Japan and been introduced to several key figures who define this age of upheaval. In today's episode, we follow the sound of marching footsteps and clashing blades into Japan's mountainous Iga province to learn about the fearsome conflict that was the Tencho-Iga War between 1578 and 1581. Naoe, one of the two main characters in Assassin's Creed Shadows, was born in Iga and is part of the shinobi group that fought to defend the province's independence. To better understand Naoe's story, we'll be exploring what happened during the Tencho-Iga War. Who were the main players? Why was it such a distinctive conflict? And what did the outcome mean for the future of a unified Japan? To help us answer these questions and more, I'm joined again by the brilliant Nate Ledbetter of Princeton University. Welcome back again to Echoes of History, Nate. It's wonderful to have you back to explore another really, really exciting episode in Japanese history.
Nathan Ledbetter: It's absolutely wonderful to be back. Thanks.
Matthew Lewis: We're going to talk today about the Tencho-Iga War. Can you just set the scene for us a little bit? When and where are we in Japanese history?
Nathan Ledbetter: Okay, so I'll start with the name. The Tencho comes from the era name in traditional Japanese chronology of the time period. So the Tencho period lasted from 1573 to 1592, so we're at the end of the Sengoku period, where Oda Nobunaga is in charge and extending his influence across the land. And specifically, the conflict takes place with one invasion in 1579 and then another invasion in 1581. So the years Tencho 7 and Tencho 9, according to the Japanese chronology. And Iga is a small province surrounded by mountains in central Japan. So it's just a little bit to the southeast of the capital of Kyoto. And at this time, like we said, this is kind of the high point of Oda Nobunaga's control of central Japan. So it's surrounded by the lands of Nobunaga and those loyal to him. And he gained control of neighboring Ise province by first having his second son, Nobukatsu, adopted into the Kitapadake family, which ruled that province. And then later on, having the members of the Kitapadake clan assassinated so that his son rose up to the hierarchy and essentially took over the clan from within. So we're at a point where Nobunaga is extending his power. He is almost supreme, at least in central Japan, with very little opposition. But we have this one small province that is managing to, so far, escape his attentions.
Matthew Lewis: So this is the fly in Nobunaga's ointment as he's trying to repair Japan.
Nathan Ledbetter: Right. If you were to look at a map of Japan at this time, Nobunaga's markers are all over central Japan. This is like the eyesore sticking out of Nobunaga doesn't control this one little patch that hasn't been filled in with his standard.
Matthew Lewis: And I feel like the Oda Nobunaga that we talked about before would not have liked that little blip on his map. Not particularly.
Nathan Ledbetter: Everything needs to be under his control.
Matthew Lewis: And what are the main factors that lead up to open war with Ige?
Nathan Ledbetter: Well, like I said, there's that independence that isn't particularly endearing to Nobunaga. He wants everything under his control. But they're not really necessarily a threat, militarily per se, to him. So for most of the time that he's establishing his hegemony, he is concentrated elsewhere. Ige at this time is ruled by an independent league, or Ikki, that did not recognize any daimyo's hegemony. And even gone so far as to expel the military governor of the province that had been appointed by the Ashikaga. So we have a case where there's this independent territory in the middle of Nobunaga's domains. And his son, his second son, Oda Nobukatsu, was in charge of the province next to it. And was looking to kind of establish his own reputation, spread his wings a little bit. And so here we have Iga province next to him, a place where he can launch an invasion, you know, take it over. It's small, how hard could it be, right? Be an easy victory, and it turns out not to be. And so, you know, that's kind of the background before we get into like the actual details here.
Matthew Lewis: And we've got the basis there for a great story, haven't we? We've got Oda Nobunaga, who is on the rise and is just growing and growing in power. We've got this tiny little island in the middle of all his authority that's resisting him. And we've got this son who's desperate to prove himself to his dad and thinks, I know what I'll do. I'll sort this Iga province business out. Like you say, how hard can that possibly be? Fortunately, it's quite hard. Otherwise, that'd be the end of our conversation, I guess. It would be. It'd be merely a footnote. In terms of the Ikki in particular, in Iga, are there any standout leaders there? It's sort of a league, and they've expelled the senior samurai figure. But are there standout leaders for them, or is it very much a collegiate effort?
Nathan Ledbetter: To directly answer your question, the answer is no. I mean, we have the names of a couple of the senior leaders, if you will. But it really was more of a collective than any hierarchical organization that we would associate with, like there being a daimyo and samurai underneath him and so forth. That's not to say that there wasn't a hierarchy. There was. But it's really hard to just name one person as an acting figure on the Iga side of things. And part of this is because of the way that they constructed it. This is born out of sort of the chaos resulting in the wake of the Onin War of 1467 to 1477. That's often seen as the beginning of the Sengoku Age, the Age of Warring States, as we call it, where central authority underneath the Ashikaga shoguns is breaking down. They're losing their connections to the provinces and unable to control things. And so when you have a time of chaos, you have people who are both trying to make their way and fend for themselves. And some of those people do so by preying on others. We have a rise in banditry. We have a rise in lawlessness. We have little local bands rising up, and some of them go on to become legitimate warrior bands and daimyo sometimes in their own right. In response to this as a way to limit internal conflict in their own ranks, in 1494, we see two documents. They're not quite constitutions in the way that we would think of it, but they kind of form the rules for local life within Iga as a community. The first one is a document signed by 350 commoners, peasants, villagers, and so forth. And it's an agreement to abide by specific rules that limit conflict over rice paddy land, access to forests, mountains, and fields. And it kind of gives a general code of conduct. So in the absence of authority coming from the center, they decide to create their own sort of rules for them to live by. And then later on that same year, we see another document signed by 46 people representing families of note from Iga province. We can think of these families as rural samurai. So we're really not yet at a point where the samurai are a hardened social class that we normally think of. But these are warriors. The Japanese term is jizamurai, or warriors of the land. They're not necessarily attached to any particular lord, but they practice the profession of arms and they have military experience. And they're kind of like a class above the peasants and the commoners of the local area. So these 46 families sign an oath vowing not to fight over taxes or the collection thereof to work together to prevent insubordination of the peasants underneath them. And these two groups form a united front in coordination to maintain local order and peace and limit the amount of violence, whether it's internal or whether it's coming from external sources like bandits or even larger warrior organizations like a daimyo from a neighboring province who wants to move in. So there's no one person who holds absolute power. They don't like elect a president or something like that. You know, it's easy to look at this and see, oh, is this a democracy? No, it's not, at least not in the modern sense of we think of it. There is a hierarchy. There are the upper class. Those 46 samurai families are in charge and so forth. But it is much more of a collectively driven organization than certainly the daimyo houses that we are normally associated with this period. Other leagues like this have risen up in other places at this time, fairly common in the absence of central authority for locals to take measures to protect themselves. But most other places, it didn't last very long, either because someone in it decided that they were going to take over and become a daimyo or because unlike Iga, they were not very defensible and so subject to outside pressure from invading daimyo armies and so forth. So one of the things that's important to as you're visualizing kind of this province of Iga is it's ringed by mountains. It's very mountainous internally as well. But there's a ring of mountains around it that prevents easy access to it. It's very easily defensible. And there's six main passes, several on the eastern side, a couple in the north, and then a couple on the western side, through which if you're going to bring an army, you have to go through one of those passes in order to get there. So it was much easier for the Iga Iki to keep outsiders out than it would have been for other similar organizations, which is why they lasted as long as they did.
Matthew Lewis: So it sounds like with Nobunaga as well, we need to add into that idea that this is a blip within his sphere of influence where he's not in control. We can also add to that that he's not a fan of different ways of doing things. We talked about him as maybe being a revolutionary conservative, but he wants Japan to have the structures in place. And here is a place that's doing its own thing, that doesn't have a daimyo, doesn't have a samurai in charge, is outside the structures of Japan. So that's another reason for him to focus his interest there.
Nathan Ledbetter: Absolutely. Like we talked about in the previous podcast where his violence towards religious organizations stemmed from this idea of do they fall under the purview of the centralized civilian state or not, and him forcing them to do so or going to war with them. This is a very similar thing. He's not willing to allow this kind of grassroots governing by a local community. He wants the same structure imposed over the entire country. So absolutely, this falls outside the bounds of what he's willing to accept. Like I said, it's not really important in terms of his target list as he's rising up the ranks and as he's building his hegemony. We can almost think of this, if we wanted to simplify things, as this idyllic little province full of villages of people mining their own business. That's not entirely true, of course. One of the things that the Iga warriors did was often hire themselves out as contractors to other entities, be they temples or be they other daimyo factions and whatever. So in the 1540s, we have reports of Igamono or men of Iga being hired to do things like espionage or sabotage of the enemy castles. So you can kind of see where we have this league of warriors and peasants that exists in kind of this quasi state of equality, but not really, but for the time fairly egalitarian. And they are capable militarily. Many of them are experienced hunters and trackers through the mountains. They have the kind of outdoor living skills we might attribute to military specialties of today, like commandos or something like that. So while they weren't necessarily trying to take over control, they did also have a military presence outside of their province because they could be hired or requested to assist with campaigns elsewhere.
Matthew Lewis: So from Nobunaga's point of view, they're not a threat, but their existence is a continual offense to him that at some point he's going to want to deal with. Is there a catalyst that brings all of this tension to a head and actually causes him to go to war with them?
Nathan Ledbetter: So, like I said, they expel the military governor who really wasn't doing a whole bunch anyway, if we're honest. And Nobukatsu, Nobunaga's second son, takes that as an excuse of, oh, see, they're not observing the proper order of things. They're not part of the structure. So he decides on his own accord that he's going to expand his domain into Iga without permission from his father. Part of this is ego-driven. He wants to prove to his father that he can operate on his own and so forth. So in 1578, he dispatches one of his generals, a man by the name of Takigawa Kazumatsu, to build a castle just across the Iga border that they're going to use as a staging point for a future invasion. The warriors of Iga are alerted to this and realize what this means. So they decide to attack and destroy it, which they do in November of 1578. And Takigawa is taken completely by surprise. The castle is burned. Takigawa, in his small force, is forced to retreat. Obviously, cease work on the castle, retreat back to Ise after losing a second battle where they tried to retake the ground. So we have this initial kind of probe into Iga that is very quickly defeated and destroyed. Now, Nobukatsu is somewhat embarrassed. He wants to avenge this. So the following year, in October, he decides he's going to launch a much larger invasion. So he gathers around a little over 10,000 men and invades Iga province through three of those passes that I mentioned. In his main body, he has 8,000 men going through the northernmost pass at Nagano. And then he has a group of 1,500 men through one pass and 1,300 through another pass, these two passes to the south. But again, the Iga forces, speaking to their ability to collect intelligence and know what the enemy is doing, are ready and waiting at these narrow sites to ambush Nobukatsu's forces, which they do. They use their skill in guerrilla tactics and their local knowledge of the terrain. I don't have specific descriptions of the things that they were doing, but you can imagine, right? They're setting ambushes, they're hitting in small groups, they're hitting from all sides, using the terrain and the vegetation as cover, and generally not fighting fair, because why would you? And they inflict heavy losses against Nobukatsu's forces, again, forcing him to retreat in a humiliating defeat. And this is the one that really kind of sparks everything, because now this is too big to hide from Dad, if you will, right? He'd done all this, he hadn't asked his father, he wanted to prove himself. He actually does the opposite and shows himself to be somewhat incompetent, at least in this endeavor, and Nobunaga is furious. He couldn't believe that his son had put himself in a position to be defeated and humiliated like this. So he supposedly threatens to disown Nobukatsu. He doesn't end up following through on it, but he's not pleased. Like I said, he would be very happy to eliminate this kind of island of resistance inside his territory, but it's not a huge priority. So he's very upset that Nobukatsu did this without his guidance, without better planning, and that he failed at it, most important. So he's got other fish to fry right now. This is not totally important to him. But in 1581, he comes back and we have the main invasion of the Tensho Edo War.
Matthew Lewis: Up until this point, it sounds a little bit like a teenager who's thrown a house party without his parents' knowledge and has done an awful lot of damage, and his dad's really, really annoyed about him. You know, it's not the end of the world, but everyone's not very happy about this. But then there is going to be a reckoning. And so when we get to the main events of the Tensho Edo War, before we kick it off in 1581, it might sound like a silly question given the position that Nobunaga's in, but who should we consider as kind of the favorite or the underdog? Because you've painted a really nice picture of Iga as this incredibly defensible place with an incredibly capable population and very limited access to it. So for all of Nobunaga's power, can we consider him favorite in this fight, or does Iga have a really good chance?
Nathan Ledbetter: So up front, I'll say that I don't think you could consider the Iga League the favorite at any point. We're just dealing with too much might. In 1581, Nobunaga is really at the height of his power. Not to say that he's not being challenged by other daimyo, but at this point, it's almost inevitable in many people's eyes that he's going to complete the conquest of Japan. Of course, we know that he doesn't, because he meets his untimely end at the hands of an assassination, but barring that, there's no reason why he wouldn't have continued his conquest. And in 1581, he's largely eliminated many of these larger threats, or they're reduced to the point where they're not a threat to his authority in central Japan. So he's able to muster resources and manpower that are just on a scale that Iga clearly cannot compete with. That said, I do want to point out some advantages that the Iga Iki had. One is this long experience with unconventional warfare, we'll say. Another is that because of their makeup, it's not quite egalitarian or democratic in the way that we would think of it, but they're led by lower-level warriors, localized power-based holding warriors, but they integrate the commoner population, if you will, into their organization. Often you'll hear people talk about the Iga Shinobi clan or ninja clan or something like that, and that's misleading because this wasn't a family-based organization in the way that we think of the Oda being a military and political entity organized around the Oda family. That's not what this was, but they were able to conscript almost the members of the community from all levels, give them military training, and utilize them in ways that we don't necessarily see to the same extent in other locations. So it wasn't just these 46 families that signed the oath document saying that they would work together and they're household warriors. It was a mobilization of the entire community, in essence, to resist external aggression. Unfortunately for them, at this point, armies had grown in size. They're not dealing with the same sorts of banditry threats or smaller daimyo armies that they had in previous decades. Nobunaga can, at the snap of a finger, mobilize an army of 60,000, no problem. That all said, as much as we would like to romanticize some of the advantages and some of the things that the Iga collective was able to do, if Nobunaga was serious, there's no question that Nobunaga was going to be the favorite in this contest.
Matthew Lewis: The Tencho Iga War pits the samurai and Nobunaga and that way of fighting against the shinobi, also known as the ninja. Those are two very cool words that you just kind of glossed over. I need to come back to those words. What do we mean by shinobi and ninja?
Nathan Ledbetter: The two words are the same. In fact, they're based on the same Chinese kanji character, which can mean a variety of things, one of which is to sneak or to be unseen. This is where we get the description of them as masters of disguise, sneaking into castles and causing havoc and so forth. Even today, in Japanese, you use the term shinobi komu, to sneak in to somewhere. So that's where that word comes from. At the time, shinobi was in use. There were also groups who were called other things. One of the terms you'll see in documents, particularly in eastern Japan, is the term Murata. And many of these groups started out as either groups of bandits or groups of local level, warriors of the land, like I mentioned in Iga, who didn't necessarily want to accept the authority and be absorbed into a daimyo's organizational system, but were more than willing to do dirty jobs for pay. So pretty much all major daimyo had some sort of relationship with a group like this that they could contract out to do various things, whether it was espionage, whether it was sabotage attacks, or even within Owari, the Oda had a relationship with a group called the Hachisuka, led by a man with that name, who eventually becomes a retainer of Nobunaga, and then of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and then a daimyo in his own right. So as we talk about the Sengoku period and these different groups who rise up to become daimyo, this was one of the paths that one could take, starting out as basically a military contractor for odd, dirty jobs. So back to the idea of shinobi, though. This term is used more in central and western Japan than Murata was, and it's one way to describe sort of these special operations missions or roles that the Iga members, or just to the north of Iga is Omi province, and the district of Omi province that borders on Iga is known as Koka. We have a group there that sort of formed their own league, much like we see in Iga, in the district of Koka, and that gives rise to these legends of the Koka ninja versus the Iga ninja. Sometimes you'll see Koka romanized as Koga, K-O-G-A or K-O-K-A. The local pronunciation is Koka, so that's what I'm going to go with. We see these two kind of rise in our imaginations as competing ninja clans throughout time and history, and that's not really accurate. I mean, there were times where they did conflict, but there were also times where they cooperated with each other, you know, recognized each other as kindred spirits, if you will, in terms of maintaining independence and doing these sorts of contract jobs for various lords and so on. Koka falls under the control of Oda Nobunaga as he conquers the province of Omi, so they don't quite have the same independent tradition that we see in Iga with the Iga-Iki and the Iga League, but they develop somewhat a similar reputation, and it's these leagues specialties of clandestine warfare, you know, guerrilla tactics and so forth that later balloons into the modern ideas of ninja and shinobi. One of the things that I do want to stress is like you mentioned that this pits our idea of samurai versus the shinobi or the ninja, and that's a false dichotomy because like I mentioned, you know, there were samurai, local samurai, who were participants and even the leaders of the Iga-Iki, training the peasants in how to do various types of warfare and guerrilla defense. There were also in other examples that we look at of the shinobi or the ninja, there are plenty of samurai who were doing those types of missions. So it's more like if we were to put it into modern terms, conventional versus unconventional military sets, right? You know, you have the army who does the let's go attack with tanks and siege territory or whatever, but then you have within the army, there are certain units who are trained in special operations and do more of the sneaky, cool stuff that makes it into movies, right? And that I think is a better way to kind of frame the idea of what a shinobi is at this time. They're warriors, they could fight conventionally, and many of them did, but they would also have these additional skill sets that allowed them to do some special missions.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, so maybe we've slightly romanticized our visions of ninjas as all dressed in black with smoke bombs going off and assassinating everybody. But we should think of them perhaps as modern special forces as, you know, the UK's SAS, the American Navy SEALs, that kind of absolute pinnacle of military ability in guerrilla warfare.
Nathan Ledbetter: Yes, and doing, you know, very similar things, whether it's, you know, deep intelligence gathering in enemy terrain, or whether it's extraction missions, or sometimes taking out the enemy and so forth. So it's almost better to think of it as like an occupation than it is a lifestyle.
Matthew Lewis: Given that this war has begun, we understand that Nobunaga is going to be pretty much unstoppable once he focuses his mind on it, although he's going to meet some resistance. How does the war play out? And is there a key moment that determines the failure for one side or the other?
Nathan Ledbetter: Well, I hate to be reductive, and I hate to be unromantic, I guess I should say, in this. But really, the key moment of failure is when Nobunaga decides to get serious and invade Iga with more of a plan than his son had. So we like this idea of the romantic notion of a guerrilla defense against a powerful foe reminiscent of Vietnam or Afghanistan against major powers. But that's not what this was. It was not a protracted war once Nobunaga decided to invade. Even Nobunaga's invasion only lasted a day before he was turned back. The second larger invasion of 1591 lasts nine days. Unlike this protracted guerrilla war that we might have in our minds, it was really a quick invasion by Nobunaga, quickly taking a couple castles, receiving their submission, and then everybody moves on with their lives. To go into the details, Nobunaga invades September 30th, and it's a much larger scale. Different reports of the war say he had somewhere between 40,000 or 60,000 troops. And the key that he really does is not only numbers, but it's the fact that he owns all the territory surrounding Iga. So he's able to send army forces that are equivalent largely to the size of the force that his son had in 1579. But he can send that from six different sides. And this means that the Iga Iki cannot concentrate their forces to prevent any of these invasions coming in from any one pass. Whereas, you know, in 1579, they only defend three passes from one direction. Now it's six passes coming from all directions, including their neighbors to the north in Koka, who, as I said, Nobunaga owned Omi province by this point, so had the assistance of the Koka specialists in guerrilla operations and warfare to advise and assist him. And this is probably where we get a lot of the imagery of this rivalry between Iga and Koka, because Koka did assist Nobunaga in his invasion. He also allegedly had some Iga members who offered to him to help show him through the passes and give him that advantage. So there may have been internal to Iga support for Nobunaga. So the image that we have of the Iga defense turning back the samurai really comes from the 1579 invasion by Nobukatsu. Nobunaga invades, he outnumbers the Iga defenders about four or five to one. And the Iga defenders are spread across the province, they can't concentrate in one location. They end up being concentrated in two castles, one in the north, Hijiyama Castle, and one in the south, Kashiwada Castle. But it all ends with the surrender of Kashiwada Castle on October 8th. At that point, there's no more organized resistance to Nobunaga. It's overwhelming force, and he knows it, the Iga Iki know it, it's the end. And so Nobunaga himself visits Iga in early November to take a tour of his new province, and then withdraws it and gives it to his son Nobukatsu as part of his domain to administer. So I apologize that it's anticlimactic, almost.
Matthew Lewis: That leads me to an interesting point, because it does sound so, as you say, anticlimactic. And it isn't this huge power struggle that goes on for a long time between two different ways of doing things. Yet we still remember it as a significant moment. The Tensha Iga War is a thing that is remembered. Why does it have such a legacy? Why does it stand out in a period in Japanese history that is all about war and fracture and conquest? Why does this one stand out?
Nathan Ledbetter: That's an excellent question, because you're absolutely right. From a military campaign standpoint, it's interesting that the first invasion is repelled in the way that it is. But the second invasion is not really all that remarkable in terms of military campaigns compared to his other campaigns against some of the Daimyo or the Iko-Iki or Kie that we talked about in the previous podcast. So why do we remember this? It's because of Ninja, Shinobi, right? We have these remnants of the Iga-Iki who are now no longer free, in a sense. They are under Nobunaga's control. The territory is absorbed into Nobunaga's territories, just like other formerly independent locations, and they would not rise again as an independent force. Like we talked about in the previous podcast, Nobunaga's overriding ambition is to eliminate any alternative sources of political legitimacy, whether it's religious, whether it's military, or whether it's this sort of not really democratic, but it kind of almost feels democratic to us, quasi-egalitarian state. So all of that goes away. It is now a domain administered by one of Nobunaga's retainers. It would go on to be a domain held by a Daimyo underneath the Edo period shoguns of the Tokugawa. The reason I think it sticks with us is because of this image of resistance in an unconventional way. We have this image of guerrilla-style resistance by well-trained, mountain-savvy warriors of the shadows, and it largely comes to us because once Iga is conquered, if you didn't die in the campaign, what are you going to do? You have no homeland anymore. I suppose some people probably stayed and just served the Daimyo that was placed on top of them, but many of them chose to leave Iga and work as contract warriors for hire. So taking the skills they had become famous for and using those as a means to gain both economic stability and legitimacy, find themselves employment. So we hear stories about different men of Iga. Igamono becomes almost like a synonym for shinobi. If you were to hire a man from Iga, everybody knew what you were hiring this person for. It was to do cloak-and-dagger dirty deeds. Many of them went to work for a retainer of Tokugawa Ieyasu who has become famous in ninja lore, a man by the name of Hatori Hanzo. Hatori Hanzo had family ties to Iga. He's often referred to or portrayed as in pop culture as a ninja, but he was a samurai retainer, a warrior just like many of the warriors that fought for any of the Daimyo of this period. He appears in most of Tokugawa Ieyasu's battles until Hanzo dies in the 1590s. He is considered one of Tokugawa Ieyasu's closest retainers. But because through his family ties, he had a knowledge base of these sort of unconventional guerrilla tactics. He also had, through those ties, the ability to kind of act as a landing place for many of these men of Iga. And so many of them went to work for Tokugawa Ieyasu under the command of Hatori Hanzo. And so these later notions of the ninja as black-clad, sneaking around castles at night and so forth come from when the men of Iga spread out and became these contract warriors hired to do these sorts of clandestine jobs. And that fact that many of them worked for would eventually become the leader of all Japan in Tokugawa Ieyasu. There's actually a gate of what is now the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, but underneath the Tokugawa shoguns was the Shogun's Palace. One of the gates is named the Hanzomon, the Gate of Hanzo, the Hanzo Gate. And this is because Hatori Hanzo and the men of Iga that he recruited acted as a special guard force for the Tokugawa shoguns. And so, you know, here you have these men who are trained in sneaking into castles, assassination, espionage. Well, who better to defend against that sort of thing than people who are trained how to do it? And so one of these gates gets named after him because it was this force that was responsible for guarding that part of the gate and performing espionage and sabotage and irregular warfare on behalf of the Tokugawa.
Matthew Lewis: Fascinating. So Iga as a province fell, but the sort of the idea of Iga continued and flourished in other ways and in other places. And it's been fascinating to talk through this episode. And just to get to talk about Hatori Hanzo shinobi ninja has been absolutely cool. So thank you very, very much for joining us again, Nate, and for going through the details of the Tensho Iga Warforce. It's been absolutely fascinating. Thank you very much.
Nathan Ledbetter: Oh, absolutely. A pleasure. And thank you again for having me.
Matthew Lewis: Thank you for listening to this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by HistoryHit. Next time, we're swapping the mountains of Iga for the bustle of Japan's imperial capital, Kyoto. What role did the city everyone wanted to control have to play in the Sengoku period and the story of the unification of Japan? So join us for the next episode to find out more about the history behind the world of Assassin's Creed.

Kyoto: Japan's Imperial Capital

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis, currently in this series we're deep in the heart of an era that has shaped legends. The world premiere trailer for Assassin's Creed Shadows has been released and we can see that the game takes place in feudal Japan, a time renowned for its samurai and ninja, a time rich in history, culture and stories. So over these episodes we're continuing to explore this fascinating period in history. So far we've travelled back in time to the Sengoku period, sowed the seeds for the unification of Japan and met some of the key characters that helped define this age. In this episode our journey takes us back to the heart of imperial Japan, to the city that was the country's capital for a thousand years, Kyoto. In Assassin's Creed Shadows as a player you'll get to visit the imperial city, wander through Kyoto's streets or perhaps gain an even better view from the rooftops, jumping from one building to another along the city skyline. Today we're joined by author and historian Lesley Downer who specializes in Japanese history, particularly the geisha. Lesley's latest book The Shortest History of Japan is out now, so who better to help us peel back the layers of history to reveal how Kyoto came to be the cultural and political centre of Japan and how conflict over who controlled the city laid the foundations for Japan's unification at the end of the 16th century. Hi Lesley, thank you so much for joining us on Echoes of History.
Lesley Downer: Thank you Matt, very pleased to be here.
Matthew Lewis: It's a pleasure to have you. So we're talking today about the city of Kyoto which most people will think of Tokyo as the capital of Japan but Kyoto was a very important city in the periods that we're talking about. So in terms of geography whereabouts in Japan is Kyoto?
Lesley Downer: So Kyoto is the absolute heart of Japan, it's exactly in the middle and geomantically, let's go to geomantics, it's perfectly placed to be the capital city which is what it was for a thousand years. It's got mountains behind it on three sides, it's got the sea in front, it's got two rivers running through, it fulfills all the necessary requirements of feng shui to be the perfect place for a capital. So Tokyo has been the capital for about less than 200 years and before that Kyoto was the capital for a thousand years.
Matthew Lewis: And what is it about that arrangement of mountains and the sea and the rivers, why does that make it an ideal location?
Lesley Downer: It's in terms of auspiciousness, it's the Chinese rules of geomancy, the Chinese rules of feng shui, it's the most auspicious place. It was also central so therefore you can get down to the south to Kyushu, you can get up to the north which when the city was founded was where the so-called wild tribesmen of the north were whom the Japanese of that time wanted to conquer. So it's centrally located, it has roads branching out in every direction, also it has rivers which is useful for carrying goods to and forth but it's not really a practical matter. I suppose also the mountains provide protection from three sides. In terms of climate it's not so ideal, it's called a banshee, it's like a basin and it collects the heat and the humidity in that low circle of land that it lies on. So it's quite hot, quite steamy, you can see the mountains, it's very beautiful.
Matthew Lewis: Sounds incredible. I can imagine the mist rising from the city up into the mountains. When does Kyoto begin to rise to prominence in Japanese history? When does it emerge as the capital city?
Lesley Downer: It didn't emerge, it was created as capital city. Emperor Komu, who was the greatest emperor in Japanese history, he was the charlemagne of Japan and before his time the capital had been Nara, but it was kind of taken over by the Buddhist priests. It was rather like, was it Henry the, I forget which Henry, who said, you know, who will rid me of this turbulent priest? But there were a lot of turbulent priests around, Henry II, yes. And there were all sorts of scandals to do with these Buddhist clergy. And then he, Emperor Komu, founded a capital in Nagaoka, which is near Nara. And that one, there was an uprising, people got killed, there were ghosts, obviously not going to be any good as the capital. So he then set out on a supposed hunting trip with his geomancers to find the perfect place. People were not particularly concerned with practical considerations, they were concerned with where would be auspicious. And so he settled on Kyoto as the place to be his capital. And he then had it built, and that was an enormous job to build it. And it was in 794 that he, with an enormous entourage of his attendants and his army and everybody else, arrived by palanquin in Kyoto, in the Imperial Palace there.
Matthew Lewis: And so is Kanmu then still remembered as a foundational figure in Japanese history?
Lesley Downer: Yes, he was the greatest emperor. He was the only emperor that really wielded a lot of power. After him, emperors stopped wielding power. And also before him, quite a lot didn't wield that power. There were always regents who were ruling instead. But Kanmu was a very decisive emperor, who was actually very strong and very brilliant. But after him, a particular family, the Fujiwara, took over power. So although there was always an emperor throughout the whole history of Japan, there has always been an emperor descended in an unbroken line of descent from the sun goddess. But none since Emperor Kanmu have had power, and not that many before him either had power. So it's always been a system in which you have, rather like our King Charles, you have the figurehead at the top. But there's other people that are actually making the big decisions. And that was how it was after Kanmu. But in Kanmu's time, he made the big decisions. And one of his big decisions was to build the capital in Kyoto.
Matthew Lewis: And does Kyoto also at the same time or later, does it emerge as a spiritual centre for Japan too? Does the Buddhist religion centre itself in Kyoto or does it remain separate?
Lesley Downer: The Buddhist religion is a very complex thing. And there's an awful lot of different sects. It's rather like, you know, where is the centre of the Christian religion? Is it Rome? Is it Constantinople? Is it Canterbury? There were the different sects of Buddhism arrived in Japan at different times. And the first sect grew up in Nara, as I said, and caused trouble. And that stayed in Nara. The whole point was to leave those priests behind in Nara and move to Kyoto. Other sects then grew up. A lot grew up at the time of warrior rule. They grew up in Kamakura, not in Kyoto, including the Zen sect, which became very dominant, particularly because it was the chosen sect of the warrior class. Its kind of ethics, its mode of being, its simplicity, its asceticism, its kind of purity, its lack of words made it appeal very much to the warrior class. And there were many great Zen prelates who set themselves up in Kyoto. So if you go to It's absolutely full of Zen temples, and other temples too, but I would say primarily Zen temples. The Zen priests had a link with China. And they were able to facilitate trade with China to bring back ideas, bring back goods. So the Zen church became very wealthy, as well as being very influential. And one of the very first Zen prelates was a man called Musou Soseki, who was the mentor of one of the first shoguns, who was one of the Ashikaga shoguns called Takauji. And Musou built the wonderful moss temple in Kyoto, which in his day was not mossy at all. And he also built Tenryu-ji, which is the flying dragon temple. And that was to commemorate the soul of one of the emperors who had died, unfortunately, as a result of the shogun's actions. So that's a very famous temple that he founded. And in that temple, he created a beautiful garden. And one of the contributions he made was to decide that you could attain enlightenment, you could have a Zen life, you could practice Zen meditation, not just by meditating, but also by making beautiful gardens, by doing beautiful calligraphy. And then other arts grew up connected with Zen. In fact, most of Japanese culture, not sure whether this is an exact thing or not, but a lot of Japanese culture is imbued with Zen. So later Japanese cultural things like ink painting, the noh theatre, the tea ceremony, are all kind of linked with Zen.
Matthew Lewis: I think for me, that early connection with the warrior class is interesting because we associate Zen with being really calm, and maybe disconnected from that idea of violence. So it's beginnings connected very closely to the shoguns and the warrior class is just interesting to me, I think.
Lesley Downer: There's sort of two threads throughout the whole of Japanese life and Japanese history. And one is the kind of austere Zen thread, which Westerners tend to really like, and the kind of very plain, simple buildings without any furniture in and straw mats, beautiful smell of rice straw, wooden walls, and all that. And that approach appealed very much to the samurai who were very pure and direct in their attitude to life. Samurai weren't particularly about violence. Violence was sort of incidental. It was about how to lead a very direct and pure life. And the other side is the Shinto side, which is to this day, colourful and wild and crazy. And there were huge carnivals with men in loincloths, I'm using the present tense here, carrying shrines, carrying the Shinto gods on their shoulders, dancing through the streets of Kyoto and every other Japanese city, drinking lots of sake. That goes on and Zen goes on. And that's a side that Westerners tend not to quite so much identify with Japan. And that relates to a figure we're going to come to in a while, I suspect, which is Hideyoshi. There's the flamboyant side of Japan, and there's the aesthetic side of Japan.
Matthew Lewis: So how then is Kyoto affected by the Sengoku period? As we move into this period of fracturing, and then towards the reunification of Does Kyoto remain important, even as power is dispersed more widely across Japan?
Lesley Downer: So just before we get to the Sengoku period, we have various very important shoguns, the Ashikaga shoguns, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu. Yoshimitsu was the third in the line of the Ashikaga shoguns, and there'd been lots and lots of warfare before his time. And the Ashikaga shoguns were of the warrior class. So to get to be a shogun, they were of the Minamoto family, which entitled them to be shoguns. But the first two spent most of their reigns putting down all the kind of rival problems that were coming up. Yoshimitsu was very, very clever, and he was also a great patron of the arts. And he, first of all, built the Flower Palace, which was to the north of the emperor's palace, indicating that he was more powerful than the emperor. And the emperor came to his palace for a visit. He stayed for about five days in the Flower Palace. And they had boating, and they had dancing, and they had theater, and they had all these wonderful things. And in the end, both the emperor and Yoshimitsu were 23 at the time. And the emperor poured some sake for Yoshimitsu, which emperors don't normally do. So Yoshimitsu was incredibly pleased. So he did a dance in response to having had sake poured for him. He then, as soon as he could, he did what a lot of these guys did, which was he abdicated, gave the kind of token power to his son, which he didn't have to worry about admin. And he could then spend his whole time being a patron of the arts, which is what he really liked. And he founded a temple called Shokokuji, which was the main school of painting for a whole school of artists. There was the greatest ink painting artist of Japan called Sesshu, came out of that school. He also, he fell in love with a young lad called Zeami, who was 12. And Zeami became his companion. And Zeami was the one who created under his auspices, the no theater. So Zeami was from a theater family. So clearly, he was very, very low class by definition. But because he was Yoshimitsu's companion, he was able to mix with the most cultured people in the entire land and acquire all that gloss. And he then created a theater, which would be for these people, a very sort of austere, ethereal, beautiful theater, which would be for very, very cultured people, which was the no theater. So Yoshimitsu patronized all these different sorts of art, sponsored them, encouraged them. Also, the tea ceremony was growing up in his time. Those are the main things, I think, ink painting and the no theater. Also pottery, ceramics, calligraphy, poetry writing. Poetry writing goes right through the entire history of Japan. People are always writing poetry. He is famous as a major patron of the arts. That's the whole point of Yoshimitsu.
Matthew Lewis: And is it under Yoshimitsu, do we see the high point of the power of the shogun? If he's now being considered above the emperor and the emperor is serving him sake, are we seeing a real high point of the shogun and the shogun's power in Kyoto?
Lesley Downer: Yeah, that's quite an interesting question, because that's probably right, that this was the high point of the power of the shogun in Kyoto. His grandson, Yoshimasa, was the one who presided over Kyoto being burnt down. So that was obviously a low point of the power of the shoguns. And after them, people like Oda Nobunaga and Hideyoshi could not become shogun because they were not of the right family or the right class, but they could become very, very powerful and become the regent. But then the most powerful shoguns of all, of course, were the Tokugawa, but they shifted their power base to Edo. So within Kyoto, probably Yoshimitsu was the most powerful of the shoguns. And then after him, we have the Sengoku period, which is the period of incredible warfare, which is completely bonkers warfare. I mean, it was a couple of different lords who really hated each other. There was a whole excuse for it, but the excuse is kind of irrelevant. These two lords, I think it was the Hashimoto's and the Yamanas have been itching to fight for a long time, and they fought for 10 years. It's said that they destroyed the whole of Kyoto. That's not quite true. They destroyed the upper class part of Kyoto. So 10 years of fighting included looting, arson, and all these other things. But this mainly happened, this was the temples, this was the palaces, that lot got destroyed. Meanwhile, the shogun who lived at that point was a guy called Yoshimasa, who was living during the end of the 15th century. And he retired. He was very interested in the arts, and he was not remotely interested in fighting, and he kept well out of this fighting. And he went off to the east of the city, and there he built a fabulous pavilion, the Silver Pavilion. And there he carried on having a life of leisure and art with his friends while all this was going on in Kyoto. His pavilion was facing away from the city, so he didn't have to see it was burning. And it was facing towards the mountains on the east. And he was, again, an amazing patron of the arts. And under him, ink painting flourished, pottery flourished, every possible art form. Oh, linked verse became very important. So the war came to an end. The part of the city that had not burnt down was the part where the merchants and the artisans were, because they were poor chaps, and so nobody bothered with looting them. But they weren't that poor. So they were actually supplying and selling stuff to both sides in this war and getting richer. And the end of the Onin War, this is the Onin War, everything had sort of fallen apart because Kyoto was in such a state of devastation. The emperor was very poor. One emperor had to wait for about 10 years for some donor to pay for his coronation. And another emperor died and didn't get buried because nobody could afford to pay for a funeral. That took quite a long time. And another emperor sold his calligraphy. That was the only way he could kind of keep going. And Francis Xavier, the Jesuit priest, showed up in Japan at that time. He showed up in a city called Yamaguchi. And his theory was, I will go to Kyoto, I will convert the emperor to Catholicism, and then everybody else in the whole country will follow him. And he got to Kyoto. It was a complete wreck. It was sort of a burnt out ruin. He couldn't find the emperor. So he gave up. So that was Kyoto. The result of that was the whole society kind of fell apart. And a lot of the lords headed out to the provinces, partly because they were broke because they'd had their houses burnt down. Meantime, quite a lot of peasants and serfs could come out of the countryside into the city and recreate themselves as merchants or as artisans, because they could make things, they could sell things. And so a whole new culture grew from that period of incredible disaster. In fact, a really fantastic and flamboyant culture arose from that period of disaster.
Matthew Lewis: How does Kyoto become involved then in the reunification of Japan? Is it still somewhere that people focus on as the capital? If you want to control Japan, you have to control Kyoto.
Lesley Downer: It was the capital. It just was the capital. So the first great unifier who eventually started bringing stuff together was Oda Nobunaga, who was a really amazing figure. And he came from a very small domain, very small, if you like, princedom, and through brilliant, brilliant warfare, managed to take more and more land. And with each land, his army grew bigger and bigger. And eventually, it's very complicated, but he was asked to reinstate the shogun. The big question was, who's the shogun? And the shogun, it was still the old shoguns, just like the ones I mentioned, Yoshimitsu and Yoshimasa, who had been such patrons of culture. So one of their descendants, Yoshiaki, was around, and he was a pretty hopeless guy, but he was officially the shogun. So Nobunaga's excuse for entering Kyoto was to reinstate him as shogun. But actually, he, like a lot of these guys, Yoshiaki, the shogun, was very treacherous. He wanted to get rid of Nobunaga, and he instigated a plot against him. So Nobunaga had him arrested and taken off to a castle in the middle of nowhere and left there forever. So that was the end of him. Nobunaga could not become shogun because shoguns had to be members of a certain family. And he was not a member of that family, the Minamoto's. But he was definitely the most powerful person in the land. And he also had to butter up the emperor. So the emperor was still rather broke. The emperor throughout centuries was very often very poor and very often just basically getting pocket money from whoever is in power, but still had respect and was still officially descended from the Sun Goddess, the most respected person in the entire land. So Nobunaga then gave the emperor lots of money and burnished the imperial palace, made it good. So he gave himself legitimacy as a ruler by helping out the emperor.
Matthew Lewis: So aside from the damage done to Kyoto at the beginning of the period, the political fracturing of Japan and then it's coming back together doesn't really impact Kyoto's position and power.
Lesley Downer: No. Also, Japan, unlike England, is a country of up to that point, mainly wooden buildings, and the country of lots of earthquakes. If you've ever been there, you know exactly what to do if there's an earthquake. I'd be under my desk in a second if there was an earthquake. So people are used to everything falling down, and they're used to everything going on fire because that happens in earthquakes, and they're used to rebuilding. So it didn't take as long as it would have taken to rebuild London, to rebuild Kyoto. It didn't take that long. So it could be rebuilt pretty quickly. And it happened again and again in the history of Kyoto and also in the history of Edo, which was the city that later became Tokyo. Time and time again, they were burnt down. So Kyoto was back on its feet quite quickly, but it was just known to be the capital. The name Kyoto means capital city. Kyoto is the capital and Toh is city. And the name Tokyo, incidentally, Toh is eastern and Kyoto is the same, Kyoto is capital. But Kyoto was the capital and that was that. And so each of these unifiers, the first being Nobunaga, first of all established themselves in Kyoto. So Nobunaga didn't finish the process of unification. He had a very dramatic and spectacular assassination by one of his own men. It's an amazing story. But that happened in Kyoto. He was in a temple where it was his land. He thought he was absolutely fine. He didn't have that many guards and one of his own generals turned against him. So he was killed there. And his trusted lieutenant, who was a guy called Hashiba Hideyoshi. Hashiba Hideyoshi had a lot of different names. He started off the son of a farmer and he was called Hiyoshi. And he was also called Saru-san, which means Mr. Monkey because he was an ugly bloke and looked like a monkey. He was small and ugly. He had a lot of girlfriends. He had a really devoted wife to whom he wrote wonderful letters. This is all by the by. Hideyoshi is a great guy. Hideyoshi came galloping back from the campaign he was engaged in when he heard that Nobunaga had been killed. And basically Nobunaga's method had been force and violence. Hideyoshi was the golden tongue. He used persuasion. He was nice to people. And he got everybody to pledge allegiance to him. Everyone right across the whole archipelago as it existed at that time. So that didn't include what is now Hokkaido. But from the top of Honshu Island down to the bottom of Kyushu, pledged allegiance to him. And then, so there's this period of 30 years between when Nobunaga walks into Kyoto, which is in 1568, and Hideyoshi's death in 1598. That 30 years was an unbelievable period of glory. And because Hideyoshi came from a poor family, he was a farmer's son. He had climbed his way right through the ranks, which only two people in the whole of Japanese history did. But he sort of didn't have anything to prove to anybody. He was very nice to the emperor, but he loved culture. He wanted to enjoy all those wonderful things that the upper classes had. But under him, the sort of culture he liked was show. He liked display. He liked sort of flamboyancy. For example, there are paintings of the wonderful kimonos people wore. And there are also beautiful paintings of how Kyoto looked with all the people on the streets, people dancing, the beautiful buildings, the temples, the palaces. He built a palace in the middle of called Jūrakudai, in the middle of Kyoto, where Nijo Castle is now, for those of anyone who's been there, right in the center. And then he also built Momoyama Castle in the south of Kyoto. And he also, while he was at it, I'm not sure if I'm answering your question anymore, but he had an enormous tea party for the entire population of Kyoto, the entire population, including all the poor people, and got them all to come. And it occupied a whole sort of enormous shrine grounds. And I think there was something like 800 tea pavilions there. Part of tea is displaying your beautiful utensils, and he displayed his gold utensils. And he also had an entire tea hut made of gold, the Golden Tea Hut, which is sort of ironic, because the whole point of tea is that it is poor, and it is aged, and it is austere, and it is all those things. He did the reverse, but that was okay too.
Matthew Lewis: Bringing a bit of bling to the tea ceremony. You mentioned then that there were some illustrations of Kyoto. Do we have a good idea of what Kyoto may have looked like in its heyday?
Lesley Downer: It depends what you think was the heyday. I mean, we know what it looked like in Emperor Kamu's time when it was founded. Yeah, we know that very, very well. I think for some reason we know that better than we do how it looked in Hideyoshi's day, but it looked quite similar. So it was laid out in a grid plan. Let's start with Emperor Kamu. So in the Heian period, it was laid out on a grid, like a chess board, with equal-sized square areas. And then it had long kind of boulevards going down the middle. It had small lanes going off to the sides. It had the Emperor's palace up at the top with beautiful green roofs, red columns, very spectacular. You could see the Emperor's palace wherever you were. And along these boulevards, people trundled in ox-drawn carriages. Ladies were hidden, always hidden. But when they'd trundle up and down in ox-drawn carriages, they'd always let a bit of their brocade robes sort of flow out of the window so that people would know there was somebody really special inside. There's a huge story of what their lives were like in Heian. It was very interesting. People would write poetry. One of the key things was whether you were any good at writing poetry or not. If you heard that a lady was beautiful, you would compose a poem, and you'd write it on beautiful scented notepaper, and you would have it sent to her, and she'd take a look at it. You'd never seen her because you don't see these ladies. You would not have seen her. And you, of course, would be a prince or an aristocrat or a noble. You wouldn't be just a person. And she would take a look at your poem, look at your calligraphy, look at your paper, and decide if you were worth getting to know any better or not. And if she thought you were, then she would brush a reply. These are very short poems. And she'd send it back, and then you would take a look at it, and you'd think the same thing, oh, that calligraphy is not that great. Maybe I won't bother. Or you'd think, wow, this is amazing calligraphy. And then you would wait till nighttime. And when it was pitch dark, because it was pitch dark, you would go in to her palace, and you wouldn't see her. And all around would be her servants. But servants don't exist, and they can't see anything, so that's okay. And they would know it was you, because you would be wearing a particular perfume that you had blended yourself. And wherever you went, everybody would know that this is Prince Genji. So you would go, and you'd make love to her in the dark, and then you'd leave before cockcrow. And maybe if things went on, you might get to have a look at her and discover whether she was actually beautiful or if she wasn't beautiful. So there was all this stuff going on among the aristocracy. That was Kyoto in that heyday, which is around like the 9th, 10th centuries, which is the era of the Tale of Genji, which is the world's first novel. Then if we kind of sweep past all these other wonderful periods, and we get up to the time of Hideyoshi, Hideyoshi sort of basically laid out Kyoto as it is now. He cut those squares in half, so you have rectangular blocks rather than square blocks. He also built a wall around the outside of the city, which isn't there anymore, but he had that built. He also built these glorious palaces. So you would have very glorious palaces on the main boulevards, which again, are still always in like a chess board, laid out like a grid. And you'd also have glorious temples, probably not radically different in appearance from glorious palaces. And then you'd have the whole merchant's area, which would be tiny little lanes of small dark houses with bamboo blinds outside, very nice houses, which still exist. If you go to Kyoto, you can go down these little lanes. They're so thin that you have to walk down or you just go down on a bicycle or something. They're sort of dark wood houses, steep, steep stairs, several floors. I think they're called eel lanes because they're like eels. They're kind of long and thin like eels. And then you could see from the streets of Kyoto, you could see the mountains to the east, which is where Yoshimasa was looking when Kyoto was burning down behind him. You could see the mountains to the north. You could see the mountain to the northwest, which is always the unlucky direction where there was a huge complex of temples on the top and still is. And you could also see Arashiyama to the west, which is where the Flying Dragon Temple was and lots of other beautiful temples and bamboo groves. So you always could see those all around. You can to this day. So Hideyoshi laid out Kyoto as it is now, basically. And the street plan is still the same as Hideyoshi laid it out.
Matthew Lewis: So why would Northwest have been considered an unlucky direction? Why was that particularly inauspicious?
Lesley Downer: That's an almost impossible question to answer. All I can say is the Northwest was the unlucky direction. It just was in geomantic terms. So when Emperor Kamu had the capital built there, one of the things he knew was that there was already in the Northwest, a mountain called Mount Hiei, on which was a huge Buddhist temple. So that therefore counteracted the unluckiness. That was very important. And then more Buddhist temples and more Buddhist temples were built on that same mountain. And in the end, there was something like 3,000 Buddhist temples up there, which was all an excellent thing for countering the unluckiness, except it became rather unlucky itself, because those Buddhist priests then came down and started rampaging around the city. And then unluckily, Nobunaga had to go up and destroy the entire temple compound, which he did. He burnt down the whole lot. But there are temples there again. But why the Northwest? I don't know. It's like if you picture the tube map, it's sort of around Stratford up there. It's kind of that's the unlucky direction.
Matthew Lewis: It's fascinating that it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that they put all of these temples there to counteract the badness of the Northwest. And then all of the badness comes out of the Northwest to rampage through the city, and they have to go and destroy everything in the Northwest. Presumably, you've got all of the nobility living in their big palaces. But would there have been other walks of life in different parts of Kyoto that were perhaps a little less auspicious?
Lesley Downer: Yeah, starting at the top, you'd have the emperor there, you'd have his courtiers there. You'd have lots of warriors who'd also live in sort of fairly fabulous villas. You'd also have lots of monks and priests. There's loads of unbelievable number of temples. I mean, uncountable number of temples and monasteries in Kyoto and sub-temples. So there'd be loads of monks living in those places. Then you have down one side of the city is the River Kamo. And you've got the River Kamo dividing the city from the Eastern Mountains. And at the foot of the Eastern Mountains is an area of flat land, which became a big area of carnival. So if you wanted to have fun, you go there. So when you're having a respectable life and your wife and your family and everything else are there, you stay away from the mountains. But you could also cross the bridge to this area of carnival, where there would be sumo wrestling, there'd be jugglers, there'd be theater, and there would be ladies of pleasure, lots of ladies of pleasure. And at various times, within Hideyoshi's reign, a particular man whose name was Saburoemon Hara, he said to Hideyoshi, why don't I gather together these ladies of pleasure, who are a little bit chaotic, because it's good to have a bit of order. There's no issue with morality about this. It's to do with orderliness. So he gathered them into particular places, which became pleasure quarters, which of course were number one, there was a wall around them. So you could keep an eye on what went on because there were bad guys that went there as well as good guys. Number two, you could tax them. And so these became very famous pleasure quarters. There's one in Kyoto, there's a very famous one in Edo, which is now Tokyo. So there's all those people, there's all the inhabitants of the pleasure quarters, there's all the theater people. Theater people and denizens of the pleasure quarters were considered the lowest of the low. That's a bit like, don't put your daughter on the stage. They were kind of low level people on one hand, but on the other hand, they were kind of celebs. So when you see woodblock prints, a lot of those are of courtesans and they're of theater people. Those were like pinup posters. So that would be the fun part of the city over between the river and the mountains. The river was called the Kamo. And in 1603, which is just after Hideyoshi's time, there was a woman called Izumo no Okuni, who was a shrine maiden, and she thought of a fabulous way of advertising her wares, which was to dance on a stage. Usually she cross-dressed, she dressed like a man with swords, and she did very funny skits. And loads of people came to watch her perform. So that gave a lot of customers for afterwards. And that was the beginning of what became known as the geisha and the courtesan. Of course, people like that had always been around, but this was a kind of coalescing of it. Which brings me to the other people I forgot about, which is of course the Portuguese. So the Portuguese were there in Hideyoshi's time. In fact, they got there before Hideyoshi's time. They got there in about 1535. And there was a whole kind of, what's the word, a sort of seasoning of Japanese culture with Portuguese stuff. The dishes like tempura came from Portuguese cuisine, which was called tempura because the Portuguese used to eat fried foods on certain holy days called a tempura. And Hideyoshi enjoyed wearing Portuguese clothes. In fact, lots of it was a real hot thing among the Japanese nobles was wearing Portuguese clothes. You're wearing a cross. It didn't mean anything. It was like, you know, they were fashion victims, but they thought this is really great. And so there were also, when you see pictures of Okuni dancing, this woman dancing, there were Portuguese there watching her as well. There was also the Portuguese around Oda Nobunaga. There were some that knew him very well and he liked them. He had no interest in Christianity, but he just thought these are clever men. They're kind of fanatical like him, so he liked them. So there's that whole flavour of the Portuguese around the place as well.
Matthew Lewis: Kyoto, the way you describe it, sounds like a fascinating, bustling, cultural hub where there is just something going on all of the time. It sounds like an incredible place to be.
Lesley Downer: Oh yeah, absolutely. I was kind of reading up around it in preparation for talking to you and thinking, as I always think about Japan, damn, I wish I could have been there. I wish I could have been at Hideyoshi's tea party for sort of the entire population of Kyoto. He also had a cherry viewing party for a thousand people. I wish I could have seen those glorious kind of gold painted screens. I mean, this is the thing that within his palace was the absolute opposite of the austerity of Zen. The walls were painted in gold with paintings on them, but the gold also made it very bright inside because it caught the light. There's very little lighting inside those enormous rooms. I would love to have been to Japan or been in Japan at that time. I think it would have been a fantastic place to be. Also, Kyoto was and is a centre of craftsmanship. So very beautiful fabrics, very beautiful pottery, very beautiful making of incense, fans, just about everything that you think of when you think of Japan. All those exquisite artefacts were being made in and are being made in Kyoto.
Matthew Lewis: I guess it's not a spoiler. We mentioned it a little bit earlier that Kyoto isn't the capital of Japan anymore. Does Kyoto then have a kind of fall? Why does the capital move away from there at some point?
Lesley Downer: So after 14, let's see, we're still with Hideyoshi. After Hideyoshi's death, he wanted his son Hideyori to succeed him. That didn't work out. There was a and Tokugawa Ieyasu won. He finally properly unified Japan and brought it to peace. He gave Japan 250 years of peace, which was a phenomenal time, an incredible sort of development of culture. At the beginning of this period is 1603, the battle. The end of this period is 1868. In that 250 years, Japan changed completely and became close to becoming the modern place it is now. And what happened was that his descendants, rather as with the emperors, the first guy is very strong, but then you have sort of not such great people succeeding him. Some were better, some were worse. But towards the end, things were probably not as great as they might have been. Added to which the Tokugawas had ancient enemies and they had defeated them in the battle of Sekigahara. And those enemies were from the southwest, from the Kyushu area, from the sort southwestern part of Honshu. And they wanted their revenge. And they rose up and with the help of the British, and they actually toppled the last of the Tokugawa shoguns who abdicated. And at that point, the southwestern lords took over. So they once again didn't have legitimacy, but they once again immediately said, oh, we represent the emperor. And that gave them legitimacy. But they decided in that 250 years, the Tokugawa's capital was not Kyoto. The official capital was Kyoto, but the Tokugawa city was Edo. So the center of policy, the center of government, the center of culture, more and more gravitated towards Edo. And so these southwestern lords decided that they would make the capital not Kyoto, but Edo. And so they marched up, they took Edo castle. And in 1868, the then emperor, who was 14, I think, or 16, he was a teenager, marched or didn't march. He was carried by palanquin topped with a phoenix up to Edo and into Edo castle, which became the imperial palace and Edo became Tokyo, which is the eastern capital. So therefore Kyoto was no longer the capital at all. It was no longer the official capital. So there was a kind of time of, I think, being a bit depressed. I think the people of Kyoto were a bit depressed, particularly because the emperor was the heart of their whole city and then he'd gone. But he did that same emperor when he was old, was taken back to Kyoto and buried in Kyoto. I think he was buried on the site of Hideyoshi's Jurakudai, of Hideyoshi's glorious palace, which had long since disappeared. But that's where he is. So Kyoto did have its kind of down moment. And then the people of Kyoto decided they had to do something about this. But what they realized was that Kyoto is still the cultural center. And it was still where all these wonderful handicrafts were made. There's also the sort of feeling that you get in Japan. You can almost spot a Kyoto person. It's a bit like, I don't know how to put this, a bit like spotting an old Etonian. They're a little bit posh and they're a little bit cool. They're very, as the sort of aesthetic, they're very good at tea ceremony. They're very good at flower arranging. They might be more likely to wear a kimono than somebody from Tokyo, for example. So that Kyoto culture remained and that Kyoto classiness remains. There's a famous proverb, which is that the people of Osaka will bankrupt themselves for a good meal. But the people of Kyoto will bankrupt themselves for a fine piece of silk. So they're like that. They're kind of clothes people. I've forgotten what the people of Tokyo will bankrupt themselves for. It's not food and it's not clothing. So Kyoto somehow had a resurgence. It was also the center of the geisha, which is quite important, actually. It recreated itself as a center of traditional culture. So Tokyo is a big modern city. And as you know, Kyoto did not get bombed in World War II because it's such a center of traditional culture. It's got so much. And also it's not entirely, but it's largely a wooden city. And there was also a law was passed, which again, I think has been broken, but there are laws about the height of buildings you can build in Kyoto. You're not supposed to build very tall buildings. So it's mainly a low rise city. So it has maintained its kind of aura of being somewhere classy, somewhere creative. Maybe it's the heart and maybe Tokyo is the head or something.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah. It's interesting that the politics sort of overtakes Kyoto and the emperor leaves, but Kyoto manages to cling onto enough things to retain its importance. I should say in the heart of Japan and the Japanese, it still means something. It doesn't just kind of give up and fade away.
Lesley Downer: But it also has had that position for a thousand years. That's a really long time. It's also things like it's the home of tea ceremony. It's the home of flower arrangement. I mean, the headquarters of the various schools of tea ceremony, mainly in Kyoto. It's also, for example, it's the home of Noh, which is the very sort of Zen imbued theater of the samurai. But then Kabuki, which is really wonderful and wild and wacky. That's more the theater of Tokyo. I mean, you can see Noh in Tokyo, you can see Kabuki in Kyoto, but the sort of heart of it are those cities. And at Heian Shrine, which is a very central, very beautiful shrine in Kyoto, in the summer in June, they have something called Takihi Noh, which is Noh performed by torchlight, which is burning brands. So it's lit by torchlight. And there's these kind of figures performing Noh very, very slowly and singing this kind of very extraordinary singing, which I can't attempt to describe, but that is Kyoto. So they're very different from each other.
Matthew Lewis: Has Noh theater not changed very much since Kyoto's heyday at the end of the Sengoku period, maybe? Is that something that someone from 16th century Kyoto would still recognise today? Does it connect us to this past?
Lesley Downer: It's interesting. I haven't thought about that, but my immediate thought would be yes. The most famous Noh plays are written by Zeami, and he is from the period of Yoshimitsu, which is way before those wars. There are some other Noh plays, but they're mainly still written by him. They are the repertoire, the way that the Noh stage is, which has a long kind of platform leading to the stage. There's a pine tree painted on the back. The costumes are very lavish, but very stylised and is performed with masks. So the main character wears a mask and the masks are very, very famous. They're works of art. The mask, as it moves, it changes expression. So you have the same mask, and as the face moves, it can look happy, it can look sad. Also, the head actor of the Noh theatre is going to be the oldest man. It's performed entirely by men. And you can get an old man playing the part of a beautiful young woman, and you completely believe it. And I saw a Noh performance when actually the actor's mask fell off. So you see the face of the old man, you look, you see a young woman, you see a young woman, you just do. I think most of the singing is done by a chorus who sit at the side of the stage and they have drums that they play, that they beat, they have flutes that they play. I would say it is probably that people from the 15th century would probably recognise it. Kabuki changed a lot. Kabuki is a different thing. Kabuki is absolutely wonderful. And up till the 19th century, the Kabuki actors improvised. And I've also seen a production of Kabuki, in which this fabulous actor, he commits the ritual suicide, he commits seppuku in a waterfall. So you've got a real waterfall with real water on the stage, big stages, much bigger than you get in London, huge stage. So he drives his sword into his stomach, red blood comes pouring out. He then makes a speech of about half an hour, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, with blood, red blood pouring out. And then he says, no, I shall die. And then he finishes it. It's like that. It's really extraordinary.
Matthew Lewis: I was going to end by sort of asking you whether you would have liked to have lived in Kyoto during the Sengoku period. I'm getting a sense that I might be able to guess at your answer. Is it a place you think you would have liked to be?
Lesley Downer: When you say the Sengoku period, you see that includes the period when it got burnt down. I could have been a merchant when it got burnt down, that would be okay. I think it would have been really fun being there. I could have been a Portuguese because I'm not Japanese. When you see pictures of all these Japanese pictures of the time showing life, everybody's out on the streets, they're all dancing, they're having festivals. Yeah, it would depend who you were. You'd want to have had a bit of money, I think. And you possibly would have more fun if you were a man than a woman. But you could probably have some fun if you were a woman too, actually, I think you probably could.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah. And all of Hideyoshi's gold ceremonies and parties and things like that, that all sounds like a fantastic time to be in Kyoto. Yeah.
Lesley Downer: No, I think those 30 years between 1568 and 1598, I think that would have been an amazing time to have been in Kyoto.
Matthew Lewis: Well, thank you so much for joining us, Lesley. It's been an absolute pleasure to get to know Kyoto a little bit better and to understand its importance to Japan during this period, but also beyond it to today. So thank you so much for joining us.
Lesley Downer: Thank you. You should definitely go.
Matthew Lewis: I will definitely try. Thank you very much. Thank you for listening to this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. Join us next time as we explore a key aspect of Assassin's Creed and ask how we could fit in to feudal Japan. What clothes might we wear? What might we eat? And would I be the most legendary samurai of all time? So join us for the next episode to find out more about the history behind the world of Assassin's Creed.

Shogun and Shinto: What Life Was Like In Feudal Japan

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm your host Matt Lewis. You're joining us as we dive deep into the heart of an era that has shaped legends and popular culture for centuries. In case you haven't seen it, the world premiere trailer for Assassin's Creed Shadows has been released. And we can see that it transports us to feudal Japan. This is a time renowned for its samurai and ninjas, a time bursting with history, culture and stories. And for the past few episodes, we've been exploring some of this fascinating period. So far, our journey's taken us back in time to the upheavals of the Sengoku period, as the seeds for the unification of Japan are being sown. We've travelled to the heart of Imperial Japan, then the city of Kyoto, and we've met some of the key characters that define this age. Today, we invite you to imagine what daily life might have been like in feudal Japan. In Assassin's Creed Shadows, we'll meet a whole host of characters, including merchants, farmers, as well as legendary warriors. What would the average day have looked like for someone who was a farmer, a merchant, or maybe even a samurai? And what would they have dressed like? What would they do for fun? And what does all of this tell us about the social categories of the time? I'm joined by Kate Kitagawa, author and historian of mathematics. Kate currently works for the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency as senior counsellor for international relations. She's also a former teacher at Harvard University of the history of medieval Japan. And this is the period we've invited Kate onto Echoes of History to talk about. Today, we ask Kate to shed some light on the different people that made up Japanese society. People we'll meet in Assassin's Creed Shadows, and how the ever-shifting political landscape of the 16th century shaped Japanese society and culture, paving the way towards unification. Welcome to Echoes of History, Kate.
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Thank you very much for having me today, Matt. Good to see you.
Matthew Lewis: I'm really excited to get into this episode about kind of everyday life in Japan. How would we fit in if we found ourselves in feudal Japan as players of Assassin's Creed Shadows are about to? So if we're in the Sengoku period in Japan, who do you think you'd be, Kate? Are we peasant farmers? Are we merchants? I mean, obviously, I'm the most legendary samurai of all time. That's how I imagine myself in feudal Japan. But where do you see yourself?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: I also like to be a strong samurai, because that's probably the high chance of survival. And I probably would enjoy the most about the country life. So that's maybe like peasants in the countryside would be my second choice. But I will go with your scenario. Maybe we both become the strong samurai.
Matthew Lewis: I think we would make a fantastic team. And we would almost definitely take feudal Japan by storm, Kate. So how then is feudal society in Japan set up? Is there a class system similar to what we might recognize in the UK? You know, we have our class system. Is there that kind of categorization to society?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. So the most famous categorization that we know of now started sometime in the 17th century. So it was something like a pyramid. There's the strong samurai known as shogun. It will be ruling, you know, always the country. But also there was an emperor. So this is like a high class, just very few people at the top. And then there will be samurai class, the people with sword and they have great fighting skills and so on. And then below that, there will be farmers and then artisans and merchants. So those people were in a hierarchy like a pyramid. And it has been known as the class system. So installed strongly during the 17th century. But before that, there are a long history of a samurai ruling. And then back then, especially the time we call Sengoku, that's the time of wars. Those class systems were not really rigid. So people are moving like, you know, more freely between the classes. Also, they will be fighting against each other. So the system was not really working until the 17th century. So if we go back to like the beginning, then we could probably imagine us like being a strong samurai. And then there will be the clans around us to help us out. And they will rule the regions. And then sometimes when we get into trouble, we must fight. But then, you know, those kind of system are strongly becoming more structural, leading up to the feudal society in the 17th and 18th century.
Matthew Lewis: I'm quite interested that when you listed that structure of society, farmers came above artisans and merchants. And I think in lots of Western cultures, it's possibly the other way around that we would consider the farmers to be beneath the artisans and the merchants. Is that quite an unusual thing for Japan that farmers were considered higher in the social ranking than merchants and artisans?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. So merchants are at the bottom and the farmers are above them. So what happens to that structure is to praise farmers' work even more and then to suppress the wrongdoings of merchants. Because merchants having like lots of money and they have skills to, you know, have the commercial activities going on. If they are like higher up, near samurai, then there will be a high chance of having a conflict between them. So they decided that merchants to be at the bottom so that they have like less respect regarding the social class. But then they'll still be able to do commerce and also a lot of money lending and all other activities that let the society move forward.
Matthew Lewis: Interesting. So the idea that they could become wealthy and powerful is counteracted by giving them much less status within society to stop them being a threat to the ruling samurai classes. What kind of jobs and what kind of crafts would people in feudal Japan have been engaged in? So we obviously have the farmers who are working the land, but what other jobs and crafts are available?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. Well, maybe one important thing is the sword makers because, you know, those swords and also all other armors, it has to be very strong and prestigious and expensive. So those are the professionals that will make only swords for life or only like armors for life. So those people are really succeeding their businesses over generations. In other businesses, unfortunately, there is a marginalized class that they dealt with, like say butchering and also like some sort of dirty work. So that they are isolated from the mainstream society and they have been recognized as like a specialized group, but also some sort of prejudice over this group. Those are different sorts of jobs that we recognize in history.
Matthew Lewis: It's interesting how some jobs can end up being viewed that way when they tend to also be vital to the economy. You know, if it's butchering, people want the animals to eat, they want the food, but they don't want to think about how it's arrived there. And there's some sense of a lack of desirability around the process of doing it, but somebody has to do it.
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. So that's very unfortunate in a way. And also from the time that we respect the farmers, that we hope that we respect all those people who will be engaged in those work that's necessary to our life. But, you know, it wasn't the case. But also one theory is about the blood being so impure. So, for example, the butchering is involving with the blood and also like the taking life. That's really something that Buddhism disrespect, for example. So in that regard, those people have to be doing the work in the darkness or in the dark, in a way. That's why, you know, there are some people who are a little bit treated differently from the beginning. You're right that we would hope that those people would have gained much respect over time.
Matthew Lewis: And how did the relationships work between some of those social classes? So we have a feudal system. How does land ownership work? If I'm a farmer, I'm quite well respected. Do I own my own land or do I hold that from someone who is socially superior to me?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. That depends on the time. So the earlier times when imagine like long time ago, say 12th century and 13th century, land has still been like not registered. Right. So that you have to claim the ownership and you have to be gaining approval from someone that has a power over the region. So around that time, the ownership has been decided between your landlord and yourself. And your work will be defined between you two. But then when it becomes more complicated, the society evolves and then like commercial activities going on. And then there will become more registration of the land and that becomes more systematic than before. So over the time, because that personal bonding was stronger at the beginning, loyalty, for example, you have to be loyal to your land master or even the master himself. And then that becomes like in the beginning of how owning the land becoming a part of the samurai's work. So it has a little bit of evolution from the old times. And then now, as you can imagine, that feudal society was known for having a good working land ownership between the owners like rulers and the farmers or the samurai.
Matthew Lewis: Was there much movement between those social classes? Could someone who was born a farmer, could they rise through the ranks and become a daimyo or a local ruler of any kind? Or were things much more strictly controlled in terms of the levels of society?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Strictly controlled. So unfortunately, there are not like subtle moves between the classes. So usually in farmers being registered as farmers, and then they will be farmers forever. So back then, during this Sengoku period, when the class systems were not really rigid, then back then, those are people who had the sword recognized as samurai. Then the people who did not have the sword were peasants. So there was like two types to begin with. And then at one point that, you know, this separation started to happen. And then there is almost no point of return. So since then, the guys who were the family and also the clans that started to have no training in martial arts, meaning they have the swords and weapons, they become the samurai. And then the rest, it's always been fixed since the 17th century onward.
Matthew Lewis: And do we see that changing and being settled during the Sengoku period? So while all of this warring state period is going on, is that upheaval also affecting the social structures of Japanese society? Is it helping to free them up or is it helping to tighten them up?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Well, it's an interesting question, because I think it works both ways. So first of all, the samurai will have to decide their own sort of structure of the samurai, who's at the top and who will be supporters and who will be the helpers and so on. So around that time, it was more like, you know, this making a system. But at the same time, as I said, the peasants, they could still become the samurai at the time because no registrations, no central authority and so on. So there are like massive dynamics going on. And at the same time, the rulers are deciding who will become stronger than whom and if we will own more land than whom. So they're like both going on. That's like an interesting features of the Sengoku period.
Matthew Lewis: And if we're aspiring samurai, we're going to find our sword maker, we're going to find our armour maker, and you and I are going to take feudal Japan by storm, Kate. But while we're preparing to do that, where are we living? What do houses look like during this period in the countryside and in the towns?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right, they're very simple. So the countryside and towns, so they had the simple structure of just a roof and then some basic structures. And sometimes if somebody decided to have a fish market or some sort of market in front of their house, and then that's an origin of merchants class. But then they did have those decorations on the facade and then they will have something to sell in front of their houses. So that's a very basic structure. But for the higher classes, they had some sort of symbolization by building the tall castles, for example. That's like very visible sign of power. So the castle, it has to have the structure of visible strategy. So sometimes, you know, the sea or sort of canal surrounding it. So it's not just a tower because if it's just a tower, then somebody will come and knock this out. So that's not great. So they have to show some sort of wisdom of having the barricade and wisely decorated on the side of the castle. And then it has to be tall so that they can see or oversee the whole town and so on. So the house for the samurai becomes those inner quarter of structure, let's say castle keep. So then they will have some sort of, you know, symbolized lifestyle that the ruler would have. Also, there is a special structure related to the house is the tea house. You might have heard about the samurai practicing the tea ceremony, for example. And then tea ceremony has been done in a small room. And it's usually decorated specially for this, but decoration has to be very simple. So it's not like much of decoration having the items all over, but it's very simple. And then it has a structure representing the calmness and representing its own sort of traditions and so on. And sometimes the flowers just having that little flower display that would help also to show how this simple space would speak. So this tea house is not higher up in the castle, but it's usually separated. And then sometimes even in the mountainside. So those are the structures that's probably unique to the Japanese samurai society.
Matthew Lewis: And who would live in a family home? Did the Japanese people during this period keep extended families close to home or did they tend to sort of move out of home quite early?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. Interesting question. So the merchants or those people who started to sell specialized goods, they will be passing this business to the next generations. That means the family will stay closer together and necessarily. So that usually the main house will have the first son and the second son and the third son somewhere in the region. And then the business will just keep on going until the next one will find the successor. And then the next one will find the next successor and so on. This structure let the family become very close. And then from the structure of the samurai as well, that they will have to be tight group. You know, they have to be bonded very strongly, especially when you become massive force, then they can't really have an internal conflict. Ideally not. Right. So they will have to have those structures. And then the relatives will become the close vassals, for example, so that they will all live somewhere close. So imagine there is a castle, the ruler will be at the top and then they will have the village of the relatives and also close vassals. So like related clans. So they all live at one place. And then this is like a merchant's group living and selling the specialized goods to all the people, including the samurai. So the structure of the town started to become, you know, more categorized. And then also samurai's region like this is a samurai village and this is merchants, you know, markets and so on. So those started to become more visible as the class structure started to become fixed.
Matthew Lewis: And one of the other things I'd like to talk a little bit about is what you and I might have worn if we found ourselves in Sengoku, Japan. I guess for women, we associate the kimono perhaps most closely with Japanese society. Is that what most women would have worn or is that unusual?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Oh, it is usual formal clothing. So the kimono is the thing that the woman would wear. And also for men as well, they would wear kimono, but in that different sort of style and made. So the kimono usually has clothing, you know, across the sleeves, you know, in front of you. And we both look at men and women wearing the same style and with this family crest sometimes here and there on the neck. So you can see on the kimono which clan that you belong to and like what kind of class that you are associated with. So the kimono is not just beautiful, but the quality and also the patterns that will make all the people stand out. And also patterns too. They wore cotton, but also like kimono style make. So that's made is the same. So they will look like, you know, they are wearing the same style of clothing.
Matthew Lewis: So were the styles between sort of the upper and lower classes less about different shapes and styles of clothing and just more to do with the quality and the flamboyance and the flashiness of it?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: So when I looked at this folding screens made in the beginning of 17th century, they are depiction of women. So the high class woman had an umbrella and also she wore a hat. So that would be a huge difference that it makes because in the lower class woman, they will wear kimono in a similar style, just a low quality. But they will not usually have an umbrella and so on. So there will be a great difference that we can see even on the folding screens from the time of their living.
Matthew Lewis: You and I are going to look amazing when we take over feudal Japan, Kate. We're going to have the best swords and we're going to look absolutely fantastic.
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. Yeah, I would love to do this and hopefully without violence too. So that's something that I focus on in my research because, you know, back then that was the only choice that those strong allied samurai would take over. And that did happen, we have to admit, but nowadays we like to give up the swords. So Mats, with your virtue and then me, Kate, being like a kind person, then we can make a great team to have a good influence to the world. And then back then it just started to become obvious about the muscle power about swords and then killing and so on. But at the same time, women realize the importance of nonviolence as well. So the nonviolent part, that's about women, say, having the writing skill. So, you know, women write to other people passing through the message and then that message become the clear information that's been certified by the sender. And then that was very important in a chaotic world that you need a very good writing to convey that information or will to pass on. So, you know, writing skill, it's nonviolent, but it becomes also another tool to make promises. So once we become the rulers, we like to make rules and then somebody has to write about it. And then women really helped and women educated children and so on. So with those powers of nonviolence that they started to create a better condition in a society, I think we need to really emphasize that aspect of the rulership as well.
Matthew Lewis: In what other ways would being a woman in feudal Japan have influenced your life during the period there? I mean, I guess, you know, I'm much more focused on medieval European society where women were treated very badly, kind of set to one side, often marginalized. But we do know that they operated this really soft power, which is similar to what you're talking about women doing in Japan. But in what other ways would being a woman make your life different from that of a man?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. So women started to become financially independent during the Sengoku time. So that's something different from other societies. The other societies, why the women stayed, you know, in that sort of like second class is that financially they will have to be dependent on their father or their husbands or even their sons. Then around that time of the unification of Japan, the Japanese women started to have the financial independence as one of the quality of life that they will have to sustain. So that sometimes even the father died or husband died or any relatives died that they themselves can live. So, you know, it's like a starting point of having like a little bit of equality, a little bit of more rights in a society by claiming her own land or financial assets and so on. So I think they started to realize also about getting into the financial transaction that has made a great impact to the samurai world. It's not only men that could own the lands and wealth.
Matthew Lewis: Do you think women in medieval and early modern Japan had it better than women in medieval and early modern Europe? They seemed like they had more independent power and authority and possibly more respect.
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. Well, I've been reading women's stories from all over the world. And I think, you know, some people really exerted their wills and powers and also wishes and so on. So it might be really depending on one's agency, like what they want to do with their lives. But in general, maybe the Japanese woman would have a little more equal rights to men than the women in medieval Europe, on average, I must say.
Matthew Lewis: So one of the other things we would need to do to fit in in feudal Japan is to be able to find food for ourselves. We need to be able to eat. So players in the game, you know, they're trying to meld into feudal Japan and to pass for part of society. So if we were looking for a meal in Sengoku, Japan, what kind of food might we be eating? And is that different depending on our class?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. Usually the basic food are the same. So the special foods like in seasonal ones or very expensive ones, those are consumed by the samurais and the ruling classes. But the very basic things like, say, rice and grains mixed with fish and salted plums and all other nutritious fruits. I think those are the very basic things that everyone sort of shared in the society. So they used to eat twice per day. So one is obviously around breakfast and then they will have another meal at night. And meal itself, as I said, will be simple, like, say, miso soup. You know, there's a soup that comes with the grain and then those salted because preservatives almost always salt. So the salted fish, salted pickles and then other things comes with it. And then soup and then grain and those combination are the basics. And in some unusual seasonal food, like the fish that only comes into this season or some sort of chestnuts, you know, that's like really delicious. Not just the dessert aspect of it, but it's more like seasonal aspect that they enjoy a lot. And then also some wealthy people will drink sake. So the sake has become a good item for the men to hang out together and then they are enjoying the sake. And the lower class too, depending on like how rich and how poor, but they basically had an access to those drinks. So the varieties of drinks available for them.
Matthew Lewis: Do you think food at this time would have been nice? Would you have liked to live on the diet of feudal Japan?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: I've been hearing a lot about the balanced diet back then being so good. So sometimes when we go on diet, for example, we would like to shape up a little bit, say minus two, three kilos that we model. Look back and say, look, you know, this is miso soup and then grain and then some pickles. And then just salt is important for our bodies. So that's like a basics that keep us going. So I think still a good part of wisdom that coming from the basic food from a long time ago, sort of alive in our lives as well.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah. And I guess, you know, in a world of ultra processed food, we're talking about stuff that was really good for you and full of nutrition. But I really feel like I would have struggled with the two meals a day as a greedy man. I like my three meals a day. I feel like two would not be enough for me. And obviously you and I, we're now busy taking over Japan. What would we do if we wanted to relax? Were there games in medieval Japan that we know about?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Right. One thing that the samurai ruler, especially the unifier, Toyotomi Hideyoshi liked was the noh play. So there are theaters all over Japan. That time theater is our show place, like a stage. And then there will be some players. And it's even sort of 3D because imagine that there are some walls around the stage. And then on this side, like right side, that can be used for one scene. And then it moves to the second part, you know, to the front of the stage. And, you know, the third part, again, like it comes back on the stage and then fourth part moves on to the left hand side. So those are really clever sort of 3D theater that they had. And then that's very joyous to watch. And at the same time, the samurai like to even play by themselves so that they could play the role of person A, you know, showing up at these scenes and so on. So that becomes more sort of intellectual exercise combined with the games enjoyed. So I think that no play is really good feature of that time. Also chess. Many people still play chess and they're really fascinating game. So similar to chess that Japan had go. So that's like a black and white sort of stones being on the table. And then they play like chess. So they did have those things at that time, even like, you know, the merchant class and an artisan class. They enjoy that as well. From long time ago, Japanese people like the haiku poems. So the haiku has a longer version that can be saying like, So I will say first part and then Matt will continue. And then I will reply depending on what Matt started to create. Could be the story that I will continue. It could be a reply to what you have said. So those kind of wordplay that always been culture, really interesting and long standing culture of Japan.
Matthew Lewis: Amazing. It sounds like a medieval haiku rap battle that we could get engaged in. That's right. And I guess one of the other things that we associate quite closely with Japan is sumo. When does sumo emerge as a sport? And is that something that people would go and watch as a big group? Is that a community activity to go and watch sumo?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: So I don't know exactly when that started. But I remember there is also a screen that's writing sumo wrestling scenes of, I think that was rabbit and a frog. So the rabbit and the frog playing the sumo is coming from sometime say around 12th century. That has been a really long time ago. So it's back as long as the feudal Japan's starting point of the samurai rulership. The sumo has been there for entire time of Japanese samurai culture.
Matthew Lewis: And were there big religious festivals as well? We have bank holidays in the UK. Would there be days when everyone had the day off work to engage in a community celebration of some kind?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: So there are many celebrations. So at the Emperor's court, there is a court system that Emperor and other courtiers live. They have this calendar of events. So the calendars of events depend on like, say, in May, you will do this, like bank holidays, as you said. So May, we will have this celebration. June, we have this celebration. So those seasonal events has been always recorded in the diary of courtiers. And similar to that, farmers, depending on the harvest, right? So they will have the big festival to play for like huge, you know, good, you know, grain, you know, gaining this and so on. So those kind of festivals also available. And for samurai, there are many different kinds. So one kind is similar to this Emperor side. So it's like a high culture. So they will adopt the seasonal events like taken into their regions and then they will do their own version of it. But at the same time, sometimes just to worship the dead or ancestors that they had a special occasions to sort of pray and then give some offerings at the events and so on. So the samurai class was more combining this high culture and also the religious side of the ceremonies altogether. So there are varieties of the events that's happening. And also it's a class specific as well.
Matthew Lewis: I mean, it's been fascinating to try to understand better the social structures, the way that Japan worked, the kind of food that people would eat, what you might have worn to try and fit in and blend in. But for most people during the Sengoku period, would they have been aware of the high politics and the war and the struggles that are going on? Or are we talking about most of the population would still be farming and just trying to get the crops in every year and not really engaging too much with the politics that's going on? Would it have affected everybody's daily lives or would it have been really an issue of the upper classes fighting with each other?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Okay, that's a really interesting question. So the first segment of the samurai rule, the samurai's so-called headquarters was in Kamakura. That's the current Kamakura city near Tokyo. So the Tokyo city was not known at the time that Tokyo was a city yet, but the Kamakura was not known nationwide. So when the Kamakura rulership was going on and being consolidated, it's not that many people would know about the politics. So it's like say regional understandings of this is where Shogun lives and this is what Shogun does. And then in Kyoto, there is an emperor and has been residing all the time. So the Kyoto people like residents will be more aware of what's happening around the courtiers and so on. So around the first sort of segment of time, the very first samurai rules, I would say that not so many people would know about the politics. That will continue the middle segments of the samurai rule that we call usually medieval Japan. And then medieval Japan as well, this Kamakura headquarters of the samurai has been moved and taken by a different family. And then the samurai headquarter became the Kyoto as well. So in Kyoto, the dual structure of this courtiers, emperor's house and the shogunate. So the Kyoto people will be really subject to what political moves are. But other people like say around outside of Kyoto, they will be happily living in their regions. And then they will have those like farming going on and they would have rather stable time so they could enjoy. And around the time, the clear cut was this big war called Oni War. So that's 1467, so like mid 15th century. And since that time, I say 150 years, it will be chaotic time of war. So, you know, the political system was collapsing and then people will be seeing the fights all over. And as I said, the class system was not rigid yet. So people could take up the weapons so easily. So that taking up the weapons so easily, meaning that they will have to know what's going on in politics. So this 150 years of fighting and not only the samurai, but so many people nationwide will know about what's going on at the top level. And then afterwards, this peaceful sort of ruling started to happen by the shogunate Tokugawa. So that's 17th century and onward. So the class system is becoming more rigid and then people are becoming very calm and also practicing their own religions. And it's not all about so happy every day. But here's things compared to other times like Sengoku Japan or those 150 years that people had less affected by the politics. So those are some sort of sequence of the time that, you know, people are interested or involved in politics.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah. So in terms of Assassin's Creed Shadows, when players are in Japan in this Sengoku period, they are in a time when people are really heightened and aware that there is civil war, there is politics, there is things going on all over the place. It almost is getting into every aspect of everybody's life all throughout Japan. So you're in a place that is on heightened alert, if you like. That's right. And I guess the last question I have then. So I would undoubtedly, as much as I would like to think of myself as the greatest samurai of all time, if I were in feudal Japan, I'd probably be rubbish. I'd really struggle with two meals a day. I'd probably faint. How do you think you would have fared? Could you have lived in Sengoku Japan?
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Oh, wow. That's an interesting question. I think I will secretly eat the third meal. That's probably the point to survive if I could be wealthy enough. But I think the Sengoku Japan was very critical that people thought about the system, how the human has to be living, what the meanings of the family, love and life itself. So I think, you know, that was a time that people really lived. Even the short time, you know, there are some unfortunate incidences of death and so on. But I think the Sengoku time that I really cherish as a historian. And if I were there at that time, that I would probably have life that I would be convinced that I lived.
Matthew Lewis: It's interesting that it's such an important part of Japanese history and culture. If I could steal that third meal and if you and I could find decent sword makers, I feel like we could take Japan. Or at least we could have a go.
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: That's right.
Matthew Lewis: We could be the most legendary samurai together. OK, that's been absolutely fascinating. I hope that's given people an idea of what it might be like to be on the ground in feudal Japan. The buildings you're going to see, the people you're going to encounter, the food you're going to have to eat and the way that you're going to have to live your life to fit into feudal Japan. It's been absolutely fascinating. Thank you so much for joining us to share all of that.
Tomoko Lisa Kate Kitagawa: Thank you very much.
Matthew Lewis: Thank you for listening to this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. Next time, we leave feudal Japan and head to a different world from the Assassin's Creed universe, Victorian London, to meet the person who gave that era its name, Queen Victoria. So join us for the next episode to find out more about the history behind the world of Assassin's Creed.

Syndicate[edit | edit source]

Queen Victoria: The Woman Behind An Era

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. For the next four episodes, we'll be taking a dark turn into the murky underbelly of Victorian London, home to Assassin's Creed Syndicate. We'll be bringing you the real history behind a key character, a landmark, an event in the game, plus you'll also be hearing from both experts in history and gaming on how you bring Victorian London to life in a game like Syndicate. Today though, we're delving into the life of one of Britain's most defining figures, a woman who ruled for three-quarters of a century and who gave her name to an age. Queen Victoria. Born in 1819, she was the last in the line of the House of Hanover and became Queen upon the death of her uncle in 1837. Whilst often caricatured as being spiky and stubborn, Victoria reigned during some of the most significant turning points in British history and left a legacy unmatched by many other British monarchs. But what was Queen Victoria really like and how did she rule as Queen of a tiny island that possessed half the world? In Assassin's Creed Syndicate, we're offered a glimpse into her royal household as we meet the Queen at a Buckingham Palace garden party. Picture the scene. It's a warm summer's evening in the heart of the city of Westminster. Twilight is drawing in that space between light and dark where shadows grow long and the sun hovers just above the horizon. A perfect evening for a garden party. The dulcet tones of a string quartet fill the air. Red streamers hang from poles and crisscross above the heads of revelers busy gossiping about the haves and have-nots of Victorian high society. The women are dressed in richly colored and extravagantly patterned ball gowns that trail along the floor. The men meanwhile wear deep blue or black swallowtail coats to contrast with their ivory white shirts and gloves. All are dressed impeccably. For this is no ordinary garden party. It's the most exclusive garden party of them all. An evening with Queen Victoria herself in the gardens of Buckingham Palace. You arrive as part of the entourage of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli rubbing shoulders with the most powerful man in the country. Indeed the Disraelis are great friends with the Queen. They're united in their ambitious vision of Britain as a world power. As you follow the Prime Minister into the throng of gathered guests you catch sight of Her Majesty. She wears the same black mourning dress she has worn since the death of her husband Prince Albert but over the top is draped a jade blue sash, the colour of the clearest of seas. Even in her mourning, the Queen can still embrace a small flavor of celebration. She's flanked by her Royal Guards conspicuous in their blood-red tunics and lofty bearskin hats. The gold buttons that line their chests glint in the light of the rising moon. You head vaguely in Her Majesty's direction but in a flash the crowds part and you find yourself standing in front of the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. Before you can utter a word the Queen, curt as always, tells you to enjoy the ball and walks away to resume her efforts to speak to all her guests. Those who seek the Queen's grace and favor chase after her but you turn around and weave your way back into the gathered masses. Before long you're enveloped by it. Once again just an anonymous face in a Victorian crowd. So that's how we meet her in the game but what was she like in real life? To answer this and plenty more I'm joined by Alex Churchill to explore the real story of one of Britain's most famous Queens. We'll unpack the myths about her personality and discover how she ruled during one of the most seismic eras in British history. Join us as we cross the contours of time to hear the real echoes of history resonating from Assassin's Creed Syndicate. Welcome to Echoes of History Alex it's fantastic to have you here.
Alexandra Churchill: Well thank you for having me.
Matthew Lewis: Can we start off with I guess when and where is Victoria born and what do we know about her parents and her family?
Alexandra Churchill: So the big thing with Victoria is she's basically part of a scramble to populate the throne I guess. There's lots of uncles but the upshot of it is there's a succession crisis in a way because of George IV not having an heir all the way down which means the throne is going sideways to his brothers. The two brothers we care about. We care a little bit about Victoria's father otherwise she wouldn't be around but we care about George and then William who takes the throne after him until 1837 and the point is when she's born she's only fifth in line to the throne but the important thing about it is that all of those are a generation above her so she's going to outlive all of them and the brothers are having a race effectively to produce an heir first and she is the winner. She's like the Derby winner basically in baby form but when she's born her name isn't even Victoria it's Dreena so short for Alexandrina. Victoria is her mother's name so it's kind of slung in as an afterthought. It's a middle name so I think they decided eventually that that didn't quite have the gravitas for a royal name which is why she went with Victoria but I feel bad for her upbringing because no royal upbringing is not fraught with just chaos basically because it's the weirdest kind of goldfish environment you could possibly try and raise a child in and I'm trying to describe it without swearing but it's nuts. It's basically nuts and hers is no different and there's always people that have got a vested interest in interfering with their upbringing because they might get something out of them later on and in her case her mother's quite vulnerable like Miranda Richardson played her in The Young Victoria film and I think she put just enough of Queenie in her to make it viable like I kind of just see her and I think that she played her as kind of a bit ditzy, not stupid but easily manipulated and that's what happens. There's a guy, there's always a guy with ulterior motives and in this case, it's Conroy and he tries eventually to kid on that he's related to the royal family but it's nonsense but what he does is infiltrate her household as her mother's lover and take control of everything and what he ultimately wants is to almost to rule through her. Obviously, we've had George III on the throne for an eternity and that and suddenly there's this idea of a young woman hitting the throne or a girl even depending on how long her predecessors live and now we'd be like Queen Elizabeth came to the throne at 25, she was awesome but then they're thinking oh my god like the monarchy is a nightmare at the time. It's not in good standing with the people. You've had George III and his nuttiness, bless him. You've had George IV and his overspending and he's just not nice and then William IV is he's alright but he's just a gruff sailor. That's what he is. He's not really born to be king and he does alright. He doesn't cause any more damage but he's not inspiring anybody and he's also only on the throne for seven years so by the time she comes to the throne people are not expecting much from her and they're gonna get a surprise which is nice to know but Conroy has positioned himself to come to power and what he tries to do is get papers signed that say that he'll effectively be a regent until she knows what she's doing or until she turns 18 and William IV, god love him, if he does one thing right it's survive until one month after her 18th birthday. He clings on by his fingernails and we're spared that.
Matthew Lewis: Just a spiked Conroy and I think it's Sir John Conroy, is that Mark Strong in The Young Victoria film?
Alexandra Churchill: Yeah.
Matthew Lewis: I mean I think he plays him as the detestable charming person, plays him to perfection in my mind, Sir John Conroy is Mark Strong.
Alexandra Churchill: He does. I think if anyone's playing Conroy and you don't want to punch him in the face they're not doing it right because there's just that smarmy level where he's kind of worked his way in and he's higher than he ever thought he would be and he's aiming even higher. That's one thing that actually and it lasts with Victoria into her adulthood is that it prepares her. Mental well-being and physical well-being is in doubt in the last few years of living under a roof with that man and Queen Adelaide's noticed it. They're talking about a separate household for her. It's not good. It's violent in terms of like arguments and it's stressful and it's not good for her and what she does do is the second that she does come to the throne, instead of collapsing and letting him take control, she punts him out and he never gets another look in and it involves punting her mother out of any influence as well. It shapes her for the future because it makes her so fiercely protective of her birthright and her power which leads to many, many comedy incidents with Prince Albert later on but it does make her determined not to be stomped on ever again.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess it's quite striking that Conroy decides to try and get himself into this position not by ingratiating himself with the future monarch but by going on the attack trying to control her and every aspect of her life in a way that he almost certainly wouldn't have done if that was a Prince who was going to come to the throne. So Victoria must have been acutely aware from a young age that her sex was going to be a factor she was going to have to deal with.
Alexandra Churchill: Yeah because I think he probably banks on her coming to the throne before 18 and then there being a job opportunity there for a bloke to step in but he very much tries to go down the road of making her utterly dependent on him and all he does is make her hate him because he just does it in a way that makes him the villain in everything and she despises him and like I said the flaming rows and the arguments. I mean for the pre-Victorians to be commenting on someone's mental well-being like it must have been pretty bad in that house if she was that far gone. He cut her off, he isolated her and her mother played into all of this. She's not innocent either but what he did was manipulate a situation where she had no one else to go to which means that that job opportunity is there because she goes and recruits Melbourne for it and she clings to him and without him, she'd have been doomed in the first few months of her reign. So he does create that space for a strong man to occupy to guide her through her early reign but he makes himself so hateful to her that he doesn't get the job which makes me LOL.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah I mean it's short-sighted but it's a horrendous way to be short-sighted and I think that must surely then have coloured both Victoria's view of her mother but also do you think it made her a stronger person? You say she does rely on Melbourne and we'll get to her early reign I guess later on but she must have had a problematic relationship with her mother who allowed all of this to happen around her but do you think it galvanized her in any way to think that a woman shouldn't allow herself to be treated like that?
Alexandra Churchill: It's going to sound like I'm contradicting myself because she was contradictory about it. This is someone who insists on leaving the honour and obey in her wedding vows but throws stuff at her husband if he gets too uppity and takes too much of her power away and she rages against physically what being a woman and a queen does and we'll get to it because it's the forced repetitive childbirth and what it does to a woman's body makes her so so angry but actually I think the making of Queen Victoria is when all of those men are removed and there are none of them left and that's when Albert dies and I actually think that she comes out of that a much stronger human being like we're fast forwarding here but when we get to the end like he wouldn't have recognised her in 1880, 1890 as the woman he was married to because she was formidable and quite something else and at times yes she did lean on men but those kind of relationships changed and we'll talk about some of them because I think some of them revolve around boinking and wanting to get laid because she's only in her early 40s when she gets made a widow and she's not dead inside and then some of those are friendship and support like with Disraeli and some of them like Melbourne are absolute necessity at the beginning so there's all different kinds of relationships with men and what was funny was I did that chapter for Ian Dale's book about her and I made it all about her being a woman I made it all about her body, her body issues, her femininity, how she saw herself in the world as a woman and a queen and the only review I saw of it the guy said she's written it through the eyes of the men in her life I'm like oh did you get that wrong? I signpost her development as a person but they do not define her she defines herself through her relationships with them and I think to take that away from her she would stomp her little tiny feet and scream at you if she saw you trying to do that.
Matthew Lewis: It sounds a little bit like you know Conroy does this damage and then her later life is the process of healing that and closing the gap that Conroy has opened up so that actually she doesn't need the men in there.
Alexandra Churchill: Yeah it's brilliant because like if you think about it so she goes from Conroy and it's not only Melbourne we talk about Melbourne because we're anglo-centric all the time in our history but you have to factor in her mother's family is important so her mother is a Coburg which is hugely important because the Coburgs are so influential Albert is a Coburg but the reason she marries a Coburg is because of uncle Leopold who's her mother's brother he's Leopold of the Belgians not that one not the absolute monster that's later on a different one and he sends someone called Baron Stockmar over at the very beginning as well and it's Stockmar and Melbourne that walk her through her early reign and that's very much walking a young girl not it's quite funny not only in terms of matters of state as well but one of my favorite anecdotes is like just basic adulting I mean this is someone who has had to hold her mother's hand going up and down the stairs at Kensington and isn't allowed to do anything for herself and she won't exercise and she starts her reign and she's tiny so any weight gain with Victoria is quite noticeable and she's at Windsor with Melbourne and for some reason they're in St George's Chapel and she gets all morbid looking at all the family tombs down in the crypt and says oh I'll be dead in here one day like proper 18 year old girl miserable statement and he says well you will be if you get too fat you need to do some exercise and she goes mental and her argument is she doesn't like going outside to walk because she gets stones in her shoes which is a particularly lame teenage girl argument but she does win that argument because he says well if you get too fat you'll die and she says well the Queen of Spain does loads of exercise and she's really fat so no and Melbourne's like well played
Matthew Lewis: When precisely then does Victoria become queen and how quickly do we see a change in her attitude? Is she really quick to eject Conroy and her mother then?
Alexandra Churchill: Get out of my house she's moving out and she ain't taking him with her not a chance there is resentment towards her mother for letting Conroy do that to her yes there is there's a very definitive line Victoria draws the line and her mother is never allowed any influence on her reign but her mother is not shut out of her life she doesn't do that Conroy on the other hand get out don't want to see your face ever again be gone and I'm not sure how long he sort of sidles around her mother after that when he's not going to get anything out of her but he kind of drops off the story but he is punted forcefully the day that she is able to do it and her mother there's a very definitive line you are my mother I don't hate you you will always be my mother but stay away from my throne kind of thing and that happens in 1837 like I said for all involved this is a happy occurrence that poor William lost till one month past her 18th birthday so she is of age but she's cripplingly immature she's not unprepared in that she hasn't been taught about the constitution and stuff for that but in terms of life and dealing with people she's been so isolated it causes a big stink earlier in her reign because it's to do with the ladies of the bedchamber because she just throws a tantrum because she wants what she wants and she's queen and you can't tell her otherwise whereas actually she was wrong then it's to do with letting your sitting prime minister appoint the ladies of the bedchamber and when Melbourne went she said no so Melbourne stayed because the other government wouldn't take over so she has a lot to learn in terms of dealing with people but it's not like she's been uneducated about what being a queen involves that's been taken care of in spades if you had to give Conroy any credit at all it's education in terms of subjects and languages and diplomacy and things like that is better than the one she's going to give some of her children
Matthew Lewis: medieval history is my thing Victorian history not so much but I've watched The Young Victoria and I have actually read Victoria's diaries when she was young for a project for work and it is striking how utterly immature and engaged with stuff like opera and things like that she seems to be before she becomes queen but then how that flips in the instant William IV dies it's like she just changes completely and she understands the mission she gets that she's now got freedom that she's been craving for years and she means to use it seems to be that real switch in her to me
Alexandra Churchill: first of all i'll blow your mind and tell you that the diaries are basically fake so her stupid youngest daughter beatrice god damn you beatrice so when Victoria died she copied them out omitting all the paragraphs she thought her mother wouldn't approve of people seeing and burnt the originals so they are a redacted edited version of what she actually wrote so there's some semblance of her in there but yeah she doesn't go nuts she doesn't do whatever the 1830s girl equivalent is of hookers and blows she's not out there like on a vegas weekend blowing all her money and shunning her responsibilities but definitely there's a joy in like i can go out into the world and enjoy things like going to the opera now and i'm not controlled my every waking moment by this swine that i could not get out of my household for love nor money so i she does enjoy that she's never gonna not like being in charge she definitely likes that aspect of her reign sometimes a little too much she is the last one that doesn't quite get the concept of constitutional monarchies take that rule where a monarch technically has the power to veto a law when it comes up from the commons and the lords that hasn't been done since 1707 at this point so it hasn't been done in a century but she still struggles sometime with the concept of the fact that you may be queen but you reign you don't rule after her there's no doubt Edward VII gets it George V definitely gets it and then it's a straight run all the way down to king charles the third they get it i think she's the last one that still has the occasional tantrum where she's just like but i'm queen and this is what i want and you can't tell me otherwise and people are like well we have a constitution that kind of says we can your majesty some of that might be immaturity as well and some of it i think just personality i love her i think she's great she's absolutely nuts people say all the boring Victorians and i'm like no no that was PR it was very good PR she was anything but boring
Matthew Lewis: as she becomes queen what is the kind of social and political context when we think of the 19th century now we very much think of Queen Victoria and she dominates our thinking for that whole period I think but she's coming at the end of the Georgian era England has an Empire but has lost a lot of land in America and all of that kind of thing where are we politically and socially when she becomes queen you mentioned that we're in a constitutional monarchy but she's still willing to sort of buck against that a little bit
Alexandra Churchill: it's also in some ways yes we're on a downward slide the Americas have been lost 40 years before but then we're still 20 years after waterloo and wellington is still a towering figure in politics and everywhere so there's definitely this old god sitting around from then but then this era is what will shape the british Empire as we think of it like with the sun never setting on it and all of that stuff from our childhood when it was still okay to make memes like that and people didn't scream at you and now it's very frowned upon but the scramble for africa hasn't happened so we do have an Empire we are well established in india by this point but we're still 20 years before the mutiny so east india company has still got their claws into everything over there and that won't be the same in every way possible the world will not be the same by the time she dies it's such a span she's born in 1819 so she's born four years after waterloo and she dies a decade before the first world war so there's a massive amount of time to deal with i think in terms of her and the royal family like i said at this point they're a very low ebb with the public they are not popular i think there was a certain amount of sympathy with George iii then we've had George IV who frankly no one liked then you've had William IV who sort of like you say he's all right he's functional he's a good man in a storm but he's not a colorful monarch they've been overspending they've been over chagging they've been behaving badly her uncles on mass are referred to as queen Victoria's wicked uncles Albert does my head in sometimes he really does but you do have to give him credit for spotting that and this whole genesis of this whole where we see these middle class values with the royal family that they have today like when people go oh look kate's wearing a dress we saw her wear six months ago and everybody gets really excited all of that starts with Albert it really explodes and takes root and becomes the norm under George V but she's about to kind of become the savior in a way of the British monarchy without the huge fanfare of saying it just by actions and as i said this is a huge PR exercise to convince people that they are just like us and these people aren't monsters and they're not out having decadent orgies while you're all struggling to earn a living so she's on the brink of becoming part of a huge change in how people see the monarchy and how the monarchy operates as well like for a modern age.
Matthew Lewis: and Victoria will famously rule for a very very long time. Is there any way that we can give a kind of a broad sweep to her reign? Obviously Albert will arrive, children will arrive but is there a short version of Victoria's reign?
Alexandra Churchill: yeah so it comes in blocks block number one come to the throne lean on Melbourne learn the job get married been about 10 years punching out kids takes up the Albert dying Albert dying low point but even then you feel like she disappeared and no one saw her for 15 years no not true she disappeared from social life she did not stop doing her job she did it all the way through but i would take that second block all the way through to like 1870-ish which is where she stopped having children she's a middle-aged woman she's been a grieving widow she's been out of the public eye somewhat by her own volition because she just doesn't want to engage with people but she is still doing her job a constitutional role and then after that i'm going off on a tangent here but you saw this with Elizabeth II as well there was that point in the 90s when nobody liked her when Diana died and everybody was mean about her and people said horrible things about the queen and we do this to middle-aged women in society we love them when they're young and beautiful and mothers and spitting out kids and everything and she benefited from that that bit in the middle before they become the lovely old grandma that you all love as well there's a chunk in the middle where society is really horrible to women it's like it's almost like what are you here for like you're not young and attractive anymore and you're not my nan so i'm ambivalent towards you and she took a hit in that period in that block and it also it has wider connotations revolutionary activities going on elsewhere in Europe as well so it does tie in with all of that too that's a downward ebb and that covers John Brown as well who i don't think she married but i really hope that they did have a sexual relationship because like i said 41 when she died and if that's how she got her kicks and it didn't hurt anybody then why do we care so i hope she points him silly and had a great time but then he dies and then from the 1880s on she becomes very much this stately motherly figure someone said to me would you ever write a book about queen Victoria and i said if i did it would be about the last 10 years of her life because i found it immeasurably sad going through those diaries and letters when i was doing stuff for George V watching her lose her grip on her place in the world and she couldn't see properly so she couldn't read properly and in that you've got Abdul Kareem as well Abdul Kareem i feel is like when the current queen had that very good looking major Johnny something who's now assigned because he's tired of being referred to as the very good looking major with the lovely calves but if you're a woman in your 80s and 90s and you're a queen and you can't pay to have some eye candy hang around you then why are you even doing the job and i feel like that's what he was but he gave her something as well he gave her a huge measure of happiness because he gave her something new and shiny she wasn't just waiting to die he taught her how to speak hindi he taught her about indian culture he taught her how to make curries he made her excited about something again and you know what if you want to take that away from your mom and be a dick about it like Edward VII was and i'm gonna judge you not her because she was an old lady and there must be a point where she's sitting there and she's immobile and she's not well and she's losing her eyesight where she's thinking why am i still here and i would love to explore that better because there's a period in there as well where it looks like despite all of her hard work and despite bashing out nine children that actually her dynasty might not carry on because all the heirs almost die at once so that's what i would broadly term it at a young mother Victoria middle-aged Victoria who doesn't have a good time at all and part of that's on everybody else as well as her elderly Victoria and then the very tail end of Victoria where i think she can see a bit of the writing on the wall she's not dumb she knows her grandson she knows Willie and as soon as she dies Willie kind of positions himself as the preeminent European royal which is just dangerous for everybody because he's a fool but he was been on the throne since 1888 at that point and yeah he had been around longer than anyone else and he had a swagger about him that got everybody into trouble eventually so four main phases to queen Victoria
Matthew Lewis: I like that fascination with the older Victoria. My late grandmother, God love her, one of the absolute treasures of my life. I'm 99% certain that she frequently paid for unnecessary building work by bad builders who were willing to work in her garden with their shirts off because she liked a bit of eye candy.
Alexandra Churchill: good for her, her money. I'd be like hell yeah he looks great with his top off I've gone doing the garden now we had the garden done last week and my money I'll do what I want she liked the guy he was a handsome man he was quite charming she liked having him around he made her feel like she wasn't done I can't imagine at the age we are roughly the same age you and I we can't imagine what it's like to sit there at double this age and think I'm irrelevant now I'm never going to do anything important again I might as well not be here and he made her feel good and so I think he's immeasurably important and it makes me dislike Edward VII even more that he was mean to him because if you can't let your mother just have that in her old age then you're not a decent person for me
Matthew Lewis: I did just want to pick up a couple of things from what you've said so far so you mentioned Victoria despising elements of being a woman particularly the having lots of children how does that manifest itself during that period of her life?
Alexandra Churchill: Manifest herself in a lot of complaining so the first pregnancy she would ultimately be annoyed that he knocked her up so quickly yes it's her duty and everything but she kind of just liked the boinking she wasn't really into the whole sort of the strain of having a child so the first time she's pregnant she refused to wear a corset was still expected that she would wear stays i think almost to the end and she went no i'm queen can't make me and also as well she was fabulously like indiscreet ask me if this makes sense right you're a male doctor the queen is your patient and she's pregnant you expect to get all the sordid detail right but what's brilliant is that her doctor's like she just won't shut up i don't need all this is this TMI this is too in my head and i can't handle this because she'd moan about every aspect of it because she was having a miserable time with it and she wanted him to suffer as well so he would get gynecological details and he'd be like i don't need to hear this and i'm like you're a doctor dude you kind of do he said and she looks like a barrel because she's so short and she's like fat and she won't wear her corset and i don't know what to do with her and they actually think that she will kill herself in labor like they're like i don't know how she's going to survive it and even Albert says she's going to be a nightmare and she's not she's a trooper she has the kid she has postnatal depression she does but like in terms of the actual physical acts of giving labor she does it and she has Vicky first and then very quickly after she has Bertie who really are the important two because Vicky will go on to marry a German Emperor and mother William II god love her and ruin his psyche for the rest of us and Bertie obviously will become Edward III so she's what like 20-21 she's got two kids till about 1859 i think there's only four years in the whole of that span where she's not pregnant at some point the statistic for how many months she is pregnant while Albert is alive is staggering and miserable and she told everyone about it and it's brilliant it manifests itself in the best way when the first two daughters get married and they go off to have children so you have Vicky goes to Germany and she gets pregnant with Wilhelm II “Willie”, the first grandchild and she's only about 18-19 at this point she's like mother it's delightful i've made a soul and she's like oh it's horrible they're gonna treat you like a cow it's agony pushing it out your body's going to be ruined you're going to be fat no one's going to want to look at you she utterly destroys any romantic notion she's got about motherhood and just says it sucks then alice who's the third child and she is the mother of alexandra of hess who will marry nicholas ii so she's important too but when alice gets pregnant for the first time there's a more serious letter and it's less funny but she basically says to her i hate that we have to do this i hate that our role in life requires us as very young women to ruin ourselves and be ruined by our husband in the name of a throne and producing heirs and it pains me to see the beautiful young wife reduced to that she hates that that's part of their job she knows it's part of her job and she does it she carries on having kids i mean like she was fond of sex and it shows so she gets the number six i think it is which off the top of my head is arthur but there are a lot of them excuse me if and this revolutionary possibility has risen its head and that is pain relief in childbirth and on this occasion she allows herself to be talked out of it by and this is brilliant i don't have any children but if a man said to me no no your majesty it is god's will that women suffer giving birth otherwise what's the point i'd have hit him with a brick but on this occasion she accepts it has it but then baby number seven comes along and she's like you can get out of my face i want all of the drugs now and she becomes the first royal to have chloroform when she's having baby number seven so she's revolutionary in that as well they do tell her the more children she has the more bad temper she gets during the pregnancy and the more she takes it out on Prince Albert which i love because it's like you you and your penis get away from me i hate you which is basically the theme every time she's pregnant they tell her after number seven with the pain killing one don't have any more because we worry for your mental health because you're so evil when you're pregnant and it stresses you out it stresses everybody else out you've got enough kids now you don't need to she gets pregnant an eighth time and then gets pregnant a ninth time the urban legend which i hope is true is that the ninth time Prince Albert was forbidden from being in her presence because she got more and more pregnant if she saw his face the angrier she would get and she would throw stuff at him and scream at him and they feared for the life of the mother and the child she used to get so enraged at the sight of him so he was banned from her presence and would have to communicate by passing notes but also as well for all the comedy of her being pregnant that often it factors into what we were talking about earlier which is how fiercely she defends her throne because every time she's in confinement and she's busy having a child and dealing with postnatal depression and all the other yucky stuff that comes with having another kid he gets more of her power he stands in and he does more work for her and she hates it she needs it it's not like she says take it away from him i don't want him to have it but watching him do her job while she can't because she's supposed to do two jobs at once and that is populate the throne and reign makes her angry as well so that i think is part of the rage is she's not just raging at his mad bits getting her pregnant again she's raging against watching him get to do her job because she can't because she has to do the other job so yeah many manifestations of Victoria and the body issues that come in with it as well i mean in the weight game she likes to eat she's quite greedy and proudly greedy she's like i like food not sorry but if you're four foot ten or whatever she was and it shows every time you gain weight and she did grow outwards as her reign went on i think you'd class her as morbidly obese based on that chart. She wasn't happy with their own body; she hated it.
Matthew Lewis: It sounds to me like there's a lot of really weird juxtaposition in there in that she hates lots about being a woman, particularly with the childbirth responsibilities that something's out of her control when she wants control over everything it forces her to give away control to a man which is not what she wants to do doesn't seem like she's particularly empowering of women particularly her own daughters yet there's lots of ways in which if she's adopting painkillers and refusing to wear corsets and things like that because she's in a position to make that happen it's almost like it makes that acceptable to other women as well which is empowering women even if she doesn't mean it.
Alexandra Churchill: yeah she absolutely is not a feminist she actually thinks feminists are yuck but she is a feminist and that's what i love about her she's so contradictory she just is who she is and you have to accept her for it and she is contradictory completely i mean she hates that the children interfere between the time she would be able to spend with Albert she just wants to be with her husband she likes her husband quite a lot and they're in the way but it doesn't mean she doesn't love the children she does love the children but then my god you're not showing it much we can talk about the pendulum of royal i can't say the word i usually use to describe it but a pendulum of royal shenanigans maybe that swings between not parenting your offspring at all and parenting them too much and either way they both end up psychologically distraught and unable to function as grown-ups but that's more on Albert than it is on Victoria there's things where she is conscious that she puts her foot down and screams and stamps so much about her power as a queen that she mitigates it by stepping back as a wife so when he does institute this horrific parenting regime of education that drives his into the ground she lets him like you're the husband you are the father you raise them as you see fit you educate them as you see fit like she will back off for him as well but then the next day she'll be screaming and throwing things at him again so yeah trying to label her you'll just tie yourself up in knots
Matthew Lewis: is it too much of a cliche to say that the biggest kind of challenge in her life was losing Albert because he's such an important part of her life and her personality and I guess the way she views herself is it too much of a cliche to say that losing him is the big moment in her life and her reign?
Alexandra Churchill: Again a contradiction of course it is we know that she had his room laid out forever more as if he was still going to come back to it we know she was distraught she loved her husband like she was a monster to him on occasion but I don't think he was like completely great all the time either but he was her partner in everything and he was gone and she was only 41 years old but I actually think that in retrospect it's the making of her and like I said by 1880 he would not have recognized the Victoria that he saw she was not the woman he had married she was someone else and I don't think the space would have been there for her to become that person had he still been there.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, and I guess one of the other challenges you know we're talking here loosely about Assassin's Creed is that she's forced to survive numerous assassination attempts which must have been pretty scary for someone who in the park a lot in public
Alexandra Churchill: Um, yeah I mean a little bit scary, but actually she's badge of honor she says they've tried to kill me eight times i must be awesome i must be so important for eight of them to try to come at me the first one she's actually three months pregnant with Vicky that's really early in the reign and that makes people think oh she may be 18 and very small but she appears to have some backbone because she's having a carriage ride in Hyde Park and they try to kill her or i think this one is the one where he pretends he's got a giant sort of network of anarchists or politically motivated supporters but he's just a crazy bloke who lives with his mom and he can't shoot straight and she literally ducks puts her head up they take him down she goes can we finish the carriage ride now please and everyone thinks wow that's quite cool but i was expecting wailing and crying and screaming and a lot more drama she surprises people with that one my my favorite one is one of the later ones there was a parade going on through so because obviously Windsor and Eton are basically the same place all the Eton college school boys had come out to watch and they took the would-be assassin down so this guy ended up pinned on the floor while school boys in top hats beating with umbrellas which i think is hilarious like he went from i'm going to kill the Empress to i got beaten up by some school kids outside winter castle so yeah he got what was coming to him but yeah she actually joked about it in the end obviously i think if you're staring down the barrel of it and someone is about to pull the trigger then yeah you'd be afraid but she very much mocked them and laughed it off as if they were insignificant which actually PR wise is about the best thing you can do
Matthew Lewis: I think for most of us who aren't involved in the study in this period a lot so I mean me, for me.
Alexandra Churchill: Yeah, I mean weird castles and stuff like that.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah you know crazy stuff probably my enduring image of Victoria is the photo that we have I guess the older lady the larger lady looking particularly grumpy and we have this image of her being quite a spiky hard person to deal with do you think that's a fair reflection of her personality
Alexandra Churchill: no not at all really it depended on who you were if she didn't like you hell yeah like also as well you'll notice try and find pictures of her where she's staring right at the camera they're very very rare and they're because the cameraman caught her off guard because she doesn't believe that you should be allowed to stare upon majesty she splits two eras at the beginning of her reign you had to paint a portrait and you can airbrush a lot out with the portrait but then if you're waving a camera around in 1900 you can see all the fat you can see the age and i don't think she was particularly impressed with how life became with the photograph compared to those sort of doll-like portraits you see of her in the 1830s she didn't think people should be able to gaze directly on majesty as in like make eye contact so you won't see a lot of them like that and she could be a grumpy piece of work i mean i'd be a grumpy piece of work with Edward VII as well if he was my kid so he's boffed all these people he's end up getting dragged through court on gambling stuff he's almost died of typhoid he's not parenting his own kid properly so you've now got a grandson Prince eddie who's just as bad getting wrapped up in the cleveland streets so by the 1890s i'd have had some harsh words for some of my relatives as well also so Prince Albert had cultivated this domesticity this middle-class domesticity that we still associate with the royal family today and i think what his death does do is break that for a while George V brings it back and he nails it home during the first world war but there's a gap in between that might not have been there if Albert was around and that gap is all of her family running around making dicks of themselves and doing inappropriate things and threatening this image that they had cultivated all of those winter holter portraits of the family all gathered around the feet of Albert and Victoria they're PR they're crafted PR to make them look like a happy domestic unit which is in contravention of everything that had gone before she came to the throne like you'd have to go back into George III and his large family but all that mess in the middle it's moving them away from that it's moving them away from that royal family crowning it this is like the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha royal family this is not the georgians which is interesting because it's a very definitive sort of PR move and it kind of crumbles a bit in her later reign because she's got sons and grandsons just doing ridiculous things and i think maybe if Albert had still been alive then that might not have happened but i still don't think that's justification for wishing he hadn't died i guess like because i honestly i like the person she becomes and she is formidable and if she doesn't like you you know it so she really really hates some of her prime ministers and it's great so Disraeli knew how to play her and she adored him and she said when Disraeli died it was the worst she'd ever felt at losing someone that included Albert and it included John Brown and i think because she found common ground in him and it was because he didn't treat her like an organ of state he treated her like a human being he flirted with her she flirted back i don't think she was buffering Disraeli at all but i think that the banter and the human connection meant so much to her moving into that last block of her life that we're talking about so coming out of the sort of the republican bit and the bit where she's been shielded off and emerging back into the social life of the country he is so pivotal in that she was devastated when he died but she really really hates some of the others and she's just a complete dick to them and i love it because there's not a lot they can do about it they can be replaced she can't and she knows it so she's just not at all bothered about how they think about her which is great just in bullet point form she is funny she's got a disgusting laugh really dirty laugh she's greedy she loves food she loves stuff in her face she's got no problem being dicks to people if she doesn't like them but she's also very sweet and very caring as well with her female relatives and she is that kind of grandmother to Europe in the end like Alex of Hess is one of the big ones so alice her daughter dies very young and those children are left without a and she really does step in as a mother figure for those grandchildren because she would have only been sort of around early 40s herself anyway at the time when alex was growing up don't think of her as an old lady grandmother she's a middle-aged woman who's stepping into that role for her granddaughters who have lost that mother figure and also as well like she's ridiculous at times and i love it one of the things she used to do every time she crossed the border on a train into Scotland or in a carriage she'd suddenly assume this pseudo Scottish accent and everyone would be like why is she talking funny what's she doing and she'd just basically pretend to be Scottish the whole time that she was there as if people wouldn't notice but then i think also as well don't underestimate her and think that she's not smart because she is and she's smart in the same way as George V is smart and i keep going back to him because he's my main royal focus he wasn't the smartest man in the room book smart but he did get people and he did read people and he knew his people and she's very unsqueamish about the realities of her job and what it involves so she loves the idea of britain having an Empire and ruling the world and everything but she understands that that only comes through hideous violence she's okay it's not a stance we would appreciate today but she understands that there's no nice way to do it and that it's going to be done through bloodshed so she's not dumb by any means she's hilarious she's needy as well and also as well i just think she's incredibly human i think she's more human than any other monarch i've had to look at like obviously i don't go back into your weird little era where they're all riding around wearing tights and stuff but i find her incredibly human and that's despite people trying to strip her of that humanity that's despite lord isha who's a monster who was the first person to publish any of her papers after she died that's despite him not using any of the correspondence she had with women because women have got nothing interesting to say to each other yeah if i tell you that this was a man who had very few women in his outlook and did all his own son then you'll appreciate that his opinions necessarily weren't that great across the board but also as well that people have like written out the feminine side it's why when i did that chapter on her i made it all about the feminine side i did it to annoy lord isha i made the whole chapter revolve around the fact that she had a vagina because people pretended she didn't for so long and they took that away from her and what they did was take away the amazing job she did in doing two jobs at once not only has she got to populate the throne as a female as a queen but she has also she's the number one on the throne as well which was a rarity so i just think there's so much more to her than grumpy old lady but grumpy old lady she definitely could do that vibe if she wanted to
Matthew Lewis: amongst many other things as well. What would you say then is Victoria's biggest legacy? We associate her with so much she rules for so long she's given her name pretty much to a century of history. Do you think she has one big standout legacy?
Alexandra Churchill: Yeah, modern royal family i credit George V with implementing it and making it the standard but in terms of that we need to be approachable to normal people we need not to be these absolute dicks like George IV on a pedestal spending huge exorbitant amounts of money while our people starve who never come in contact with a normal person we can't be those people and expect to survive and the experimental stuff and the realization for that happens with her and Albert as well so we associate Victorians with a lot of things some of them quite bad like misogynistic and racist as well we would say that our forebearers thought very little of people who weren't white and i say this is someone whose dad comes from the Empire well he was born 12 weeks after partition so not really but what she is not and the reason that the royal family then transcend this kind of legacy for me in this period she's not a racist Edward VII not a racist like i say she completely embraced Abdul Kareem and his influence and learning about india and there was no semblance of shade about believing herself to be superior to non-white people Edward VII i really don't like that man but him as well he was absolutely disgusted at his peers attitude that they might be superior to someone who was black or brown and George V just does not have a racist bone in his body at all and i think it's interesting that the royal family as an institution which people look at and go they're crazy why do they still have that now it's because they stood above stuff that would have destroyed them like that like the terrible behavior like the racism although they are stupendously rich and depressingly well off they do work hard at the job they have made for themselves because that job is born with Prince Albert he's the one that first goes running off to the midlands when they said no it's a hotbed of sedition in Birmingham they'll kill you and he says i don't care i want to go and meet some of these people living on the bread line and find out what their lives are like i want to be approachable so they can tell me how i can change things and he didn't get to fulfill his work and it took more decades to happen because he wasn't around the fact that the royal family identified what needed to be done to sort of be palatable to a public going on as well that definitely starts in her reign.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah it sounds like her and Albert managed to bridge between the old world and the new world and the old world was seeing so many monarchies being kicked off their thrones that being that bridge making that transformation is what has kept a monarchy alive in England, or Britain until today.
Alexandra Churchill: What's really interesting is that it does seem deliberate but it is a bit haphazard and i think the difference between it starting but not fully taking root in Victoria's reign obviously it's because Albert's not there and he was doing more of it than she was but she was on board with it but she was not leading it like he would have had he been alive so it feels a bit haphazard and things don't stick and then they come back and then they try something different so there is a blatant realization that something needs to change to distance them far far away from the decades preceding them but because of the work that they did by the time we do get to George V and the first world war which propels him into the public arena more than any normal reign would have done because he was like what can i do i can get out there every day and work my ass off and meet everybody and talk to everybody and be part of the war effort with them the structure was there for him to do that because of them so he didn't have to do so much trial and error because they've done it before him so definitely although Albert had his moments yeah definitely Albert and Victoria are the basis for the monarchy we have today.
Matthew Lewis: Thank you so much for joining us Alex it's been really nice to get to know Victoria a little bit better I think and to understand a bit more about her reign which hopefully provides a little bit of context for the syndicate in Victorian London where can people find you if they want to hunt you down and learn more about George V in particular.
Alexandra Churchill: Okay so I have a substack which is like an online magazine that I produce articles for every week which you can find that a.churchill@substack.com or I have History Hack which is another podcast which is obviously not nearly as good as History Hits podcast but we try and also as well just generally great war group it's my charity which is aimed at not doing just the normal white men on the western front history of the First World War so basically anyway you can't get away from me I'll be down at chalk valley if this goes out before then and also we have Ways Fest as well talking about the Pacific.
Matthew Lewis: Fabulous I subscribe to your substack and would recommend it to anyone and having been on History Hack a couple of times I would recommend that to anyone as well. Plenty of places for you to find Alex thank you so much for joining us Alex it's been great to chat to you.
Alexandra Churchill: Thank you.
Matthew Lewis: I hope you've enjoyed this episode of Echoes of History a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit next time we'll be stepping into the emerging world of the professional police force something syndicate players have had to get to grips with as we knock on the door and avoid the handcuffs at Scotland Yard don't forget to subscribe or follow echoes of history wherever you get your podcasts and if you're enjoying it you can leave us a review too. See you next time among the echoes of history.

How The Metropolitan Police Shaped London

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. Today we're taking another dark turn into the murky underbelly of Victorian London. Home to Assassin's Creed Syndicate, the setting for today's episode is a place that ought to have been a shining beacon in the gloom, a place that was home to the Metropolitan Police Force. Formed in 1829, following the examples of Paris and Glasgow, London was the third city to establish a police force. We're going to explore a name that has become synonymous with London's Metropolitan Police to this day, Scotland Yard. But what did a Victorian police station look like and what went on inside? Picture the scene. The year is 1868, the 31st year of Queen Victoria's reign. You find yourself walking along Whitehall on a typically smoggy day in London. Horse-drawn carriages painted in deep black speed past you. The rickety wheels clatter against cobblestones lining the street floor. You can hear the distant holler of newspaper sellers in Trafalgar Square just up the road, failing to convince passers-by to part with their cash. As you walk you're passed by all sorts of people. Milkmaids hauling huge tin barrels, workmen covered in soot and dust, and a surprising number of well-dressed politicians. But this is no coincidence. Whitehall is the beating heart of the city, the place where real power lies. You turn left and up into an open courtyard lined with trees swaying in the gloom. The yard is surrounded by iron railings and gas lampposts pockmarked with flecks of rust. Parked up at the side are more carriages but these have bars welded across the windows. The word police is painted in searing white across the wooden side panels. Milling about are several men dressed in dark blue tailcoats and capes. One of them wears a belt from which hangs a long and hefty truncheon. Another has a shining polished whistle hung around his neck. On their heads they all wear steel-ringed helmets embossed with a star and crown, the mark of a policeman. At the opposite end of the courtyard stands an imposing building with a grand arched doorway. This is Great Scotland Yard, the headquarters of the newly founded Metropolitan Police Force. Blue-clad police officers walk in and out like ants scurrying about their work. Its brick walls, the colour of red ochre, are cut through by rows upon rows of white rimmed windows. You walk in and are instantly greeted by a bustling hive of activity. A cacophony of clicks fills the air as telegraph receivers relay a multitude of messages. Uniformed officers and plainclothes detectives talk in hushed tones. The room is packed with desks littered with reams of paper as officers diligently note down shreds of information that might later bear importance. On a balcony up above you catch a glimpse of the holding cells used to detain delinquents and troublemakers who breach the peace. A piercing screech cuts through the hubbub as a policeman swings a cell door shut. The prisoner protests but the metallic clink of the lock seals his fate. He's spending the night in Scotland Yard. You walk on past the cells and approach a row of offices. Ahead of you is a wooden door, slightly ajar. Thin beams of light cascade out of the gap. You peer in and see two figures. One is wearing the distinctive navy blue uniform that marks him as a police officer. The other though is dressed in a black tailcoat, a top hat and wields a long thin cane. The man in black hands a thick wad of banknotes to the officer but the wad is far too thick and the policeman is far too smug for this to be his usual wage packet. It can only be one thing. This is a backhander, a bribe, the unmistakable mark of corruption. So much for Scotland Yard being a shining beacon in the gloom. You begin to move away not wanting to attract attention but it's too late. The man in black has spotted you through the back. You've been caught. The constable raises his whistle to his lips and then all hell breaks loose. This is how Scotland Yard is introduced to us in Assassin's Creed Syndicate. So to further explore the history, today I'm joined by Dr. Jonah Miller, lecturer in early modern British history at King's College London. Together we'll delve into when and how Scotland Yard became the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police, what role it played in shaping Victorian London and most importantly why it's called Scotland Yard despite being over 300 miles away from the Scottish border. Join us as we cross the contours of time and hear the real echoes of history resonating from Assassin's Creed Syndicate. Jonah, thank you so much for joining us on Echoes of History. I can't wait to find out more about Scotland Yard.
Jonah Miller: Great to be here, thank you for inviting me.
Matthew Lewis: To start us off with, maybe people in London know precisely what we're talking about when we say Scotland Yard but for those of us who live in the murky darkness beyond London, what are we talking about when we say Scotland Yard? What do we mean?
Jonah Miller: Well Scotland Yard is a place but it's also a way of referring to an institution. So it's a place, it's in Whitehall and it's where the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police were for most of the 19th century. So Scotland Yard kind of became synonymous with the police and with detectives as a whole.
Matthew Lewis: And today we need to be a little bit careful because the Metropolitan Police isn't the only police force in London, so Scotland Yard actually means something really, really specific in London.
Jonah Miller: Yeah, so the Metropolitan Police Force was set up in 1829 and it's the first modern, organised, professional, hierarchical police force in Britain, not the first in the UK because several earlier versions were set up in Ireland and they were kind of the inspiration for it. And it starts off just being the area of Westminster, Whitehall and a few miles around. It's not the City of London, very importantly for people who are proud of the city's traditions, the city has its own police force. And then it expands so for most of the 19th century it's a 15 mile radius from Charing Cross, is the Metropolitan Police District.
Matthew Lewis: And why was Scotland Yard the Metropolitan Police? Why was it located on that spot in Whitehall? Why was it put there?
Jonah Miller: This is kind of one of the interesting things about what 19th century policing actually was and the legacy that it's left to us. Earlier forms of policing had been very, very localised and very much under kind of local control of parishes and wards in cities. And what really changes with 1829 is the Met was directly connected to the government, the central government, through the Home Office. So the reason that the Met headquarters were in this place called Scotland Yard, which is basically on Whitehall, where the civil service was, is that originally it was basically a branch of the Home Office. So the Metropolitan Police Commissioners answered directly to the Home Secretary, as they still do, and this kind of link between central government and policing is really one of the big changes in 1829.
Matthew Lewis: The one thing we haven't addressed yet is why on earth the Metropolitan Police located in Whitehall are called Scotland Yard? Where does that name come from?
Jonah Miller: It's actually, the address is number four Whitehall Place. So this is a set of kind of piggledy-piggledy Victorian government buildings off a little side street off Whitehall, which is the big road that connects Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square. This number four Whitehall Place backs onto a place called Scotland Yard, which is a yard. It's a courtyard. And when it was first created, there were kind of two functions for this building. One was that it was an administrative office for the commissioners. There were the commissioners and their clerks and lots of people doing lots of paperwork. And the other one, it was this police station for Division A of the Metropolitan Police, which is sometimes called the Home Division, which kind of policed Whitehall, basically. And their station looked out onto the back onto Scotland Yard. So their force became known as the Scotland Yard Force and the name stuck, basically. So then the whole setup began to be referred to as Scotland Yard.
Matthew Lewis: It's an interesting evolution of the name, isn't it? So people would maybe say, I'm going to Scotland Yard, meaning I'm going to the entranceway to the Metropolitan Police building at Whitehall. And Scotland Yard is the bit that weirdly stuck as the name for the whole organisation.
Jonah Miller: Yeah, I mean, I guess number four Whitehall Place doesn't quite roll off the tongue in the same way. And I mean, the thing that really kind of entrenches that name, Scotland Yard, is the creation of a detective force, which comes a little bit later. It's 1842 is the first detective, as it's known. And they operate out of this kind of back set of buildings, looking over Scotland Yard. So they are the people who really get associated with that name, Scotland Yard, you know, so-and-so of the yard. And that obviously lasts well into the 20th century.
Matthew Lewis: Do we have any idea why a square, a yard in the middle of Whitehall is named Scotland Yard? Is there a connection to Scotland at all?
Jonah Miller: There is. It's a little bit murky. Whitehall was a royal palace for a very, very long time before it became the kind of centre of the civil service. And in the late medieval period and into the early modern period, this particular part of Whitehall may have been where visiting Scottish royals would stay when they came to visit English monarchs. That's the kind of the story that's told. And it's probably more or less true, but there's-there's really very little documentation, so it's quite hard to be certain.
Matthew Lewis: I mean, tenuous and murky stories being connected with Scotland Yard in the 19th century is maybe something we need to be wary of. Who then is responsible for the rise of a police force and its basing in Whitehall? Why does London suddenly need a police force?
Jonah Miller: The person who is sort of most strongly associated with this is Robert Peel. So he's the one who gives police officers some of their nicknames, like Peelers and Bobbies. So Bobbies is from Robert, Peelers is from Peel. Yeah, exactly. Slightly oddly, this is almost more a story about Ireland than about London. Robert Peel, later on in the 19th century, he becomes prime minister. But the point where we're talking about him, he's his home secretary. But before that, he has been chief secretary for And what he's done in that job is create police forces. So he's created a couple of different police forces, and they're the first people to be known as Peelers in Ireland. And then when he becomes home secretary in London in the 1820s, there are lots of people worrying about rising crime rates. And this is a bit of, again, slightly murky issue in that crime statistics of all kinds are difficult to interpret. Early 19th century crime statistics are especially difficult to interpret because often this is the first time that statistics are actually being gathered on a particular type of crime. So it's basically impossible to say whether the figures are going up or down. But some people think that they are going up. And Robert Peel likes setting up police forces. He likes the idea of government having a kind of set of men who can carry out orders and keep order and enforce law in a kind of centralized way. So he basically takes advantage of this atmosphere of some people saying that, you know, crime rates are going up and we need to do something. And he pushes through an act for the improvement of the police of the metropolis, which is the 1829 Act that creates the Metropolitan Police.
Matthew Lewis: It's interesting that it's an Irish template in a place called Scotland Yard that is so intimately associated with the city of London. It's a fascinating set of connections there.
Jonah Miller: There are more Irish connections as you go forward as well. I mean, so the first two police commissioners who Peel chooses, Colonel Charles Rowan, who is an Irish soldier and an Irish barrister called Richard Mayne. And the idea is that both of them know how police forces work because they've got experience of the Irish police forces. Maybe we'll come on to some of the later Irish connections, but it runs all the way through.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, fascinating. There's a perception in London, I guess, whether the statistics back it up or not, there's a perception that crime is growing. Is this a symptom of London itself expanding as a city, the increasing urbanisation of society? We're heading full steam into the Industrial Revolution period. Is there a sense that as more people pile in there, there needs to be some form of organised policing of the law in the city?
Jonah Miller: Absolutely. So, I mean, the population of London is going absolutely through the roof in the sort of late 18th and early 19th century. And lots of people say that the old institutions just can't handle it. They're not up to it. And so there are lots of kind of stories about parish-based night watchmen who are chasing a suspect and then they get to the border with the next parish and they have to stop. Those stories are probably not true. There are people who are kind of propagandists for police reform who like to put stories like that about. And what does happen even before 1829 is that quite a lot of the local authorities carry out police reform on a kind of micro level. So a lot of parishes and the City of London, the old Corporation of London in the Square Mile, all of them in the early 19th century are sort of getting local acts of Parliament passed. They're doing a kind of tinkering with their local law enforcement structures. So they do have professional officers out on the beat, particularly at night. And one of the kind of curiosities of 1829 is that there's all this big fanfare and, you know, Peel announces that there's a new police for the metropolis. But at first, there are actually fewer officers on the beat after 1829 than there were before, because a lot of the old kind of parochial night watch forces get swept away and they're replaced with this new centralised force, which at the beginning doesn't have the numbers. I mean, they haven't recruited enough and they just can't operate on that scale at first. So it's sort of a curious situation where everybody is worried about the growth of London, about the perceived increase in crime. People at a local level are responding to that, but then there's this big central government intervention which is supposed to kind of really tackle it head on, and which initially may actually be less effective than the kind of localised responses.
Matthew Lewis: And those local parish-level police forces, presumably if they're not put in place by the government, they're being run by parish councils. It's coming down to how good the parish council is, how interested they are in law and order, how much money they have to spend. So presumably the wealthy areas, who maybe have less crime anyway, are the ones who weirdly can afford to be better policed than the areas who might need better policing. And maybe that's the intended benefit of a unified police force, that everywhere will get covered.
Jonah Miller: Absolutely. Before 1829, the parishes that have the best, the largest at least, night watch forces are places in West London where the membership of the parish, like half the people on what would be called the vestry rather than the parish council, half the people on the vestry are titled. They're perfectly happy to kind of splash a bit cash to have lots of people protecting their property from burglars. Whereas in East London, around the docks, there are parishes where you don't have a And so people are paying for local law enforcement through local taxes, through parish taxes. That doesn't mean they have nobody working on the beat, but it does mean that they don't have the kind of same scale of resources as in West London. That said, what they do have is some control over local law enforcement. So if you're a parish ratepayer, you pay your parish taxes, then you're effectively the boss of the night watch. I mean, you can sort of, you know, if you bump into a night watchman at night, you can tell them, head over there because I heard something going on. Or you can, if you're a bit drunk, you can get them to kind of guide you home. There's a much closer connection between the sort of respectable residents of the area and the people doing law enforcement than there is after 1829. And that's one of the things that some people really complain about, that policing is kind of taken out of their hands and suddenly it's all being run by the Home Office rather than by, you know, sort of upstanding parishioners.
Matthew Lewis: I have absolutely no desire to get political with this. I'm just struck as we're talking about how some things really haven't changed. You know, we get increasing populations in cities that lead to a perception that there's an increase in crimes, that we're currently grappling with problems of, is it better to devolve power to local regional police forces and mayors and things like that? Or is it better to have it all centralised? It seems like these were things that they were thinking about and juggling with 200 years ago, and we almost haven't gone entirely away from them. So not meant as any kind of political comment on anything, just an observation that the world never really changes, does it? So Syndicate, the game is set in 1868, so we're 40 years into the life of the Metropolitan Police Force here. If you and I walked into Scotland Yard to report a crime in 1868, do we know what that building might have looked like? What might have welcomed us as we walked through the door?
Jonah Miller: The first thing we would see, I think, would be just enormous piles of paper everywhere. It was almost immediately overwhelmed by the amount of bureaucracy required to run a kind of city-wide police force. And these were old, slightly dilapidated buildings that all had labyrinthine corridors connecting them together. There's a nice quote from The Times that describes Scotland Yard as a dingy collection of mean buildings in a state of hopeless confusion. It's a sort of Dickensian image of a kind of chaotic bureaucracy. Huge stacks of paper everywhere, clerks running around between them trying to find the right document. Also, of course, a load of police officers who, in 1868, have just had a kind of major reform of their uniform. They've just got helmets rather than reinforced top hats.
Matthew Lewis: Whoa, wait, wait. Reinforced top hats? This is what police are wearing?
Jonah Miller: That's amazing. From 1829 until the 1860s, the uniform of the Metropolitan Police Officer is a reinforced top hat, a cape, and a kind of a big overcoat, all dark blue. And then in the 1860s, partly because they are increasingly worried that police officers are basically not properly protected, they start getting helmets. Though that's also connected to a kind of call from some quarters for a more military style of police. So again, around the same time as you get helmets introduced, you get military style drill. You get lots of calls for police officers to be armed. This is from around the middle of the 19th century. The Colt revolver is appearing more and more in London in the hands of suspected criminals. And there are these cartoons showing a burglar with a Colt revolver up against a police officer with a reinforced top hat and a stick. The suggestion is the police need more defence and more equipment. So there are some people saying that police should carry guns. There are some people saying they should at least carry cutlasses. And this is when they get their helmets. They've also just at this point recently been allowed to grow beards for the first time. So in 1829, they're forbidden to have moustaches or beards. And that's kind of relaxed in the 1860s. And also in the 1860s, this is the first time that they are allowed to appear in public, not in uniform, even when off duty. From 1829 until the 1860s, police officers have to wear their uniform all the time. And the only signifier that they're on duty is a little sort of armband, which they don't wear when they're off duty.
Matthew Lewis: I'd never known that. That's absolutely unbelievable that you would have to wear your work uniform all the time, even when you're not at work, is something I think we would find incredibly weird today. And whilst I'll say I find that weird, I'm also writing myself a note to start a petition immediately after this to bring back reinforced top hats and capes for police officers. I mean, stab vests and everything else, absolutely great. Reinforced top hats and capes has got to be where it's at. We're still having conversations about arming the police today, aren't we? So again, 150 years later, these are still questions that are being bandied around and questioned today that existed right from almost the beginning of the police force. While we're on the uniformed police officers, do we know what kind of equipment they would have carried? You mentioned, you know, they're not armed with pistols. There's that cartoon of them with a reinforced top hat and a stick. Do we know what actual policing equipment they would have carried that we might recognise today?
Jonah Miller: Yeah, so they do. They have truncheons all the way through. They have truncheons. So that's kind of the baseline. I guess the things that change are that periodically they do get issued with cutlasses and periodically they do also get issued with revolvers. In every instance, this is very controversial. From the beginning, there are lots of people who are very, very nervous about having a police force like this at all. This is why in the aftermath of the 1829 Act, so in the 1830s, it's really pretty touch and go. There are lots of people saying, we should just go back on this. We should abolish them and go back to the old sort of localised system. The key kind of argument for that is that this is a form of military rule and it's worse in the eyes of a 19th century British person. It's French-style military rule. This idea of police officers with weapons controlled by the central government is very strongly associated with France and France is associated with tyranny and despotism. It's the of the free-born Britain to be policed by people who are not militarised agents of central government. So that's why when police do turn up with weapons, it causes a big backlash and the Home Office is constantly trying to navigate these kind of conflicting priorities. Another thing to say about that, about the kind of militarisation thing, is things like barracks. So the police officers live in station houses which look quite like military barracks. And the fact of the blue uniform, which is now embedded in our police mythology, is all about suggesting that police officers are not soldiers. They don't have a red uniform and the blue is supposed to be a kind of softer, more civilian-friendly way of showing that these are figures of authority.
Matthew Lewis: Did they carry handcuffs during this period? Did they have the famous whistle? We think of those kinds of things around at this time too.
Jonah Miller: Handcuffs go way back. They predate the creation of the new police forces. The whistle, I'm not sure exactly when the whistle comes in. In the early 19th century they tend to have a rattle. Not totally dissimilar to a kind of toddler's rattle, a thing that you shake and it makes a very loud noise. Further back in time there are bells, so there's a kind of crossover between the watchman and the bell man. There are various ways that police officers can use these kind of instruments to call on each other. But yes, the whistle does appear at some point in the 19th century. I'm not sure exactly when.
Matthew Lewis: And you mentioned a little bit earlier that we've also entered the period in which there are detectives, so non-uniformed police officers. Do we have any idea of how London has reacted to plainclothes police? Because if you're expecting your police force to be in their uniform all of the time, even when they're not on duty, how do they translate that into a force that don't wear any uniform at all and don't identify themselves as policemen?
Jonah Miller: They're not popular. The story, I guess, really starts before the actual creation of a detective branch, when the Metropolitan Police in the 1830s send some officers in plainclothes to spy on radical political meetings. So there's a guy called Sergeant Popeye who goes to spy on the meetings of the National Union of the Working Classes. He basically becomes an agent provocateur, so he pretends that he's a kind of out-of-work painter and starts suggesting that they blow up government buildings and do really radical, dangerous things. He's then recognised when he's on duty in uniform by one of his supposed comrades from the National Union of Working Classes and this becomes a massive scandal. It triggers a royal commission to investigate the Metropolitan Police and there's a whole newspaper explosion about the idea that there are these spies everywhere who are going to control people and suppress their political rights and lead them to do crazy things like So that's the background and then when you actually get detectives in 1842, essentially to combat that there's a huge propaganda effort to say that these aren't spies, these are a kind of useful branch of the police system and they can help us make sure that burglars and murderers are brought to justice. Part of that propaganda campaign is Charles Dickens, who writes lots of articles. He's best friends with one of the first leading inspectors who's Charlie Field and Charlie Field and Dickens kind of have dinner together and they talk a lot about detective work and Dickens writes these articles for newspapers describing accompanying Charlie Field out walking around the East London slums at night. Then we have Inspector Bucket in Bleak House who's the kind of iconic Victorian detective and that sort of leads to the subsequent 19th century boom in detective fiction and that is all in a way part of this propaganda effort to say it's all right to have plainclothes police officers, they're not spying on you, they're not trying to kind of trick you into doing something that will land you in prison, they are actually useful parts of the system.
Matthew Lewis: It feels like if we walked into Scotland Yard, if we stepped into Syndicate 1868, we walked in there, we're going to be entering a fairly chaotic building, a labyrinth full of paper, bustling with people, men with newly grown beards because they're allowed to now, some in uniform, some out of uniform, so it feels like a fairly recognisable police force but maybe a more chaotic experience than we might expect it to be today.
Jonah Miller: Yeah, I think so. The detective branch does exist at this point and it is operating out of Scotland Yard but it's not really been kind of separated off from the main metropolitan police structure at this point so I think you might not really be able to tell the difference between a detective and one of the clerks. There's more of a sense that this is basically a government office which occasionally has people in uniform kind of charging through it rather than what you might associate now with walking into a police station where you're kind of very clearly moving into a space where everybody has a different role in society. This is more like a kind of a branch of the home office that just has these sort of slightly old beardy men in uniform.
Matthew Lewis: And so outside of the station, the building of Scotland Yard, in Syndicate you will encounter police officers roaming around the streets all of the time. Do we have any concept of how they policed London? Are there surviving instruction manuals? Do we how violent they were? Did they arrest people in the same way that we do today? Obviously they must have had different policing methods. Do we know how effective they were? Did people support this idea of a police force once it had got itself established?
Jonah Miller: There are lots of surviving instructions and the thing that's really striking about them, I guess, and the thing that becomes very controversial, is that the way that the new police, as well as being centralised and run by the home office, the way that the new police are different is that they basically launch a kind of an assault on working class street life. So they go for street gambling, they go for people playing games and causing obstructions of traffic, they go for sex workers, they go for essentially any activity that looks disorderly and that interferes with idealised middle class version of the city where everybody who's moving around the city is on legitimate business and is going about making money. It's this very Victorian industrial era commercial attitude to what London life is supposed to be like and lots of working class people don't fit into that idealised image. This means that in the early years in particular the kind of interference metropolitan police bring to street life, I mean they're raiding pubs all the time because they're unlicensed premises, and to gambling as well in particular, that kind of interference makes them extremely unpopular with lots of working class people. Sounds like they're becoming the fun police at this point. Yeah absolutely, absolutely, and I mean there is a kind of backing down essentially. I mean in part they're being given a completely impossible task which is to stop the huge number of people in this rapidly growing city from spending their leisure time more or less as they want and it's just not possible. After the first sort of decade or so, or maybe the first couple of decades, the instructions do sort of start to emphasise you really shouldn't be interfering where it's not absolutely necessary, you shouldn't be interfering where there isn't some kind of breach of the peace going on, you don't need to crack down on every 12 year old boy who has set up a little stall for people to gamble on dog race. A notorious example is street boys as they were called playing with hoops which is an image we sort of associate more with the early 20th century but is very much a Victorian pastime, running through the streets with hoops, and there are cartoons of police officers arresting boys for running around with these hoops and it's clearly taking the piss out of the police. I mean that the idea that they're spending their time and therefore spending taxpayers money pursuing these really pretty harmless activities rather than, as people would say now, focusing on proper crime. So that dynamic, that sense of why are you going after kids on the streets who aren't really doing any harm rather than the really serious criminals, that's a very old dynamic.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah again and one that hasn't entirely gone away has it? There are still arguments today about what the police should be doing, shouldn't be doing, where they should spend their time and what they should investigate. So I'm amazed by how relevant some of these early policing questions still are today. So Scotland Yard isn't in Scotland Yard anymore and yet we still call it Scotland Yard, we still associate that place with the institution. Why do you think that has stuck? And I mean something that is going to maybe leap out at lots of people is Scotland Yard's involvement in something like Jack the Ripper murders in the later 19th century. They become really closely associated with that. Ultimately it's a case that never gets solved and yet as an institution they survive those kinds of problems, still exist today and we still call it Scotland Yard. Why do you think it became so immortal? I don't know.
Jonah Miller: I think there's a couple of things. Maybe one is that the police were a new thing in the first half of the 19th century and people were kind of calling them all sorts of different things. I mean so there's the famous, you know, there's the Peelers and the Bobbies.
They're also a lot more very rude names or sort of hostile names. I mean they get called bludgeon men, they get called blue locusts, they get called all sorts of things.
Matthew Lewis: What's the rudest name they get called? What's the most insulting one you can think of?
Jonah Miller: There are some that I probably shouldn't say. So the blue locust one actually has some sort of interesting layers to it. It's a name that some working class people call the police, particularly in the north of England but also in London. And it's really the idea that police officers are locusts in the sense that they don't do any work and they eat everything up. And this is because from the point of view of a working class person in industrial Britain, what the police do is they walk around all day. They're not in a factory or a shipyard or even doing the kinds of portering and all the kind of heavy lifting labour that goes on in London, moving things from one place to another. They're just walking around and they're paid from taxation. So there's this sense that, you know, they're taking our money and they're not doing anything. So the blue locust is a real kind of emblematic name of that sort of working class hostility to the police. But the thing about Scotland Yard, I think, the name is that it's a name that doesn't highlight the connection with central government. So it's quite a nice name from the point of view of the Met. They're quite happy to kind of hang on to it because it isn't, you know, number four Whitehall Place, which makes you think of Whitehall, which makes you think of the Home Office or the Civil Service. And it means that they're not called the government police or the state police or any of these things that they're trying to avoid being called. So Scotland Yard is actually quite handy for them because it sort of doesn't have any of those associations.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, that's a really interesting point that hadn't occurred to me because they don't have to mention, as you say, the connection to government, Whitehall, the Home Office. They don't have to use the word metropolitan, which implies some widespread power and authority. They don't even use the word police if they call themselves Scotland Yard. So all of the words that might have a negative connotation for an early police force can be circumvented by just naming it after the place where it is. I'd never thought of it like that, but it actually works, doesn't it?
Jonah Miller: The place itself, actually. I mean, you mentioned the Whitechapel murders and the place itself does kind of get more attention in the 1880s, partly because of the Whitechapel murders and just lots and lots of talk about what the detectives are doing, but also because Scotland Yard is bombed in 1884 by so-called Fenians, by Irish nationalists. They sort of don't place the bomb in quite the right place, so they blow up an empty office which is attached to Scotland Yard and they also blow up a neighbouring pub called The Sun with nobody in it. The landlord of The Sun then makes loads of money by charging people to come and see the wreckage of his pub. But that kind of draws lots of attention to Scotland Yard as a place and as a kind of, I guess, British institution which is seen as being under attack from Irish nationalism and, in fact, it's in the aftermath of that bombing that what's called the Special Irish Brunch, which later becomes Special Brunch, is created. So that sense of the Metropolitan Police being a kind of core British institution that has to be protected partly comes from that kind of 1880s moment, at the same time as they're being criticised at length for failing to do anything about the Whitechapel murders.
Matthew Lewis: Just to round off our conversation about the idea of Scotland Yard and the place of Scotland Yard, I guess, why is it not at Scotland Yard anymore? Presumably at some point it has to move for some reason.
Jonah Miller: Yeah, so this is 1890 when basically they move because, I mean, the stacks of paper get too high and there are so many clerks that they start kind of colliding with each other in the corridors. Essentially they outgrow the buildings and so they move to what is called New Scotland Yard, which is a building on the embankment. So this is part of the story of Victorian London that, you know, part of the Thames kind of disappears under the Victorian embankment. And it's initially a site that was supposed to be a new National Opera House, but then the person who's kind of trying to do that runs out of money and so the Mets step in and say, we'll buy this. It's a sort of grand red Victorian building. Somebody calls it a very constabulary kind of castle. So New Scotland Yard, they have this huge building to themselves and that sort of works for about 70 years into the 20th century. But then in 1967 essentially the same problem occurs again, which is that there's too much paper and too many people, too many administrators. So they move again to what is now New Scotland Yard, but probably ought to be called New New Scotland Yard, which is the present site with the kind of big rotating sign that you see on the menu.
Matthew Lewis: That's my image of New Scotland Yard. So it's interesting to know where that emerged from and the steps that have been gone through to get there. So Assassin's Creed Syndicate is the first game in which players have to deal with a police force who are trying to prevent you from what you're trying to do everywhere else. You've kind of had a free reign to run around. To what extent do you think the emergence of a police force helped to shape 19th century London and redefine people's to law and order on the streets?
Jonah Miller: It's part of the reshaping of the city and it's part of this drive by government to make London, which in the 18th century was an incredibly chaotic city, to make it orderly and to kind of constrain the huge mass of people to kind of conform to certain ideas of how people are supposed to behave in urban space. And this is why, for example, I mean we didn't mention this earlier, but this is why one of the kind of signature moves of the Victorian police officer is to say move on, to move people on. But what this is really about is kind of stopping blockages in the circulation of the city system. Anybody whose activities don't fit with the kind of idealized model of how the city is supposed to operate, they become the targets of the new police. And it doesn't work in a sort of basic way. I mean they don't manage to kind of make London an incredibly orderly and perfectly harmonious city, but it does mean that people are now kind of navigating this system in their daily lives. So people see police officers on the beat all the time. They become part of the kind of furniture of the city. It means that the government and the state, if you want, are kind of very, very present in everyday life in a new way.
Matthew Lewis: And have been ever since, I guess, to this very day. Well, thank you so much for joining us, Jonah. It's been absolutely fascinating to explore the beginnings, the origins of the idea of a name of Scotland Yard, the transitions that it went through, and the kind of 19th century impact that they had, the appearance of the officers. It's been absolutely incredible to trace all of that. And I am definitely off to start a petition for the return of reinforced top hats and capes for all police officers. I think that is something we're missing today. But thank you so much for joining us, Jonah. It's been brilliant. I hope you've enjoyed this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. Next time, we'll be exploring a key driver of the seismic changes that drove the development of London and England during this period, as we take a closer look at the Industrial Revolution. Don't forget to subscribe and follow Echoes of History wherever you get your podcasts. And if you're enjoying it, you can leave us a review to make my day too. See you next time among the echoes of history.

The Industrial Revolution: The Birth Of Modern London

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. Today we're continuing our journey into the underbelly of Victorian London, home to Assassin's Creed Syndicate, and exploring an event that defined the era. The Industrial Revolution began in Britain in the late 18th century, giving birth to an industrial age that continued for over 200 years. The period was characterized by rapid economic, social, and technological growth. These innovations completely overturned the way of life in Britain, and later spread across Europe and the rest of the world. But what was life like for those living through history's most rapid and radical period of technological, economical, and social change? To start, let's follow Syndicate into the smoggy heart of the Revolution. The stink. It's overwhelming as you step into the street. The great stink of London. This close to the River Thames, the air is thick with the smell of sewage. Along the street, the muskier animal smell of horses, tobacco from the cabman's pipe. And of course, the ever-present industrial smoke. The year is 1868, and it's early in the morning. The city around you is just waking up. Gas streetlights guide you down the road. The sun has not yet fully risen, but the working day will soon begin. You join the bustle of the morning traffic, the tide of men, women, and even children who shuffle deeper into London's East End. These are London's working poor. Many have come from the countryside to find jobs in the warehouses and factories that chug out plumes of grey-green smog. Some have come from Europe, some from even further away, from the farthest reaches of the mighty British Empire. They live in the cramped tenement housing you walk past, the most unfortunate in slums. The wealthy, meanwhile, live in comfortable townhouses, often right next door. Jostled by a passerby, you sidestep into a muddy puddle. It splashes up over your boots, a reminder of why you prefer to travel the city by carriage. Over the thrum of the morning rush, you hear the scream of a steam train engine in the distance. Great hulking locomotives carrying people and goods to and fro across the country. You look up in wonder to see the trail of steam above the tightly packed rooftops. Passing small street vendors and women holding infants on doorsteps, you overhear two workers chatting. There's a new Prime Minister, they say, although they didn't vote for him. They can't vote. They don't own enough property. They can't read the newspapers or pamphlets that lay trampled at the side of the road. But nonetheless, they talk about trade unions, about the promise of improving working conditions. Rounding the corner, your eyes start to burn, smoke blowing into your face. You can feel ash and soot coating your skin and your clothes. Chimneys tower above you, reaching from long brick factory buildings. The workers are being called through the gates. Dockers carry on towards the river, ready to welcome cargo from across the world into London's ports. You linger along the edge of the street, watching people as they hurry to beat the whistle that signals the start of a gruelling 12 hour shift. Today on Echoes of History, I'm joined by Tom Ferber of the London Archives, which is owned and funded by the City of London Corporation. Together, we're going to be talking about how Victorian Britain was shaped by the Industrial Revolution, delving into some of the inventions that changed ordinary people's lives, how they responded to those changes, and why London ended up at the centre of it all. Welcome to Echoes of History, Tom. It's fantastic to have you here. Thank you very much for having me. I'm delighted to be here. I can't wait to get into this episode all about the Industrial Revolution, because this is my neck of the woods. Parts of my family is from Willanall, firmly in the Black Country, and I am sitting here not too far away from Ironbridge. So this is an area that's really protective about its Industrial Revolution history. So this is one I'm really looking forward to finding out more about.
Tom Furber: Wonderful. And me too. And I'm quite parochial, I must say, as I work for the London Archives, so I'm quite London-focused. But hopefully between the two of us, we can put our heads together, put our hats together, and we can cover all the areas of the Industrial Revolution.
Matthew Lewis: In our introduction, we've tried to paint a picture of industrial London, where the syndicate takes place. What would life have been like in Britain, kind of on the eve of the Industrial Revolution, before all of this really kicks off?
Tom Furber: Yeah, so that's a really good question. And not for the first time today, you're going to hear me say, well, that depends when you start something. So one of the things I'm sure we'll kind of touch on a lot as the conversation unfolds is how historians sort of disagree about when this happens, when that happens, or they disagree about what you call a certain thing. So it's hard to say exactly when the Industrial Revolution starts. But a safe bet, I'm not going to get in too much trouble if I say about 1750 is sort of a common date, around 1750 is the start of the Industrial Revolution. So what was life like in London and the UK before 1750? Well, the first thing to say is it would be far more rural, that is, most people lived in the countryside, and far more agricultural, so most people would have worked on the land. Around 1500, we can say about 75% of people worked in agriculture, worked in farming, and about another sort of, a little under 20%, we might say, sort of 18% would have worked in the countryside or not in the land, and only about 7% of people would have worked in an urban setting, so town, town or city. By 1750, that's starting to change. In rough numbers, 25% of people live in towns and cities, and the rest live in the countryside. But interestingly, the proportion of people working on the land, as opposed to working in what we might call a proto-industry, has changed. So about 45% of people work on the land, and the rest work in the countryside, but in sort of small domestic workshop settings.
Matthew Lewis: Okay, so the profile of people across the country is beginning to change even before we hit the Industrial Revolution period proper?
Tom Furber: Absolutely. So one of the things that we will find is that it's a gradual, it's a gradual process, and we can kind of always go kind of further and further back and look at antecedents of things are changing. But that's right, there is a changing pattern of work, and many historians think that that's the key to why the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain, kind of grows out of that.
Matthew Lewis: Yes, I think there's always a danger to think that one day someone out in a field somewhere struck a bit of coal in the ground, and then suddenly everyone moved to the city, and it was all smoggy, and that's it, it happened overnight.
Tom Furber: Exactly that. And then maybe the term itself has something to blame, Industrial Revolution, that does imply something that happens quite, quite quickly. Maybe the term is a bit misleading. I think we could think of it as a gradual change, and the revolution comes in with the significance of the change, not necessarily the speed of it.
Matthew Lewis: More like an industrial evolution.
Tom Furber: Indeed, I believe undergraduates across the land have to write essays on evolution or revolution, yeah.
Matthew Lewis: And what are some of the factors that are contributing to that change? So in the build-up to the Industrial Revolution, what is causing people to move away from working the land and towards town and city life more and more?
Tom Furber: So there's quite a few, it's quite an exhaustive list that kind of all kind of come together at the same time. We can start with changes on the land itself. So before the Industrial Revolution, historians often talk about an agricultural revolution. So the agricultural revolution starts in the 17th century, the upshot of which is that the land is more productive in general, a given bit of land is more productive, more land is brought under cultivation. So less people are needed to work the land, and each of those people working the land can produce more stuff. So lots of lots of lots of good things. That comes about for kind of quite a few reasons. It's to do with better, better seeds, better soil preparation through selective breeding, selective breeding of animals. And this allows fields to be no longer left fallow. So it used to be to make sure you got all kind of the proper nutrients in your soil to make sure that the soil was super productive, you would leave your field fallow, you wouldn't grow any plants every four years. But basically advances in understanding how you can regenerate your fields by planting turnips, planting clover, rotating your crops, meant that you could you could eradicate that fallow process so more food could be grown. There's also another very important factor here that was very contentious at the time for the people that lived through it, and is now contentious in quite what it means for the agricultural revolution, productivity, and that's something called enclosure. And this is actually one of these things, there's a real folk memory in some sort of parts of British society about the dangers, one of the dangers, the evil consequences of enclosure. So what was enclosure? As the name suggests, it was when fields were fenced off. So it used to be before enclosure, that there was things called common fields. So people in agricultural society, they had a bit of field that they could farm for themselves, feed themselves, feed their family, maybe some surplus would be sold for profit. And then throughout the, starting in the 17th century, these are enclosed. So that means they're brought together. The idea being this is more efficient, more efficient, you don't have people kind of ploughing one bit of land on this side of the village, another bit of land on that side of the village. These kind of new processes that we've talked about can be applied across the fields as a whole. All well and good, except if you don't have a legal claim to your bit of common land, you might get kicked off that land and you're no longer able to farm it. So what enclosure does is it means there's lots of people that used to work in the countryside who no longer, who no longer can. So that's very important as well.
Matthew Lewis: And I guess that also contributes to our current picture of England as this kind of, you know, the patchwork of fields and the hedgerows and all of that kind of stuff that we think of as quite a romantic image of Britain, but it's actually a hangover of land being taken out of people's hands, rights being removed from people who had enjoyed those rights for centuries. It's a kind of physical scar, albeit we think of it as quite an attractive scar, but it's a physical scar of that change.
Tom Furber: Absolutely. So that if you fly over Britain one way or another and you look down, there is that distinctive, that distinctive field pattern. If you look closely, or if you look at aerial photography, you can actually sometimes still see the individual stripes of the older field patterns, which is quite interesting. You've hit on something I think really important, and we talk about romanticisation. So it's easy to think of a bucolic vision of the countryside working in tune with the land. We're going to talk about some of the hardships of moving to a factory system later, I'm sure, but we shouldn't underestimate the hardship of working in the land. You could work very, very hard and not have any food at the end of the season. Hunger was a common experience pre-agricultural revolution. Absolutely right to not romanticise that.
Matthew Lewis: I love it when I accidentally make a good point.
Tom Furber: It's good, yeah. Me too. Monkeys and typewriters, for me, comes to mind, not for you. Yeah, of course. So we have the agricultural revolution. So what this means is that less people are required to work the land, and this frees people up to work in the city. If less people are needed to work on the land, a smaller rural population can support a bigger urban population. And one of the factors in the Industrial Revolution is we see population grow. Before about 1750, population is remarkably steady, around about five million, with a big old blip for the Black Death in the medieval period, but it's about five million people. After 1750, it grows and grows and grows and grows and grows. It's about 17 million by 1851, and continues growing again. Of course, it's about 67 million today, and that's a really important consequence of industrialisation. So there's changes afoot in the countryside. There's also changes afoot in the political system. So 17th century is a very tumultuous century in British history, Reformation, Civil War, Beheaded Kings, all those sorts of grisly things. But from about 1689, it largely settles down. There is still a few important rebellions, the so-called Jacobite rebellions. But largely speaking, we have a stable political system from 1689. And this is really important, because, you know, what comes to mind when you think of the Industrial Revolution, factories, machines, improvement, all that is investment. You don't invest your money in something expensive and stationary, if you don't think it's going to be around. If there's civil war, and there's rebellion, stuff gets damaged, stuff gets stolen, all that sort of thing. You're not going to be investing in buildings and stuff. So this political stability is very important as well.
Matthew Lewis: It's a fascinating collection of building blocks that almost needed to be in place for this to happen, that all seem to have aligned at around about the right time, all in the one place too. You mentioned before that 1750 is quite a safe date to go for, for the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Safe-ish. Ish, ish, yeah. Ish, ish, ish. What is it in particular that happens around then that makes it a good point to kick things off at?
Tom Furber: A good point. So what I might do is I might duck that for a minute. And we might talk about what we're really talking about when we talk about the Industrial Revolution. And then with that in mind, we can say, well, why actually is it quite tricky to kind of put a date to it? Why are historians so kind of broad in their estimation of their date? So at the heart of the Industrial Revolution is finding kind of new forms of power. So new ways to kind of fuel, fuel activity to kind of create useful stuff. We talked about life before the Industrial Revolution, it was hard work. If you wanted something doing, with a few exceptions around water and windmills, it needs to be muscle power, either your own or animal power. But the Industrial Revolution brings in new sources of power to do useful work. It starts in the British context as coal. Coal is used to heat steam, steam is used to drive an engine. So this is what it comes down to, this new source of power. Kind of running in parallel to that, there's a sense that you can, even if you don't have an extra source of power, you can make your kind of muscle power more efficient by the use of machines, by mechanisation, through clever use of machines, gears, pulleys, all those various things that we think about when it comes to the Industrial Revolution, we can kind of get more work out of, we can be more efficient in the way we use our time to produce raw materials, particularly in cotton and wool, and cotton in particular at this stage. So we've got new power and new machines, we can then use the new power to power the machines. And now production is massively, massively increasing. But because we need steam to drive, we need big steam engines to drive our machines, we can't work in our homes anymore, we can't work in these literal cost industries anymore, we need to bring people together. And that gives birth to the factory system. Steam doesn't travel in the way electricity travels, you need that power, you need to be local. So these three things combined, new sources of power, mechanisation, and kind of bring people together, leads to our kind of final output of the Industrialisation. And that's when manufacturing, making stuff, takes over from growing stuff as the kind of the main source of the economy when manufacturing takes over from agriculture.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, I guess I'm struck slightly on the human level here that people have dealt with the agricultural revolution that's meant less people are required to do the same amount of work in the countryside, which has driven them to towns. And then all of a sudden, once they're there, they're faced by a situation where there are now changes in technology that mean that less people are required to do the muscle work there, because machines are beginning to take over. And so this is all about a kind of reduction in the importance of individuals in these things as well. Everywhere, people are being replaced by technology.
Tom Furber: Absolutely. So it's in a French context rather than English context, but it's quite a symbolic moment when a French factory owner put some flowers on a machine saying that was my most productive worker of the week, where we have employee of the week, he was giving his machine employee of the week. And absolutely right. And there was a real sense that something had changed and something was changing people, not overnight, over a course of generations. But people were learning a new way of working. And there was a lot of early resistance to this. There was a quite sort of harsh discipline on the terms and quite harsh discipline when it came to getting people to learn this new way of work. So one obvious thing there is people had to learn what's called clock time. We take it for granted that we can tell the time. We have watches, we have clocks on phones, computers, all this sort of thing. Actually, you didn't need to know the time to that level of accuracy. We talked about agricultural work, you got up when it was it was light, you kind of went to bed, maybe when it was dark, maybe you had some lighting, but not basic lighting, that was that. It doesn't matter if you start working your field at 10 past six or 10 past seven, loosely, loosely speaking. But the factory owners were keen that people would work from a fixed time, often six till six, and a minute late was a minute was a minute too late. So factory discipline is really important. Often factories had clock big clock towers. And the first thing that you would do when being sort of brought into this factory system is you'd be taught how to tell the time. And you'd learn if you were that minute late for work, you'd be fined half a day's pay, for example. There's this idea that because so much money and capital has been put into the machines, they have to they have to keep on working, they have to keep working very long days. I don't know about you, but if I'm trying to justify an expensive purchase, I might be now what's the cost per wear? What's the cost per use? And if I can say, well, actually, this might be more expensive, but if I use it more often, the cost comes down. A similar logic is at work by the factory owners, they've paid for these machines, they need to keep them working. And it's the machine that sets the pace and not the person.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, fascinating. And I think it's striking, again, how you can see the slow gradual move from a situation in which the people are in control, albeit regulated slightly by nature. But then all of a sudden, thump, the machines are in command. And the people are now having to work to the rule of the machine and the factory owner. And I guess, you know, that's where we will eventually get lots of industrial relations problems, because the people are starting to not matter as much as as this inanimate object that is driving everything.
Tom Furber: Absolutely right. And that is one of the facts of the Industrial Revolution is the work becomes less interesting, you have less ownership of it, you're de-skilled, it becomes monotonous. And there are benefits for workers, we shouldn't kind of go too far the other way. But one definite downside is that work becomes boring, it's not something it's something that's much harder to enjoy. And there's risk associated as well. So you really only doing it because you have to you have to do it. And there's a sense, I think, that the early industrialists with their kind of harsh, harsh discipline, their factory discipline, really set back later, sort of industrial relations, because it was really that us and them sort of environment that was set up.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah. And I guess the last question, I'm conscious that we still haven't even got the Industrial Revolution underway yet. But this is all such fascinating stuff. One of the questions I wanted to ask before we get it, it properly underway, is why Britain? Is it too reductive to say, empire equals the right environment for the Industrial Revolution?
Tom Furber: I would say so. But it's a really tricky one. And I must say I have a bit of trepidation about answering this question at all, because it's still quite sort of heated and vociferous debate about what causes it. And it's not always entirely friendly debate either. But you know, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. So here's here's my take on it. I'm quite persuaded by what's known as called the labour and resources hypothesis. And this basically is pretty simple, arguably reductive, but I think it I think it works. The Industrial Revolution, the background is all the things that we've talked about agricultural revolution, capital, colonialism, all those sorts of things. What makes it happen in Britain and anywhere else is two quite simple factors. Wages are high, and cold is cheap. We talked didn't we about 1750, people are starting to work in a different way. There's a development, there's developments in the economy that already happened. The economy is quite sophisticated. And as a result of that people are able to charge, you know, demand for labour means they're able to charge a bit more. Around this time as well, Britain has been very heavily deforested. Wood was used for cooking for building and empire link again, building ships, warships and merchant ships as well. So wood's becoming very expensive. From about the 16th century onwards, people have started to turn to coal to heat their homes and things like that. And Britain is abundant in is abundant in coal. Wages are expensive, coal is cheap. So actually, in the long run, you can save money if you use coal to power your machines rather than rather than people, lots of things follow from that. That's not the only explanation, I should say it's not kind of it's not at all, but there is a degree of support for that. And I quite like that one. I think it answers some of the counterfactuals. I think people do often respond very well to what's concretely in front of them, these kind of material conditions, and the more sort of abstract things, they're important. But I think quite often people respond to say quite concrete things like that.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah. And these advances, I guess we can call them advances are driven quite often by individuals. There are some names that we associate quite closely with this period, James Watt, Alexander Graham Bell is someone that players of syndicate will encounter and interact with in the game. How important are some of those individuals and who are maybe some of the key individuals in driving this forwards?
Tom Furber: Yeah, so the individual individuals are very important. You can tell that one very popular way to tell the story of the Industrial Revolution is through a series of inventions and inventors. I think we've got to be careful about leaving the people out entirely, you know, the working people out entirely. But at the same time, people, there were some clever people out there and they invented some very clever things and someone had to invent it. So James Watt's a really good example. And in many ways, sort of is a microcosm of what happens in terms of inventions in the Industrial Revolution. So he's sometimes said to have invented the steam engine and that's not accurate. The steam engine was invented beforehand, but he improved the steam engine. And this is what we see as a really important trend and of people, they take something and think this is good, but it could be better because and it moves forward. So going back to this idea of coal, the first working, the first practical steam engines, the so-called beam engine or the Newcomen engine was used to pull water out of coal mines. So there's a lot of coal in the UK, as we've heard, but the mines are very prone to flooding. So Thomas Newcomen and Thomas Savoy are the names most associated with this. They created a steam engine, a beam engine. And what this does, and I'm not the most mechanically minded people, so please no one at home be too cross if I get this wrong. I hope the details are at least okay, is you have a cylinder that's heated by a boiler. This creates steam. This drives a piston upwards. This cylinder is then closed with a valve and cold water is sprayed into the cylinder. And this creates a vacuum which pulls the cylinder back down. The pressure of the atmosphere brings it back down. So another name you'll hear is an atmospheric engine. So we've got a piston that's gone up by the heating of steam and it comes down through cooling. Attached to this piston is a beam, hence beam engine, and this beam is then used to empty the coal mine on the other end. So that's the beam engine. So around about 1764, James Watt is tasked with repairing one of these engines and he works out, he spots this inefficiency, and he builds a separate condenser to keep the heat going. So you lose less time, you lose less energy. So that's this idea of an improvement. And he then realises that up and down is a useful motion, it's a reciprocal motion, it's a useful motion. But even more useful for driving machinery would be a rotary motion, so called sun and planet gear. And he adds a pressure gauge and other things as well. So you can see we have a technology, you know, from 1712 up to 1764 and so it goes on. So he's a useful figure. And he is obviously remembered in the Watt, which is a unit of measurement of power. And Alexander Graham Bell as well. So he's a bit of a later, he's a later figure, and he does appear in the game. One of my favourite ways to do the kind of the gang stronghold missions is to fire the hallucinogenic darts into the braziers to thin out, thin the amount of enemies you have to deal with. There's no evidence of that, sadly, but maybe in a particularly dark corner of an archival strongroom I might be able to find it and that would be a good day.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, no evidence of it so far doesn't mean it didn't happen. We can hold on to that idea.
Tom Furber: Exactly. Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, as they say, in a different context. So Alexander Graham Bell's another really interesting figure. So he's touched on, he's touched on in the game. He spends Scottish-born early life in London and then his most sort of celebrated discovery, invention, excuse me, is the telephone. And that's really an American story that takes place. We know that he has spent his early life working in elocution. He had some family connections with deafness, his mother in particular. So he was interested in devices that might help with that. And he was more broadly interested in sort of science invention as well. And these sort of come to a head in 1875. He invents the first working telephone. So he's in this room, his assistant Watson is in the other, and he simply says, Mr. Watson, come here. I want to see you. So and that's the first words spoken on the telephone. It might be apocryphal, but we hear that he wanted the standard greeting on telephone not to be hello, that was Edison's idea. He wanted it to be ahoy. So you'd pick up the phone and be ahoy, if Bell had had his way. And the other funny thing about Alexander Graham Bell on the telephone is he refused to have one in his office, because it was too distracting. That's something that we can all sympathise with today, as phones have become grown and done all manner of things that Alexander Graham Bell probably didn't imagine as well.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, yeah, fascinating when someone invents something that they wouldn't touch themselves with a bargepole, for reasons that we would utterly recognise and appreciate today.
Matthew Lewis: What are some of the main notable kind of technological advancements? We've talked a bit about steam engines, which I guess lead to trains, almost directly. We've talked about the telephone, electricity we associate with this period as well. Are these all of the things that are building up to speed up the Industrial Revolution and keep a head of steam going, for want of a better phrase?
Tom Furber: Absolutely. So for me, the railways is the big one. I'm quite parochial in my historical interest these days. I'm very much sort of a London-focussed, and the railways have had such a massive impact on London history, on the kind of connectivity in London and the rest of the country and the world. So railways goes back to coal once again. Railways were used in coal fields as a way of, before steam engines, railways, that is having a cart that runs on rails running on the ground, was used to help move heavy loads of coal from pithead to mine, that sort of thing. But drawn by horse. And then that pattern we're going to see as well. We have one technology that works quite well, another technology comes along that kind of sits into it, something labour-saving that can be fuelled and powered with the new technology, steam, in this case. So James Watt's steam engines could run machines, but they couldn't move. The figure that we associate with the first sort of locomotive steam engine, steam engines that move, is Richard Trevithick, a Cornish mining engineer that applied a lot of his trade in Wales, but even got as far as Peru in quite an interesting life. So he produces the first sort of locomotives, but it's a figure called George Stevenson we talk of as the father of the railways, because Trevithick was moved on from various projects, he didn't sort of stay with one project necessarily to see it through to commercial fruition. So George Stevenson is the father of the railways. The first railways are really a northern phenomenon, so the Stockton and Darlington Railway is part freight, part passenger. The freight was moved by steam, the passengers were moved by horses because they weren't quite sure it was safe yet. And then the London to Manchester Railway, and here we're talking 1820s, the London to Manchester Railway is the first intercity railway. And in the 1830s what was one of the most celebrated Victorian building projects is started and finished remarkably. So in five years an engineering project which the Victorians thought were on par with the pyramids was finished, and this was 112 mile London to Birmingham Railway. This is something called the first long distance intercity railway, and it was the first railway that linked London to other cities. And this is one of those things, I think it's hard to sort of overstate how important this was. It just collapses the distance between cities. Pre-industrial revolution, two and a half weeks to get from London to Edinburgh. You can probably do it, as that technology moves on, you can do it less and less and less. We complain when it takes six to eight hours today to get from Euston to Edinburgh or Glasgow, but a lot less time than two and a half weeks. So the railway brings people together, but it also has other kind of impacts as well. Before pre-industrial revolution, Britain was a very regional place, there was a regional dialect, regional accents, even sort of local time zones, local customs. Bringing people together starts to kind of erode those distances, those differences between time and place. And the railway, as well as sort of bringing, being a kind of big capital project in itself, it also created sort of further investment. And the period from 1830s to around 1860s is sometimes known as the railway mania, because people got wind that they had some money, you could invest it in the railway, and you could often get a lot of that money, a lot of that money back, often sort of return as high as eight percent or something like that. So various private companies compete to open more and more railway lines. And if people are familiar with London, you will know there's just a silly amount of stations, there's just all kind of all dotted rounds near the outskirts of central London. I tend to, I grew up sort of just north of London in Watford, so I'm more familiar with the northern end on the Euston Road or near the Euston Road, we have Marylebone, Euston, St Pancras and King's Cross, King's Cross station. And they're not hugely efficient, quite annoying if you have to change trains quite quickly, and that's because they were all private lines. And one of, I think, the really quite special things about the Victorian railways, as well, was the pride they took in their work. And you see this across all kind of Victorian engineering. They were celebrating, they were celebrating the work that they did. The Cathedral, sometimes called Cathedrals of Steam, the big stations. St Pancras could be, you know, looks like the Houses of Parliament's huge Gothic building. Euston station, sadly, was remodelled after the 1960s, I want to say, but that was famous for a neoclassical design, so it looked like something out of ancient Greece or ancient Rome. It used to go through the Euston Arch, which was, I mean, not so hot in my Greek mythology, but I believe there was a particular symbolic purpose of this arch. It signified a journey from the one realm or one zone to the other. Very symbolic, very symbolic, what was happening on the joining of these two cities.
Matthew Lewis:
Yeah, it's absolutely fascinating. And I guess, interesting for Assassin's Creed Syndicate, that you would pick the railways when a lot of the game is centred around moving about the city using the railways and using a railway carriage as a base and all of that kind of thing. So really pulling in that idea that this is a revolutionary thing that is changing the country, the world.
Tom Furber: Absolutely, indeed. It's just, again, hard to use too many superlatives about the changes that it makes.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah. And just returning, if we can, we've talked a bit about some of the individuals, and we don't want to move away too far from talking about the other people, everybody that was affected by this. How does rapidly industrialising a and the changes that that brings, how does that impact normal working people? I guess you've got more of them being crammed into smaller spaces in the city, being forced to work in factories to this rule of a machine rather than any kind of rule of nature. But you mentioned earlier as well that there's an increase in consumerism. So we know there's lots of negatives, I guess. Are there some positives to balance those things out?
Tom Furber: Absolutely. And I think it's one of those things where the average person does well, but if you're, that means people, that average means some people are doing very well, and some people are doing badly. So the industrial revolution brings levels of comfort and abundance that are unknown previously in human history. As I understand the econometrics, the measures of what's happening when, from about, historians don't really know whether it was good or bad for your average person for pre-1800. It's controversial from 1800 to 1850. And from 1850 onwards, there is a general rise in living standards. So your average person is doing, has more clothes, is better fed, has more money, all those sorts of things. But as we alluded to, that does disguise very great differences within that. But there is no doubt that people are doing better out of it in some way. And that life in the countryside is often crushingly poor as well. So that's really important to bear in mind.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, I guess we are at risk again of romanticising and idealising that life in the countryside, you know, this was all skipping through fields, playing with the birds and all that sort of stuff. It was actually at least as much of a grind in the countryside as it was in the factories. It's just a different environment.
Tom Furber: Absolutely. One way I've heard it described is that you can be toiling all day in the fields and you won't get fed at the end of the season if the weather's bad. If you're toiling in the factory, you will get paid.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, I mean, and that's a pretty stark, you know, however hard the factories were, you're guaranteed money, which means food on the table.
Tom Furber: Indeed. And I mean, I'm always careful saying this because I wouldn't want to work in a factory. It sounded very, very difficult. 12 hour days were the norm, noisy, dangerous. But the real problems came for people not so much when they were working as when they weren't working. So it was the precarity of work or people that had only casual work. We're talking a bit later now, but there's a very famous figure in London history called Charles Booth. He produced one of the iconic documents, I think, of urban London 19th century called the Booth Poverty Map. And this is a colour coded map of London with the various colours denoting the amounts of wealth or poverty in London, ranges from gold all the way to black for the kind of people with the least resources. And this is the result of a 16 volume survey into what's called life and labour in London. And what he found is the people that really suffered are the people that were out of work through injury, illness, old age, or that couldn't work often, couldn't work often enough. Casual labour was a really big thing. And those are the people that really sort of suffer, I think, from the Industrial Revolution, the people that can't get the work or can't get enough work.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah. So the zero hours contracts and the gig economy, nothing ever changes really, does it?
Tom Furber: There are definite striking parallels to today.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah. How did people then during this period of fairly rapid but continual change, how did people react to that? Because we… Can we blame this period for the increase in political emancipation and the desire for people to have more say over what's happening? There's the emergence of things like trade unions. Is that a reaction to this dominance of the machine and the factory owner?
Tom Furber: I think so. So we can... I think a very useful date, I think, is 1867. So 1867, lots of things happened that year. But the three that I'm interested in, make sure I get these right, they're in the right order. The second Great Reform Act, and what this basically gives some portion of the working population the vote. I say some portion because it's linked to how much income you have. So in 1832, there's the first Great Reform Act that allows effectively the middle classes to vote. The second Great Reform Act allows people who are… And it's determined by class because it's due to your property ownership. So if you own property, you can vote. In the second Great Reform Act of 1867, you can rent as people who rent are allowed to vote, but only to pass a certain price point. If you pay more than a certain amount of rent, you're allowed to vote. And this was deemed to be... It shows if you were invested properly in society, you were responsible, effectively that you weren't going to sort of vote away private property and the property of the wealthy, that idea. So 1867 is the Great Reform Act. So before then, a lot of sort of reform politics campaigning was dedicated to getting that. We talk about the Chartist Movement. And the Chartist, that name comes from the Charter, the Great Charter, their list of demands of which voting was on them. But after we have the vote, there is more an emphasis on getting better wages and kind of working within the system. So in 1867, we have the Great Reform Act. 1867 is also the year that the first volume of Capital, Karl Marx's Das Kapital, was published. Obviously, a revolutionary tradition, the idea being that saying that capitalism is inherently exploitative, and that the only way for sort of fairness to arrive is so that workers' families seize the means of production. You're only going to get a fair deal if you own the factory, not if someone else owns the factory, to summarise a very, very complex book and a huge body of theory in that two sentences. So I hope that will be okay. Again, apologies to the Marxist scholars out there. So we have Kapital. And then the other thing we have, I think, interestingly, is a Royal Commission on Trade Unions. So trade unions are effectively, in broad terms, illegal up until this point. There's some grey areas around the side, but we're not going to go too far wrong if we say trade unions are illegal in 1867. A Royal Commission recommends the legalisation of trade unions because they say they're actually better for workers and for owners, and they're legalised in 1871. And what we tend to see in the British sort of tradition, even the sort of British social tradition, is not a desire to overthrow the system, but a desire to sort of do better within that system. Better wages, better conditions, all those sorts of things. And what social traditions they are, tend to focus on gradual change, often more than always, enacted through the ballot box.
Matthew Lewis: This might be a difficult question to answer, I guess, but why does London become considered the heart of the industrialised world?
Tom Furber: That really is quite a tricky question. It's quite a nuanced question as well, because up until quite recently, there was a prevailing view among historians that London didn't industrialise at all, which I think really kind of flies in the face of what we think of London. We think, you know, talking about syndicate, it's this quite smoky, I mean, I think it probably could even be even dirtier, this sort of smoky kind of dense centric production. So what does that, so why would you say it's not industrialised? And then if it hadn't industrialised, how could it claim to be the heart of the industrialised world? So the first thing to say is that was probably a bit of a mischaracterisation that didn't industrialise at all. But the kernel of truth in that is that factories were less prevalent or less dominant parts of the London economy than they were in somewhere like Manchester, for example, where factories were kind of the, cotton factories were kind of the dominant sort of economic form. There are factories in London, there are very big factories in London. But what we also see in London is a survival, and indeed, almost a boosting, because of industrial revolution, of an older system than a factory, often in houses and small workshops. So London is famous, not necessarily for producing the raw goods of industrialisation, but for finishing, finishing goods. So there's that element to it. Jerry White, a very famous London historian, talks about how districts of London almost act like factories. So Whitechapel, obviously one of the levels in Assassin's Creed, is famously associated with the textile trade, but not necessarily making cotton and cloth in the way Manchester is, but in finishing that cloth, turning that cloth into usable, usable garments. So that's part of it. But really, London's claim to be the heart of industrial world stands on two things, and it's the port, and it's the city of London. So throughout the 18th and 19th century, London was the busiest port in the world. One of my favourite bits of Assassin's Creed is hopping from boat to boat across the Thames, because today we don't think of London as a port city. It still is a very big port, but that activity takes place quite far down the river, sometimes actually in Kent, rather than in London, in big container ships. But in the 18th and 19th century, that activity took place on the river. And I say huge amount of trade going back and forth, and there is, of course, an imperial connection here. London's not just the capital of Britain at this point, it's the capital of the British Empire, and it's a real central hub of all that trade coming through, coming to and fro.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, I think as someone who's interested in medieval history, for me, you think of the rivers as being kind of the highways of the medieval age, and the Thames would have been an incredibly busy motorway system almost, and by the time you get to the 19th century, we need to remember, I think, that the Thames is probably something like a log-jammed motorway. You know, you're sitting in traffic, it's just constantly packed with boats and ships. We'll see speedboats zipping up and down it today, and tourist ships and stuff like that, but it would have been, you know, chocker with ships coming in and out to the point where you could leap across them as you do in the game, and we forget how busy it was. And I think the nearest equation for me is like a motorway in rush hour kind of thing.
Tom Furber: Absolutely, we have some really wonderful photographs in our collections of the river looking just that, of the docks being unloaded, but also just the sheer volume of traffic is quite exceptional. One of the most famous London landmarks today is, of course, Tower Bridge, which people outside of London in the UK might actually think of as London Bridge. This is the one that looks like a castle that sort of opens up and down in the middle. Well, when that was built at the very end of the 19th century, it was that part of the Thames called the Pool of London. You couldn't build a bridge there that couldn't allow to open because too many ships, it would like be blocking, like you say, blocking the M1 or blocking the M25. Today it opens once, about once a day, about 300 times a year, I think off the top of my head, not very often, but then it opened multiple times a day. You couldn't block the Thames, you had to put all this engineering effort into having it open. And the Tower Bridge, of course, sits right by the City of London, right by the Tower. And the City of London is the other very important economic factor in this story. So throughout the 19th century, it becomes the financial centre that we know it is today. Stockbrokers, insurance, banking, all those sorts of things start to concentrate in that area. And just as physical goods are going up and down the Thames, financial goods and financial products are flowing in and out of the city. Lots of the business of empire, the profits that are taking place are coming through the city at this point.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, yeah. I'm also, before someone turns my fader down, I'm going to give a shout out to the West Midlands as the industrial centre of the world, but never mind.
Tom Furber: But the point is, you say that, but the point is the connection, isn't it? This is exactly the point of the distribution that it's, don't get me wrong, it's fun to sort of fly our flags through our little corner of the planet. But the very point is that goods from Birmingham are coming on the train to London, to the docks, and going away again, and vice versa. Some of those little barges we're hopping on and off across on Assassin's Creed, they're coal barges. The coal is coming from the northeast of England. The Stockton-Darlington Railway is built to get that from the Coalhead to the River Tea, I think it is, to come down, the colliery trade that comes down, the shipping trade on the east coast of Britain. It all connects.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, and I'm being slightly facetious just for the sake of it, really. But I think the point is really that London provides the hub of the wheel. All of these spokes come together and they pour into London. And London is where they're able to bring all of this together from every corner of the country and every corner of the empire. And that's where it, therefore, that's where it is all focused, you know. I mean, London is the centre. There you go, I said it. Can we give an end date to the industrial revolution, evolution? Does it finish at any given time?
Tom Furber: I think seeing my earlier comment about how hard it is to start, to give the start, if we can't start it, can we end it? So now it's my turn to be facetious. One of the things that is a bit tricky about this time period is that we have like general senses of what a word means. If I say industrial revolution, that means something to you, means something to most people, will probably mean something to most people listening to this podcast. It doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to historians who use it. They often have a technical meaning of what industrial means based on processes and econometrics, that sort of thing. And it overlaps just enough with our shared meaning of it that we think we know what they're talking about. But maybe we don't because they're talking about something quite specific. So you will read dates to the end of the industrial revolution as 1830, 1850, 1867. And this gets a bit confusing because if it starts in 1830 and finishes in 1840, according to different historians, surely it lasts more than 10 years. That doesn't make any sense. So one kind of useful way of this puzzle is to think actually in terms of not industrial revolution, but industrial revolutions. And one kind of version of that theory has first, second, even third and fourth, living through the fourth industrial revolution. And now you might say that's linked to computer technology. I don't mean to be dismissive about that scholarship. And something is important changing in sort of the middle of the 19th century, whatever we call it. And that's where this idea of first and second industrial revolution comes in. So something is sort of finishing and then something changes in the middle of that century. And what I think really important, that really important change is Britain stops being the centre of the industrial revolution round about the 19th century. If you like the Germany, excuse me, Germany and Europe more generally, North America, Japan as well, they start to industrialise on a scale as well. This is sometimes called the second industrial revolution. So the first industrial revolution is about cotton, steam, coal. Different products drive the second industrial revolution. Probably latterly electricity is most important, but steel and the chemical industry are important as well. And then those raw materials are important, but new forms of production take place as well. Mass production and also this idea of interchangeable parts. So we talked about London as a place where things are finished. As the second wave of industrialization goes on, more of those things can be manufactured that don't need to be finished by hand. And that kind of brings it on to another level. And people will often date the end of the second industrial revolution, it's a convenient date, as the start of the First World War in 1914. And we've talked about some of the negative sides of the industrial revolution. The carnage, I don't know if there's any other word for the First World War, is a direct product of industrialisation. This is the first time that fully industrialised powers have gone to war on this scale. There's some hints of it in the American Civil War in the middle of the 19th century, but kind of the full horror of industrial warfare is sort of first comes through in the First World War.
Matthew Lewis: Yeah, I mean, I wanted to end by asking you whether there is a single standout legacy of the industrial revolution. But it sounds from our conversation like it has effectively crafted what we consider to be everyday life today, that we go to work at a certain time, that we finish at a certain time, that we check our watches all day, that we consume a lot more than we ever used to in the past, all of those facets of it. And to add into that kind of the industrialisation of warfare, you know, it sounds like some of the worst horrors of the 20th century were a legacy of the industrial revolution.
Tom Furber: I think that's, I think that's right. I think that what it comes down to for me, the legacy of industrial revolution, is it's the most profound change in sort of human history, probably, well, not probably, it is the most profound change in human history, since we started farming 12,000 years ago. And something of that magnitude is going to encompass all the good and all the dark as well. To add one more not very cheery thing to the dark list as well, when we talked about the industrial revolution hinging on new forms of power, fossil fuels, we have to add climate change to that list as well. This is where I get slightly beyond my expertise. But my understanding is that climate change, some of it has already happened, some of it will already continue to happen. But depending on the sort of the political, economic and technological choices of the next few decades, we'll find out quite how much climate change we have. And then maybe at that point, we can sort of really say what the legacy industrial revolution was. Yeah, yeah, it's a slightly frightening one.
Matthew Lewis: Well, thank you so much for joining us, Tom. It's been fascinating to explore this all encompassing huge shift in human history, I guess. And to have done all of that in less than an hour is testament to your ability to get that across. So thank you so very, very much for compressing all of that for us into an understandable portion. Where can people find more from you and more about your work?
Tom Furber: So I'm an Engagement Learning Officer at the London Archives, which is owned and funded by the City of London Corporation. If you're interested in anything that happened in London from 1067 onwards to the present day, we'll have something that interests you in our collection. And one of the aspects of our collection that is very strong is around the industrial revolution, in particular, this idea of urbanisation. So if you're interested in how those changes affected London and Londoners, this is a really good place to go. My suggestion as a place to start would be put a little search for either the London Archives or the London Picture Archive. The London Picture Archive will take you through to our image collection, available online. It's about quarter of a million images from about 1600 onwards, something like that. And you'll be able to find out. You could probably even do frame by frame some of the cities of the game, what it looks like in the game, what it looks like, what it looked like in the 19th century as well.
Matthew Lewis: Oh, well, that's the rest of my day sorted out. I'll go and find some of that. Thank you very much for joining us, Tom. It's been an absolute pleasure to talk to you.
Tom Furber: No, the pleasure's all mine, Matt.
Matthew Lewis: Thank you very much. I hope you've enjoyed this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. Next time, we'll be stepping into the Animus with Holly to explore how the world of Assassin's Creed Syndicate is created and how the history is wrapped around the game. Don't forget to subscribe and follow Echoes of History wherever you get your podcasts. And if you're enjoying it, you can leave us a review too. See you next time among the Echoes of History.

The Crown's Greatest Jewel: The Koh-i-Noor Diamond

Matthew Lewis: Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. For the past few weeks we've explored the dark underbelly of Victorian London, the setting of Assassin's Creed Syndicate. We've seen how the Industrial Revolution forever changed the face of London's buildings and its people. We've investigated how Scotland Yard played a crucial role in policing crime in the ever-expanding metropolis. And we've uncovered the true personality of the woman who gave her name to the era, Queen Victoria. Today I want to examine the literal jewel of Victoria's crown, the Koh-i-Noor diamond. In Assassin's Creed Syndicate, players get the opportunity to be part of the history of this famous treasure as they protect it from the evil Templars by liberating it from the Tower of London. In the mythology of Assassin's Creed, the Koh-i-Noor is a fascinating addition to a story that spans centuries. But the diamond has a riveting and tragic history all of its own. Due to a malfunction with our animus, I've handed over to my friend Dan Snow, who sat down with historian Shrabani Basu to shed light on the mystery of the Koh-i-Noor. How did a symbol of Mughal power become a feature of the British coronation ceremony? The answer is complex and Victorian.
Dan Snow: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, a mountain of light in Persian, is one of the largest cut diamonds in the world, over a hundred carats. And it was, for the last, well over a hundred years, part of the crown jewels of the United Kingdom. It's one of the most famous stones in the world, it always was, right from its beginning. It was owned by various rulers on the Indian subcontinent, then in Iran and Afghanistan. And it passed to the British as they expanded their domination of India. Queen Victoria was made Empress of India, but she was a slightly reluctant one. She wrote to her eldest daughter, Victoria, the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm, and she said in the 1870s no one feels more strongly than I do about India or how much I opposed our taking those countries and I think no more be taken for it's very wrong and no advantage to us. You know how much I dislike wearing the Koh-i-Noor? Well she was certainly wrong about no more territory being taken in the subcontinent. The British Empire in Asia expanded into places like Burma after she said that. But she was ahead of her time in realising that the Koh-i-Noor itself would attract great controversy. Today various groups in India and further afield ask for the diamond back regularly. It was at the time and it still is, I suppose, a symbol of Britain's violent seizure of a vast empire in India. In this episode of the podcast I've got Shravani Basu, she's a journalist, she's a best-selling author, she's been on the podcast before, she talked about her book For King in Another Country Indian Soldiers on the Western Front 1914 to 18. She's a great commentator on Indian history and the British Empire in India. It's great to have Shrabani back on the podcast. Here are her thoughts about the Koh-i-Noor.
Shrabani Basu: It's lovely to be here, Dan. Thanks for inviting me.
Dan Snow: Tell me about diamonds. I mean India was a great source of diamonds traditionally, wasn't it?
Shrabani Basu: It was. It was the one big source before the South African mines were discovered. So all the diamonds actually came from India at this stage. And of course, you know, everybody loved diamonds, so it was the big thing. You had these mines in South India, the Golconda mines. The diamond we're going to talk about today, that's where it came from.
Dan Snow: Tell me about the diamond, the Koh-i-Noor.
Shrabani Basu: Right. Well, it didn't have that name. When I go back to the history, apparently the history of this diamond is like 5,000 years old. It was mined in South India near the Golconda mines. It actually floated up on the beds of the Godavari River. So it is on the river bed. They say it was mentioned in ancient Hindu texts of 5,000 years old. But we'll park that for a moment and sort of take the facts as it were. We know where it was mined. And then the story goes that it was probably used, this big chunk of rock was in a temple as the eye of the idol, you know, like the third eye. So it was on the forehead of this idol. And then you have the invasion from the north of the Muslim rulers. They desecrated a lot of temples. So they probably got the Koh-i-Noor from one of these temples and took it up north. And it would have been the Delhi Sultan, so the Lodis, the Tughlaqs. And it stayed in the north till, of course, Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, he gets this diamond. And then we have a mention of this large diamond, the size of a hen's egg. It is probably the Koh-i-Noor, though he had other diamonds as well. And of course, this goes down the Mughal dynasty till we see it with Shah Jahan, one of his descendants, the famous Shah Jahan, who made the Taj Mahal, loved architecture, loved jewellery, and liked to put precious stones in his monuments. And he put the Koh-i-Noor in the Peacock Throne, which was in Delhi. Tell us what the Peacock Throne was. Well, this was this elaborate gold throne with gems and jewels with the wings of a peacock and the head is where the Koh-i-Noor was apparently kept, the head of the peacock. This is seen by travellers and everybody knows it. But even at this time, it's not actually called the Koh-i-Noor, it's called the Mughal diamond or just Babur's diamond. So it has different names and that's how it's referred to. So it stays with the Mughals until, of course, we have this date, which is 1738, when a warlord from Persia, and he's Nadir Shah, he invades Delhi. Now the Mughals at this time, their power is declining. But of course, the Peacock Throne is still there, the Koh-i-Noor is still there. And Nadir Shah loots Delhi, plunders Delhi, kills civilians, it's very violent. And then of course, he takes the Mughal treasures and takes them away. And he is the one, when he looks at this big diamond, he says, this is the mountain of light, it's the Koh-i-Noor. So he is the one who actually names it the Koh-i-Noor and that name has stuck.
Dan Snow: And it's interesting because we Brits talk a lot about our own role in the destruction of Mughal India. But the Nadir Shah invasion and sack of Delhi, I mean, that was devastating for the Mughal regime, wasn't it?
Shrabani Basu: It was brutal because civilians were killed, massacred, and all the treasures were taken. So the Koh-i-Noor, the Peacock Throne, the other diamonds, there's this other large diamond called the Darya-e-Noor, all these were taken to Persia. The Koh-i-Noor now moves to Iran and it stays there. But of course, he's a warlord, so the wars are continuing. And he is assassinated in 1747, he's dying. And of course, he's got the Koh-i-Noor strapped on his arm, he wears it as an armband. And his general, his name is Ahmed Shah Abdali, he takes the Koh-i-Noor from him and he takes it away. And of course, this general then goes all the way to Afghanistan and he goes to Kandahar. And there in Kandahar, he changes his name to Ahmed Shah Durrani, and he becomes the ruler of Afghanistan for the next few years. So now the Koh-i-Noor moves from Persia to its new home in Afghanistan.
Dan Snow: Was the diamond famous outside the subcontinent and outside Iran at this point? And indeed, was it famous there? Did it already have an extraordinary reputation?
Shrabani Basu: It did, because travellers would write about this diamond. There were so many accounts, starting from Babur Nama in Babur's own memoirs, to other travellers who would visit the court. It is described, it was in the peacock throne, it's gone to now Iran. So, it is a much coveted diamond. And so, when it's come to Afghanistan, again, it's got this history where it goes missing, it's lost, it's found, it ends up in a cave, where apparently there's a mullah who's using it as a paperweight. So, all sorts of stories.
But these rulers of Afghanistan, the Durranis, now they are eyeing the Punjab, because they want to expand their kingdom. So, of course, we now have the next players in the game, and these are the Sikhs. They are going to clash with the Sikhs and the Sikh kingdom. And of course, the big person in the Sikh kingdom is a man who has one eye and his face has a small box marked, but he is known as the Lion of Punjab. And so, the Afghans have to take on this Sikh general. He was actually a general in their army, his name is Ranjit Singh. And of course, he imprisons Shah Shuja. Ranjit Singh expands the Sikh kingdom, it goes to Kashmir, so it covers Punjab and Kashmir. And now he arrests Shah Shuja and imprisons him in Kashmir. And he wants the Koh-i-Noor, he desperately wants his hands on this diamond. He does a bargain with Shah Shuja. He says, I'll release you if you give me the Koh-i-Noor. And so, the Koh-i-Noor now goes one more journey. It now goes to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and it's now moved from Kandahar to Lahore, and that is its new base.
Dan Snow: So, Ranjit Singh, so he is an extremely able commander. He's carved out this empire in what is now Northern India and Pakistan and beyond. But he now faces an enemy as well, doesn't he, Srimani?
Shrabani Basu: Of course, it's a real bloody history. I mean, the one thing you can say, Dan, about this diamond is that it does not have a tag saying one careful owner, because it has passed through so many hands. And there's just so many people who want it, who will do anything for it, blinding, torture, assassination, name it. It's all happening because of this diamond.
Dan Snow: Every jewel in every myth, whether it's Norse mythology or Greek mythology, every jewel has to be cursed. Is there a little curse going on here? It doesn't seem like whoever is in possession of this hangs on to it very long.
Shrabani Basu: Oh yeah, it was famous as a cursed diamond. I mean, there were two ways. They said one who possesses this will rule the earth, and the other was it's a cursed diamond. We have literature about cursed diamonds. We have writing, Moonstone, etc. So also the romance of this cursed diamond, you know, it continues. It's just legends and folklore that goes on.
Dan Snow: Yeah, it's a shame it's so ambiguous. If you get this diamond, you're either cursed or you rule the world.
Shrabani Basu: I mean, okay, great. Thanks very much. There's no two ways about it.
Yeah.
Dan Snow: Okay, so Ranjit Singh has this diamond. Tell us about him. Is he ruling the world?
Shrabani Basu: He is. Well, he's, as they say, the Lion of Punjab. His territories extend from Lahore to Kashmir. But of course, he dies in 1839. And once more, there is carnage after his death, because there's bloodshed, all his successors, everyone is killing everybody, and there's plotting. And eventually, it's 1843 when this five-year-old little boy with large eyes, he is the one who inherits this throne. His name is Maharaja Dilip Singh. And he's going to the Koh-i-Noor for the next five years. He wears it as an armband.
It's strapped on his plump little arm. And that's how it is.
Dan Snow: And Shrabani, has it been shaped and polished and made to look all nice at some stage from that temple in southern India to the present? It must have been all fancied up.
Shrabani Basu: It is. So it's a rose-cut diamond. It hasn't been cut. The descriptions are that it is the of a hen's egg. So it weighed about 190.3 metric carats. So it's a large chunk of rock. It's trapped, as I said, as an armband on Dilip Singh, onto this little Maharaja. But of course, there is so much violence. There is now the next players in this game. And of course, it is these men in red coats with muskets and arms and enter the British.
Dan Snow: I've heard of them. I've heard of these guys.
Shrabani Basu: Yeah, so they are there. And of course, Punjab is so important to them, because this is the 19th century, early 19th century. We have the great game with Russia. Afghanistan is important. And Punjab is crucial because that's going to be the focus for Afghanistan. So they are looking at the Sikh kingdom. And of course, they go to war. And of course, because the Sikh kingdom after Singh is going to pieces, the five-year-old Maharaja there, it's just perfect for picking. So there we go. We have two wars. And the second Anglo-Sikh war is 1849. The Sikhs are defeated. And this 10-year-old Maharaja signs the deed. It's the Treaty of Lahore. So one of the terms is, of course, the kingdom is annexed. The treasury is annexed. And one of the items is the Koh-i-Noor will be handed over. And the exact wordings, I'll read them. It says, the gem called the Koh-i-Noor, which was taken from Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, shall be surrendered by the Maharaja of Lahore to the Queen of England. So it's written there. It's one of the clauses of the treaty. And this 10-year-old has to take it off and give it.
Dan Snow: So it was a famous thing. Like it was something that the Brits, they didn't just want Punjab. They wanted this diamond as well.
Shrabani Basu: They want this diamond because everybody wants this diamond. And the new Governor-General, he's in his 30s. He's a fairly young man, Lord Dalhousie. He has his eyes on this diamond and Punjab. And he writes to his bosses in the East India Company, and he writes about the Koh-i-Noor. He says, the Koh-i-Noor has become in the lapse of ages, a sort of historical emblem of conquest in India. It has now found its proper resting place. You can see from his words that this diamond is so coveted. It's travelled, as we said, from this temple in South India to Persia, to Afghanistan, to Lahore, and now the Brits have it. So it's put into a little bag and he's going to send it in a little, actually purpose-built, little kid bag, sewed together by Lady Dalhousie. And he himself, he goes to Lahore to take the diamond personally. So he travels up from Calcutta, takes the train to Lahore, puts this diamond in the big bag and actually has it sewn onto his waist. He's going to travel like that. He is so scared that there's going to be an attack, somebody else will want it. It's got such a bloody history. So he takes it. He's taking no chances. It's trapped onto him and he carries it to Bombay himself on his person before it's loaded onto the ship in several caskets and finally arrives at the offices of the East India Company in Leadenhall Street in London in 1850.
Dan Snow: Can you imagine how stressful that was for the captain of that ship to get the navigation right? Oh my goodness.
Shrabani Basu: Everything. I mean, imagine Dalhousie. It was a long train journey from Lahore to Calcutta with the diamond strapped to him. I mean, everything about this diamond was so stress-inducing. It's a wonder they really want it. But it was a lot of stress as well for anyone who got it. And then to hold on to it was the next thing.
Dan Snow: Okay, so the diamond comes to the UK. Does Queen Victoria, does it get handed over to her personally?
Shrabani Basu: Of course, yes. It was meant for the Queen, so it's handed to the Queen. But it's handed on a day that she is really upset because she just got the news that Lord Peel has died, a former Prime Minister who she was very close to. This is Robert Peel. She is distracted and distressed and this diamond is given, so she receives it. But actually she doesn't write too much about it. It's just a mention in her journals, which is very unusual because normally she would have written a lot about it and we'd have had a hundred opinions about the diamond, but she just mentions that she received this. But of course it's 1850 and the next year we're going to have this big exhibition, 1851, the Great Exhibition. It's decided that the Koh-i-Noor is going to be the centrepiece of this exhibition. It's going to go on display to the public for the first time. The posters are there and the crowds, they come milling to see this diamond. It's put in a sort of cage, but horror of horrors, it only gets a two-star review because the Crystal Palace, where this Great Exhibition takes place, is open glass. So this diamond, which is rose cut, which is a different sort of cutting, it's not the sort of European cutting, it doesn't actually glitter. It doesn't catch the light in such a way. So everyone's a bit underwhelmed. The Queen is also a bit disappointed. They tried their best, they put it on a dark velvet cloth, they put lamps on it to make it shine, but none of it really works. So after the exhibition, it's taken and the Queen gives it to Albert and Albert is like, what do we do with this? How do we get this right? He consults jewelers and diamond experts and he decides to have it cut, European style. So now a hammer and chisel are going to be brought to this diamond. And it's going to be cut and horror again, it loses half its weight with the cutting. So from 190 carat, this big hen's egg is now reduced to a quail's egg. It's become 90 something carat. That's it. It's lost half its weight, but it does shine. So it's given to Queen Victoria. She's happy to have it, but she has mixed feelings because she does realise that Dilip Singh has been through a lot. Well, what's happened to Dilip Singh in the meantime is actually really tragic, because when he was nine, when all this was happening, his mother was torn from his side and imprisoned. So this young prince is nine years old, his mother is taken from him. And the next year his kingdom is taken from him. And then he himself is taken from Lahore. And he's sent 200 miles away to Fort Fatehgarh, where he is now to be looked after by a Scottish doctor, a very kindly man called Dr. Logan and his wife, Lena. So he's brought up in this very lonely, he's just a child, plays with toys by himself, very English upbringing. And when he's 14, he decides, he says, I want to become a Christian. He wants to give up his faith. He's a confused young boy. His mother is not there to guide him. Kingdom is gone. On his 11th birthday, he actually really tragically, Dr. Logan wants to give him a present and says, can I have some of the treasures back and give him a few jewels, a few bits and bobs to please him. And so they bring these out and they give it to him. And he says that on my 10th birthday, I wore the Koh-i-Noor. So it's really sad. And it does make Dr. Logan and his wife, who are very kindly people, feel terrible about it. They never want to bring up the Koh-i-Noor to Dilip Singh. But meanwhile, Dilip Singh now decides he wants to travel to England. So at the age of 15, he travels to England and it's going to change his life because now he's going to meet Queen Victoria and see the Koh-i-Noor again. And that's quite a story.
Dan Snow: Wow. He comes face to face with the Koh-i-Noor again.
Shrabani Basu: Yeah. So it's actually, this story is told by Lena Logan, Lady Logan. And she says it was absolutely embarrassing because the Queen was actually very anxious about the Koh-i-Noor. And after it's been cut, she wants to show it. She wants to know what Dilip Singh, this young boy, feels about it. She's very fond of Dilip Singh. And she keeps asking Lady Logan, does he talk about the Koh-i-Noor? What does he say? She's really curious. Can I show it to him? And Lady Logan says, well, okay. So there's this one day, 1854, Dilip Singh is dressed to the nines like a Maharaja. He's wearing all his Indian clothes and jewels. His portrait is being painted in Buckingham Palace by Franz Winterhalter. This portrait actually hangs in Osborne House. It's a beautiful portrait. So while this portrait is being painted, Dilip Singh is modelling in all his fabulous clothes, looking really handsome. He was a very handsome young prince. Suddenly, Queen Victoria enters the room, followed by some guards, and they're holding a box. And she opens it and it's the Koh-i-Noor. And she gives it to Dilip Singh and says, what do you think? Do you recognise it? Dilip Singh, he looks at this, he can barely recognise it. It's this little stone now. It's shining, it's cut differently. His face sort of changes when he looks at the new diamond. He walks to the window and holds it up in the light. Lady Logan thinks for one moment that he's so upset, he's going to throw it out of the window. And she is really anxious and very embarrassed. And then he just turns around, he takes the diamond and he bows and he gives it to Queen Victoria. And he says, as your humble servant, I hereby present my sovereign with the Koh-i-Noor. So it was a really embarrassing scene. And well, Queen Victoria takes the diamond and she now wears it as a brooch. No qualms about that.
Dan Snow: How does it end up in the crown jewels?
Shrabani Basu: She wears it as a brooch. Even when she goes into mourning, it's there on this black outfit of hers. And she loves wearing it on special occasions. She always mentions it in her diary that, you know, the Maharaja and so and so came, I wore this and I wore my Koh-i-Noor. It is very prominently worn. And then, well, it's after her death in 1901 that this Koh-i-Noor is now placed for the coronation of her son Edward VII. It is now worn in the crown of Queen Alexandra. So that is the movement when it goes to the crown. So it is placed in her crown and that tradition continues. So it is always worn by the queen consort after Edward VII's death in 1911. It is worn by Queen Mary in her crown at the coronation of George V. So again, the queen consorts are wearing it. And so for those who said this diamond is cursed, there was this theory that, well, as long as it's not worn by a male monarch, you're okay. So Victoria was a queen, so she was safe. And if queen consorts wear it, that's fine. So I think it continued to be worn and it ends up in the coronation crowns. And then it passes to Queen Elizabeth. So when George VI, at his coronation, she has a new crown and the Koh-i-Noor is placed in the centre of that. And that is where it stays. The queen mother wears this at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. So 1953 she wears it. Well, of course it's housed in the Tower of London where everybody can see it. On her death in 2002, it is placed on the coffin. Once again, the Koh-i-Noor is there front and centre, sparkling. And of course it leads to lots of controversy. People don't like it back in India.
Dan Snow: How interesting. And so let's come to the controversy in a minute, but presumably if tradition continued, it's not the sovereign wears it, it's the consort. And we now have a female consort again. So Camilla should be wearing it at the coronation.
Shrabani Basu: Well, this is exactly what came up. So once the queen died and suddenly all the crowns were on display again, there was this murmur, which became more than a murmur. Everybody realised that the next coronation, the queen consort will be wearing the Koh-i-Noor in her crown in all possibilities. So it really became a controversy. And in India, one of the politicians from the ruling party said that if this Koh-i-Noor was worn again, it would bring back the painful past of colonial history, etc. So there were a lot of murmurings. And also, of course, the demand, once again, bring back the Koh-i-Noor started all over again.
Dan Snow: Now, why is the Koh-i-Noor more sensitive than much of the other loot captured by the Brits over the centuries, some of which have found their way into ceremonial jewellery and events? What is it about the Koh-i-Noor, do you think?
Shrabani Basu: It's really interesting because, you know, as far as jewels go, there's a lot that was taken as loot and these include Tipu Sultan's treasury, Tipu Sultan, the Tiger of Mysore. He was defeated by the East India Company, Arthur Wellesley's army, 1799. His treasures, his golden throne, all of these were taken, his swords, his throne, even his tent, they were all taken here. And the beautiful Bird of Paradise, which was on top of his throne, that is with the royal estates. But these things, these treasures are all locked away, they're in the vaults, you don't see them. I think the history of the Koh-i-Noor, the way it was taken, the way it was coveted by so many rulers from all across, that gives it this romance. And in the way it was seized from Punjab, from this young 10-year-old Maharaja, whose mother was taken away, so this whole tragic history to it brings it to the fore. And then, of course, the Koh-i-Noor is worn when it's placed in the crown, it is there for people to see, it is very much on display. Front and centre, glittering in the crown, it is, you know, the jewel in the crown, the jewel, the most famous diamond in the world. So, it attracts that attention, it becomes the symbol of colonial rule, much more than the other treasures do, because you don't see them, you don't see them glittering on this crown. So, when it went out on the Queen Mother's coffin, that's when a lot of the murmuring started. When Prime Minister David Cameron went to India, he was asked repeatedly, you know, give back the Koh-i-Noor. And they said, no, there's no negotiation, it's staying there. If we start returning things, the British Museum will be emptied. So, all this comes up. But I think the main thing about the Koh-i-Noor is it is the symbol, it is the one symbol of colonial rule, where it was taken. And, of course, it's one rock, it's a diamond.
Dan Snow: The fact that the royal family, the British government, have retired the Koh-i-Noor for this coronation, what do you think that tells you about the state of relations between Britain and India and the nerves, the awareness of Britain's imperial legacy?
Shrabani Basu: Oh, absolutely. I think Prince Charles is quite sensible. The last thing he would want is more controversy. I mean, goodness knows there's enough. He would not want any focus going on the Koh-i-Noor once again, and all the controversy, if Camilla was to wear this. So, I think they took the decision that she would wear Queen Mary's crown, which has a replica Koh-i-Noor, and the actual Koh-i-Noor will not be placed on it. Instead, there will be these Cullinan diamonds from South Africa, which were worn as brooches by Queen Elizabeth II. So, those will be placed on the newly structured Queen Mary's crown. And so, that takes the Koh-i-Noor away from, you know, being front and centre and on display. But, of course, I mean, the murmuring will continue, but I think it was a sensible decision not to wear this. And, of course, there's so many other things. You know, there's a trade deal at stake. So, you don't want bad relations with India at the moment. Post-Brexit trade with India is important. This trade deal is hanging on the edge and they need to complete it. So, I think the government advice would also have been, keep that low. Let's keep the bling down. Let's not ruffle any feathers.
Dan Snow: Wow. Do you think one day the Koh-i-Noor will end up heading back to the subcontinent? By the way, if so, who gets it? Is it Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iran? Who gets the Koh-i-Noor? I don't think it'll ever go back.
Shrabani Basu: I think it's here now for good at the end of the day. A, there are too many contenders for it. So, you know, Iran would want it. Afghanistan, the Taliban actually claimed it in 2000, which is quite hilarious. And then Pakistan says that after partition, Lahore is part of Pakistan. So, that's where the diamond had its last place. So, way back in the 1970s, actually, when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was prime minister, they put in a claim for the Koh-i-Noor, which was dismissed. And India, the cases keep coming and going, you know, every now and then there'll be a case and bring back the Koh-i-Noor. It's like background music that keeps going on. But I don't think it'll ever go back. What I do think is that people get really annoyed that they have to pay to go. I mean, this jewel was taken at gunpoint. It was not a gift. Everybody knows that. And it is the most famous diamond. So, I think people really get annoyed with the fact that they have to pay to go see the Koh-i-Noor if they want to see it. So, I feel that maybe if it went to one of the museums, one of the national museums where the public could see it, that would probably be a better home for it. So, you know, the V&A or the Queen Victoria's crown is already there in the V&A. This could join that. And then people can go and see it. And well, that's just my theory.
Dan Snow: So interesting that the story of the Koh-i-Noor is absolutely not yet over. It could keep moving.
Shrabani Basu: Oh yes, it would. It's just like it kept moving. Well, it's been sitting in the tower for many years now. Let's see how things shape. But I think it could, under pressure, it won't go back to India. It definitely won't go to Pakistan. I mean, if anything, India has the claim on it because the diamond did come from the Golconda mines there. It was part of the Mughal Empire. The Sikh Empire is also seen as largely part of India. But the point is, it's too controversial and it's just better off here. But it might move to a different place.
Dan Snow: Well, thank you so much for talking us through that. The controversy doesn't look like it's going anywhere, Shrabani. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Shrabani Basu: No, we're not getting rid of the bling yet.
Dan Snow: Thank you very much for coming on the podcast. That's fantastic.
Shrabani Basu: Thank you. It's lovely to be here, Dan.
Matthew Lewis: I hope you've enjoyed this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. I'll be back next time as we move on to our next sequence of episodes about how Assassin's Creed Odyssey brought ancient Greece to life. In the next episode, I'll consult with the medical legend that was Hippocrates and promptly pick that legend apart. Don't forget to subscribe and follow Echoes of History wherever you get your podcasts. And if you're enjoying it, you can leave us a review too. I'll see you next time among the echoes of history.

Assassin's Creed: Black Flag Resynced[edit | edit source]

DO NOT ADD TO ARTICLE.

Assassin's Creed: Black Flag Resycned is a 2026 action-RPG remake of the 2013 action-adventure video game Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. It was developed by Ubisoft ??? ~~as opposed to Ubisoft Montreal~~, the studio behind the original. It was released on ?? March 2026 on Microsoft Windows, Xbox Series X/S, and PlayStation 5. A Nintendo Switch 2 port was released on ??/??/????.

Gameplay[edit | edit source]

In contrast to the original, Resynced is an action-roleplaying game similiar to the modern games. Resynched will also include the ability to make in-game purchases.^[2]

Development[edit | edit source]

Long since rumored to be in production, Resyched's existence was proven by a PEGI rating listing in December 2025.^[2]

↑ Henderson, Tom (23 April 2024). EXCLUSIVE – Early Details on Assassin’s Creed Hexe. Insider Gaming. Archived from the original on 24 April 2024. Retrieved on 11 May 2024.
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 Phillips, Tom (10 December 2025). Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced Is the Name of Ubisoft's Long-Awaited Pirate Remake. IGN. Archived from the original on 14 December 2025. Retrieved on 14 December 2025.

[1] Henderson, Tom (23 April 2024). EXCLUSIVE – Early Details on Assassin’s Creed Hexe. Insider Gaming. Archived from the original on 24 April 2024. Retrieved on 11 May 2024.

[IGN_Resynched_PEGI-2] 2.0 ^2.1 Phillips, Tom (10 December 2025). Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced Is the Name of Ubisoft's Long-Awaited Pirate Remake. IGN. Archived from the original on 14 December 2025. Retrieved on 14 December 2025.

[1]

[2]

User:VilkaIsBack/Sandbox: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 05:23, 14 December 2025

Contents

Assassin's Creed Hexe[edit | edit source]

Gameplay[edit | edit source]

Echoes of History transcripts[edit | edit source]

Assassins vs Templars[edit | edit source]

Baghdad Soundwalks[edit | edit source]

Figures of Baghdad[edit | edit source]

Shadows[edit | edit source]

Syndicate[edit | edit source]

Assassin's Creed: Black Flag Resynced[edit | edit source]

Gameplay[edit | edit source]

Development[edit | edit source]

Navigation menu

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Navbox
 |navbar     = off
-|title      = <div style="padding-right:3em; padding-left:6em;">''<font style="color:black; font-size:13.5px; font-family:tahoma;"> Assassin's Creed: Nebula</font>''</div>
+|title      = <div style="padding-right:3em; padding-left:6em;">''<font style="color:black; font-size:13.5px; font-family:tahoma;"> Assassin's Creed: Scarlet</font>''</div>
 |style      = width:100%; font-size:90%; background:transparent;
 |titlestyle = width:80%; background-image:linear-gradient(to right, #2D302F, #9d2933, #ABFBE2, #171412); text-align:center;  font-size:90%;
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 |group4     = Factions
-|list4      = [[Assassins]] {{c|TBA Brotherhood}} • [[Templars]] {{c|TBA Rite}}
+|list4      = [[Assassins]] {{c|TBA Brotherhood}} • [[Templars]] {{c|TBA Rite}} • [[Aztec Empire]]
 |group5     = Locations
-|list5      = Space?
+|list5      = [[Mediterranean Sea]] • [[Mexico]] • [[Spain]]
 |group6     = Events
-|list6      = TBA
+|list6      = [[Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire]]
 |group7     = Terms and concepts
@@ Line 1,902: / Line 1,902: @@
 |-|1=
 '''''Queen Victoria: The Woman Behind An Era'''''
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. For the next four episodes, we'll be taking a dark turn into the murky underbelly of Victorian London, home to Assassin's Creed Syndicate. We'll be bringing you the real history behind a key character, a landmark, an event in the game, plus you'll also be hearing from both experts in history and gaming on how you bring Victorian London to life in a game like Syndicate. Today though, we're delving into the life of one of Britain's most defining figures, a woman who ruled for three-quarters of a century and who gave her name to an age. Queen Victoria. Born in 1819, she was the last in the line of the House of Hanover and became Queen upon the death of her uncle in 1837. Whilst often caricatured as being spiky and stubborn, Victoria reigned during some of the most significant turning points in British history and left a legacy unmatched by many other British monarchs. But what was Queen Victoria really like and how did she rule as Queen of a tiny island that possessed half the world? In Assassin's Creed Syndicate, we're offered a glimpse into her royal household as we meet the Queen at a Buckingham Palace garden party. Picture the scene. It's a warm summer's evening in the heart of the city of Westminster. Twilight is drawing in that space between light and dark where shadows grow long and the sun hovers just above the horizon. A perfect evening for a garden party. The dulcet tones of a string quartet fill the air. Red streamers hang from poles and crisscross above the heads of revelers busy gossiping about the haves and have-nots of Victorian high society. The women are dressed in richly colored and extravagantly patterned ball gowns that trail along the floor. The men meanwhile wear deep blue or black swallowtail coats to contrast with their ivory white shirts and gloves. All are dressed impeccably. For this is no ordinary garden party. It's the most exclusive garden party of them all. An evening with Queen Victoria herself in the gardens of Buckingham Palace. You arrive as part of the entourage of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli rubbing shoulders with the most powerful man in the country. Indeed the Disraelis are great friends with the Queen. They're united in their ambitious vision of Britain as a world power. As you follow the Prime Minister into the throng of gathered guests you catch sight of Her Majesty. She wears the same black mourning dress she has worn since the death of her husband Prince Albert but over the top is draped a jade blue sash, the colour of the clearest of seas. Even in her mourning, the Queen can still embrace a small flavor of celebration. She's flanked by her Royal Guards conspicuous in their blood-red tunics and lofty bearskin hats. The gold buttons that line their chests glint in the light of the rising moon. You head vaguely in Her Majesty's direction but in a flash the crowds part and you find yourself standing in front of the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. Before you can utter a word the Queen, curt as always, tells you to enjoy the ball and walks away to resume her efforts to speak to all her guests. Those who seek the Queen's grace and favor chase after her but you turn around and weave your way back into the gathered masses. Before long you're enveloped by it. Once again just an anonymous face in a Victorian crowd. So that's how we meet her in the game but what was she like in real life? To answer this and plenty more I'm joined by Alex Churchill to explore the real story of one of Britain's most famous Queens. We'll unpack the myths about her personality and discover how she ruled during one of the most seismic eras in British history. Join us as we cross the contours of time to hear the real echoes of history resonating from Assassin's Creed Syndicate. Welcome to Echoes of History Alex it's fantastic to have you here.
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Well thank you for having me.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Can we start off with I guess when and where is Victoria born and what do we know about her parents and her family?
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' So the big thing with Victoria is she's basically part of a scramble to populate the throne I guess. There's lots of uncles but the upshot of it is there's a succession crisis in a way because of George IV not having an heir all the way down which means the throne is going sideways to his brothers. The two brothers we care about. We care a little bit about Victoria's father otherwise she wouldn't be around but we care about George and then William who takes the throne after him until 1837 and the point is when she's born she's only fifth in line to the throne but the important thing about it is that all of those are a generation above her so she's going to outlive all of them and the brothers are having a race effectively to produce an heir first and she is the winner. She's like the Derby winner basically in baby form but when she's born her name isn't even Victoria it's Dreena so short for Alexandrina. Victoria is her mother's name so it's kind of slung in as an afterthought. It's a middle name so I think they decided eventually that that didn't quite have the gravitas for a royal name which is why she went with Victoria but I feel bad for her upbringing because no royal upbringing is not fraught with just chaos basically because it's the weirdest kind of goldfish environment you could possibly try and raise a child in and I'm trying to describe it without swearing but it's nuts. It's basically nuts and hers is no different and there's always people that have got a vested interest in interfering with their upbringing because they might get something out of them later on and in her case her mother's quite vulnerable like Miranda Richardson played her in ''The Young Victoria'' film and I think she put just enough of Queenie in her to make it viable like I kind of just see her and I think that she played her as kind of a bit ditzy, not stupid but easily manipulated and that's what happens. There's a guy, there's always a guy with ulterior motives and in this case, it's Conroy and he tries eventually to kid on that he's related to the royal family but it's nonsense but what he does is infiltrate her household as her mother's lover and take control of everything and what he ultimately wants is to almost to rule through her. Obviously, we've had George III on the throne for an eternity and that and suddenly there's this idea of a young woman hitting the throne or a girl even depending on how long her predecessors live and now we'd be like Queen Elizabeth came to the throne at 25, she was awesome but then they're thinking oh my god like the monarchy is a nightmare at the time. It's not in good standing with the people. You've had George III and his nuttiness, bless him. You've had George IV and his overspending and he's just not nice and then William IV is he's alright but he's just a gruff sailor. That's what he is. He's not really born to be king and he does alright. He doesn't cause any more damage but he's not inspiring anybody and he's also only on the throne for seven years so by the time she comes to the throne people are not expecting much from her and they're gonna get a surprise which is nice to know but Conroy has positioned himself to come to power and what he tries to do is get papers signed that say that he'll effectively be a regent until she knows what she's doing or until she turns 18 and William IV, god love him, if he does one thing right it's survive until one month after her 18th birthday. He clings on by his fingernails and we're spared that.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Just a spiked Conroy and I think it's Sir John Conroy, is that Mark Strong in ''The Young Victoria'' film?
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Yeah.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' I mean I think he plays him as the detestable charming person, plays him to perfection in my mind, Sir John Conroy is Mark Strong.
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' He does. I think if anyone's playing Conroy and you don't want to punch him in the face they're not doing it right because there's just that smarmy level where he's kind of worked his way in and he's higher than he ever thought he would be and he's aiming even higher. That's one thing that actually and it lasts with Victoria into her adulthood is that it prepares her. Mental well-being and physical well-being is in doubt in the last few years of living under a roof with that man and Queen Adelaide's noticed it. They're talking about a separate household for her. It's not good. It's violent in terms of like arguments and it's stressful and it's not good for her and what she does do is the second that she does come to the throne, instead of collapsing and letting him take control, she punts him out and he never gets another look in and it involves punting her mother out of any influence as well. It shapes her for the future because it makes her so fiercely protective of her birthright and her power which leads to many, many comedy incidents with Prince Albert later on but it does make her determined not to be stomped on ever again.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' And I guess it's quite striking that Conroy decides to try and get himself into this position not by ingratiating himself with the future monarch but by going on the attack trying to control her and every aspect of her life in a way that he almost certainly wouldn't have done if that was a Prince who was going to come to the throne. So Victoria must have been acutely aware from a young age that her sex was going to be a factor she was going to have to deal with.
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Yeah because I think he probably banks on her coming to the throne before 18 and then there being a job opportunity there for a bloke to step in but he very much tries to go down the road of making her utterly dependent on him and all he does is make her hate him because he just does it in a way that makes him the villain in everything and she despises him and like I said the flaming rows and the arguments. I mean for the pre-Victorians to be commenting on someone's mental well-being like it must have been pretty bad in that house if she was that far gone. He cut her off, he isolated her and her mother played into all of this. She's not innocent either but what he did was manipulate a situation where she had no one else to go to which means that that job opportunity is there because she goes and recruits Melbourne for it and she clings to him and without him, she'd have been doomed in the first few months of her reign. So he does create that space for a strong man to occupy to guide her through her early reign but he makes himself so hateful to her that he doesn't get the job which makes me LOL.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah I mean it's short-sighted but it's a horrendous way to be short-sighted and I think that must surely then have coloured both Victoria's view of her mother but also do you think it made her a stronger person? You say she does rely on Melbourne and we'll get to her early reign I guess later on but she must have had a problematic relationship with her mother who allowed all of this to happen around her but do you think it galvanized her in any way to think that a woman shouldn't allow herself to be treated like that?
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' It's going to sound like I'm contradicting myself because she was contradictory about it. This is someone who insists on leaving the honour and obey in her wedding vows but throws stuff at her husband if he gets too uppity and takes too much of her power away and she rages against physically what being a woman and a queen does and we'll get to it because it's the forced repetitive childbirth and what it does to a woman's body makes her so so angry but actually I think the making of Queen Victoria is when all of those men are removed and there are none of them left and that's when Albert dies and I actually think that she comes out of that a much stronger human being like we're fast forwarding here but when we get to the end like he wouldn't have recognised her in 1880, 1890 as the woman he was married to because she was formidable and quite something else and at times yes she did lean on men but those kind of relationships changed and we'll talk about some of them because I think some of them revolve around boinking and wanting to get laid because she's only in her early 40s when she gets made a widow and she's not dead inside and then some of those are friendship and support like with Disraeli and some of them like Melbourne are absolute necessity at the beginning so there's all different kinds of relationships with men and what was funny was I did that chapter for Ian Dale's book about her and I made it all about her being a woman I made it all about her body, her body issues, her femininity, how she saw herself in the world as a woman and a queen and the only review I saw of it the guy said she's written it through the eyes of the men in her life I'm like oh did you get that wrong? I signpost her development as a person but they do not define her she defines herself through her relationships with them and I think to take that away from her she would stomp her little tiny feet and scream at you if she saw you trying to do that.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' It sounds a little bit like you know Conroy does this damage and then her later life is the process of healing that and closing the gap that Conroy has opened up so that actually she doesn't need the men in there.
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Yeah it's brilliant because like if you think about it so she goes from Conroy and it's not only Melbourne we talk about Melbourne because we're anglo-centric all the time in our history but you have to factor in her mother's family is important so her mother is a Coburg which is hugely important because the Coburgs are so influential Albert is a Coburg but the reason she marries a Coburg is because of uncle Leopold who's her mother's brother he's Leopold of the Belgians not that one not the absolute monster that's later on a different one and he sends someone called Baron Stockmar over at the very beginning as well and it's Stockmar and Melbourne that walk her through her early reign and that's very much walking a young girl not it's quite funny not only in terms of matters of state as well but one of my favorite anecdotes is like just basic adulting I mean this is someone who has had to hold her mother's hand going up and down the stairs at Kensington and isn't allowed to do anything for herself and she won't exercise and she starts her reign and she's tiny so any weight gain with Victoria is quite noticeable and she's at Windsor with Melbourne and for some reason they're in St George's Chapel and she gets all morbid looking at all the family tombs down in the crypt and says oh I'll be dead in here one day like proper 18 year old girl miserable statement and he says well you will be if you get too fat you need to do some exercise and she goes mental and her argument is she doesn't like going outside to walk because she gets stones in her shoes which is a particularly lame teenage girl argument but she does win that argument because he says well if you get too fat you'll die and she says well the Queen of Spain does loads of exercise and she's really fat so no and Melbourne's like well played
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' When precisely then does Victoria become queen and how quickly do we see a change in her attitude? Is she really quick to eject Conroy and her mother then?
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Get out of my house she's moving out and she ain't taking him with her not a chance there is resentment towards her mother for letting Conroy do that to her yes there is there's a very definitive line Victoria draws the line and her mother is never allowed any influence on her reign but her mother is not shut out of her life she doesn't do that Conroy on the other hand get out don't want to see your face ever again be gone and I'm not sure how long he sort of sidles around her mother after that when he's not going to get anything out of her but he kind of drops off the story but he is punted forcefully the day that she is able to do it and her mother there's a very definitive line you are my mother I don't hate you you will always be my mother but stay away from my throne kind of thing and that happens in 1837 like I said for all involved this is a happy occurrence that poor William lost till one month past her 18th birthday so she is of age but she's cripplingly immature she's not unprepared in that she hasn't been taught about the constitution and stuff for that but in terms of life and dealing with people she's been so isolated it causes a big stink earlier in her reign because it's to do with the ladies of the bedchamber because she just throws a tantrum because she wants what she wants and she's queen and you can't tell her otherwise whereas actually she was wrong then it's to do with letting your sitting prime minister appoint the ladies of the bedchamber and when Melbourne went she said no so Melbourne stayed because the other government wouldn't take over so she has a lot to learn in terms of dealing with people but it's not like she's been uneducated about what being a queen involves that's been taken care of in spades if you had to give Conroy any credit at all it's education in terms of subjects and languages and diplomacy and things like that is better than the one she's going to give some of her children
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' medieval history is my thing Victorian history not so much but I've watched ''The Young Victoria'' and I have actually read Victoria's diaries when she was young for a project for work and it is striking how utterly immature and engaged with stuff like opera and things like that she seems to be before she becomes queen but then how that flips in the instant William IV dies it's like she just changes completely and she understands the mission she gets that she's now got freedom that she's been craving for years and she means to use it seems to be that real switch in her to me
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' first of all i'll blow your mind and tell you that the diaries are basically fake so her stupid youngest daughter beatrice god damn you beatrice so when Victoria died she copied them out omitting all the paragraphs she thought her mother wouldn't approve of people seeing and burnt the originals so they are a redacted edited version of what she actually wrote so there's some semblance of her in there but yeah she doesn't go nuts she doesn't do whatever the 1830s girl equivalent is of hookers and blows she's not out there like on a vegas weekend blowing all her money and shunning her responsibilities but definitely there's a joy in like i can go out into the world and enjoy things like going to the opera now and i'm not controlled my every waking moment by this swine that i could not get out of my household for love nor money so i she does enjoy that she's never gonna not like being in charge she definitely likes that aspect of her reign sometimes a little too much she is the last one that doesn't quite get the concept of constitutional monarchies take that rule where a monarch technically has the power to veto a law when it comes up from the commons and the lords that hasn't been done since 1707 at this point so it hasn't been done in a century but she still struggles sometime with the concept of the fact that you may be queen but you reign you don't rule after her there's no doubt Edward VII gets it George V definitely gets it and then it's a straight run all the way down to king charles the third they get it i think she's the last one that still has the occasional tantrum where she's just like but i'm queen and this is what i want and you can't tell me otherwise and people are like well we have a constitution that kind of says we can your majesty some of that might be immaturity as well and some of it i think just personality i love her i think she's great she's absolutely nuts people say all the boring Victorians and i'm like no no that was PR it was very good PR she was anything but boring
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' as she becomes queen what is the kind of social and political context when we think of the 19th century now we very much think of Queen Victoria and she dominates our thinking for that whole period I think but she's coming at the end of the Georgian era England has an Empire but has lost a lot of land in America and all of that kind of thing where are we politically and socially when she becomes queen you mentioned that we're in a constitutional monarchy but she's still willing to sort of buck against that a little bit
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' it's also in some ways yes we're on a downward slide the Americas have been lost 40 years before but then we're still 20 years after waterloo and wellington is still a towering figure in politics and everywhere so there's definitely this old god sitting around from then but then this era is what will shape the british Empire as we think of it like with the sun never setting on it and all of that stuff from our childhood when it was still okay to make memes like that and people didn't scream at you and now it's very frowned upon but the scramble for africa hasn't happened so we do have an Empire we are well established in india by this point but we're still 20 years before the mutiny so east india company has still got their claws into everything over there and that won't be the same in every way possible the world will not be the same by the time she dies it's such a span she's born in 1819 so she's born four years after waterloo and she dies a decade before the first world war so there's a massive amount of time to deal with i think in terms of her and the royal family like i said at this point they're a very low ebb with the public they are not popular i think there was a certain amount of sympathy with George iii then we've had George IV who frankly no one liked then you've had William IV who sort of like you say he's all right he's functional he's a good man in a storm but he's not a colorful monarch they've been overspending they've been over chagging they've been behaving badly her uncles on mass are referred to as queen Victoria's wicked uncles Albert does my head in sometimes he really does but you do have to give him credit for spotting that and this whole genesis of this whole where we see these middle class values with the royal family that they have today like when people go oh look kate's wearing a dress we saw her wear six months ago and everybody gets really excited all of that starts with Albert it really explodes and takes root and becomes the norm under George V but she's about to kind of become the savior in a way of the British monarchy without the huge fanfare of saying it just by actions and as i said this is a huge PR exercise to convince people that they are just like us and these people aren't monsters and they're not out having decadent orgies while you're all struggling to earn a living so she's on the brink of becoming part of a huge change in how people see the monarchy and how the monarchy operates as well like for a modern age.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' and Victoria will famously rule for a very very long time. Is there any way that we can give a kind of a broad sweep to her reign? Obviously Albert will arrive, children will arrive but is there a short version of Victoria's reign?
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' yeah so it comes in blocks block number one come to the throne lean on Melbourne learn the job get married been about 10 years punching out kids takes up the Albert dying Albert dying low point but even then you feel like she disappeared and no one saw her for 15 years no not true she disappeared from social life she did not stop doing her job she did it all the way through but i would take that second block all the way through to like 1870-ish which is where she stopped having children she's a middle-aged woman she's been a grieving widow she's been out of the public eye somewhat by her own volition because she just doesn't want to engage with people but she is still doing her job a constitutional role and then after that i'm going off on a tangent here but you saw this with Elizabeth II as well there was that point in the 90s when nobody liked her when Diana died and everybody was mean about her and people said horrible things about the queen and we do this to middle-aged women in society we love them when they're young and beautiful and mothers and spitting out kids and everything and she benefited from that that bit in the middle before they become the lovely old grandma that you all love as well there's a chunk in the middle where society is really horrible to women it's like it's almost like what are you here for like you're not young and attractive anymore and you're not my nan so i'm ambivalent towards you and she took a hit in that period in that block and it also it has wider connotations revolutionary activities going on elsewhere in Europe as well so it does tie in with all of that too that's a downward ebb and that covers John Brown as well who i don't think she married but i really hope that they did have a sexual relationship because like i said 41 when she died and if that's how she got her kicks and it didn't hurt anybody then why do we care so i hope she points him silly and had a great time but then he dies and then from the 1880s on she becomes very much this stately motherly figure someone said to me would you ever write a book about queen Victoria and i said if i did it would be about the last 10 years of her life because i found it immeasurably sad going through those diaries and letters when i was doing stuff for George V watching her lose her grip on her place in the world and she couldn't see properly so she couldn't read properly and in that you've got Abdul Kareem as well Abdul Kareem i feel is like when the current queen had that very good looking major Johnny something who's now assigned because he's tired of being referred to as the very good looking major with the lovely calves but if you're a woman in your 80s and 90s and you're a queen and you can't pay to have some eye candy hang around you then why are you even doing the job and i feel like that's what he was but he gave her something as well he gave her a huge measure of happiness because he gave her something new and shiny she wasn't just waiting to die he taught her how to speak hindi he taught her about indian culture he taught her how to make curries he made her excited about something again and you know what if you want to take that away from your mom and be a dick about it like Edward VII was and i'm gonna judge you not her because she was an old lady and there must be a point where she's sitting there and she's immobile and she's not well and she's losing her eyesight where she's thinking why am i still here and i would love to explore that better because there's a period in there as well where it looks like despite all of her hard work and despite bashing out nine children that actually her dynasty might not carry on because all the heirs almost die at once so that's what i would broadly term it at a young mother Victoria middle-aged Victoria who doesn't have a good time at all and part of that's on everybody else as well as her elderly Victoria and then the very tail end of Victoria where i think she can see a bit of the writing on the wall she's not dumb she knows her grandson she knows Willie and as soon as she dies Willie kind of positions himself as the preeminent European royal which is just dangerous for everybody because he's a fool but he was been on the throne since 1888 at that point and yeah he had been around longer than anyone else and he had a swagger about him that got everybody into trouble eventually so four main phases to queen Victoria
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' I like that fascination with the older Victoria. My late grandmother, God love her, one of the absolute treasures of my life. I'm 99% certain that she frequently paid for unnecessary building work by bad builders who were willing to work in her garden with their shirts off because she liked a bit of eye candy.
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' good for her, her money. I'd be like hell yeah he looks great with his top off I've gone doing the garden now we had the garden done last week and my money I'll do what I want she liked the guy he was a handsome man he was quite charming she liked having him around he made her feel like she wasn't done I can't imagine at the age we are roughly the same age you and I we can't imagine what it's like to sit there at double this age and think I'm irrelevant now I'm never going to do anything important again I might as well not be here and he made her feel good and so I think he's immeasurably important and it makes me dislike Edward VII even more that he was mean to him because if you can't let your mother just have that in her old age then you're not a decent person for me
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' I did just want to pick up a couple of things from what you've said so far so you mentioned Victoria despising elements of being a woman particularly the having lots of children how does that manifest '''i'''tself during that period of her life?
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Manifest herself in a lot of complaining so the first pregnancy she would ultimately be annoyed that he knocked her up so quickly yes it's her duty and everything but she kind of just liked the boinking she wasn't really into the whole sort of the strain of having a child so the first time she's pregnant she refused to wear a corset was still expected that she would wear stays i think almost to the end and she went no i'm queen can't make me and also as well she was fabulously like indiscreet ask me if this makes sense right you're a male doctor the queen is your patient and she's pregnant you expect to get all the sordid detail right but what's brilliant is that her doctor's like she just won't shut up i don't need all this is this TMI this is too in my head and i can't handle this because she'd moan about every aspect of it because she was having a miserable time with it and she wanted him to suffer as well so he would get gynecological details and he'd be like i don't need to hear this and i'm like you're a doctor dude you kind of do he said and she looks like a barrel because she's so short and she's like fat and she won't wear her corset and i don't know what to do with her and they actually think that she will kill herself in labor like they're like i don't know how she's going to survive it and even Albert says she's going to be a nightmare and she's not she's a trooper she has the kid she has postnatal depression she does but like in terms of the actual physical acts of giving labor she does it and she has Vicky first and then very quickly after she has Bertie who really are the important two because Vicky will go on to marry a German Emperor and mother William II god love her and ruin his psyche for the rest of us and Bertie obviously will become Edward III so she's what like 20-21 she's got two kids till about 1859 i think there's only four years in the whole of that span where she's not pregnant at some point the statistic for how many months she is pregnant while Albert is alive is staggering and miserable and she told everyone about it and it's brilliant it manifests itself in the best way when the first two daughters get married and they go off to have children so you have Vicky goes to Germany and she gets pregnant with Wilhelm II “Willie”, the first grandchild and she's only about 18-19 at this point she's like mother it's delightful i've made a soul and she's like oh it's horrible they're gonna treat you like a cow it's agony pushing it out your body's going to be ruined you're going to be fat no one's going to want to look at you she utterly destroys any romantic notion she's got about motherhood and just says it sucks then alice who's the third child and she is the mother of alexandra of hess who will marry nicholas ii so she's important too but when alice gets pregnant for the first time there's a more serious letter and it's less funny but she basically says to her i hate that we have to do this i hate that our role in life requires us as very young women to ruin ourselves and be ruined by our husband in the name of a throne and producing heirs and it pains me to see the beautiful young wife reduced to that she hates that that's part of their job she knows it's part of her job and she does it she carries on having kids i mean like she was fond of sex and it shows so she gets the number six i think it is which off the top of my head is arthur but there are a lot of them excuse me if and this revolutionary possibility has risen its head and that is pain relief in childbirth and on this occasion she allows herself to be talked out of it by and this is brilliant i don't have any children but if a man said to me no no your majesty it is god's will that women suffer giving birth otherwise what's the point i'd have hit him with a brick but on this occasion she accepts it has it but then baby number seven comes along and she's like you can get out of my face i want all of the drugs now and she becomes the first royal to have chloroform when she's having baby number seven so she's revolutionary in that as well they do tell her the more children she has the more bad temper she gets during the pregnancy and the more she takes it out on Prince Albert which i love because it's like you you and your penis get away from me i hate you which is basically the theme every time she's pregnant they tell her after number seven with the pain killing one don't have any more because we worry for your mental health because you're so evil when you're pregnant and it stresses you out it stresses everybody else out you've got enough kids now you don't need to she gets pregnant an eighth time and then gets pregnant a ninth time the urban legend which i hope is true is that the ninth time Prince Albert was forbidden from being in her presence because she got more and more pregnant if she saw his face the angrier she would get and she would throw stuff at him and scream at him and they feared for the life of the mother and the child she used to get so enraged at the sight of him so he was banned from her presence and would have to communicate by passing notes but also as well for all the comedy of her being pregnant that often it factors into what we were talking about earlier which is how fiercely she defends her throne because every time she's in confinement and she's busy having a child and dealing with postnatal depression and all the other yucky stuff that comes with having another kid he gets more of her power he stands in and he does more work for her and she hates it she needs it it's not like she says take it away from him i don't want him to have it but watching him do her job while she can't because she's supposed to do two jobs at once and that is populate the throne and reign makes her angry as well so that i think is part of the rage is she's not just raging at his mad bits getting her pregnant again she's raging against watching him get to do her job because she can't because she has to do the other job so yeah many manifestations of Victoria and the body issues that come in with it as well i mean in the weight game she likes to eat she's quite greedy and proudly greedy she's like i like food not sorry but if you're four foot ten or whatever she was and it shows every time you gain weight and she did grow outwards as her reign went on i think you'd class her as morbidly obese based on that chart. She wasn't happy with their own body; she hated it.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' It sounds to me like there's a lot of really weird juxtaposition in there in that she hates lots about being a woman, particularly with the childbirth responsibilities that something's out of her control when she wants control over everything it forces her to give away control to a man which is not what she wants to do doesn't seem like she's particularly empowering of women particularly her own daughters yet there's lots of ways in which if she's adopting painkillers and refusing to wear corsets and things like that because she's in a position to make that happen it's almost like it makes that acceptable to other women as well which is empowering women even if she doesn't mean it.
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' yeah she absolutely is not a feminist she actually thinks feminists are yuck but she is a feminist and that's what i love about her she's so contradictory she just is who she is and you have to accept her for it and she is contradictory completely i mean she hates that the children interfere between the time she would be able to spend with Albert she just wants to be with her husband she likes her husband quite a lot and they're in the way but it doesn't mean she doesn't love the children she does love the children but then my god you're not showing it much we can talk about the pendulum of royal i can't say the word i usually use to describe it but a pendulum of royal shenanigans maybe that swings between not parenting your offspring at all and parenting them too much and either way they both end up psychologically distraught and unable to function as grown-ups but that's more on Albert than it is on Victoria there's things where she is conscious that she puts her foot down and screams and stamps so much about her power as a queen that she mitigates it by stepping back as a wife so when he does institute this horrific parenting regime of education that drives his into the ground she lets him like you're the husband you are the father you raise them as you see fit you educate them as you see fit like she will back off for him as well but then the next day she'll be screaming and throwing things at him again so yeah trying to label her you'll just tie yourself up in knots
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' is it too much of a cliche to say that the biggest kind of challenge in her life was losing Albert because he's such an important part of her life and her personality and I guess the way she views herself is it too much of a cliche to say that losing him is the big moment in her life and her reign?
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Again a contradiction of course it is we know that she had his room laid out forever more as if he was still going to come back to it we know she was distraught she loved her husband like she was a monster to him on occasion but I don't think he was like completely great all the time either but he was her partner in everything and he was gone and she was only 41 years old but I actually think that in retrospect it's the making of her and like I said by 1880 he would not have recognized the Victoria that he saw she was not the woman he had married she was someone else and I don't think the space would have been there for her to become that person had he still been there.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, and I guess one of the other challenges you know we're talking here loosely about ''Assassin's Creed'' is that she's forced to survive numerous assassination attempts which must have been pretty scary for someone who in the park a lot in public
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Um, yeah I mean a little bit scary, but actually she's badge of honor she says they've tried to kill me eight times i must be awesome i must be so important for eight of them to try to come at me the first one she's actually three months pregnant with Vicky that's really early in the reign and that makes people think oh she may be 18 and very small but she appears to have some backbone because she's having a carriage ride in Hyde Park and they try to kill her or i think this one is the one where he pretends he's got a giant sort of network of anarchists or politically motivated supporters but he's just a crazy bloke who lives with his mom and he can't shoot straight and she literally ducks puts her head up they take him down she goes can we finish the carriage ride now please and everyone thinks wow that's quite cool but i was expecting wailing and crying and screaming and a lot more drama she surprises people with that one my my favorite one is one of the later ones there was a parade going on through so because obviously Windsor and Eton are basically the same place all the Eton college school boys had come out to watch and they took the would-be assassin down so this guy ended up pinned on the floor while school boys in top hats beating with umbrellas which i think is hilarious like he went from i'm going to kill the Empress to i got beaten up by some school kids outside winter castle so yeah he got what was coming to him but yeah she actually joked about it in the end obviously i think if you're staring down the barrel of it and someone is about to pull the trigger then yeah you'd be afraid but she very much mocked them and laughed it off as if they were insignificant which actually PR wise is about the best thing you can do
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' I think for most of us who aren't involved in the study in this period a lot so I mean me, for me.
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Yeah, I mean weird castles and stuff like that.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah you know crazy stuff probably my enduring image of Victoria is the photo that we have I guess the older lady the larger lady looking particularly grumpy and we have this image of her being quite a spiky hard person to deal with do you think that's a fair reflection of her personality
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' no not at all really it depended on who you were if she didn't like you hell yeah like also as well you'll notice try and find pictures of her where she's staring right at the camera they're very very rare and they're because the cameraman caught her off guard because she doesn't believe that you should be allowed to stare upon majesty she splits two eras at the beginning of her reign you had to paint a portrait and you can airbrush a lot out with the portrait but then if you're waving a camera around in 1900 you can see all the fat you can see the age and i don't think she was particularly impressed with how life became with the photograph compared to those sort of doll-like portraits you see of her in the 1830s she didn't think people should be able to gaze directly on majesty as in like make eye contact so you won't see a lot of them like that and she could be a grumpy piece of work i mean i'd be a grumpy piece of work with Edward VII as well if he was my kid so he's boffed all these people he's end up getting dragged through court on gambling stuff he's almost died of typhoid he's not parenting his own kid properly so you've now got a grandson Prince eddie who's just as bad getting wrapped up in the cleveland streets so by the 1890s i'd have had some harsh words for some of my relatives as well also so Prince Albert had cultivated this domesticity this middle-class domesticity that we still associate with the royal family today and i think what his death does do is break that for a while George V brings it back and he nails it home during the first world war but there's a gap in between that might not have been there if Albert was around and that gap is all of her family running around making dicks of themselves and doing inappropriate things and threatening this image that they had cultivated all of those winter holter portraits of the family all gathered around the feet of Albert and Victoria they're PR they're crafted PR to make them look like a happy domestic unit which is in contravention of everything that had gone before she came to the throne like you'd have to go back into George III and his large family but all that mess in the middle it's moving them away from that it's moving them away from that royal family crowning it this is like the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha royal family this is not the georgians which is interesting because it's a very definitive sort of PR move and it kind of crumbles a bit in her later reign because she's got sons and grandsons just doing ridiculous things and i think maybe if Albert had still been alive then that might not have happened but i still don't think that's justification for wishing he hadn't died i guess like because i honestly i like the person she becomes and she is formidable and if she doesn't like you you know it so she really really hates some of her prime ministers and it's great so Disraeli knew how to play her and she adored him and she said when Disraeli died it was the worst she'd ever felt at losing someone that included Albert and it included John Brown and i think because she found common ground in him and it was because he didn't treat her like an organ of state he treated her like a human being he flirted with her she flirted back i don't think she was buffering Disraeli at all but i think that the banter and the human connection meant so much to her moving into that last block of her life that we're talking about so coming out of the sort of the republican bit and the bit where she's been shielded off and emerging back into the social life of the country he is so pivotal in that she was devastated when he died but she really really hates some of the others and she's just a complete dick to them and i love it because there's not a lot they can do about it they can be replaced she can't and she knows it so she's just not at all bothered about how they think about her which is great just in bullet point form she is funny she's got a disgusting laugh really dirty laugh she's greedy she loves food she loves stuff in her face she's got no problem being dicks to people if she doesn't like them but she's also very sweet and very caring as well with her female relatives and she is that kind of grandmother to Europe in the end like Alex of Hess is one of the big ones so alice her daughter dies very young and those children are left without a and she really does step in as a mother figure for those grandchildren because she would have only been sort of around early 40s herself anyway at the time when alex was growing up don't think of her as an old lady grandmother she's a middle-aged woman who's stepping into that role for her granddaughters who have lost that mother figure and also as well like she's ridiculous at times and i love it one of the things she used to do every time she crossed the border on a train into Scotland or in a carriage she'd suddenly assume this pseudo Scottish accent and everyone would be like why is she talking funny what's she doing and she'd just basically pretend to be Scottish the whole time that she was there as if people wouldn't notice but then i think also as well don't underestimate her and think that she's not smart because she is and she's smart in the same way as George V is smart and i keep going back to him because he's my main royal focus he wasn't the smartest man in the room book smart but he did get people and he did read people and he knew his people and she's very unsqueamish about the realities of her job and what it involves so she loves the idea of britain having an Empire and ruling the world and everything but she understands that that only comes through hideous violence she's okay it's not a stance we would appreciate today but she understands that there's no nice way to do it and that it's going to be done through bloodshed so she's not dumb by any means she's hilarious she's needy as well and also as well i just think she's incredibly human i think she's more human than any other monarch i've had to look at like obviously i don't go back into your weird little era where they're all riding around wearing tights and stuff but i find her incredibly human and that's despite people trying to strip her of that humanity that's despite lord isha who's a monster who was the first person to publish any of her papers after she died that's despite him not using any of the correspondence she had with women because women have got nothing interesting to say to each other yeah if i tell you that this was a man who had very few women in his outlook and did all his own son then you'll appreciate that his opinions necessarily weren't that great across the board but also as well that people have like written out the feminine side it's why when i did that chapter on her i made it all about the feminine side i did it to annoy lord isha i made the whole chapter revolve around the fact that she had a vagina because people pretended she didn't for so long and they took that away from her and what they did was take away the amazing job she did in doing two jobs at once not only has she got to populate the throne as a female as a queen but she has also she's the number one on the throne as well which was a rarity so i just think there's so much more to her than grumpy old lady but grumpy old lady she definitely could do that vibe if she wanted to
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' amongst many other things as well. What would you say then is Victoria's biggest legacy? We associate her with so much she rules for so long she's given her name pretty much to a century of history. Do you think she has one big standout legacy?
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Yeah, modern royal family i credit George V with implementing it and making it the standard but in terms of that we need to be approachable to normal people we need not to be these absolute dicks like George IV on a pedestal spending huge exorbitant amounts of money while our people starve who never come in contact with a normal person we can't be those people and expect to survive and the experimental stuff and the realization for that happens with her and Albert as well so we associate Victorians with a lot of things some of them quite bad like misogynistic and racist as well we would say that our forebearers thought very little of people who weren't white and i say this is someone whose dad comes from the Empire well he was born 12 weeks after partition so not really but what she is not and the reason that the royal family then transcend this kind of legacy for me in this period she's not a racist Edward VII not a racist like i say she completely embraced Abdul Kareem and his influence and learning about india and there was no semblance of shade about believing herself to be superior to non-white people Edward VII i really don't like that man but him as well he was absolutely disgusted at his peers attitude that they might be superior to someone who was black or brown and George V just does not have a racist bone in his body at all and i think it's interesting that the royal family as an institution which people look at and go they're crazy why do they still have that now it's because they stood above stuff that would have destroyed them like that like the terrible behavior like the racism although they are stupendously rich and depressingly well off they do work hard at the job they have made for themselves because that job is born with Prince Albert he's the one that first goes running off to the midlands when they said no it's a hotbed of sedition in Birmingham they'll kill you and he says i don't care i want to go and meet some of these people living on the bread line and find out what their lives are like i want to be approachable so they can tell me how i can change things and he didn't get to fulfill his work and it took more decades to happen because he wasn't around the fact that the royal family identified what needed to be done to sort of be palatable to a public going on as well that definitely starts in her reign.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah it sounds like her and Albert managed to bridge between the old world and the new world and the old world was seeing so many monarchies being kicked off their thrones that being that bridge making that transformation is what has kept a monarchy alive in England, or Britain until today.
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' What's really interesting is that it does seem deliberate but it is a bit haphazard and i think the difference between it starting but not fully taking root in Victoria's reign obviously it's because Albert's not there and he was doing more of it than she was but she was on board with it but she was not leading it like he would have had he been alive so it feels a bit haphazard and things don't stick and then they come back and then they try something different so there is a blatant realization that something needs to change to distance them far far away from the decades preceding them but because of the work that they did by the time we do get to George V and the first world war which propels him into the public arena more than any normal reign would have done because he was like what can i do i can get out there every day and work my ass off and meet everybody and talk to everybody and be part of the war effort with them the structure was there for him to do that because of them so he didn't have to do so much trial and error because they've done it before him so definitely although Albert had his moments yeah definitely Albert and Victoria are the basis for the monarchy we have today.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Thank you so much for joining us Alex it's been really nice to get to know Victoria a little bit better I think and to understand a bit more about her reign which hopefully provides a little bit of context for the syndicate in Victorian London where can people find you if they want to hunt you down and learn more about George V in particular.
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Okay so I have a substack which is like an online magazine that I produce articles for every week which you can find that a.churchill@substack.com or I have History Hack which is another podcast which is obviously not nearly as good as History Hits podcast but we try and also as well just generally great war group it's my charity which is aimed at not doing just the normal white men on the western front history of the First World War so basically anyway you can't get away from me I'll be down at chalk valley if this goes out before then and also we have Ways Fest as well talking about the Pacific.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Fabulous I subscribe to your substack and would recommend it to anyone and having been on History Hack a couple of times I would recommend that to anyone as well. Plenty of places for you to find Alex thank you so much for joining us Alex it's been great to chat to you.
+* '''Alexandra Churchill:''' Thank you.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' I hope you've enjoyed this episode of Echoes of History a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit next time we'll be stepping into the emerging world of the professional police force something syndicate players have had to get to grips with as we knock on the door and avoid the handcuffs at Scotland Yard don't forget to subscribe or follow echoes of history wherever you get your podcasts and if you're enjoying it you can leave us a review too. See you next time among the echoes of history.
+|-|2=
+'''''How The Metropolitan Police Shaped London'''''
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. Today we're taking another dark turn into the murky underbelly of Victorian London. Home to Assassin's Creed Syndicate, the setting for today's episode is a place that ought to have been a shining beacon in the gloom, a place that was home to the Metropolitan Police Force. Formed in 1829, following the examples of Paris and Glasgow, London was the third city to establish a police force. We're going to explore a name that has become synonymous with London's Metropolitan Police to this day, Scotland Yard. But what did a Victorian police station look like and what went on inside? Picture the scene. The year is 1868, the 31st year of Queen Victoria's reign. You find yourself walking along Whitehall on a typically smoggy day in London. Horse-drawn carriages painted in deep black speed past you. The rickety wheels clatter against cobblestones lining the street floor. You can hear the distant holler of newspaper sellers in Trafalgar Square just up the road, failing to convince passers-by to part with their cash. As you walk you're passed by all sorts of people. Milkmaids hauling huge tin barrels, workmen covered in soot and dust, and a surprising number of well-dressed politicians. But this is no coincidence. Whitehall is the beating heart of the city, the place where real power lies. You turn left and up into an open courtyard lined with trees swaying in the gloom. The yard is surrounded by iron railings and gas lampposts pockmarked with flecks of rust. Parked up at the side are more carriages but these have bars welded across the windows. The word police is painted in searing white across the wooden side panels. Milling about are several men dressed in dark blue tailcoats and capes. One of them wears a belt from which hangs a long and hefty truncheon. Another has a shining polished whistle hung around his neck. On their heads they all wear steel-ringed helmets embossed with a star and crown, the mark of a policeman. At the opposite end of the courtyard stands an imposing building with a grand arched doorway. This is Great Scotland Yard, the headquarters of the newly founded Metropolitan Police Force. Blue-clad police officers walk in and out like ants scurrying about their work. Its brick walls, the colour of red ochre, are cut through by rows upon rows of white rimmed windows. You walk in and are instantly greeted by a bustling hive of activity. A cacophony of clicks fills the air as telegraph receivers relay a multitude of messages. Uniformed officers and plainclothes detectives talk in hushed tones. The room is packed with desks littered with reams of paper as officers diligently note down shreds of information that might later bear importance. On a balcony up above you catch a glimpse of the holding cells used to detain delinquents and troublemakers who breach the peace. A piercing screech cuts through the hubbub as a policeman swings a cell door shut. The prisoner protests but the metallic clink of the lock seals his fate. He's spending the night in Scotland Yard. You walk on past the cells and approach a row of offices. Ahead of you is a wooden door, slightly ajar. Thin beams of light cascade out of the gap. You peer in and see two figures. One is wearing the distinctive navy blue uniform that marks him as a police officer. The other though is dressed in a black tailcoat, a top hat and wields a long thin cane. The man in black hands a thick wad of banknotes to the officer but the wad is far too thick and the policeman is far too smug for this to be his usual wage packet. It can only be one thing. This is a backhander, a bribe, the unmistakable mark of corruption. So much for Scotland Yard being a shining beacon in the gloom. You begin to move away not wanting to attract attention but it's too late. The man in black has spotted you through the back. You've been caught. The constable raises his whistle to his lips and then all hell breaks loose. This is how Scotland Yard is introduced to us in Assassin's Creed Syndicate. So to further explore the history, today I'm joined by Dr. Jonah Miller, lecturer in early modern British history at King's College London. Together we'll delve into when and how Scotland Yard became the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police, what role it played in shaping Victorian London and most importantly why it's called Scotland Yard despite being over 300 miles away from the Scottish border. Join us as we cross the contours of time and hear the real echoes of history resonating from Assassin's Creed Syndicate. Jonah, thank you so much for joining us on Echoes of History. I can't wait to find out more about Scotland Yard.
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' Great to be here, thank you for inviting me.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' To start us off with, maybe people in London know precisely what we're talking about when we say Scotland Yard but for those of us who live in the murky darkness beyond London, what are we talking about when we say Scotland Yard? What do we mean?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' Well Scotland Yard is a place but it's also a way of referring to an institution. So it's a place, it's in Whitehall and it's where the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police were for most of the 19th century. So Scotland Yard kind of became synonymous with the police and with detectives as a whole.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' And today we need to be a little bit careful because the Metropolitan Police isn't the only police force in London, so Scotland Yard actually means something really, really specific in London.
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' Yeah, so the Metropolitan Police Force was set up in 1829 and it's the first modern, organised, professional, hierarchical police force in Britain, not the first in the UK because several earlier versions were set up in Ireland and they were kind of the inspiration for it. And it starts off just being the area of Westminster, Whitehall and a few miles around. It's not the City of London, very importantly for people who are proud of the city's traditions, the city has its own police force. And then it expands so for most of the 19th century it's a 15 mile radius from Charing Cross, is the Metropolitan Police District.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' And why was Scotland Yard the Metropolitan Police? Why was it located on that spot in Whitehall? Why was it put there?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' This is kind of one of the interesting things about what 19th century policing actually was and the legacy that it's left to us. Earlier forms of policing had been very, very localised and very much under kind of local control of parishes and wards in cities. And what really changes with 1829 is the Met was directly connected to the government, the central government, through the Home Office. So the reason that the Met headquarters were in this place called Scotland Yard, which is basically on Whitehall, where the civil service was, is that originally it was basically a branch of the Home Office. So the Metropolitan Police Commissioners answered directly to the Home Secretary, as they still do, and this kind of link between central government and policing is really one of the big changes in 1829.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' The one thing we haven't addressed yet is why on earth the Metropolitan Police located in Whitehall are called Scotland Yard? Where does that name come from?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' It's actually, the address is number four Whitehall Place. So this is a set of kind of piggledy-piggledy Victorian government buildings off a little side street off Whitehall, which is the big road that connects Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square. This number four Whitehall Place backs onto a place called Scotland Yard, which is a yard. It's a courtyard. And when it was first created, there were kind of two functions for this building. One was that it was an administrative office for the commissioners. There were the commissioners and their clerks and lots of people doing lots of paperwork. And the other one, it was this police station for Division A of the Metropolitan Police, which is sometimes called the Home Division, which kind of policed Whitehall, basically. And their station looked out onto the back onto Scotland Yard. So their force became known as the Scotland Yard Force and the name stuck, basically. So then the whole setup began to be referred to as Scotland Yard.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' It's an interesting evolution of the name, isn't it? So people would maybe say, I'm going to Scotland Yard, meaning I'm going to the entranceway to the Metropolitan Police building at Whitehall. And Scotland Yard is the bit that weirdly stuck as the name for the whole organisation.
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' Yeah, I mean, I guess number four Whitehall Place doesn't quite roll off the tongue in the same way. And I mean, the thing that really kind of entrenches that name, Scotland Yard, is the creation of a detective force, which comes a little bit later. It's 1842 is the first detective, as it's known. And they operate out of this kind of back set of buildings, looking over Scotland Yard. So they are the people who really get associated with that name, Scotland Yard, you know, so-and-so of the yard. And that obviously lasts well into the 20th century.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Do we have any idea why a square, a yard in the middle of Whitehall is named Scotland Yard? Is there a connection to Scotland at all?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' There is. It's a little bit murky. Whitehall was a royal palace for a very, very long time before it became the kind of centre of the civil service. And in the late medieval period and into the early modern period, this particular part of Whitehall may have been where visiting Scottish royals would stay when they came to visit English monarchs. That's the kind of the story that's told. And it's probably more or less true, but there's-there's really very little documentation, so it's quite hard to be certain.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' I mean, tenuous and murky stories being connected with Scotland Yard in the 19th century is maybe something we need to be wary of. Who then is responsible for the rise of a police force and its basing in Whitehall? Why does London suddenly need a police force?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' The person who is sort of most strongly associated with this is Robert Peel. So he's the one who gives police officers some of their nicknames, like Peelers and Bobbies. So Bobbies is from Robert, Peelers is from Peel. Yeah, exactly. Slightly oddly, this is almost more a story about Ireland than about London. Robert Peel, later on in the 19th century, he becomes prime minister. But the point where we're talking about him, he's his home secretary. But before that, he has been chief secretary for And what he's done in that job is create police forces. So he's created a couple of different police forces, and they're the first people to be known as Peelers in Ireland. And then when he becomes home secretary in London in the 1820s, there are lots of people worrying about rising crime rates. And this is a bit of, again, slightly murky issue in that crime statistics of all kinds are difficult to interpret. Early 19th century crime statistics are especially difficult to interpret because often this is the first time that statistics are actually being gathered on a particular type of crime. So it's basically impossible to say whether the figures are going up or down. But some people think that they are going up. And Robert Peel likes setting up police forces. He likes the idea of government having a kind of set of men who can carry out orders and keep order and enforce law in a kind of centralized way. So he basically takes advantage of this atmosphere of some people saying that, you know, crime rates are going up and we need to do something. And he pushes through an act for the improvement of the police of the metropolis, which is the 1829 Act that creates the Metropolitan Police.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' It's interesting that it's an Irish template in a place called Scotland Yard that is so intimately associated with the city of London. It's a fascinating set of connections there.
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' There are more Irish connections as you go forward as well. I mean, so the first two police commissioners who Peel chooses, Colonel Charles Rowan, who is an Irish soldier and an Irish barrister called Richard Mayne. And the idea is that both of them know how police forces work because they've got experience of the Irish police forces. Maybe we'll come on to some of the later Irish connections, but it runs all the way through.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, fascinating. There's a perception in London, I guess, whether the statistics back it up or not, there's a perception that crime is growing. Is this a symptom of London itself expanding as a city, the increasing urbanisation of society? We're heading full steam into the Industrial Revolution period. Is there a sense that as more people pile in there, there needs to be some form of organised policing of the law in the city?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' Absolutely. So, I mean, the population of London is going absolutely through the roof in the sort of late 18th and early 19th century. And lots of people say that the old institutions just can't handle it. They're not up to it. And so there are lots of kind of stories about parish-based night watchmen who are chasing a suspect and then they get to the border with the next parish and they have to stop. Those stories are probably not true. There are people who are kind of propagandists for police reform who like to put stories like that about. And what does happen even before 1829 is that quite a lot of the local authorities carry out police reform on a kind of micro level. So a lot of parishes and the City of London, the old Corporation of London in the Square Mile, all of them in the early 19th century are sort of getting local acts of Parliament passed. They're doing a kind of tinkering with their local law enforcement structures. So they do have professional officers out on the beat, particularly at night. And one of the kind of curiosities of 1829 is that there's all this big fanfare and, you know, Peel announces that there's a new police for the metropolis. But at first, there are actually fewer officers on the beat after 1829 than there were before, because a lot of the old kind of parochial night watch forces get swept away and they're replaced with this new centralised force, which at the beginning doesn't have the numbers. I mean, they haven't recruited enough and they just can't operate on that scale at first. So it's sort of a curious situation where everybody is worried about the growth of London, about the perceived increase in crime. People at a local level are responding to that, but then there's this big central government intervention which is supposed to kind of really tackle it head on, and which initially may actually be less effective than the kind of localised responses.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' And those local parish-level police forces, presumably if they're not put in place by the government, they're being run by parish councils. It's coming down to how good the parish council is, how interested they are in law and order, how much money they have to spend. So presumably the wealthy areas, who maybe have less crime anyway, are the ones who weirdly can afford to be better policed than the areas who might need better policing. And maybe that's the intended benefit of a unified police force, that everywhere will get covered.
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' Absolutely. Before 1829, the parishes that have the best, the largest at least, night watch forces are places in West London where the membership of the parish, like half the people on what would be called the vestry rather than the parish council, half the people on the vestry are titled. They're perfectly happy to kind of splash a bit cash to have lots of people protecting their property from burglars. Whereas in East London, around the docks, there are parishes where you don't have a And so people are paying for local law enforcement through local taxes, through parish taxes. That doesn't mean they have nobody working on the beat, but it does mean that they don't have the kind of same scale of resources as in West London. That said, what they do have is some control over local law enforcement. So if you're a parish ratepayer, you pay your parish taxes, then you're effectively the boss of the night watch. I mean, you can sort of, you know, if you bump into a night watchman at night, you can tell them, head over there because I heard something going on. Or you can, if you're a bit drunk, you can get them to kind of guide you home. There's a much closer connection between the sort of respectable residents of the area and the people doing law enforcement than there is after 1829. And that's one of the things that some people really complain about, that policing is kind of taken out of their hands and suddenly it's all being run by the Home Office rather than by, you know, sort of upstanding parishioners.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' I have absolutely no desire to get political with this. I'm just struck as we're talking about how some things really haven't changed. You know, we get increasing populations in cities that lead to a perception that there's an increase in crimes, that we're currently grappling with problems of, is it better to devolve power to local regional police forces and mayors and things like that? Or is it better to have it all centralised? It seems like these were things that they were thinking about and juggling with 200 years ago, and we almost haven't gone entirely away from them. So not meant as any kind of political comment on anything, just an observation that the world never really changes, does it? So Syndicate, the game is set in 1868, so we're 40 years into the life of the Metropolitan Police Force here. If you and I walked into Scotland Yard to report a crime in 1868, do we know what that building might have looked like? What might have welcomed us as we walked through the door?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' The first thing we would see, I think, would be just enormous piles of paper everywhere. It was almost immediately overwhelmed by the amount of bureaucracy required to run a kind of city-wide police force. And these were old, slightly dilapidated buildings that all had labyrinthine corridors connecting them together. There's a nice quote from The Times that describes Scotland Yard as a dingy collection of mean buildings in a state of hopeless confusion. It's a sort of Dickensian image of a kind of chaotic bureaucracy. Huge stacks of paper everywhere, clerks running around between them trying to find the right document. Also, of course, a load of police officers who, in 1868, have just had a kind of major reform of their uniform. They've just got helmets rather than reinforced top hats.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Whoa, wait, wait. Reinforced top hats? This is what police are wearing?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' That's amazing. From 1829 until the 1860s, the uniform of the Metropolitan Police Officer is a reinforced top hat, a cape, and a kind of a big overcoat, all dark blue. And then in the 1860s, partly because they are increasingly worried that police officers are basically not properly protected, they start getting helmets. Though that's also connected to a kind of call from some quarters for a more military style of police. So again, around the same time as you get helmets introduced, you get military style drill. You get lots of calls for police officers to be armed. This is from around the middle of the 19th century. The Colt revolver is appearing more and more in London in the hands of suspected criminals. And there are these cartoons showing a burglar with a Colt revolver up against a police officer with a reinforced top hat and a stick. The suggestion is the police need more defence and more equipment. So there are some people saying that police should carry guns. There are some people saying they should at least carry cutlasses. And this is when they get their helmets. They've also just at this point recently been allowed to grow beards for the first time. So in 1829, they're forbidden to have moustaches or beards. And that's kind of relaxed in the 1860s. And also in the 1860s, this is the first time that they are allowed to appear in public, not in uniform, even when off duty. From 1829 until the 1860s, police officers have to wear their uniform all the time. And the only signifier that they're on duty is a little sort of armband, which they don't wear when they're off duty.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' I'd never known that. That's absolutely unbelievable that you would have to wear your work uniform all the time, even when you're not at work, is something I think we would find incredibly weird today. And whilst I'll say I find that weird, I'm also writing myself a note to start a petition immediately after this to bring back reinforced top hats and capes for police officers. I mean, stab vests and everything else, absolutely great. Reinforced top hats and capes has got to be where it's at. We're still having conversations about arming the police today, aren't we? So again, 150 years later, these are still questions that are being bandied around and questioned today that existed right from almost the beginning of the police force. While we're on the uniformed police officers, do we know what kind of equipment they would have carried? You mentioned, you know, they're not armed with pistols. There's that cartoon of them with a reinforced top hat and a stick. Do we know what actual policing equipment they would have carried that we might recognise today?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' Yeah, so they do. They have truncheons all the way through. They have truncheons. So that's kind of the baseline. I guess the things that change are that periodically they do get issued with cutlasses and periodically they do also get issued with revolvers. In every instance, this is very controversial. From the beginning, there are lots of people who are very, very nervous about having a police force like this at all. This is why in the aftermath of the 1829 Act, so in the 1830s, it's really pretty touch and go. There are lots of people saying, we should just go back on this. We should abolish them and go back to the old sort of localised system. The key kind of argument for that is that this is a form of military rule and it's worse in the eyes of a 19th century British person. It's French-style military rule. This idea of police officers with weapons controlled by the central government is very strongly associated with France and France is associated with tyranny and despotism. It's the of the free-born Britain to be policed by people who are not militarised agents of central government. So that's why when police do turn up with weapons, it causes a big backlash and the Home Office is constantly trying to navigate these kind of conflicting priorities. Another thing to say about that, about the kind of militarisation thing, is things like barracks. So the police officers live in station houses which look quite like military barracks. And the fact of the blue uniform, which is now embedded in our police mythology, is all about suggesting that police officers are not soldiers. They don't have a red uniform and the blue is supposed to be a kind of softer, more civilian-friendly way of showing that these are figures of authority.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Did they carry handcuffs during this period? Did they have the famous whistle? We think of those kinds of things around at this time too.
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' Handcuffs go way back. They predate the creation of the new police forces. The whistle, I'm not sure exactly when the whistle comes in. In the early 19th century they tend to have a rattle. Not totally dissimilar to a kind of toddler's rattle, a thing that you shake and it makes a very loud noise. Further back in time there are bells, so there's a kind of crossover between the watchman and the bell man. There are various ways that police officers can use these kind of instruments to call on each other. But yes, the whistle does appear at some point in the 19th century. I'm not sure exactly when.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' And you mentioned a little bit earlier that we've also entered the period in which there are detectives, so non-uniformed police officers. Do we have any idea of how London has reacted to plainclothes police? Because if you're expecting your police force to be in their uniform all of the time, even when they're not on duty, how do they translate that into a force that don't wear any uniform at all and don't identify themselves as policemen?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' They're not popular. The story, I guess, really starts before the actual creation of a detective branch, when the Metropolitan Police in the 1830s send some officers in plainclothes to spy on radical political meetings. So there's a guy called Sergeant Popeye who goes to spy on the meetings of the National Union of the Working Classes. He basically becomes an agent provocateur, so he pretends that he's a kind of out-of-work painter and starts suggesting that they blow up government buildings and do really radical, dangerous things. He's then recognised when he's on duty in uniform by one of his supposed comrades from the National Union of Working Classes and this becomes a massive scandal. It triggers a royal commission to investigate the Metropolitan Police and there's a whole newspaper explosion about the idea that there are these spies everywhere who are going to control people and suppress their political rights and lead them to do crazy things like So that's the background and then when you actually get detectives in 1842, essentially to combat that there's a huge propaganda effort to say that these aren't spies, these are a kind of useful branch of the police system and they can help us make sure that burglars and murderers are brought to justice. Part of that propaganda campaign is Charles Dickens, who writes lots of articles. He's best friends with one of the first leading inspectors who's Charlie Field and Charlie Field and Dickens kind of have dinner together and they talk a lot about detective work and Dickens writes these articles for newspapers describing accompanying Charlie Field out walking around the East London slums at night. Then we have Inspector Bucket in Bleak House who's the kind of iconic Victorian detective and that sort of leads to the subsequent 19th century boom in detective fiction and that is all in a way part of this propaganda effort to say it's all right to have plainclothes police officers, they're not spying on you, they're not trying to kind of trick you into doing something that will land you in prison, they are actually useful parts of the system.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' It feels like if we walked into Scotland Yard, if we stepped into Syndicate 1868, we walked in there, we're going to be entering a fairly chaotic building, a labyrinth full of paper, bustling with people, men with newly grown beards because they're allowed to now, some in uniform, some out of uniform, so it feels like a fairly recognisable police force but maybe a more chaotic experience than we might expect it to be today.
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' Yeah, I think so. The detective branch does exist at this point and it is operating out of Scotland Yard but it's not really been kind of separated off from the main metropolitan police structure at this point so I think you might not really be able to tell the difference between a detective and one of the clerks. There's more of a sense that this is basically a government office which occasionally has people in uniform kind of charging through it rather than what you might associate now with walking into a police station where you're kind of very clearly moving into a space where everybody has a different role in society. This is more like a kind of a branch of the home office that just has these sort of slightly old beardy men in uniform.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' And so outside of the station, the building of Scotland Yard, in Syndicate you will encounter police officers roaming around the streets all of the time. Do we have any concept of how they policed London? Are there surviving instruction manuals? Do we how violent they were? Did they arrest people in the same way that we do today? Obviously they must have had different policing methods. Do we know how effective they were? Did people support this idea of a police force once it had got itself established?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' There are lots of surviving instructions and the thing that's really striking about them, I guess, and the thing that becomes very controversial, is that the way that the new police, as well as being centralised and run by the home office, the way that the new police are different is that they basically launch a kind of an assault on working class street life. So they go for street gambling, they go for people playing games and causing obstructions of traffic, they go for sex workers, they go for essentially any activity that looks disorderly and that interferes with idealised middle class version of the city where everybody who's moving around the city is on legitimate business and is going about making money. It's this very Victorian industrial era commercial attitude to what London life is supposed to be like and lots of working class people don't fit into that idealised image. This means that in the early years in particular the kind of interference metropolitan police bring to street life, I mean they're raiding pubs all the time because they're unlicensed premises, and to gambling as well in particular, that kind of interference makes them extremely unpopular with lots of working class people. Sounds like they're becoming the fun police at this point. Yeah absolutely, absolutely, and I mean there is a kind of backing down essentially. I mean in part they're being given a completely impossible task which is to stop the huge number of people in this rapidly growing city from spending their leisure time more or less as they want and it's just not possible. After the first sort of decade or so, or maybe the first couple of decades, the instructions do sort of start to emphasise you really shouldn't be interfering where it's not absolutely necessary, you shouldn't be interfering where there isn't some kind of breach of the peace going on, you don't need to crack down on every 12 year old boy who has set up a little stall for people to gamble on dog race. A notorious example is street boys as they were called playing with hoops which is an image we sort of associate more with the early 20th century but is very much a Victorian pastime, running through the streets with hoops, and there are cartoons of police officers arresting boys for running around with these hoops and it's clearly taking the piss out of the police. I mean that the idea that they're spending their time and therefore spending taxpayers money pursuing these really pretty harmless activities rather than, as people would say now, focusing on proper crime. So that dynamic, that sense of why are you going after kids on the streets who aren't really doing any harm rather than the really serious criminals, that's a very old dynamic.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah again and one that hasn't entirely gone away has it? There are still arguments today about what the police should be doing, shouldn't be doing, where they should spend their time and what they should investigate. So I'm amazed by how relevant some of these early policing questions still are today. So Scotland Yard isn't in Scotland Yard anymore and yet we still call it Scotland Yard, we still associate that place with the institution. Why do you think that has stuck? And I mean something that is going to maybe leap out at lots of people is Scotland Yard's involvement in something like Jack the Ripper murders in the later 19th century. They become really closely associated with that. Ultimately it's a case that never gets solved and yet as an institution they survive those kinds of problems, still exist today and we still call it Scotland Yard. Why do you think it became so immortal? I don't know.
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' I think there's a couple of things. Maybe one is that the police were a new thing in the first half of the 19th century and people were kind of calling them all sorts of different things. I mean so there's the famous, you know, there's the Peelers and the Bobbies.
+* They're also a lot more very rude names or sort of hostile names. I mean they get called bludgeon men, they get called blue locusts, they get called all sorts of things.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' What's the rudest name they get called? What's the most insulting one you can think of?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' There are some that I probably shouldn't say. So the blue locust one actually has some sort of interesting layers to it. It's a name that some working class people call the police, particularly in the north of England but also in London. And it's really the idea that police officers are locusts in the sense that they don't do any work and they eat everything up. And this is because from the point of view of a working class person in industrial Britain, what the police do is they walk around all day. They're not in a factory or a shipyard or even doing the kinds of portering and all the kind of heavy lifting labour that goes on in London, moving things from one place to another. They're just walking around and they're paid from taxation. So there's this sense that, you know, they're taking our money and they're not doing anything. So the blue locust is a real kind of emblematic name of that sort of working class hostility to the police. But the thing about Scotland Yard, I think, the name is that it's a name that doesn't highlight the connection with central government. So it's quite a nice name from the point of view of the Met. They're quite happy to kind of hang on to it because it isn't, you know, number four Whitehall Place, which makes you think of Whitehall, which makes you think of the Home Office or the Civil Service. And it means that they're not called the government police or the state police or any of these things that they're trying to avoid being called. So Scotland Yard is actually quite handy for them because it sort of doesn't have any of those associations.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, that's a really interesting point that hadn't occurred to me because they don't have to mention, as you say, the connection to government, Whitehall, the Home Office. They don't have to use the word metropolitan, which implies some widespread power and authority. They don't even use the word police if they call themselves Scotland Yard. So all of the words that might have a negative connotation for an early police force can be circumvented by just naming it after the place where it is. I'd never thought of it like that, but it actually works, doesn't it?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' The place itself, actually. I mean, you mentioned the Whitechapel murders and the place itself does kind of get more attention in the 1880s, partly because of the Whitechapel murders and just lots and lots of talk about what the detectives are doing, but also because Scotland Yard is bombed in 1884 by so-called Fenians, by Irish nationalists. They sort of don't place the bomb in quite the right place, so they blow up an empty office which is attached to Scotland Yard and they also blow up a neighbouring pub called The Sun with nobody in it. The landlord of The Sun then makes loads of money by charging people to come and see the wreckage of his pub. But that kind of draws lots of attention to Scotland Yard as a place and as a kind of, I guess, British institution which is seen as being under attack from Irish nationalism and, in fact, it's in the aftermath of that bombing that what's called the Special Irish Brunch, which later becomes Special Brunch, is created. So that sense of the Metropolitan Police being a kind of core British institution that has to be protected partly comes from that kind of 1880s moment, at the same time as they're being criticised at length for failing to do anything about the Whitechapel murders.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Just to round off our conversation about the idea of Scotland Yard and the place of Scotland Yard, I guess, why is it not at Scotland Yard anymore? Presumably at some point it has to move for some reason.
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' Yeah, so this is 1890 when basically they move because, I mean, the stacks of paper get too high and there are so many clerks that they start kind of colliding with each other in the corridors. Essentially they outgrow the buildings and so they move to what is called New Scotland Yard, which is a building on the embankment. So this is part of the story of Victorian London that, you know, part of the Thames kind of disappears under the Victorian embankment. And it's initially a site that was supposed to be a new National Opera House, but then the person who's kind of trying to do that runs out of money and so the Mets step in and say, we'll buy this. It's a sort of grand red Victorian building. Somebody calls it a very constabulary kind of castle. So New Scotland Yard, they have this huge building to themselves and that sort of works for about 70 years into the 20th century. But then in 1967 essentially the same problem occurs again, which is that there's too much paper and too many people, too many administrators. So they move again to what is now New Scotland Yard, but probably ought to be called New New Scotland Yard, which is the present site with the kind of big rotating sign that you see on the menu.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' That's my image of New Scotland Yard. So it's interesting to know where that emerged from and the steps that have been gone through to get there. So Assassin's Creed Syndicate is the first game in which players have to deal with a police force who are trying to prevent you from what you're trying to do everywhere else. You've kind of had a free reign to run around. To what extent do you think the emergence of a police force helped to shape 19th century London and redefine people's to law and order on the streets?
+* '''Jonah Miller:''' It's part of the reshaping of the city and it's part of this drive by government to make London, which in the 18th century was an incredibly chaotic city, to make it orderly and to kind of constrain the huge mass of people to kind of conform to certain ideas of how people are supposed to behave in urban space. And this is why, for example, I mean we didn't mention this earlier, but this is why one of the kind of signature moves of the Victorian police officer is to say move on, to move people on. But what this is really about is kind of stopping blockages in the circulation of the city system. Anybody whose activities don't fit with the kind of idealized model of how the city is supposed to operate, they become the targets of the new police. And it doesn't work in a sort of basic way. I mean they don't manage to kind of make London an incredibly orderly and perfectly harmonious city, but it does mean that people are now kind of navigating this system in their daily lives. So people see police officers on the beat all the time. They become part of the kind of furniture of the city. It means that the government and the state, if you want, are kind of very, very present in everyday life in a new way.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' And have been ever since, I guess, to this very day. Well, thank you so much for joining us, Jonah. It's been absolutely fascinating to explore the beginnings, the origins of the idea of a name of Scotland Yard, the transitions that it went through, and the kind of 19th century impact that they had, the appearance of the officers. It's been absolutely incredible to trace all of that. And I am definitely off to start a petition for the return of reinforced top hats and capes for all police officers. I think that is something we're missing today. But thank you so much for joining us, Jonah. It's been brilliant. I hope you've enjoyed this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. Next time, we'll be exploring a key driver of the seismic changes that drove the development of London and England during this period, as we take a closer look at the Industrial Revolution. Don't forget to subscribe and follow Echoes of History wherever you get your podcasts. And if you're enjoying it, you can leave us a review to make my day too. See you next time among the echoes of history.
+|-|3=
+'''''The Industrial Revolution: The Birth Of Modern London'''''
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. Today we're continuing our journey into the underbelly of Victorian London, home to Assassin's Creed Syndicate, and exploring an event that defined the era. The Industrial Revolution began in Britain in the late 18th century, giving birth to an industrial age that continued for over 200 years. The period was characterized by rapid economic, social, and technological growth. These innovations completely overturned the way of life in Britain, and later spread across Europe and the rest of the world. But what was life like for those living through history's most rapid and radical period of technological, economical, and social change? To start, let's follow Syndicate into the smoggy heart of the Revolution. The stink. It's overwhelming as you step into the street. The great stink of London. This close to the River Thames, the air is thick with the smell of sewage. Along the street, the muskier animal smell of horses, tobacco from the cabman's pipe. And of course, the ever-present industrial smoke. The year is 1868, and it's early in the morning. The city around you is just waking up. Gas streetlights guide you down the road. The sun has not yet fully risen, but the working day will soon begin. You join the bustle of the morning traffic, the tide of men, women, and even children who shuffle deeper into London's East End. These are London's working poor. Many have come from the countryside to find jobs in the warehouses and factories that chug out plumes of grey-green smog. Some have come from Europe, some from even further away, from the farthest reaches of the mighty British Empire. They live in the cramped tenement housing you walk past, the most unfortunate in slums. The wealthy, meanwhile, live in comfortable townhouses, often right next door. Jostled by a passerby, you sidestep into a muddy puddle. It splashes up over your boots, a reminder of why you prefer to travel the city by carriage. Over the thrum of the morning rush, you hear the scream of a steam train engine in the distance. Great hulking locomotives carrying people and goods to and fro across the country. You look up in wonder to see the trail of steam above the tightly packed rooftops. Passing small street vendors and women holding infants on doorsteps, you overhear two workers chatting. There's a new Prime Minister, they say, although they didn't vote for him. They can't vote. They don't own enough property. They can't read the newspapers or pamphlets that lay trampled at the side of the road. But nonetheless, they talk about trade unions, about the promise of improving working conditions. Rounding the corner, your eyes start to burn, smoke blowing into your face. You can feel ash and soot coating your skin and your clothes. Chimneys tower above you, reaching from long brick factory buildings. The workers are being called through the gates. Dockers carry on towards the river, ready to welcome cargo from across the world into London's ports. You linger along the edge of the street, watching people as they hurry to beat the whistle that signals the start of a gruelling 12 hour shift. Today on Echoes of History, I'm joined by Tom Ferber of the London Archives, which is owned and funded by the City of London Corporation. Together, we're going to be talking about how Victorian Britain was shaped by the Industrial Revolution, delving into some of the inventions that changed ordinary people's lives, how they responded to those changes, and why London ended up at the centre of it all. Welcome to Echoes of History, Tom. It's fantastic to have you here. Thank you very much for having me. I'm delighted to be here. I can't wait to get into this episode all about the Industrial Revolution, because this is my neck of the woods. Parts of my family is from Willanall, firmly in the Black Country, and I am sitting here not too far away from Ironbridge. So this is an area that's really protective about its Industrial Revolution history. So this is one I'm really looking forward to finding out more about.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Wonderful. And me too. And I'm quite parochial, I must say, as I work for the London Archives, so I'm quite London-focused. But hopefully between the two of us, we can put our heads together, put our hats together, and we can cover all the areas of the Industrial Revolution.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' In our introduction, we've tried to paint a picture of industrial London, where the syndicate takes place. What would life have been like in Britain, kind of on the eve of the Industrial Revolution, before all of this really kicks off?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Yeah, so that's a really good question. And not for the first time today, you're going to hear me say, well, that depends when you start something. So one of the things I'm sure we'll kind of touch on a lot as the conversation unfolds is how historians sort of disagree about when this happens, when that happens, or they disagree about what you call a certain thing. So it's hard to say exactly when the Industrial Revolution starts. But a safe bet, I'm not going to get in too much trouble if I say about 1750 is sort of a common date, around 1750 is the start of the Industrial Revolution. So what was life like in London and the UK before 1750? Well, the first thing to say is it would be far more rural, that is, most people lived in the countryside, and far more agricultural, so most people would have worked on the land. Around 1500, we can say about 75% of people worked in agriculture, worked in farming, and about another sort of, a little under 20%, we might say, sort of 18% would have worked in the countryside or not in the land, and only about 7% of people would have worked in an urban setting, so town, town or city. By 1750, that's starting to change. In rough numbers, 25% of people live in towns and cities, and the rest live in the countryside. But interestingly, the proportion of people working on the land, as opposed to working in what we might call a proto-industry, has changed. So about 45% of people work on the land, and the rest work in the countryside, but in sort of small domestic workshop settings.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Okay, so the profile of people across the country is beginning to change even before we hit the Industrial Revolution period proper?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Absolutely. So one of the things that we will find is that it's a gradual, it's a gradual process, and we can kind of always go kind of further and further back and look at antecedents of things are changing. But that's right, there is a changing pattern of work, and many historians think that that's the key to why the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain, kind of grows out of that.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yes, I think there's always a danger to think that one day someone out in a field somewhere struck a bit of coal in the ground, and then suddenly everyone moved to the city, and it was all smoggy, and that's it, it happened overnight.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Exactly that. And then maybe the term itself has something to blame, Industrial Revolution, that does imply something that happens quite, quite quickly. Maybe the term is a bit misleading. I think we could think of it as a gradual change, and the revolution comes in with the significance of the change, not necessarily the speed of it.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' More like an industrial evolution.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Indeed, I believe undergraduates across the land have to write essays on evolution or revolution, yeah.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' And what are some of the factors that are contributing to that change? So in the build-up to the Industrial Revolution, what is causing people to move away from working the land and towards town and city life more and more?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' So there's quite a few, it's quite an exhaustive list that kind of all kind of come together at the same time. We can start with changes on the land itself. So before the Industrial Revolution, historians often talk about an agricultural revolution. So the agricultural revolution starts in the 17th century, the upshot of which is that the land is more productive in general, a given bit of land is more productive, more land is brought under cultivation. So less people are needed to work the land, and each of those people working the land can produce more stuff. So lots of lots of lots of good things. That comes about for kind of quite a few reasons. It's to do with better, better seeds, better soil preparation through selective breeding, selective breeding of animals. And this allows fields to be no longer left fallow. So it used to be to make sure you got all kind of the proper nutrients in your soil to make sure that the soil was super productive, you would leave your field fallow, you wouldn't grow any plants every four years. But basically advances in understanding how you can regenerate your fields by planting turnips, planting clover, rotating your crops, meant that you could you could eradicate that fallow process so more food could be grown. There's also another very important factor here that was very contentious at the time for the people that lived through it, and is now contentious in quite what it means for the agricultural revolution, productivity, and that's something called enclosure. And this is actually one of these things, there's a real folk memory in some sort of parts of British society about the dangers, one of the dangers, the evil consequences of enclosure. So what was enclosure? As the name suggests, it was when fields were fenced off. So it used to be before enclosure, that there was things called common fields. So people in agricultural society, they had a bit of field that they could farm for themselves, feed themselves, feed their family, maybe some surplus would be sold for profit. And then throughout the, starting in the 17th century, these are enclosed. So that means they're brought together. The idea being this is more efficient, more efficient, you don't have people kind of ploughing one bit of land on this side of the village, another bit of land on that side of the village. These kind of new processes that we've talked about can be applied across the fields as a whole. All well and good, except if you don't have a legal claim to your bit of common land, you might get kicked off that land and you're no longer able to farm it. So what enclosure does is it means there's lots of people that used to work in the countryside who no longer, who no longer can. So that's very important as well.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' And I guess that also contributes to our current picture of England as this kind of, you know, the patchwork of fields and the hedgerows and all of that kind of stuff that we think of as quite a romantic image of Britain, but it's actually a hangover of land being taken out of people's hands, rights being removed from people who had enjoyed those rights for centuries. It's a kind of physical scar, albeit we think of it as quite an attractive scar, but it's a physical scar of that change.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Absolutely. So that if you fly over Britain one way or another and you look down, there is that distinctive, that distinctive field pattern. If you look closely, or if you look at aerial photography, you can actually sometimes still see the individual stripes of the older field patterns, which is quite interesting. You've hit on something I think really important, and we talk about romanticisation. So it's easy to think of a bucolic vision of the countryside working in tune with the land. We're going to talk about some of the hardships of moving to a factory system later, I'm sure, but we shouldn't underestimate the hardship of working in the land. You could work very, very hard and not have any food at the end of the season. Hunger was a common experience pre-agricultural revolution. Absolutely right to not romanticise that.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' I love it when I accidentally make a good point.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' It's good, yeah. Me too. Monkeys and typewriters, for me, comes to mind, not for you. Yeah, of course. So we have the agricultural revolution. So what this means is that less people are required to work the land, and this frees people up to work in the city. If less people are needed to work on the land, a smaller rural population can support a bigger urban population. And one of the factors in the Industrial Revolution is we see population grow. Before about 1750, population is remarkably steady, around about five million, with a big old blip for the Black Death in the medieval period, but it's about five million people. After 1750, it grows and grows and grows and grows and grows. It's about 17 million by 1851, and continues growing again. Of course, it's about 67 million today, and that's a really important consequence of industrialisation. So there's changes afoot in the countryside. There's also changes afoot in the political system. So 17th century is a very tumultuous century in British history, Reformation, Civil War, Beheaded Kings, all those sorts of grisly things. But from about 1689, it largely settles down. There is still a few important rebellions, the so-called Jacobite rebellions. But largely speaking, we have a stable political system from 1689. And this is really important, because, you know, what comes to mind when you think of the Industrial Revolution, factories, machines, improvement, all that is investment. You don't invest your money in something expensive and stationary, if you don't think it's going to be around. If there's civil war, and there's rebellion, stuff gets damaged, stuff gets stolen, all that sort of thing. You're not going to be investing in buildings and stuff. So this political stability is very important as well.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' It's a fascinating collection of building blocks that almost needed to be in place for this to happen, that all seem to have aligned at around about the right time, all in the one place too. You mentioned before that 1750 is quite a safe date to go for, for the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Safe-ish. Ish, ish, yeah. Ish, ish, ish. What is it in particular that happens around then that makes it a good point to kick things off at?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' A good point. So what I might do is I might duck that for a minute. And we might talk about what we're really talking about when we talk about the Industrial Revolution. And then with that in mind, we can say, well, why actually is it quite tricky to kind of put a date to it? Why are historians so kind of broad in their estimation of their date? So at the heart of the Industrial Revolution is finding kind of new forms of power. So new ways to kind of fuel, fuel activity to kind of create useful stuff. We talked about life before the Industrial Revolution, it was hard work. If you wanted something doing, with a few exceptions around water and windmills, it needs to be muscle power, either your own or animal power. But the Industrial Revolution brings in new sources of power to do useful work. It starts in the British context as coal. Coal is used to heat steam, steam is used to drive an engine. So this is what it comes down to, this new source of power. Kind of running in parallel to that, there's a sense that you can, even if you don't have an extra source of power, you can make your kind of muscle power more efficient by the use of machines, by mechanisation, through clever use of machines, gears, pulleys, all those various things that we think about when it comes to the Industrial Revolution, we can kind of get more work out of, we can be more efficient in the way we use our time to produce raw materials, particularly in cotton and wool, and cotton in particular at this stage. So we've got new power and new machines, we can then use the new power to power the machines. And now production is massively, massively increasing. But because we need steam to drive, we need big steam engines to drive our machines, we can't work in our homes anymore, we can't work in these literal cost industries anymore, we need to bring people together. And that gives birth to the factory system. Steam doesn't travel in the way electricity travels, you need that power, you need to be local. So these three things combined, new sources of power, mechanisation, and kind of bring people together, leads to our kind of final output of the Industrialisation. And that's when manufacturing, making stuff, takes over from growing stuff as the kind of the main source of the economy when manufacturing takes over from agriculture.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, I guess I'm struck slightly on the human level here that people have dealt with the agricultural revolution that's meant less people are required to do the same amount of work in the countryside, which has driven them to towns. And then all of a sudden, once they're there, they're faced by a situation where there are now changes in technology that mean that less people are required to do the muscle work there, because machines are beginning to take over. And so this is all about a kind of reduction in the importance of individuals in these things as well. Everywhere, people are being replaced by technology.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Absolutely. So it's in a French context rather than English context, but it's quite a symbolic moment when a French factory owner put some flowers on a machine saying that was my most productive worker of the week, where we have employee of the week, he was giving his machine employee of the week. And absolutely right. And there was a real sense that something had changed and something was changing people, not overnight, over a course of generations. But people were learning a new way of working. And there was a lot of early resistance to this. There was a quite sort of harsh discipline on the terms and quite harsh discipline when it came to getting people to learn this new way of work. So one obvious thing there is people had to learn what's called clock time. We take it for granted that we can tell the time. We have watches, we have clocks on phones, computers, all this sort of thing. Actually, you didn't need to know the time to that level of accuracy. We talked about agricultural work, you got up when it was it was light, you kind of went to bed, maybe when it was dark, maybe you had some lighting, but not basic lighting, that was that. It doesn't matter if you start working your field at 10 past six or 10 past seven, loosely, loosely speaking. But the factory owners were keen that people would work from a fixed time, often six till six, and a minute late was a minute was a minute too late. So factory discipline is really important. Often factories had clock big clock towers. And the first thing that you would do when being sort of brought into this factory system is you'd be taught how to tell the time. And you'd learn if you were that minute late for work, you'd be fined half a day's pay, for example. There's this idea that because so much money and capital has been put into the machines, they have to they have to keep on working, they have to keep working very long days. I don't know about you, but if I'm trying to justify an expensive purchase, I might be now what's the cost per wear? What's the cost per use? And if I can say, well, actually, this might be more expensive, but if I use it more often, the cost comes down. A similar logic is at work by the factory owners, they've paid for these machines, they need to keep them working. And it's the machine that sets the pace and not the person.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, fascinating. And I think it's striking, again, how you can see the slow gradual move from a situation in which the people are in control, albeit regulated slightly by nature. But then all of a sudden, thump, the machines are in command. And the people are now having to work to the rule of the machine and the factory owner. And I guess, you know, that's where we will eventually get lots of industrial relations problems, because the people are starting to not matter as much as as this inanimate object that is driving everything.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Absolutely right. And that is one of the facts of the Industrial Revolution is the work becomes less interesting, you have less ownership of it, you're de-skilled, it becomes monotonous. And there are benefits for workers, we shouldn't kind of go too far the other way. But one definite downside is that work becomes boring, it's not something it's something that's much harder to enjoy. And there's risk associated as well. So you really only doing it because you have to you have to do it. And there's a sense, I think, that the early industrialists with their kind of harsh, harsh discipline, their factory discipline, really set back later, sort of industrial relations, because it was really that us and them sort of environment that was set up.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah. And I guess the last question, I'm conscious that we still haven't even got the Industrial Revolution underway yet. But this is all such fascinating stuff. One of the questions I wanted to ask before we get it, it properly underway, is why Britain? Is it too reductive to say, empire equals the right environment for the Industrial Revolution?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' I would say so. But it's a really tricky one. And I must say I have a bit of trepidation about answering this question at all, because it's still quite sort of heated and vociferous debate about what causes it. And it's not always entirely friendly debate either. But you know, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. So here's here's my take on it. I'm quite persuaded by what's known as called the labour and resources hypothesis. And this basically is pretty simple, arguably reductive, but I think it I think it works. The Industrial Revolution, the background is all the things that we've talked about agricultural revolution, capital, colonialism, all those sorts of things. What makes it happen in Britain and anywhere else is two quite simple factors. Wages are high, and cold is cheap. We talked didn't we about 1750, people are starting to work in a different way. There's a development, there's developments in the economy that already happened. The economy is quite sophisticated. And as a result of that people are able to charge, you know, demand for labour means they're able to charge a bit more. Around this time as well, Britain has been very heavily deforested. Wood was used for cooking for building and empire link again, building ships, warships and merchant ships as well. So wood's becoming very expensive. From about the 16th century onwards, people have started to turn to coal to heat their homes and things like that. And Britain is abundant in is abundant in coal. Wages are expensive, coal is cheap. So actually, in the long run, you can save money if you use coal to power your machines rather than rather than people, lots of things follow from that. That's not the only explanation, I should say it's not kind of it's not at all, but there is a degree of support for that. And I quite like that one. I think it answers some of the counterfactuals. I think people do often respond very well to what's concretely in front of them, these kind of material conditions, and the more sort of abstract things, they're important. But I think quite often people respond to say quite concrete things like that.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah. And these advances, I guess we can call them advances are driven quite often by individuals. There are some names that we associate quite closely with this period, James Watt, Alexander Graham Bell is someone that players of syndicate will encounter and interact with in the game. How important are some of those individuals and who are maybe some of the key individuals in driving this forwards?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Yeah, so the individual individuals are very important. You can tell that one very popular way to tell the story of the Industrial Revolution is through a series of inventions and inventors. I think we've got to be careful about leaving the people out entirely, you know, the working people out entirely. But at the same time, people, there were some clever people out there and they invented some very clever things and someone had to invent it. So James Watt's a really good example. And in many ways, sort of is a microcosm of what happens in terms of inventions in the Industrial Revolution. So he's sometimes said to have invented the steam engine and that's not accurate. The steam engine was invented beforehand, but he improved the steam engine. And this is what we see as a really important trend and of people, they take something and think this is good, but it could be better because and it moves forward. So going back to this idea of coal, the first working, the first practical steam engines, the so-called beam engine or the Newcomen engine was used to pull water out of coal mines. So there's a lot of coal in the UK, as we've heard, but the mines are very prone to flooding. So Thomas Newcomen and Thomas Savoy are the names most associated with this. They created a steam engine, a beam engine. And what this does, and I'm not the most mechanically minded people, so please no one at home be too cross if I get this wrong. I hope the details are at least okay, is you have a cylinder that's heated by a boiler. This creates steam. This drives a piston upwards. This cylinder is then closed with a valve and cold water is sprayed into the cylinder. And this creates a vacuum which pulls the cylinder back down. The pressure of the atmosphere brings it back down. So another name you'll hear is an atmospheric engine. So we've got a piston that's gone up by the heating of steam and it comes down through cooling. Attached to this piston is a beam, hence beam engine, and this beam is then used to empty the coal mine on the other end. So that's the beam engine. So around about 1764, James Watt is tasked with repairing one of these engines and he works out, he spots this inefficiency, and he builds a separate condenser to keep the heat going. So you lose less time, you lose less energy. So that's this idea of an improvement. And he then realises that up and down is a useful motion, it's a reciprocal motion, it's a useful motion. But even more useful for driving machinery would be a rotary motion, so called sun and planet gear. And he adds a pressure gauge and other things as well. So you can see we have a technology, you know, from 1712 up to 1764 and so it goes on. So he's a useful figure. And he is obviously remembered in the Watt, which is a unit of measurement of power. And Alexander Graham Bell as well. So he's a bit of a later, he's a later figure, and he does appear in the game. One of my favourite ways to do the kind of the gang stronghold missions is to fire the hallucinogenic darts into the braziers to thin out, thin the amount of enemies you have to deal with. There's no evidence of that, sadly, but maybe in a particularly dark corner of an archival strongroom I might be able to find it and that would be a good day.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, no evidence of it so far doesn't mean it didn't happen. We can hold on to that idea.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Exactly. Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, as they say, in a different context. So Alexander Graham Bell's another really interesting figure. So he's touched on, he's touched on in the game. He spends Scottish-born early life in London and then his most sort of celebrated discovery, invention, excuse me, is the telephone. And that's really an American story that takes place. We know that he has spent his early life working in elocution. He had some family connections with deafness, his mother in particular. So he was interested in devices that might help with that. And he was more broadly interested in sort of science invention as well. And these sort of come to a head in 1875. He invents the first working telephone. So he's in this room, his assistant Watson is in the other, and he simply says, Mr. Watson, come here. I want to see you. So and that's the first words spoken on the telephone. It might be apocryphal, but we hear that he wanted the standard greeting on telephone not to be hello, that was Edison's idea. He wanted it to be ahoy. So you'd pick up the phone and be ahoy, if Bell had had his way. And the other funny thing about Alexander Graham Bell on the telephone is he refused to have one in his office, because it was too distracting. That's something that we can all sympathise with today, as phones have become grown and done all manner of things that Alexander Graham Bell probably didn't imagine as well.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, yeah, fascinating when someone invents something that they wouldn't touch themselves with a bargepole, for reasons that we would utterly recognise and appreciate today.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' What are some of the main notable kind of technological advancements? We've talked a bit about steam engines, which I guess lead to trains, almost directly. We've talked about the telephone, electricity we associate with this period as well. Are these all of the things that are building up to speed up the Industrial Revolution and keep a head of steam going, for want of a better phrase?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Absolutely. So for me, the railways is the big one. I'm quite parochial in my historical interest these days. I'm very much sort of a London-focussed, and the railways have had such a massive impact on London history, on the kind of connectivity in London and the rest of the country and the world. So railways goes back to coal once again. Railways were used in coal fields as a way of, before steam engines, railways, that is having a cart that runs on rails running on the ground, was used to help move heavy loads of coal from pithead to mine, that sort of thing. But drawn by horse. And then that pattern we're going to see as well. We have one technology that works quite well, another technology comes along that kind of sits into it, something labour-saving that can be fuelled and powered with the new technology, steam, in this case. So James Watt's steam engines could run machines, but they couldn't move. The figure that we associate with the first sort of locomotive steam engine, steam engines that move, is Richard Trevithick, a Cornish mining engineer that applied a lot of his trade in Wales, but even got as far as Peru in quite an interesting life. So he produces the first sort of locomotives, but it's a figure called George Stevenson we talk of as the father of the railways, because Trevithick was moved on from various projects, he didn't sort of stay with one project necessarily to see it through to commercial fruition. So George Stevenson is the father of the railways. The first railways are really a northern phenomenon, so the Stockton and Darlington Railway is part freight, part passenger. The freight was moved by steam, the passengers were moved by horses because they weren't quite sure it was safe yet. And then the London to Manchester Railway, and here we're talking 1820s, the London to Manchester Railway is the first intercity railway. And in the 1830s what was one of the most celebrated Victorian building projects is started and finished remarkably. So in five years an engineering project which the Victorians thought were on par with the pyramids was finished, and this was 112 mile London to Birmingham Railway. This is something called the first long distance intercity railway, and it was the first railway that linked London to other cities. And this is one of those things, I think it's hard to sort of overstate how important this was. It just collapses the distance between cities. Pre-industrial revolution, two and a half weeks to get from London to Edinburgh. You can probably do it, as that technology moves on, you can do it less and less and less. We complain when it takes six to eight hours today to get from Euston to Edinburgh or Glasgow, but a lot less time than two and a half weeks. So the railway brings people together, but it also has other kind of impacts as well. Before pre-industrial revolution, Britain was a very regional place, there was a regional dialect, regional accents, even sort of local time zones, local customs. Bringing people together starts to kind of erode those distances, those differences between time and place. And the railway, as well as sort of bringing, being a kind of big capital project in itself, it also created sort of further investment. And the period from 1830s to around 1860s is sometimes known as the railway mania, because people got wind that they had some money, you could invest it in the railway, and you could often get a lot of that money, a lot of that money back, often sort of return as high as eight percent or something like that. So various private companies compete to open more and more railway lines. And if people are familiar with London, you will know there's just a silly amount of stations, there's just all kind of all dotted rounds near the outskirts of central London. I tend to, I grew up sort of just north of London in Watford, so I'm more familiar with the northern end on the Euston Road or near the Euston Road, we have Marylebone, Euston, St Pancras and King's Cross, King's Cross station. And they're not hugely efficient, quite annoying if you have to change trains quite quickly, and that's because they were all private lines. And one of, I think, the really quite special things about the Victorian railways, as well, was the pride they took in their work. And you see this across all kind of Victorian engineering. They were celebrating, they were celebrating the work that they did. The Cathedral, sometimes called Cathedrals of Steam, the big stations. St Pancras could be, you know, looks like the Houses of Parliament's huge Gothic building. Euston station, sadly, was remodelled after the 1960s, I want to say, but that was famous for a neoclassical design, so it looked like something out of ancient Greece or ancient Rome. It used to go through the Euston Arch, which was, I mean, not so hot in my Greek mythology, but I believe there was a particular symbolic purpose of this arch. It signified a journey from the one realm or one zone to the other. Very symbolic, very symbolic, what was happening on the joining of these two cities.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:'''
+* Yeah, it's absolutely fascinating. And I guess, interesting for Assassin's Creed Syndicate, that you would pick the railways when a lot of the game is centred around moving about the city using the railways and using a railway carriage as a base and all of that kind of thing. So really pulling in that idea that this is a revolutionary thing that is changing the country, the world.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Absolutely, indeed. It's just, again, hard to use too many superlatives about the changes that it makes.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah. And just returning, if we can, we've talked a bit about some of the individuals, and we don't want to move away too far from talking about the other people, everybody that was affected by this. How does rapidly industrialising a and the changes that that brings, how does that impact normal working people? I guess you've got more of them being crammed into smaller spaces in the city, being forced to work in factories to this rule of a machine rather than any kind of rule of nature. But you mentioned earlier as well that there's an increase in consumerism. So we know there's lots of negatives, I guess. Are there some positives to balance those things out?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Absolutely. And I think it's one of those things where the average person does well, but if you're, that means people, that average means some people are doing very well, and some people are doing badly. So the industrial revolution brings levels of comfort and abundance that are unknown previously in human history. As I understand the econometrics, the measures of what's happening when, from about, historians don't really know whether it was good or bad for your average person for pre-1800. It's controversial from 1800 to 1850. And from 1850 onwards, there is a general rise in living standards. So your average person is doing, has more clothes, is better fed, has more money, all those sorts of things. But as we alluded to, that does disguise very great differences within that. But there is no doubt that people are doing better out of it in some way. And that life in the countryside is often crushingly poor as well. So that's really important to bear in mind.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, I guess we are at risk again of romanticising and idealising that life in the countryside, you know, this was all skipping through fields, playing with the birds and all that sort of stuff. It was actually at least as much of a grind in the countryside as it was in the factories. It's just a different environment.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Absolutely. One way I've heard it described is that you can be toiling all day in the fields and you won't get fed at the end of the season if the weather's bad. If you're toiling in the factory, you will get paid.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, I mean, and that's a pretty stark, you know, however hard the factories were, you're guaranteed money, which means food on the table.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Indeed. And I mean, I'm always careful saying this because I wouldn't want to work in a factory. It sounded very, very difficult. 12 hour days were the norm, noisy, dangerous. But the real problems came for people not so much when they were working as when they weren't working. So it was the precarity of work or people that had only casual work. We're talking a bit later now, but there's a very famous figure in London history called Charles Booth. He produced one of the iconic documents, I think, of urban London 19th century called the Booth Poverty Map. And this is a colour coded map of London with the various colours denoting the amounts of wealth or poverty in London, ranges from gold all the way to black for the kind of people with the least resources. And this is the result of a 16 volume survey into what's called life and labour in London. And what he found is the people that really suffered are the people that were out of work through injury, illness, old age, or that couldn't work often, couldn't work often enough. Casual labour was a really big thing. And those are the people that really sort of suffer, I think, from the Industrial Revolution, the people that can't get the work or can't get enough work.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah. So the zero hours contracts and the gig economy, nothing ever changes really, does it?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' There are definite striking parallels to today.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah. How did people then during this period of fairly rapid but continual change, how did people react to that? Because we… Can we blame this period for the increase in political emancipation and the desire for people to have more say over what's happening? There's the emergence of things like trade unions. Is that a reaction to this dominance of the machine and the factory owner?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' I think so. So we can... I think a very useful date, I think, is 1867. So 1867, lots of things happened that year. But the three that I'm interested in, make sure I get these right, they're in the right order. The second Great Reform Act, and what this basically gives some portion of the working population the vote. I say some portion because it's linked to how much income you have. So in 1832, there's the first Great Reform Act that allows effectively the middle classes to vote. The second Great Reform Act allows people who are… And it's determined by class because it's due to your property ownership. So if you own property, you can vote. In the second Great Reform Act of 1867, you can rent as people who rent are allowed to vote, but only to pass a certain price point. If you pay more than a certain amount of rent, you're allowed to vote. And this was deemed to be... It shows if you were invested properly in society, you were responsible, effectively that you weren't going to sort of vote away private property and the property of the wealthy, that idea. So 1867 is the Great Reform Act. So before then, a lot of sort of reform politics campaigning was dedicated to getting that. We talk about the Chartist Movement. And the Chartist, that name comes from the Charter, the Great Charter, their list of demands of which voting was on them. But after we have the vote, there is more an emphasis on getting better wages and kind of working within the system. So in 1867, we have the Great Reform Act. 1867 is also the year that the first volume of Capital, Karl Marx's Das Kapital, was published. Obviously, a revolutionary tradition, the idea being that saying that capitalism is inherently exploitative, and that the only way for sort of fairness to arrive is so that workers' families seize the means of production. You're only going to get a fair deal if you own the factory, not if someone else owns the factory, to summarise a very, very complex book and a huge body of theory in that two sentences. So I hope that will be okay. Again, apologies to the Marxist scholars out there. So we have Kapital. And then the other thing we have, I think, interestingly, is a Royal Commission on Trade Unions. So trade unions are effectively, in broad terms, illegal up until this point. There's some grey areas around the side, but we're not going to go too far wrong if we say trade unions are illegal in 1867. A Royal Commission recommends the legalisation of trade unions because they say they're actually better for workers and for owners, and they're legalised in 1871. And what we tend to see in the British sort of tradition, even the sort of British social tradition, is not a desire to overthrow the system, but a desire to sort of do better within that system. Better wages, better conditions, all those sorts of things. And what social traditions they are, tend to focus on gradual change, often more than always, enacted through the ballot box.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' This might be a difficult question to answer, I guess, but why does London become considered the heart of the industrialised world?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' That really is quite a tricky question. It's quite a nuanced question as well, because up until quite recently, there was a prevailing view among historians that London didn't industrialise at all, which I think really kind of flies in the face of what we think of London. We think, you know, talking about syndicate, it's this quite smoky, I mean, I think it probably could even be even dirtier, this sort of smoky kind of dense centric production. So what does that, so why would you say it's not industrialised? And then if it hadn't industrialised, how could it claim to be the heart of the industrialised world? So the first thing to say is that was probably a bit of a mischaracterisation that didn't industrialise at all. But the kernel of truth in that is that factories were less prevalent or less dominant parts of the London economy than they were in somewhere like Manchester, for example, where factories were kind of the, cotton factories were kind of the dominant sort of economic form. There are factories in London, there are very big factories in London. But what we also see in London is a survival, and indeed, almost a boosting, because of industrial revolution, of an older system than a factory, often in houses and small workshops. So London is famous, not necessarily for producing the raw goods of industrialisation, but for finishing, finishing goods. So there's that element to it. Jerry White, a very famous London historian, talks about how districts of London almost act like factories. So Whitechapel, obviously one of the levels in Assassin's Creed, is famously associated with the textile trade, but not necessarily making cotton and cloth in the way Manchester is, but in finishing that cloth, turning that cloth into usable, usable garments. So that's part of it. But really, London's claim to be the heart of industrial world stands on two things, and it's the port, and it's the city of London. So throughout the 18th and 19th century, London was the busiest port in the world. One of my favourite bits of Assassin's Creed is hopping from boat to boat across the Thames, because today we don't think of London as a port city. It still is a very big port, but that activity takes place quite far down the river, sometimes actually in Kent, rather than in London, in big container ships. But in the 18th and 19th century, that activity took place on the river. And I say huge amount of trade going back and forth, and there is, of course, an imperial connection here. London's not just the capital of Britain at this point, it's the capital of the British Empire, and it's a real central hub of all that trade coming through, coming to and fro.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, I think as someone who's interested in medieval history, for me, you think of the rivers as being kind of the highways of the medieval age, and the Thames would have been an incredibly busy motorway system almost, and by the time you get to the 19th century, we need to remember, I think, that the Thames is probably something like a log-jammed motorway. You know, you're sitting in traffic, it's just constantly packed with boats and ships. We'll see speedboats zipping up and down it today, and tourist ships and stuff like that, but it would have been, you know, chocker with ships coming in and out to the point where you could leap across them as you do in the game, and we forget how busy it was. And I think the nearest equation for me is like a motorway in rush hour kind of thing.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' Absolutely, we have some really wonderful photographs in our collections of the river looking just that, of the docks being unloaded, but also just the sheer volume of traffic is quite exceptional. One of the most famous London landmarks today is, of course, Tower Bridge, which people outside of London in the UK might actually think of as London Bridge. This is the one that looks like a castle that sort of opens up and down in the middle. Well, when that was built at the very end of the 19th century, it was that part of the Thames called the Pool of London. You couldn't build a bridge there that couldn't allow to open because too many ships, it would like be blocking, like you say, blocking the M1 or blocking the M25. Today it opens once, about once a day, about 300 times a year, I think off the top of my head, not very often, but then it opened multiple times a day. You couldn't block the Thames, you had to put all this engineering effort into having it open. And the Tower Bridge, of course, sits right by the City of London, right by the Tower. And the City of London is the other very important economic factor in this story. So throughout the 19th century, it becomes the financial centre that we know it is today.  Stockbrokers, insurance, banking, all those sorts of things start to concentrate in that area. And just as physical goods are going up and down the Thames, financial goods and financial products are flowing in and out of the city. Lots of the business of empire, the profits that are taking place are coming through the city at this point.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, yeah. I'm also, before someone turns my fader down, I'm going to give a shout out to the West Midlands as the industrial centre of the world, but never mind.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' But the point is, you say that, but the point is the connection, isn't it? This is exactly the point of the distribution that it's, don't get me wrong, it's fun to sort of fly our flags through our little corner of the planet. But the very point is that goods from Birmingham are coming on the train to London, to the docks, and going away again, and vice versa. Some of those little barges we're hopping on and off across on Assassin's Creed, they're coal barges. The coal is coming from the northeast of England. The Stockton-Darlington Railway is built to get that from the Coalhead to the River Tea, I think it is, to come down, the colliery trade that comes down, the shipping trade on the east coast of Britain. It all connects.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, and I'm being slightly facetious just for the sake of it, really. But I think the point is really that London provides the hub of the wheel. All of these spokes come together and they pour into London. And London is where they're able to bring all of this together from every corner of the country and every corner of the empire. And that's where it, therefore, that's where it is all focused, you know. I mean, London is the centre. There you go, I said it. Can we give an end date to the industrial revolution, evolution? Does it finish at any given time?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' I think seeing my earlier comment about how hard it is to start, to give the start, if we can't start it, can we end it? So now it's my turn to be facetious. One of the things that is a bit tricky about this time period is that we have like general senses of what a word means. If I say industrial revolution, that means something to you, means something to most people, will probably mean something to most people listening to this podcast. It doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to historians who use it. They often have a technical meaning of what industrial means based on processes and econometrics, that sort of thing. And it overlaps just enough with our shared meaning of it that we think we know what they're talking about. But maybe we don't because they're talking about something quite specific. So you will read dates to the end of the industrial revolution as 1830, 1850, 1867. And this gets a bit confusing because if it starts in 1830 and finishes in 1840, according to different historians, surely it lasts more than 10 years. That doesn't make any sense. So one kind of useful way of this puzzle is to think actually in terms of not industrial revolution, but industrial revolutions. And one kind of version of that theory has first, second, even third and fourth, living through the fourth industrial revolution. And now you might say that's linked to computer technology. I don't mean to be dismissive about that scholarship. And something is important changing in sort of the middle of the 19th century, whatever we call it. And that's where this idea of first and second industrial revolution comes in. So something is sort of finishing and then something changes in the middle of that century. And what I think really important, that really important change is Britain stops being the centre of the industrial revolution round about the 19th century. If you like the Germany, excuse me, Germany and Europe more generally, North America, Japan as well, they start to industrialise on a scale as well. This is sometimes called the second industrial revolution. So the first industrial revolution is about cotton, steam, coal. Different products drive the second industrial revolution. Probably latterly electricity is most important, but steel and the chemical industry are important as well. And then those raw materials are important, but new forms of production take place as well. Mass production and also this idea of interchangeable parts. So we talked about London as a place where things are finished. As the second wave of industrialization goes on, more of those things can be manufactured that don't need to be finished by hand. And that kind of brings it on to another level. And people will often date the end of the second industrial revolution, it's a convenient date, as the start of the First World War in 1914. And we've talked about some of the negative sides of the industrial revolution. The carnage, I don't know if there's any other word for the First World War, is a direct product of industrialisation. This is the first time that fully industrialised powers have gone to war on this scale. There's some hints of it in the American Civil War in the middle of the 19th century, but kind of the full horror of industrial warfare is sort of first comes through in the First World War.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Yeah, I mean, I wanted to end by asking you whether there is a single standout legacy of the industrial revolution. But it sounds from our conversation like it has effectively crafted what we consider to be everyday life today, that we go to work at a certain time, that we finish at a certain time, that we check our watches all day, that we consume a lot more than we ever used to in the past, all of those facets of it. And to add into that kind of the industrialisation of warfare, you know, it sounds like some of the worst horrors of the 20th century were a legacy of the industrial revolution.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' I think that's, I think that's right. I think that what it comes down to for me, the legacy of industrial revolution, is it's the most profound change in sort of human history, probably, well, not probably, it is the most profound change in human history, since we started farming 12,000 years ago. And something of that magnitude is going to encompass all the good and all the dark as well. To add one more not very cheery thing to the dark list as well, when we talked about the industrial revolution hinging on new forms of power, fossil fuels, we have to add climate change to that list as well. This is where I get slightly beyond my expertise. But my understanding is that climate change, some of it has already happened, some of it will already continue to happen. But depending on the sort of the political, economic and technological choices of the next few decades, we'll find out quite how much climate change we have. And then maybe at that point, we can sort of really say what the legacy industrial revolution was. Yeah, yeah, it's a slightly frightening one.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Well, thank you so much for joining us, Tom. It's been fascinating to explore this all encompassing huge shift in human history, I guess. And to have done all of that in less than an hour is testament to your ability to get that across. So thank you so very, very much for compressing all of that for us into an understandable portion. Where can people find more from you and more about your work?
+* '''Tom Furber:''' So I'm an Engagement Learning Officer at the London Archives, which is owned and funded by the City of London Corporation. If you're interested in anything that happened in London from 1067 onwards to the present day, we'll have something that interests you in our collection. And one of the aspects of our collection that is very strong is around the industrial revolution, in particular, this idea of urbanisation. So if you're interested in how those changes affected London and Londoners, this is a really good place to go. My suggestion as a place to start would be put a little search for either the London Archives or the London Picture Archive. The London Picture Archive will take you through to our image collection, available online. It's about quarter of a million images from about 1600 onwards, something like that. And you'll be able to find out. You could probably even do frame by frame some of the cities of the game, what it looks like in the game, what it looks like, what it looked like in the 19th century as well.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Oh, well, that's the rest of my day sorted out. I'll go and find some of that. Thank you very much for joining us, Tom. It's been an absolute pleasure to talk to you.
+* '''Tom Furber:''' No, the pleasure's all mine, Matt.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Thank you very much. I hope you've enjoyed this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. Next time, we'll be stepping into the Animus with Holly to explore how the world of Assassin's Creed Syndicate is created and how the history is wrapped around the game. Don't forget to subscribe and follow Echoes of History wherever you get your podcasts. And if you're enjoying it, you can leave us a review too. See you next time among the Echoes of History.
+|-|4=
+'''''The Crown's Greatest Jewel: The Koh-i-Noor Diamond'''''
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' Welcome to Echoes of History, the place to explore the rich stories from the past that bring the world of Assassin's Creed to life. I'm Matt Lewis. For the past few weeks we've explored the dark underbelly of Victorian London, the setting of Assassin's Creed Syndicate. We've seen how the Industrial Revolution forever changed the face of London's buildings and its people. We've investigated how Scotland Yard played a crucial role in policing crime in the ever-expanding metropolis. And we've uncovered the true personality of the woman who gave her name to the era, Queen Victoria. Today I want to examine the literal jewel of Victoria's crown, the Koh-i-Noor diamond. In Assassin's Creed Syndicate, players get the opportunity to be part of the history of this famous treasure as they protect it from the evil Templars by liberating it from the Tower of London. In the mythology of Assassin's Creed, the Koh-i-Noor is a fascinating addition to a story that spans centuries. But the diamond has a riveting and tragic history all of its own. Due to a malfunction with our animus, I've handed over to my friend Dan Snow, who sat down with historian Shrabani Basu to shed light on the mystery of the Koh-i-Noor. How did a symbol of Mughal power become a feature of the British coronation ceremony? The answer is complex and Victorian.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' The Koh-i-Noor diamond, a mountain of light in Persian, is one of the largest cut diamonds in the world, over a hundred carats. And it was, for the last, well over a hundred years, part of the crown jewels of the United Kingdom. It's one of the most famous stones in the world, it always was, right from its beginning. It was owned by various rulers on the Indian subcontinent, then in Iran and Afghanistan. And it passed to the British as they expanded their domination of India. Queen Victoria was made Empress of India, but she was a slightly reluctant one. She wrote to her eldest daughter, Victoria, the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm, and she said in the 1870s no one feels more strongly than I do about India or how much I opposed our taking those countries and I think no more be taken for it's very wrong and no advantage to us. You know how much I dislike wearing the Koh-i-Noor? Well she was certainly wrong about no more territory being taken in the subcontinent. The British Empire in Asia expanded into places like Burma after she said that. But she was ahead of her time in realising that the Koh-i-Noor itself would attract great controversy. Today various groups in India and further afield ask for the diamond back regularly. It was at the time and it still is, I suppose, a symbol of Britain's violent seizure of a vast empire in India. In this episode of the podcast I've got Shravani Basu, she's a journalist, she's a best-selling author, she's been on the podcast before, she talked about her book For King in Another Country Indian Soldiers on the Western Front 1914 to 18. She's a great commentator on Indian history and the British Empire in India. It's great to have Shrabani back on the podcast. Here are her thoughts about the Koh-i-Noor.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' It's lovely to be here, Dan. Thanks for inviting me.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Tell me about diamonds. I mean India was a great source of diamonds traditionally, wasn't it?
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' It was. It was the one big source before the South African mines were discovered. So all the diamonds actually came from India at this stage. And of course, you know, everybody loved diamonds, so it was the big thing. You had these mines in South India, the Golconda mines. The diamond we're going to talk about today, that's where it came from.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Tell me about the diamond, the Koh-i-Noor.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Right. Well, it didn't have that name. When I go back to the history, apparently the history of this diamond is like 5,000 years old. It was mined in South India near the Golconda mines. It actually floated up on the beds of the Godavari River. So it is on the river bed. They say it was mentioned in ancient Hindu texts of 5,000 years old. But we'll park that for a moment and sort of take the facts as it were. We know where it was mined. And then the story goes that it was probably used, this big chunk of rock was in a temple as the eye of the idol, you know, like the third eye. So it was on the forehead of this idol. And then you have the invasion from the north of the Muslim rulers. They desecrated a lot of temples. So they probably got the Koh-i-Noor from one of these temples and took it up north. And it would have been the Delhi Sultan, so the Lodis, the Tughlaqs. And it stayed in the north till, of course, Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, he gets this diamond. And then we have a mention of this large diamond, the size of a hen's egg. It is probably the Koh-i-Noor, though he had other diamonds as well. And of course, this goes down the Mughal dynasty till we see it with Shah Jahan, one of his descendants, the famous Shah Jahan, who made the Taj Mahal, loved architecture, loved jewellery, and liked to put precious stones in his monuments. And he put the Koh-i-Noor in the Peacock Throne, which was in Delhi. Tell us what the Peacock Throne was. Well, this was this elaborate gold throne with gems and jewels with the wings of a peacock and the head is where the Koh-i-Noor was apparently kept, the head of the peacock. This is seen by travellers and everybody knows it. But even at this time, it's not actually called the Koh-i-Noor, it's called the Mughal diamond or just Babur's diamond. So it has different names and that's how it's referred to. So it stays with the Mughals until, of course, we have this date, which is 1738, when a warlord from Persia, and he's Nadir Shah, he invades Delhi. Now the Mughals at this time, their power is declining. But of course, the Peacock Throne is still there, the Koh-i-Noor is still there. And Nadir Shah loots Delhi, plunders Delhi, kills civilians, it's very violent. And then of course, he takes the Mughal treasures and takes them away. And he is the one, when he looks at this big diamond, he says, this is the mountain of light, it's the Koh-i-Noor. So he is the one who actually names it the Koh-i-Noor and that name has stuck.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' And it's interesting because we Brits talk a lot about our own role in the destruction of Mughal India. But the Nadir Shah invasion and sack of Delhi, I mean, that was devastating for the Mughal regime, wasn't it?
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' It was brutal because civilians were killed, massacred, and all the treasures were taken. So the Koh-i-Noor, the Peacock Throne, the other diamonds, there's this other large diamond called the Darya-e-Noor, all these were taken to Persia. The Koh-i-Noor now moves to Iran and it stays there. But of course, he's a warlord, so the wars are continuing. And he is assassinated in 1747, he's dying. And of course, he's got the Koh-i-Noor strapped on his arm, he wears it as an armband. And his general, his name is Ahmed Shah Abdali, he takes the Koh-i-Noor from him and he takes it away. And of course, this general then goes all the way to Afghanistan and he goes to Kandahar. And there in Kandahar, he changes his name to Ahmed Shah Durrani, and he becomes the ruler of Afghanistan for the next few years. So now the Koh-i-Noor moves from Persia to its new home in Afghanistan.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Was the diamond famous outside the subcontinent and outside Iran at this point? And indeed, was it famous there? Did it already have an extraordinary reputation?
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' It did, because travellers would write about this diamond. There were so many accounts, starting from Babur Nama in Babur's own memoirs, to other travellers who would visit the court. It is described, it was in the peacock throne, it's gone to now Iran. So, it is a much coveted diamond. And so, when it's come to Afghanistan, again, it's got this history where it goes missing, it's lost, it's found, it ends up in a cave, where apparently there's a mullah who's using it as a paperweight. So, all sorts of stories.
+* But these rulers of Afghanistan, the Durranis, now they are eyeing the Punjab, because they want to expand their kingdom. So, of course, we now have the next players in the game, and these are the Sikhs. They are going to clash with the Sikhs and the Sikh kingdom. And of course, the big person in the Sikh kingdom is a man who has one eye and his face has a small box marked, but he is known as the Lion of Punjab. And so, the Afghans have to take on this Sikh general. He was actually a general in their army, his name is Ranjit Singh. And of course, he imprisons Shah Shuja. Ranjit Singh expands the Sikh kingdom, it goes to Kashmir, so it covers Punjab and Kashmir. And now he arrests Shah Shuja and imprisons him in Kashmir. And he wants the Koh-i-Noor, he desperately wants his hands on this diamond. He does a bargain with Shah Shuja. He says, I'll release you if you give me the Koh-i-Noor. And so, the Koh-i-Noor now goes one more journey. It now goes to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and it's now moved from Kandahar to Lahore, and that is its new base.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' So, Ranjit Singh, so he is an extremely able commander. He's carved out this empire in what is now Northern India and Pakistan and beyond. But he now faces an enemy as well, doesn't he, Srimani?
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Of course, it's a real bloody history. I mean, the one thing you can say, Dan, about this diamond is that it does not have a tag saying one careful owner, because it has passed through so many hands. And there's just so many people who want it, who will do anything for it, blinding, torture, assassination, name it. It's all happening because of this diamond.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Every jewel in every myth, whether it's Norse mythology or Greek mythology, every jewel has to be cursed. Is there a little curse going on here? It doesn't seem like whoever is in possession of this hangs on to it very long.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Oh yeah, it was famous as a cursed diamond. I mean, there were two ways. They said one who possesses this will rule the earth, and the other was it's a cursed diamond. We have literature about cursed diamonds. We have writing, Moonstone, etc. So also the romance of this cursed diamond, you know, it continues. It's just legends and folklore that goes on.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Yeah, it's a shame it's so ambiguous. If you get this diamond, you're either cursed or you rule the world.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' I mean, okay, great. Thanks very much. There's no two ways about it.
+* Yeah.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Okay, so Ranjit Singh has this diamond. Tell us about him. Is he ruling the world?
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' He is. Well, he's, as they say, the Lion of Punjab. His territories extend from Lahore to Kashmir. But of course, he dies in 1839. And once more, there is carnage after his death, because there's bloodshed, all his successors, everyone is killing everybody, and there's plotting. And eventually, it's 1843 when this five-year-old little boy with large eyes, he is the one who inherits this throne. His name is Maharaja Dilip Singh. And he's going to the Koh-i-Noor for the next five years. He wears it as an armband.
+* It's strapped on his plump little arm. And that's how it is.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' And Shrabani, has it been shaped and polished and made to look all nice at some stage from that temple in southern India to the present? It must have been all fancied up.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' It is. So it's a rose-cut diamond. It hasn't been cut. The descriptions are that it is the of a hen's egg. So it weighed about 190.3 metric carats. So it's a large chunk of rock. It's trapped, as I said, as an armband on Dilip Singh, onto this little Maharaja. But of course, there is so much violence. There is now the next players in this game. And of course, it is these men in red coats with muskets and arms and enter the British.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' I've heard of them. I've heard of these guys.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Yeah, so they are there. And of course, Punjab is so important to them, because this is the 19th century, early 19th century. We have the great game with Russia. Afghanistan is important. And Punjab is crucial because that's going to be the focus for Afghanistan. So they are looking at the Sikh kingdom. And of course, they go to war. And of course, because the Sikh kingdom after Singh is going to pieces, the five-year-old Maharaja there, it's just perfect for picking. So there we go. We have two wars. And the second Anglo-Sikh war is 1849. The Sikhs are defeated. And this 10-year-old Maharaja signs the deed. It's the Treaty of Lahore. So one of the terms is, of course, the kingdom is annexed. The treasury is annexed. And one of the items is the Koh-i-Noor will be handed over. And the exact wordings, I'll read them. It says, the gem called the Koh-i-Noor, which was taken from Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, shall be surrendered by the Maharaja of Lahore to the Queen of England. So it's written there. It's one of the clauses of the treaty. And this 10-year-old has to take it off and give it.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' So it was a famous thing. Like it was something that the Brits, they didn't just want Punjab. They wanted this diamond as well.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' They want this diamond because everybody wants this diamond. And the new Governor-General, he's in his 30s. He's a fairly young man, Lord Dalhousie. He has his eyes on this diamond and Punjab. And he writes to his bosses in the East India Company, and he writes about the Koh-i-Noor. He says, the Koh-i-Noor has become in the lapse of ages, a sort of historical emblem of conquest in India. It has now found its proper resting place. You can see from his words that this diamond is so coveted. It's travelled, as we said, from this temple in South India to Persia, to Afghanistan, to Lahore, and now the Brits have it. So it's put into a little bag and he's going to send it in a little, actually purpose-built, little kid bag, sewed together by Lady Dalhousie. And he himself, he goes to Lahore to take the diamond personally. So he travels up from Calcutta, takes the train to Lahore, puts this diamond in the big bag and actually has it sewn onto his waist. He's going to travel like that. He is so scared that there's going to be an attack, somebody else will want it. It's got such a bloody history. So he takes it. He's taking no chances. It's trapped onto him and he carries it to Bombay himself on his person before it's loaded onto the ship in several caskets and finally arrives at the offices of the East India Company in Leadenhall Street in London in 1850.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Can you imagine how stressful that was for the captain of that ship to get the navigation right? Oh my goodness.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Everything. I mean, imagine Dalhousie. It was a long train journey from Lahore to Calcutta with the diamond strapped to him. I mean, everything about this diamond was so stress-inducing. It's a wonder they really want it. But it was a lot of stress as well for anyone who got it. And then to hold on to it was the next thing.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Okay, so the diamond comes to the UK. Does Queen Victoria, does it get handed over to her personally?
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Of course, yes. It was meant for the Queen, so it's handed to the Queen. But it's handed on a day that she is really upset because she just got the news that Lord Peel has died, a former Prime Minister who she was very close to. This is Robert Peel. She is distracted and distressed and this diamond is given, so she receives it. But actually she doesn't write too much about it. It's just a mention in her journals, which is very unusual because normally she would have written a lot about it and we'd have had a hundred opinions about the diamond, but she just mentions that she received this. But of course it's 1850 and the next year we're going to have this big exhibition, 1851, the Great Exhibition. It's decided that the Koh-i-Noor is going to be the centrepiece of this exhibition. It's going to go on display to the public for the first time. The posters are there and the crowds, they come milling to see this diamond. It's put in a sort of cage, but horror of horrors, it only gets a two-star review because the Crystal Palace, where this Great Exhibition takes place, is open glass. So this diamond, which is rose cut, which is a different sort of cutting, it's not the sort of European cutting, it doesn't actually glitter. It doesn't catch the light in such a way. So everyone's a bit underwhelmed. The Queen is also a bit disappointed. They tried their best, they put it on a dark velvet cloth, they put lamps on it to make it shine, but none of it really works. So after the exhibition, it's taken and the Queen gives it to Albert and Albert is like, what do we do with this? How do we get this right? He consults jewelers and diamond experts and he decides to have it cut, European style. So now a hammer and chisel are going to be brought to this diamond. And it's going to be cut and horror again, it loses half its weight with the cutting. So from 190 carat, this big hen's egg is now reduced to a quail's egg. It's become 90 something carat. That's it. It's lost half its weight, but it does shine. So it's given to Queen Victoria. She's happy to have it, but she has mixed feelings because she does realise that Dilip Singh has been through a lot. Well, what's happened to Dilip Singh in the meantime is actually really tragic, because when he was nine, when all this was happening, his mother was torn from his side and imprisoned. So this young prince is nine years old, his mother is taken from him. And the next year his kingdom is taken from him. And then he himself is taken from Lahore. And he's sent 200 miles away to Fort Fatehgarh, where he is now to be looked after by a Scottish doctor, a very kindly man called Dr. Logan and his wife, Lena. So he's brought up in this very lonely, he's just a child, plays with toys by himself, very English upbringing. And when he's 14, he decides, he says, I want to become a Christian. He wants to give up his faith. He's a confused young boy. His mother is not there to guide him. Kingdom is gone. On his 11th birthday, he actually really tragically, Dr. Logan wants to give him a present and says, can I have some of the treasures back and give him a few jewels, a few bits and bobs to please him. And so they bring these out and they give it to him. And he says that on my 10th birthday, I wore the Koh-i-Noor. So it's really sad. And it does make Dr. Logan and his wife, who are very kindly people, feel terrible about it. They never want to bring up the Koh-i-Noor to Dilip Singh. But meanwhile, Dilip Singh now decides he wants to travel to England. So at the age of 15, he travels to England and it's going to change his life because now he's going to meet Queen Victoria and see the Koh-i-Noor again. And that's quite a story.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Wow. He comes face to face with the Koh-i-Noor again.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Yeah. So it's actually, this story is told by Lena Logan, Lady Logan. And she says it was absolutely embarrassing because the Queen was actually very anxious about the Koh-i-Noor. And after it's been cut, she wants to show it. She wants to know what Dilip Singh, this young boy, feels about it. She's very fond of Dilip Singh. And she keeps asking Lady Logan, does he talk about the Koh-i-Noor? What does he say? She's really curious. Can I show it to him? And Lady Logan says, well, okay. So there's this one day, 1854, Dilip Singh is dressed to the nines like a Maharaja. He's wearing all his Indian clothes and jewels. His portrait is being painted in Buckingham Palace by Franz Winterhalter. This portrait actually hangs in Osborne House. It's a beautiful portrait. So while this portrait is being painted, Dilip Singh is modelling in all his fabulous clothes, looking really handsome. He was a very handsome young prince. Suddenly, Queen Victoria enters the room, followed by some guards, and they're holding a box. And she opens it and it's the Koh-i-Noor. And she gives it to Dilip Singh and says, what do you think? Do you recognise it? Dilip Singh, he looks at this, he can barely recognise it. It's this little stone now. It's shining, it's cut differently. His face sort of changes when he looks at the new diamond. He walks to the window and holds it up in the light. Lady Logan thinks for one moment that he's so upset, he's going to throw it out of the window. And she is really anxious and very embarrassed. And then he just turns around, he takes the diamond and he bows and he gives it to Queen Victoria. And he says, as your humble servant, I hereby present my sovereign with the Koh-i-Noor. So it was a really embarrassing scene. And well, Queen Victoria takes the diamond and she now wears it as a brooch. No qualms about that.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' How does it end up in the crown jewels?
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' She wears it as a brooch. Even when she goes into mourning, it's there on this black outfit of hers. And she loves wearing it on special occasions. She always mentions it in her diary that, you know, the Maharaja and so and so came, I wore this and I wore my Koh-i-Noor. It is very prominently worn. And then, well, it's after her death in 1901 that this Koh-i-Noor is now placed for the coronation of her son Edward VII. It is now worn in the crown of Queen Alexandra. So that is the movement when it goes to the crown. So it is placed in her crown and that tradition continues. So it is always worn by the queen consort after Edward VII's death in 1911. It is worn by Queen Mary in her crown at the coronation of George V. So again, the queen consorts are wearing it. And so for those who said this diamond is cursed, there was this theory that, well, as long as it's not worn by a male monarch, you're okay. So Victoria was a queen, so she was safe. And if queen consorts wear it, that's fine. So I think it continued to be worn and it ends up in the coronation crowns. And then it passes to Queen Elizabeth. So when George VI, at his coronation, she has a new crown and the Koh-i-Noor is placed in the centre of that. And that is where it stays. The queen mother wears this at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. So 1953 she wears it. Well, of course it's housed in the Tower of London where everybody can see it. On her death in 2002, it is placed on the coffin. Once again, the Koh-i-Noor is there front and centre, sparkling. And of course it leads to lots of controversy. People don't like it back in India.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' How interesting. And so let's come to the controversy in a minute, but presumably if tradition continued, it's not the sovereign wears it, it's the consort. And we now have a female consort again. So Camilla should be wearing it at the coronation.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Well, this is exactly what came up. So once the queen died and suddenly all the crowns were on display again, there was this murmur, which became more than a murmur. Everybody realised that the next coronation, the queen consort will be wearing the Koh-i-Noor in her crown in all possibilities. So it really became a controversy. And in India, one of the politicians from the ruling party said that if this Koh-i-Noor was worn again, it would bring back the painful past of colonial history, etc. So there were a lot of murmurings. And also, of course, the demand, once again, bring back the Koh-i-Noor started all over again.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Now, why is the Koh-i-Noor more sensitive than much of the other loot captured by the Brits over the centuries, some of which have found their way into ceremonial jewellery and events? What is it about the Koh-i-Noor, do you think?
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' It's really interesting because, you know, as far as jewels go, there's a lot that was taken as loot and these include Tipu Sultan's treasury, Tipu Sultan, the Tiger of Mysore. He was defeated by the East India Company, Arthur Wellesley's army, 1799. His treasures, his golden throne, all of these were taken, his swords, his throne, even his tent, they were all taken here. And the beautiful Bird of Paradise, which was on top of his throne, that is with the royal estates. But these things, these treasures are all locked away, they're in the vaults, you don't see them. I think the history of the Koh-i-Noor, the way it was taken, the way it was coveted by so many rulers from all across, that gives it this romance. And in the way it was seized from Punjab, from this young 10-year-old Maharaja, whose mother was taken away, so this whole tragic history to it brings it to the fore. And then, of course, the Koh-i-Noor is worn when it's placed in the crown, it is there for people to see, it is very much on display. Front and centre, glittering in the crown, it is, you know, the jewel in the crown, the jewel, the most famous diamond in the world. So, it attracts that attention, it becomes the symbol of colonial rule, much more than the other treasures do, because you don't see them, you don't see them glittering on this crown. So, when it went out on the Queen Mother's coffin, that's when a lot of the murmuring started. When Prime Minister David Cameron went to India, he was asked repeatedly, you know, give back the Koh-i-Noor. And they said, no, there's no negotiation, it's staying there. If we start returning things, the British Museum will be emptied. So, all this comes up. But I think the main thing about the Koh-i-Noor is it is the symbol, it is the one symbol of colonial rule, where it was taken. And, of course, it's one rock, it's a diamond.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' The fact that the royal family, the British government, have retired the Koh-i-Noor for this coronation, what do you think that tells you about the state of relations between Britain and India and the nerves, the awareness of Britain's imperial legacy?
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Oh, absolutely. I think Prince Charles is quite sensible. The last thing he would want is more controversy. I mean, goodness knows there's enough. He would not want any focus going on the Koh-i-Noor once again, and all the controversy, if Camilla was to wear this. So, I think they took the decision that she would wear Queen Mary's crown, which has a replica Koh-i-Noor, and the actual Koh-i-Noor will not be placed on it. Instead, there will be these Cullinan diamonds from South Africa, which were worn as brooches by Queen Elizabeth II. So, those will be placed on the newly structured Queen Mary's crown. And so, that takes the Koh-i-Noor away from, you know, being front and centre and on display. But, of course, I mean, the murmuring will continue, but I think it was a sensible decision not to wear this. And, of course, there's so many other things. You know, there's a trade deal at stake. So, you don't want bad relations with India at the moment. Post-Brexit trade with India is important. This trade deal is hanging on the edge and they need to complete it. So, I think the government advice would also have been, keep that low. Let's keep the bling down. Let's not ruffle any feathers.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Wow. Do you think one day the Koh-i-Noor will end up heading back to the subcontinent? By the way, if so, who gets it? Is it Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iran? Who gets the Koh-i-Noor? I don't think it'll ever go back.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' I think it's here now for good at the end of the day. A, there are too many contenders for it. So, you know, Iran would want it. Afghanistan, the Taliban actually claimed it in 2000, which is quite hilarious. And then Pakistan says that after partition, Lahore is part of Pakistan. So, that's where the diamond had its last place. So, way back in the 1970s, actually, when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was prime minister, they put in a claim for the Koh-i-Noor, which was dismissed. And India, the cases keep coming and going, you know, every now and then there'll be a case and bring back the Koh-i-Noor. It's like background music that keeps going on. But I don't think it'll ever go back. What I do think is that people get really annoyed that they have to pay to go. I mean, this jewel was taken at gunpoint. It was not a gift. Everybody knows that. And it is the most famous diamond. So, I think people really get annoyed with the fact that they have to pay to go see the Koh-i-Noor if they want to see it. So, I feel that maybe if it went to one of the museums, one of the national museums where the public could see it, that would probably be a better home for it. So, you know, the V&A or the Queen Victoria's crown is already there in the V&A. This could join that. And then people can go and see it. And well, that's just my theory.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' So interesting that the story of the Koh-i-Noor is absolutely not yet over. It could keep moving.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Oh yes, it would. It's just like it kept moving. Well, it's been sitting in the tower for many years now. Let's see how things shape. But I think it could, under pressure, it won't go back to India. It definitely won't go to Pakistan. I mean, if anything, India has the claim on it because the diamond did come from the Golconda mines there. It was part of the Mughal Empire. The Sikh Empire is also seen as largely part of India. But the point is, it's too controversial and it's just better off here. But it might move to a different place.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Well, thank you so much for talking us through that. The controversy doesn't look like it's going anywhere, Shrabani. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' No, we're not getting rid of the bling yet.
+* '''Dan Snow:''' Thank you very much for coming on the podcast. That's fantastic.
+* '''Shrabani Basu:''' Thank you. It's lovely to be here, Dan.
+* '''Matthew Lewis:''' I hope you've enjoyed this episode of Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hit. I'll be back next time as we move on to our next sequence of episodes about how Assassin's Creed Odyssey brought ancient Greece to life. In the next episode, I'll consult with the medical legend that was Hippocrates and promptly pick that legend apart. Don't forget to subscribe and follow Echoes of History wherever you get your podcasts. And if you're enjoying it, you can leave us a review too. I'll see you next time among the echoes of history.
 </tabber>
+==''Assassin's Creed: Black Flag Resynced''==
+DO '''NOT''' ADD TO ARTICLE.
+'''''Assassin's Creed: Black Flag Resycned''''' is a 2026 action-RPG remake of the 2013 action-adventure video game ''[[Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag]]''. It was developed by Ubisoft ??? <s>as opposed to Ubisoft Montreal</s>, the studio behind the original.
+It was released on ?? March 2026 on Microsoft Windows, Xbox Series X/S, and PlayStation 5. A Nintendo Switch 2 port was released on ??/??/????.
+===Gameplay===
+In contrast to the original, ''Resynced'' is an action-roleplaying game similiar to the modern games. ''Resynched'' will also include the ability to make in-game purchases.<ref name="IGN Resynched PEGI">{{Cite web| url=https://www.ign.com/articles/assassins-creed-black-flag-resynced-is-the-name-of-ubisofts-long-awaited-pirate-remake| title=Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced Is the Name of Ubisoft's Long-Awaited Pirate Remake| author=Phillips, Tom| publisher=''{{Wiki|IGN}}''| date= 10 December 2025| accessdate=14 December 2025| archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20251214030507/https://www.ign.com/articles/assassins-creed-black-flag-resynced-is-the-name-of-ubisofts-long-awaited-pirate-remake| archivedate=14 December 2025}}</ref>
+===Development===
+Long since rumored to be in production, ''Resyched''{{'}}s existence was proven by a PEGI rating listing in December 2025.<ref name="IGN Resynched PEGI"/>

User:VilkaIsBack/Sandbox: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 05:23, 14 December 2025

Assassin's Creed Hexe[edit | edit source]

Gameplay[edit | edit source]

Echoes of History transcripts[edit | edit source]

Assassins vs Templars[edit | edit source]

Baghdad Soundwalks[edit | edit source]

Figures of Baghdad[edit | edit source]

Shadows[edit | edit source]

Syndicate[edit | edit source]

Assassin's Creed: Black Flag Resynced[edit | edit source]

Gameplay[edit | edit source]

Development[edit | edit source]

Navigation menu

Search