In the third episode of Betwixt The Sheets’ Royal Sex mini-series, Dr Kate Lister is joined by Virginia Rounding, author of ‘Catherine the Great: Love, Sex, and Power’ and a literary critic specialising in Russian and women’s history, to delve into the extraordinary life of this Russian empress. Did Catherine the Great really die having sex with a horse? Was she involved in her husband’s death? And were her lovers selected for political reasons?

Prepare to challenge long-held myths and uncover the fascinating realities of one of history’s most powerful and controversial female rulers.

Subscribe to Betwixt The Sheets

From German Princess to Russian Empress

Born Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst in Prussia in 1729, Catherine was a minor German princess never destined for imperial rule. Her path to power was unexpected, a result of intricate family connections and her own formidable ambition. It was her mother, Joanna, who leveraged a sentimental connection with Empress Elizabeth of Russia, who sought a suitable bride for her nephew and heir, Grand Duke Peter.

Aged just 14, Sophie (Catherine) arrived in Russia as Peter’s chosen fiancée. Peter, slightly older and an orphan, was delighted to have company, hoping for an ally against the Russian court.

Their marriage, when it finally occurred after much pomp and religious conversion, was far from auspicious. Catherine was led to the marital chamber only to find Peter absent, engrossed in his supper. Upon his eventual arrival, he simply climbed into bed, remarked on the servants’ amusement if they saw them, and promptly fell asleep. For nearly a decade, their marriage remained unconsummated.

Catherine, intelligent and ambitious, found herself isolated in the Russian court, enduring years of neglect and unhappiness. Yet this period of personal frustration proved to be a crucial crucible for her political development. She dedicated herself to mastering the Russian language, culture, and Orthodox faith, shrewdly cultivating relationships with key figures in the court and military that would later serve her well.

Tsar Peter III and his wife, the future Catherine the Great. He reigned only six months, and died on 17 July 1762.

Image Credit: Georg Cristoph Grooth / Public Domain

An awakening: love, politics, and motherhood

Empress Elizabeth, desperate for an heir, grew concerned about the lack of a child. It was ultimately revealed that Peter simply didn’t know what to do. Elizabeth then employed a shrewd tactic: a young widow was brought in to educate Peter on conjugal matters. Peter, it seems, proved a receptive student.

However, Catherine had already experienced her own “sexual awakening”. By her early twenties, she had fallen deeply in love with a courtier, Sergei Saltykov, her first true experience of physical affection. Later, Peter finally consummated his marriage with Catherine. Catherine fell pregnant following two earlier miscarriages, and when her son, Paul, was finally born, his paternity remained a mystery – was he Peter’s, or Saltykov’s?

Paul was immediately taken by Elizabeth to be raised as the future emperor, leaving Catherine isolated and deeply depressed. This period of intense self-education and introspection, befriended by figures like the British Ambassador Sir Charles Hanbury Williams, cemented her resolve to forge her own path.

Coup and courtly power

When Empress Elizabeth died in 1761, Peter finally became Tsar, but his reign lasted a mere six disastrous months. With little political instinct, he alienated the Orthodox Church and the army, even ceding territory during the Seven Years’ War. Sensing his instability, Catherine, having meticulously built a network of influence, seized her moment.

In 1762, supported by figures like Grigory Orlov and his brothers in the powerful Guards regiments, Catherine orchestrated a swift and largely bloodless coup d’état. Peter was swiftly deposed and, shortly thereafter, died under mysterious circumstances. Catherine was proclaimed Empress. Had she had a hand in Peter’s demise?

Her ascension immediately fuelled the scandalous rumours about her private life. 

Catherine II on a balcony of the Winter Palace on 9 July [O.S. 28 June] 1762, the day of the coup.

Image Credit: Public Domain

The imperial lovers: power and passion

Catherine’s long reign (1762-1796) saw immense territorial expansion of the Russian Empire, enlightened reforms, and a flourishing cultural court. Yet her succession of male favourites – including Grigory Orlov and Grigory Potemkin – often dominated public discourse. Unlike many monarchs who conducted affairs discreetly, Catherine’s relationships were often openly acknowledged, deeply entwined with political influence.

In the podcast, Kate and Virginia explore whether Catherine’s romantic attractions in her private life may have intertwined in a calculated political move to secure crucial support and enable her ambitious reforms, or whether they were a genuine quest for companionship and love.

They also delve into the personal lives of these influential figures and their complex impact on the Empress and the Empire. You’ll discover how relationships, particularly with Potemkin – her closest confidant until his death – blurred the lines between personal passion and statecraft. Even later in her life, Potemkin continued to play a unique role, even ‘procuring’ younger lovers for her – men who were both pleasing and teachable.

Grigory Potemkin

Image Credit: Public Domain

Servant of Russia?

Catherine the Great died in 1796. For centuries, the popular narrative of Catherine the Great has been dominated by exaggerated tales of sexual excess, most notoriously including the infamous rumour involving Catherine and a horse. The podcast delves into this pervasive myth, aiming to separate fact from fiction. By examining contemporary accounts, diplomatic reports, and Catherine’s own extensive correspondence, Kate and Virginia explore how such salacious rumours originated and why they endured, revealing the profound societal anxieties surrounding female authority in the 18th century.

Catherine the Great was undeniably a woman of intellect, ambition, and extraordinary will. She corresponded with Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Diderot, reformed laws, founded schools, and dramatically expanded Russia’s borders. Her personal relationships, while fascinating, were but one facet of an empress who redefined Russian power. 

As Virginia suggests, Catherine “saw herself as a servant of Russia”, a civilising influence who embraced Enlightenment ideals – much of the stigma surrounding Catherine stems from the very fact she was a successful female ruler who defied 18th century expectations.

Join Dr Kate Lister on Royal Sex: Catherine the Great to navigate the intricate world of rumour, power, and passion that defined one of history’s most compelling monarchs. Uncover the true legacy of Catherine the Great – beyond the whispers and into the complexities of her reign.

Subscribe to Betwixt The Sheets

In the second episode of Betwixt The Sheets’ Royal Sex mini-series, Dr Kate Lister is joined by royal historian and Professor of French Literature at All Souls College, Oxford, Catriona Seth to delve into the surprising reality of France’s most famous queen. Was she truly the epitome of excess, or a young woman thrust into an impossible position?

Subscribe to Betwixt The Sheets

An Austrian Princess, a French destiny

Born in Austria in 1755, Marie Antoinette was the youngest daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Francis I and his wife, the formidable Empress Maria Theresa. Maria Theresa, a powerful ruler in her own right, meticulously orchestrated strategic marriages for her children, aiming to weave a vast network of European kinship. When France and Austria, once hereditary enemies, formed an unexpected alliance, Marie Antoinette, aged just 14, became the crucial pawn: destined to marry the Dauphin, the heir to the French throne.

Kate and Seth reveal how her proxy wedding in Vienna marked the start of a daunting journey. Weeks of travel across Europe led her to Versailles, a court vastly different from her Austrian upbringing. Despite speaking and writing French, Marie Antoinette, not an intellectual by nature (though a gifted musician), found herself adrift in a rigid, unfamiliar world. She sought refuge in music, fashion, and interior design, developing an influential eye for elegance that continues to inspire haute couture today. These interests provided an escape from a daunting reality: a husband seemingly uninterested in her.

Archduchess Maria Antonia depicted at age 13 in a 1769 portrait by Joseph Ducreux, which was sent to the Palace of Versailles in May 1769

Image Credit: Public Domain

The unconsummated marriage: a royal scandal

The most enduring mystery of Marie Antoinette’s early life in France revolves around her marriage to the young Louis. For an astonishing 7 years, their union remained unconsummated – a fact that became a subject of hushed whispers and diplomatic concern across Europe.

Professor Catriona Seth explores the factors behind this, from Marie Antoinette’s startling lack of preparation for married life, lacking any basic “birds and bees” education, to Louis’s own hesitations – more interested in hunting and locksmithing than his young wife. His own lack of understanding, or perhaps reluctance, regarding conjugal duties, further complicated the situation.

The intense pressure from her mother, Maria Theresa, who continually reminded her daughter of her duty to produce a French heir, only heightened Marie Antoinette’s isolation and precarious position. Versailles was a public stage, and the lack of an heir fuelled rampant speculation, undermining her reputation even before more serious accusations emerged.

It was only after direct intervention from Marie Antoinette’s adored older brother, Joseph, the Holy Roman Emperor, that the situation finally resolved. Joseph’s frank conversation with the young couple proved to be the ultimate catalyst, leading to the long-awaited consummation and, eventually, the birth of several children. For Marie Antoinette, motherhood became a deeply fulfilling role, a stark contrast to the distant upbringing of earlier French queens.

Marie Antoinette depicted with her three eldest offspring, Marie Thérèse, Louis Joseph and Louis Charles. Another child, Sophie Beatrix, was born in 1787

Image Credit: Public Domain

The queen of excess?

As Queen, Marie Antoinette gained a notorious reputation for extravagance and excess. But how much of this was true, and how much was revolutionary propaganda? Seth explores Marie Antoinette’s genuine passion for fashion and jewellery – often her only true personal possessions as a foreign bride, and how her elaborate hairstyles referenced current events.

Ironically, as queen, Marie Antoinette also sought to carve out a rare space for intimacy and privacy, building a small, personal retreat in the grounds of Versailles. This desire for a simpler, more private life, normal in Austria, was seen by the French public as suspicious, fuelling rumours of scandalous behaviour and contributing to the perception that she was “out of touch” with her suffering people, even though her private letters suggest genuine concern for the poor.

Scapegoat and icon

As anger and revolutionary fervour swelled across France, Marie Antoinette became a potent target. The podcast explores the barrage of salacious, often pornographic, pamphlets that viciously attacked her reputation, accusing her of countless affairs. While historical evidence for these dalliances is largely absent, except for lingering questions around her close bond with the Swedish nobleman Count Axel von Fersen, these rumours served a clear political purpose: to weaken the King by portraying his Queen as immoral and disloyal. Her Austrian heritage also made her an easy scapegoat.

The revolution ultimately stripped her of everything. After King Louis XVI’s execution in January 1793, Marie Antoinette endured brutal imprisonment, separation from her children, and a sham trial. Despite the terror, she faced her end with remarkable dignity, heading to the guillotine on 16 October 1793.

Marie Antoinette became a symbol of everything the revolutionaries despised in the aristocracy. But could she have done anything to stop the revolution or change her fate? Perhaps not. Yet, her visibility, particularly her distinct style, ensured her extraordinary recognition as a fashion icon, even in death.

Listen to Royal Queen Sex: Marie Antoinette to uncover the intimate life, political struggles, and enduring myths of one of history’s most iconic and tragic queens.

Subscribe to Betwixt The Sheets

In our special documentary, American Revolution: This is War! Bunker Hill and the Birth of the US Army, History Hit marks the 250th anniversary of the Siege of Boston (1775-1776), the foundational chapter in the eight-year fight for American Independence.

Join Dan Snow as he investigates the war’s first pitched battle – Bunker Hill – a bloody day that proved a hollow and costly British victory. Dan speaks to experts and explores this critical turning point, when skirmishes fought by colonial militia evolved into a fully-formed military campaign, as colonial forces laid siege on Boston for 11 months while the British Army tried desperately to maintain control of the town and its vital harbour. 

Sign up to watch

Following the initial clashes at Lexington and Concord, British forces under General Thomas Gage found themselves effectively trapped in Boston. Thousands of unorganised yet determined colonial militiamen from across New England converged around the city, loosely containing the British. Boston, a vital port and a symbolic hotbed of revolutionary sentiment, became the focal point. The British desperately sought to maintain control of the town and its crucial harbor.

Bunker Hill

Recognising the strategic importance of the hills surrounding Boston, colonial leaders decided to fortify Breed’s Hill (mistakenly named “Bunker Hill” in historical accounts) on the Charlestown Peninsula. On the night of 16 June 1775, 1,000 militiamen, led by Colonel William Prescott, hastily constructed earthen fortifications. The next day, some 2,200 British regulars, under Major General William Howe, launched a frontal assault.

The battle itself was a bloody affair. Colonial defenders held their ground against two British charges, inflicting devastating casualties. The Redcoats, advancing in disciplined ranks, were met with lethal volleys. Only on the third assault, as the Americans critically ran out of ammunition, did the British finally overrun the fortifications.

Though a tactical victory for the British, who secured the hill, it was a Pyrrhic victory of immense proportions. Over 1,000 British soldiers were killed (226) or wounded (828) – nearly half their engaged force. As Dan says, “It was the highest casualty count they suffered in a single encounter in the entire Revolutionary War”. This was compared to approximately 450 colonial casualties, of whom 140 killed mostly during the final stand and retreat.

This staggering cost sent shockwaves through the British command, shattering any illusions of a swift and easy suppression of the rebellion. In fact, they were trapped.

The Battle of Bunker Hill

Image Credit: Public Domain

The birth of an army and the long siege

Bunker Hill proved a profound turning point. For the inexperienced colonial forces, it was a massive morale boost. They had stood toe-to-toe with the world’s most formidable army and inflicted crippling losses, demonstrating that patriotic dedication, even from untrained militia, could indeed challenge superior military might. News of the battle galvanised support across the 13 colonies, uniting them in a shared sense of purpose.

Crucially, Bunker Hill underscored the urgent need for a more organised and disciplined fighting force. Just days after the battle, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, took a decisive step, formally establishing the Continental Army and, on 15 June 1775, appointed a Virginian, George Washington, as its Commander-in-Chief. Washington arrived in Cambridge in early July, facing the daunting task of transforming a collection of disparate militias into a cohesive fighting machine.

As military historian Jonathan Bratten explains to Dan, “Washington’s greatest genius through the entire war and at Bunker Hill was in keeping the army together, and in keeping an army in the field.” 

The Siege of Boston, which had begun informally, now intensified under Washington’s command. For the next 11 months, the Continental Army tightened its grip around the city. The British, confined to the peninsula, relied entirely on sea lines for supplies and reinforcements, making them vulnerable. Washington’s primary challenge was acquiring sufficient artillery to dislodge the entrenched British.

Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington

Image Credit: Picryl / Public Domain

The evacuation of Boston

The stalemate finally broke in early 1776, when, in a remarkable feat of logistics, Colonel Henry Knox successfully transported 59 cannons and other military supplies, captured from Fort Ticonderoga, over 300 miles of frozen terrain to Boston. On the night of 4 March Washington’s troops, under cover of darkness, fortified Dorchester Heights, overlooking Boston Harbor. By dawn, the British awoke to find American cannons aimed directly at their positions and ships.

Recognising the untenable situation, and faced with the prospect of another costly assault, or the destruction of his fleet, General Howe ordered the withdrawal. On 17 March 1776 – a day now celebrated as Evacuation Day – over 11,000 British soldiers and hundreds of Loyalists boarded ships and sailed for Halifax, Nova Scotia.

The Siege of Boston, culminating in this strategic American victory, marked a profound shift. Bunker Hill had shown the colonists could fight; the subsequent siege demonstrated they could sustain a military campaign and achieve strategic objectives. The transformation from scattered militia skirmishes to a unified, professional army had begun, setting the stage for a prolonged war for independence.

Sign up to watch

Read more about the American War of Independence

The accurate value and quality of coins produced by The Royal Mint is determined through the Trial of the Pyx. Here we explore how coins are tested, and the role the Trial plays in ensuring The Royal Mint maintains the highest level of quality when producing the nation’s coinage.

The Trial of the Pyx is a procedure which has taken place since 1282 and is an annual judicial ceremony to test and ensure that The Royal Mint’s newly minted coins meet the required standards.

The Trial is held every February and is judged by a jury of over six assayers from the Company of Goldsmiths, who are independent from The Royal Mint. After the coins have been inspected and judged for their weight, diameter, and composition, the verdict is then read aloud by the Clerk of the Goldsmiths’ Company at the instruction of the Senior Master and Queen’s Remembrancer – an ancient post created in 1154 by Henry II, and the oldest judicial position still in existence.

This verdict is received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer under their capacity of Master of the Mint. In the past, if the coinage is found to be substandard, the trial carried a variety of punishments for the Master of the Mint, including a fine, removal from office, or imprisonment. However, these do not happen today.

Isaac Newton and the 1710 Trial

One of the most famous, and most controversial, examples surrounding the inaccurate value of coins comes from the 1710 Trial of the Pyx, where Isaac Newton’s coins were found to not contain enough gold.

In 1696, Sir Isaac Newton moved from his post at Cambridge University to London to first become the Warden of The Royal Mint, and three years later, the Master of the Mint.

Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton

Image Credit: The Royal Mint

The role of Master of the Mint had traditionally been a ceremonial one, however, Newton wanted to make a contribution. He encouraged the engravers to up-skill themselves by taking on outside work, increasing the quality of their coins which also made them more difficult to counterfeit. Newton also started fastidiously pursuing counterfeiters through the courts which resulted in The Royal Mint gaining the reputation of one of the most trustworthy and accurate Mints in the world.

Note from Sir Isaac Newton re a Draft Submission

Image Credit: The Royal Mint

Therefore, when Newtons coins were judged as being below the required standard and not containing enough gold in the 1710 Trial of the Pyx, Newton reacted angrily, and set about proving the judgement procedure as faulty.

The coins in question had been compared with a new gold Trial of the Pyx Plate, introduced in 1707, and Newton managed to prove that it was in fact the plate that contained too much gold, and therefore his coins were not below the required standard. As a result, the earlier trial plate of 1688 was returned to use.

1688 Gold Trial Plate

Image Credit: The Royal Mint

Over 50 countries were affected, yet this revolutionary wave occurred without any kind of central international coordination. No single cause or theory can explain why they transpired; the sentiments that fuelled this year of tumultuous change were instead sparked by a confluence of various social, economic, and political factors, including widespread dissatisfaction with autocratic regimes, economic hardships, demands for political reforms, and desires for national unification and independence.

However, although widespread, many of these revolutions fizzled out or collapsed within a year. What triggered them, was anything achieved, and why did many of the revolutions end relatively swiftly?

Causes:

Political repression and autocratic rule

Many European countries were governed by autocratic monarchies or regimes that limited civil liberties and political participation. Citizens had grown increasingly frustrated by their lack of representation, and of oppressive governance and censorship, leading to a widespread demand for democracy over monarchy.

Economic hardships

A series of poor harvests since 1839, economic recessions, and industrialisation-related changes had meant decreased investment in agriculture, leading to widespread poverty, unemployment, rising food prices and shortages.

The working class and urban populations faced dire living conditions, contributing to social unrest and anger at how neglectful their country’s monarch could be.

Ideological stirrings

Ideas of liberalism, nationalism, and socialism were gaining traction across Europe. Calls for individual rights, constitutional reforms, national identity, and social equality spread through intellectual circles, influencing people to demand political change and other liberties such as freedom of the press.

The revolutionary barricades in Vienna in May 1848

Desire for national unification and independence

Many regions within Europe were fragmented politically, comprising several states or having provinces under foreign rule. Indeed France’s Napoleon Bonaparte made his brother King of Spain. Movements aimed at national unification, independence, or autonomy grew stronger, especially in Italy, Germany, Hungary, and Poland, fostering a strong sense of nationalism.

Inspiration from previous revolutions

The success of previous revolutions, notably the French Revolution of 1830, inspired people to believe in the possibility of effecting change through collective action.

When the February Revolution broke out in France in 1848, resulting in the overthrow of King Louis-Philippe and the establishment of the French Second Republic, it acted as a catalyst, sending a powerful message across Europe, from the Italian and German states to the Habsburg Empire and other regions. People in other countries saw this as an opportunity to demand similar reforms and challenge existing authoritarian regimes, sparking uprisings across the continent.

Social inequality and class struggles

Social disparities between the aristocracy and the lower classes fuelled discontent.

Urban populations had risen sharply, and the long working hours and inability to buy food or pay rent for the slums the working-class and urban poor lived in prompted them to seek better working conditions, fair wages, and representation in the face of industrialisation’s impact on labour. 

Meanwhile the middle-classes feared the new urban arrivals, concerned that the cheaper, mass-produced goods facilitated by industrialisation now replaced traditional skilled artisan products. Indeed many of the revolutions’ leaders were middle-class workers, who felt misunderstood and disconnected from their rulers and their comparatively lavish lives.

• 

  Illustration of 19th century slum (Dudley St., Seven Dials, 1872)

  Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Wellcome Images Photo number: L0000881 / CC BY 4.0

Achievements

The revolutions of 1848 were diverse in nature, with each country facing its unique set of grievances and aspirations. Although the uprisings didn’t result in lasting and widespread changes at the time, they did plant the seeds for future movements advocating for democracy, national unity, and social reforms in Europe. Outcomes varied region to region and many of the revolutions were considered failures, but there were a few notably significant events.

The February Revolution in France led to the establishment of the French Second Republic, and Denmark also experienced an end to its 200 year old monarchy.

In Italy, 1848 marked a series of uprisings against Austrian and other foreign rule, as well as efforts for national unification under figures like Giuseppe Garibaldi and Giuseppe Mazzini. Similarly, the German states witnessed widespread protests, demands for constitutional reforms, and aspirations for a unified Germany, culminating in the Frankfurt Parliament’s attempts to create a German national assembly.

The Habsburg Empire faced intense unrest, particularly in Hungary, where demands for autonomy and reforms led to clashes with the Austrian monarchy. The Hungarian Revolution, led by figures like Lajos Kossuth, sought political freedoms and autonomy within the empire. However, serfdom was put to an end in Austria and Hungary.

Elsewhere in Europe, similar movements for liberal reforms and national independence emerged. In Poland, an uprising against Russian rule aimed at regaining independence, although it was eventually suppressed. Revolts and demands for change also occurred in regions like the Czech lands, Romania, and the Balkans.

Challenges

Despite the initial enthusiasm and hopes for change, many of these revolutions faced significant challenges. Internal divisions among revolutionary factions, conflicting interests, and the reluctance of conservative forces to relinquish power led to the suppression of several uprisings. By the end of 1848 and into 1849, many of the revolutions had been quelled, and conservative forces regained control across Europe. Thousands of people also lost their lives in these conflicts.

Nonetheless, the events of 1848 had a lasting impact, serving as catalysts for future movements advocating for liberal reforms, national unification, and democratic governance. 1848 marked a significant turning point in European history, highlighting aspirations for change and setting the stage for subsequent revolutions and political transformations in the years to come.

The event ignited a spirit of resistance among patriots throughout the 13 colonies, galvanising their fight for independence and eventually leading to the American revolution. What factors led to the Boston Tea Party, and why did it have such significance?

Seven Years War (1756-1763)

Although the Seven Years War (known in the US more commonly as the French and Indian War) encompassed multiple nations, the main belligerents were the British and French Empires. Seeking territorial expansion across several continents, both suffered significant casualties and accumulated substantial debt to fund their protracted struggle for territorial dominance.

The most pivotal battleground was in North America, which in 1756 had been geographically split between the empires of the British, French and Spanish. Through costly yet key victories at Quebec and Fort Niagara, the British emerged triumphant, annexing substantial swathes of previously held French territory in Canada and the Mid-West via the Treaty of Paris in 1763.

While this British victory had eradicated the immediate French and Native Indian threat (to some extent) to Britain’s 13 American colonies, military and naval expenditures had nearly doubled Britain’s national debt to £133 million. Consequently, the British thought it fair to impose higher taxes on its 13 colonies, having accrued the debt fighting wars on the colonists’ behalf.

The colonists disagreed, and this colonial taxation brought about heightened economic hardship in the US, underscoring the cultural disparities and ideological differences between the colonists and the British mainland.

Taxes and duties

In 1765, Britain introduced the Stamp Act, which imposed a tax on printed materials – i.e. virtually every piece of paper used in the colonies. Colonists vehemently protested the imposition of new direct taxation on these, compelling the British Government to eventually repeal the legislation a year later. However, further taxes followed.

The rallying cry of “No taxation without representation” became an iconic slogan, succinctly summarising colonial outrage and objection at being taxed against their will and without representation in Parliament.

The introduction of the Townshend Duties in 1767 and 1768 imposed new forms of indirect taxation on imported goods such as glass, paint, paper, lead and tea. The revenue raised helped pay the salaries of colonial governors and judges – perceived by the colonists as the British buying their loyalty.

The imposition of these duties sparked fury in the colonies, becoming the main root of spontaneous and violent opposition. Fuelled by propaganda leaflets and posters, such as those created by Paul Revere, colonists engaged in riots and organised merchant boycotts. Eventually, the colonial response was met with severe repression, with British troops sent to enforce the duties.

Boston Massacre (1770)

Just a year after the imposition of the Townshend Duties, the governor of Massachusetts urged the remaining 12 colonies to join his state and unite in opposition against the British, advocating for a boycott of their goods. Simultaneously, a riot erupted in Boston over the seizure of a ship, aptly named Liberty, involved in smuggling.

Despite these signs of unrest, there was no indication that the colonies were seriously contemplating fighting their British rulers until the infamous Boston massacre.

In March 1770, a group of redcoats guarding the Boston Customs House were accosted by a large crowd in the city, and bombarded with snowballs and more dangerous missiles as the cold and irate townspeople vented their anger toward the British soldiers. Amidst the chaos, they suddenly opened fire after a soldier was knocked down, resulting in the British shooting dead 5 colonists and injuring 6 others.

The Boston Massacre, 1770

Image Credit: Paul Revere, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

While the Boston Massacre is often portrayed as the inevitable start of a revolution, it initially prompted the British government to retract the Townshend Duties, except the tea tax, briefly suggesting that the crisis had abated. However, radicals such as Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson sustained the simmering resentment, keeping the revolutionary fervour alive.

What happened at The Boston Tea Party?

The British government failed to make further political concessions, missing the chance to avert rebellion. Instead, increasing widespread agitation by organised groups became widespread. In 1772, a British ship enforcing unpopular trade regulations was set ablaze by enraged patriots, and Samuel Adams initiated the creation of Committees of Correspondence – a network of rebels across all 13 colonies. 

However, it was in December 1773 when the most iconic and blatant demonstration of anger and resistance took place.

In May 1773, the British parliament had passed the Tea Act, which permitted the British East India Company to sell tea to the colonies duty-free, and much cheaper than other tea companies, yet still tax the tea once it reached colonial ports. These rising duties and perceived assault on liberties exacerbated tensions.

In November and December that same year, the first shipments of tea arrived in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Charleston. While most governors turned the ships around or unloaded the tea into a holding warehouse to deescalate tensions, Thomas Hutchinson, the Governor of Massachusetts, refused to allow the ships to return to Britain, demanding the tea be unloaded and sold with the duties collected.

“The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor”, lithograph depicting the 1773 Boston Tea Party

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Nathaniel Currier, 1896 / Public Domain

Subsequently, after a meeting of the Sons of Liberty network on the evening of 16 December 1773, a group of around 100 colonists, led by Samuel Adams, boarded the East India Company‘s 3 trade ships (the Dartmouth, Eleanor, and the Beaver), that were docked at Griffin’s Wharf in Boston’s harbour, and poured 342 chests of British tea that belonged to the East India Company (weighing 46 tonnes and worth close to $1,700,000 in today’s currency) into the sea.

News of the dramatic yet largely peaceful incident spread quickly, and while in sympathy with the colonists, some prominent figures thought it wrong; George Washington believed private property was sacrosanct, and Benjamin Franklin insisted the British East India Company be reimbursed.

(The act itself, now famously termed the ‘Boston Tea Party’, wasn’t immediately known as such. The term was first used in print around 1826, but it took until the 1830s until it became a common way of describing the event – perhaps in a satirical manner, or to downplay any associations of violence.)

Consequences

Rather than appease the rebels, Britain’s parliament responded with a series of restrictive Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts) on Massachusetts in early 1774, aimed at punishing Massachusetts. These measures – notably the Boston Port Act (which effectively shut down Boston’s port to all trade until the East India Company was reimbursed for the tea thrown in the harbour) – intensified colonial unity and led to the formation of the First Continental Congress in September 1774.

Here, delegates including George Washington, Samuel Adams and John Adams discussed countering Britain’s aggression, and how they could coordinate resistance against it. In the ensuing ‘Sussex Resolves’, citizens were ordered not to obey the ‘Intolerable Acts’, to boycott imported goods from Britain, and to raise a militia.

In April 1775 the first shots of the American War of Independence were fired as British troops clashed with militia men at the twin battles of Lexington and Concord. British reinforcements landed in Massachusetts and defeated the rebels at Bunker Hill in June – the first major battle. After the British withdrew into Boston, they were besieged by an army commanded by General, and future president, George Washington.

On 26 October 1775 King George III declared the American colonies to be in a state of rebellion, authorising the use of force against the rebels for the first time.

Declaration of Independence, painted by John Trumbull.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

By 4 July 1776, the Second Continental Congress had adopted the Declaration of Independence, proclaiming the separation of 13 American British colonies from Britain. This enabled the colonists to solidify an official alliance with France, and obtain French assistance, paving the way for their future victory.

Perhaps surprisingly given the zeal with which he went on to lead the French Empire, Napoleon more readily identified as a Corsican and, in his early career, fought fervently for Corsican independence.

It was only after a falling out with Corsican resistance leader Pasquale Paoli that Napoleon made France his home and began to establish himself as the new republic’s rising star by masterminding a succession of vital military victories, including the resistance-breaking Siege of Toulon and, in 1785, the defeat of 20,000 royalists in Paris.

Identified by republican politicians as a natural leader, Napoleon’s ascent to the head of the government was meteoric, propelled by numerous battlefield victories in Italy and then Egypt. In 1799 he seized power of France and became first consul, quickly establishing himself as a hugely popular leader by overseeing continued military dominance and instituting influential legal reforms.

These legal reforms, enshrined in the Napoleonic Code, cemented the aims of the Revolution by replacing the outmoded inconsistencies of old feudal legislation.

Napoleon is perhaps more famous today for being short than for his military prowess and political talents.

Napoleon even succeeded in bringing about peace by defeating Austria and, for a time, quelling Britain’s efforts to stand against the French military. His irresistible ascent to power culminated in his coronation as the Emperor of France in 1804.

Peace in Europe did not last long, however, and the rest of Napoleon’s reign was defined by years of wars across Europe against various coalitions. During this time his reputation as a brilliant military leader was further enhanced, until the War of the Seventh Coalition and the French defeat at Waterloo led to his abdication on the 22 June 1815.

Napoleon saw out the rest of his days in exile on the remote island of Saint Helena.

Here are 10 facts you may not have known about the French emperor.

1. He wrote a romance novel

Behind the ruthless, battle-hardened facade, Napoleon was a bit of a softie, as both his embarrassingly soppy love letters and a recently unearthed romantic novella prove. Penned in 1795, when Napoleon was 26, Clisson et Eugénie is a brief (just 17 pages) exercise in sentimental self-mythologising that, according to most reviews, fails to establish him as a lost literary genius.

2. His first wife, Josephine Bonaparte, narrowly avoided the guillotine

Napoleon’s first wife nearly did not live to marry the French emperor.

Josephine, Napoleon’s first wife, was previously married to Alexandre de Beauharnais (with whom she had three children), an aristocrat who was guillotined during the Reign of Terror. Josephine was also imprisoned and scheduled for execution before being released five days later when the Reign of Terror’s architect, Robespierre, was himself guillotined. 

3. He would disguise himself and walk the streets

At the height of his powers Napoleon developed the habit of dressing up as a lower-class bourgeoisie and wandering the streets of Paris. Seemingly, his aim was to find out what the man on the street really thought of him and he reportedly quizzed random passers-by about their Emperor’s merits. 

4. He was tone deaf

Apparently, one of Napoleon’s least endearing habits was his penchant for singing (or humming and mumbling) whenever he became agitated. Unfortunately, pained accounts suggest that his singing voice was distinctly unmusical.

5. He was afraid of cats (possibly)

Oddly, a whole host of historic tyrants — Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Mussolini, Hitler and our man Napoleon — are reputed to have suffered from Ailurophobia, the fear of cats. It turns out, however, that there is little in the way of evidence to support the common claim that Napoleon was terrified of cats, although the fact that it’s become such a well-worn rumour is interesting. It is even claimed that his alleged fear stemmed from a wildcat attack when he was an infant.

6. He discovered the Rosetta Stone

Now held in the British Museum in London, the Rosetta Stone is a granite slab carved in three scripts: hieroglyphic Egyptian, demotic Egyptian and ancient Greek. It played a vital part in deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphs and has long been considered a hugely important artefact. Less well known is the fact that it was discovered by Napoleon’s soldiers during the Egyptian campaign in 1799.

7. He wore poison around his neck

It is said that Napoleon carried a vial of poison, attached to a cord he wore around his neck, that could be swiftly downed should he ever be captured. Apparently, he did eventually imbibe the poison in 1814, following his exile to Elba, but its potency was by then diminished and only succeeded in making him violently ill. 

8. A submarine escape plot was hatched to rescue him from exile in Saint Helena

An aerial view of the island where Napoleon lived out his final years.

Following his defeat at Waterloo, Napoleon was exiled to Saint Helena, a small island in the South Atlantic, 1,200 miles from the nearest land. Escape from such isolated incarceration was reckoned to be near-impossible. Even so, numerous plans were hatched to rescue the exiled Emperor, including an audacious plan involving two early submarines and a mechanical chair.

9. He wasn’t that short

Napoleon has become synonymous with shortness. Indeed, the term “Napoleon complex”, used to characterise short, overly aggressive people, is conceptually bound to his famously diminutive stature. But in fact, at the time of his death, Napoleon measured 5 feet 2 inches in French units — the equivalent of 5 feet 6.5 inches in modern measurement units — which was a distinctly average height at the time.

10. The cause of his death remains a mystery

Napoleon died, aged 51, on the island of Saint Helena after a long, unpleasant illness. The cause of this illness has never been conclusively established, however, and his death remains a subject surrounded by conspiracy theories and speculation. The official cause of death was recorded as stomach cancer, but some claim foul play was involved. Indeed, claims that he was in fact poisoned appear to be supported by analysis of hair samples that show a far higher than normal concentration of arsenic. Although it is also contended that arsenic was present in the wallpaper of his bedroom.

During this time the expanding membership has adopted many hundreds of different rules and regulations, designed to remove barriers to trade and impose uniformity and consistency in areas such as consumer and worker’s rights and civil freedoms.

To its supporters this represents a magnificent achievement, but despite the enormous transformation of Europe they represent, the organisation remains somewhat distant from the seamless union envisaged by its founding fathers.

In the context of state-building, this has been a rather slow, organic process, the decades since its foundation representing less than three new members a year, a pedestrian programme of expansion which would arguably have been anathema to the more impatient of history’s European expansionists.

Notable among these was Napoleon Bonaparte, whose breath-taking series of military campaigns united more states than have joined the EU, and in 1/3 of the time. Yet, despite this astonishing achievement, he also succeeded in bequeathing an equally enduring raft of financial, legal and political reforms, and even the blueprint for a nascent trading bloc. That he managed this with such lightning speed is perhaps worthy of further examination.

The Confederation of the Rhine

When, at the height of the Napoleonic Wars, Britain and its Austrian and Russian allies challenged Napoleon’s growing hegemony, they handed to him instead a loose, fracturing 1,000 year-old political union known as the Holy Roman Empire. In its stead he created what would be regarded by many as his pièce de résistance, the Confederation of the Rhine.

The Confederation of the Rhine in 1812. Image credit: Trajan 117 / Commons.

Founded on 12 July 1806 it produced almost overnight a union of 16 states, with its capital at Frankfurt am Main, and a Diet presided over by two Colleges, one of King’s and one of Princes. It made him, as he was later quoted as saying, the successor not of Louis XVI, ‘but of Charlemagne’. 

Within the brief space of 4 years it expanded to 39 members, admittedly almost exclusively consisting of very small principalities, but having expanded to cover a total area of 350,000 square kilometres with a population of 14,500,000.

Medal of the Rhine Confederation.

Wide-ranging reforms

Not all his victories however, were on such a grandiose scale, but they were complemented as much as possible by the introduction of reforms instigated by first the Revolutionary French regime, and later Napoleon himself.

So, wherever Napoleon’s armies conquered, they sought to leave an indelible mark, although some proved more popular and lasting than others. The new French civil and criminal law, income tax and uniform metric weights and measures were adopted in whole or in part across the continent, albeit with opt-outs of varying degrees.

When financial exigencies compelled wholesale financial reform, he founded the Banque de France in 1800. This institution would in its turn be instrumental in the creation of the Latin Monetary Union in 1865, with France, Belgium, Italy and Switzerland as members. The basis of the organisation was the agreement to adopt the French gold franc, a currency introduced by none other than Napoleon himself in 1803.

Napoleon Crossing the Alps, currently located in the Charlottenburg Palace, painted by Jacques-Louis David in 1801.

The Code Napoleon

Arguably Napoleon’s most enduring legacy was the new French civil and criminal code, or Code Napoleon, a Europe-wide legal system which survives to this day in many countries. The revolutionary government of the National Assembly had originally sought to rationalise and standardise the myriad of laws which governed different parts of France from as early as 1791, but it was Napoleon who oversaw its realisation.

Whereas Roman Law dominated in the south of the country, Frankish and German elements applied in the north, alongside various other local customs and archaic usages. Napoleon abolished these entirely after 1804, with the adoption of the structure which bore his name.

The Code Napoleon reformed commercial and criminal law, and divided civil law into two categories, one for property and the other for family, giving greater equality in matters of inheritance – although denying rights to illegitimate heirs, women and reintroducing slavery. All men however were technically recognised as equal under the law, with inherited rights and titles abolished.

It was imposed upon or adopted by nearly every territory and state dominated by France, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Milan, parts of Germany and Italy, Switzerland and Monaco. Indeed, elements of this legal template were widely adopted during the course of the following century, by a unified Italy in 1865, Germany in 1900 and Switzerland in 1912, all of which passed statutes which echoed his original system.

And it was not only Europe which appreciated its merits; many of the newly independent states of South America also incorporated the Code into their constitutions.

Referenda

Napoleon was also adept at exploiting the principle of referenda to lend legitimacy to his reforms, as when he moved to consolidate power and establish a de facto dictatorship.

A referendum was held in 1800, and his brother Lucien, who he had conveniently appointed Minister of the Interior, claimed that 99.8% of those of the eligible electorate who voted had approved. Even though more than half of them had boycotted the vote, the margin of victory confirmed in Napoleon’s mind the legitimacy of his power grab, and there was never any question of a second, confirmatory people’s vote.

Andrew Hyde co-wrote the three-volume work The Blitz: Then and Now and is the author of First Blitz. He contributed to the BBC Timewatch programme of the same name and to the recent Channel 5 TV documentary on the Windsors. Europe: Unite, Fight, Repeat, will be published on 15 August 2019, by Amberley Publishing.

A revolution in decline

By the last year of the 18th century, the French Revolution had drifted a long way from the heady days of 1789. Though the King was dead and France’s external enemies mostly defeated, it had largely devolved into an orgy of violence, known afterwards as the Great Terror.

Between 1793 and 1794, Robespierre’s France guillotined and summarily executed thousands of potential political opponents before the orchestrator himself lost his head in July 1794.

The fall of Robespierre ushered in a new, more conservative form of government known as the Directory. The Directory purged the former leader’s radical supporters – the ‘Jacobins’ – and resorted to extreme repression to keep the country under Parisian control.

The Directory

Historians have not been kind to the Directory, calling it unrepresentative and repressive.

The Directory was made up of five directors. The voting system at the time denied almost all Frenchmen any real say in who these Directors were. The regime was not a popular one.

It clung onto power over the last years of the 1790s. But when the brilliant young General Napoleon Bonaparte returned to France in October 1799, many saw him as a potential saviour.

Napoleon may only have been thirty at the time of the coup but he was already a famous soldier and regarded by many as the greatest son of the revolution. The chaos generated by the revolution had granted this gifted young man opportunities that would have been denied to him under the old regime.

Run on the Tuileries on 10. Aug. 1792 during the French Revolution, as painted by Jean Duplessis-Bertaux in 1793. Image Credit: CC

Military career

Napoleon began his military career as an artillery officer. He played an integral role in defeating a British Royalist force at the battle of Toulon in 1793.

Promotions quickly followed. Despite having been imprisoned for his connections to Robespierre, and his descent from a very minor noble family on the remote Italian-speaking island of Corsica, Napoleon was given command of a ragtag army in Nice in 1796.

Over the next year, he lead this army on a stunning campaign, defeating the Italians and the Austrians and forcing both to sign humiliating peace treaties. His next step was to take his armies to Egypt in a roundabout attempt to menace the growing British Empire in India.

The glamour of this campaign, though it was less successful than the first, enhanced the growing fame of the young soldier.

In the Autumn of 1799 he sensed an opportunity and returned to France (leaving his loyal and devoted troops behind to be defeated and captured by the British).

An offer he couldn’t refuse

This opportunity came at the hands of Director Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès. Though a member of the government, Sieyès was as bitterly disappointed with it as everyone else and had been planning a coup for some time.

But a coup needed popular support. Sieyès noted the adulation with which Napoleon was greeted when he returned home. He realised that this was the man to legitimise and defend his new regime.

Napoleon had other ideas. Far from being Sieyès’ puppet, he began planning to seize power for himself.

The uprising

A series of recent uprisings meant thousands of troops were conveniently stationed around Paris. The plan was to use these men to intimidate the upper and lower chambers of the government into resigning and permit a new more centralised regime to replace it.

The Storming of the Bastille, by Jean-Pierre Houël. Image Credit: Public Domain

Sensing that something was wrong, the Directors resigned and their system collapsed. But the upper and lower chambers remained defiant.

On 9 November, with Sieyès occupied in Paris, Napoleon took matters into his own hands. He marched proudly into the upper chamber – the Council of Ancients – surrounded by battle-scarred grenadiers.

The Ancients resisted, but a show of military muscle and an effective speech allowed Napoleon to escape unscathed. The lower chamber – the Council of the 500 – proved more difficult.

These men threatened Napoleon, many with daggers in their hands. According to some reports, Napoleon was paralysed with fear and came close to fainting.

Napoleon Crossing the Alps, currently located in the Charlottenburg Palace, painted by Jacques-Louis David in 1801. Image Credit: Public Domain

Fortunately for Napleon, his brother Lucien was President of the lower chamber. In the midst of the unrest, Lucien drew his sword and pointed it at his brother’s heart, roaring to the councillors that if his brother was a traitor he would kill him himself.

This ostentatious display gave control of the situation back to Napoleon, who then forced the 500 to sign a new constitution.

First Consul

Napoleon I as Emperor of France, c. 1805. Image Credit: Public Domain

With thousands of soldiers behind him, Napoleon intimidated Sieyès into changing the new constitution to give one man, “First Consul”, absolute power.

This man, of course, would be Napoleon. With this move, the French Revolution was over.

France had a new absolute ruler, and in 1804 he would dispense with the pretence of democracy by declaring himself Emperor.