The Canadian Flag

Father Britain's oldest son, the United States, had always been a bit of a trouble maker. In his rebellious youth, he broke away from his parents, stormed off with claims of being 'misunderstood', and after plenty of bickering decided to live on his own. Canada, the younger brother and son of Father Britain and Mother France, was the good one. We lived quietly and respectfully in the house they bought for us, and we loved our parents; we were the son they always wanted. Our older brother would try to invite us to move out with him and live on his couch, but we politely declined. Later, after the neighbours back at our parents' place started roughing up our family for a few decades in the early to mid 1900s, we came back and helped take care of business like any son would. Once that mess was cleared up, we politely asked if we could officially move out on our own - with the caveat that we'll still remember who helped us out in our fledgling years. We've always honour our father, and we'll probably always will.

And yes.

That's honour with a 'u'.

Although we have been our own country since 1867 (obviously) we have only had our official flag since 1965. When you really think about it, that's incredibly recent. We've passed through plenty of official and semi-official ones over time, but none of them particularly unique to Canada, mostly taking bits and pieces of French and British flags and throwing a Canadian spin on it. Over time, some of those good-hearted Canadians wanted to salute something that represented just their land and not something overseas.

I know you've seen it before, but it's a beautiful flag. I
would totally stand on guard for that.

Way back in the times of New France (1534-1760s) they would view their national symbol as the banner of france - a square blue flag with the familiar Fleurs-de-lys. The British side of old-school Canada flew the Union Jack until around the time of Confederation, in which it was often replaced with the Canadian Red Ensign. The Red Ensign still had the Union Jack at the top left, but also had a frequently changing crest on the right depicting the provinces. As more provinces were added, the symbol became increasingly more confusing - trying to fit all the provinces into one small corner of a flag makes it a little busy, especially when it's meant to be easily identifiable at sea. Often it would be abbreviated, so to speak, by putting three maple leaves at the bottom of the crest and the symbol of the province of origin on the upper half. Even then, the Union Jack itself was also quite often found flying as well, for those that were apparently feeling particularly homesick.

Our first push for a flag of our own came around 1925 - keep in mind that even at this point it's over a half-century after Confederation. The idea was met with a lukewarm response; Canadians were afraid we were about to lose the beloved Union Jack, and the committee chosen to discuss the prospect of a new flag was abandoned after a lack of consensus. We Canadians liked the Union Jack - it may not have been ours, but we could still latch onto it pretty well. If anything, that and our high numbers of volunteer soldiers for the World Wars demonstrates our loyalty to Britain. We were the kid that was just raised right.

The Pearson Pennant; the general consensus was
"it's OK I guess".

Lester B. Pearson, at the time the leader of the official opposition, raised the debate again in 1960. It was a trying time for Canada, as we were in the wake of World War II and French Canada was pushing hard for separation. Mind you, you would be hard pressed to find a time in Canadian history where something like this wasn't happening in Quebec, but maybe back then it felt a little more fresh. Regardless, Pearson hoped to remedy the situation by sparking a bit of unity through a common flag. Canadians were split between the Red Ensign and the Union Jack, this divergence being compounded by the fact that French Canadians thought of their provincial flag as more of a national symbol. A collective flag might stymie the thoughts of separatism, at least for... maybe a couple weeks.

The one second from the right is a crown, not a pie.
Just so you know.

Then Prime Minister Diefenbaker hoped for the flag to respect the countries that helped Canada get its footing in the first place, planning to throw a Union Jack in there as well as some Fleurs-de-lys as to not have the French say "the heck with this" and leave in a huff. Well, "le heck with this" I suppose. Pearson on the other hand wanted nothing of the sort. He wished for a strictly Canadian symbol, one to help separate us as a colony and helping to transform us into a distinct country of our own. To decide, they formed a committee consisting of all parties in the house to decide on what was to fly above Parliament Hill. 

There were an incredible number of flags to choose from, with blue as the typical third colour choice, beavers being strewn about all over the place, and a few stars coming through on occasion as well. While the Pearson Pennant made it to the top three, the committee vote brought it down as Diefenbaker's conservatives thought the liberals would cast their ballot towards Pearson's flag and thus voted for what we currently have, but were found to be incorrect as the liberals weren't a big fan of it in the first place. The result was a unanimous vote for our current flag. On February 15th, 1965 the Red Ensign was taken down and the new, glorious and truly Canadian flag was first unfurled. It wasn't easy, though - the debate in the House to choose to fly the flag or not took six months, had a comical number of speeches (so many that they had to start limiting the time for them) and only then the vote passed by 163-78 - not entirely a crushing victory.

To close, here's a fun fact (and one that sounds, much like our flag, uniquely Canadian). The 1992 World Series featured Toronto and Atlanta, and in the second game the American Marines accidentally brought out our flag upside down. The following game, Canadian fans brought signs that read "No hard feelings" - and held those upside down as well. 

___________

The information for this blog was taken from www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca, a great resource for all things Canadian. 

Spartacus: Part 3 - The Fall of Spartacus

Here we have Spartacus: runaway gladiator, former Roman soldier, and now a tremendously dangerous revolutionary. We left off with the man at his peak; 70,000 soldiers at his back with a number rising rather than falling, legions of Romans dead in his wake, and now he's marching to Rome itself.

Or so we would think.

He instead chose to go an indirect route, stepping through the revolution-favouring Picenum in hopes of picking up more recruits before hoping to knock off the mud of his sandals on the doormat of Rome. In many ways he followed in the footsteps of Hannibal - possibly able to take the city, but instead delaying, hoping to build up a greater force and attack at a higher level of strength shortly after. This is to some extent a confusing choice, however. He had been denying followers for a short while now (possibly because of a lack of gear, a slightly smaller force being more mobile, requiring less supply, etc.) but was still hoping to build up his army. Tiring of the rural recruits, he hoped for taking cities - the idea was to move from a revolution to a full civil war. Unfortunately, the urban cities just didn't feel it yet for one reason or another.  Perhaps it was too risky, too difficult to disrupt, or the roving band of bandits that had been on the road for so long now were really just too smelly.

In a delightful bit of karma for Crassus'
cruelty, his face will forever be immortalized
on wikipedia immediately beside a man's
genitals. 

The message Spartacus was sending was... almost disappointing, in a sense. We hope for Spartacus following strictly modern, western ideals, sticking to a narrative with a main character that stands up for freedom and justice and, considering where big budget movies come from, all things American. Mel Gibson playing our protagonist in Braveheart 2: Spartacus Hyperdrive in which he periodically yells "FREEDOM!" would probably sell quite well. But Spartacus isn't a movie, and human beings don't typically follow a black-and-white set of motives that make for good television. Spartacus didn't want complete freedom for everyone; in fact, he didn't oppose slavery. He just wanted to uproot the oppressive Roman forces that possessed inhuman levels of brutality. The latter makes for a good film, but it's hard to cheer for someone whom if he had his way would move right back to slavery.

That's if he got his way, of course. Standing in his way was Rome's next champion, Marcus Licinius Crassus. Owner of a tremendous number of slaves, a greater number of land, and so much wealth that Donald Duck would gleefully dive into his pile of coins. He was powerful, well respected, and already with military experience under his belt. Plus, as a side note, he had six new legions to add to the four already out in the field. A no-nonsense tyrant himself, Crassus went to the old-school Roman style (even for then it was old-school) of slaughtering fifty of his own men that returned home unsuccessful. While he was not one to be trifled with, Rome was taking no chances; they were also bringing back another twenty legions of troops from wars they had been fighting overseas. It was a little like being unable to kill an anthill in your backyard, and opting to blow it up with dynamite so you know for darn sure it's gone.

Upon seeing Crassus' army, Spartacus chose to actively retreat in the hopes to lure him further and pressing him to the point of forcing an error. Fortunately for Crassus, Spartacus left too great a gap between forces and dislodged ten thousand from the group, allowing them to be quickly slaughtered without much opposition. It was a morale boost to the Roman soldiers who saw that Spartacus was far from unstoppable, and that these were after all just a group of slave-soldiers who should at the core be no match for the power of a trained and well equipped Roman military machine.

Deciding that the mainland was no longer the place for him as he was unable to find any appreciation from the cities, he had hoped to travel to Sicily to stir rebellion there. Sicily had had issues with rebellions before, and therefore it could be more favourable to his cause. Having cities back him would be critically important to Spartacus' campaign, but there was one key difficulty; he had to travel across too great of a body of water without the help of ships. Further compounding the issue, he wasn't really on great terms with Rome who was able to sell those ships, so much like many young men who cannot or do not wish to purchase things in modern times, he went to a pirate bay for assistance. Offering a large sum of money to give him and his army a safe passage to Sicily, he had hoped to cross the waters and at least temporarily extend the delay of the battle with the large, imposing army of Crassus. Unfortunately for him, the pirates betrayed him and left him stranded without a reasonable way to cross. For this we have no historical reason - possibly a dispute about the payment, possibly because they're pirates and betrayal seems pretty close to their wheelhouse.  Spartacus then decided to create makeshift rafts to cart his equipment and soldiers across the water, but this went just about as well as you would expect. They lost a great amount of supplies and possibly a fair few soldiers to the bottom of the waters. We can only assume they had some variety of pirate curse on them.

All the while they were building rafts and hoping to make an escape across the water, Crassus had men watching over. He was closing in and ready to pounce, but through some clever maneuvering and a few tactical errors by Crassus, Spartacus' group was able to escape and once again go on the run. Eventually, they came to a defensible position. The next major battle had Crassus attacking a once more separated group of 12,000 or so that, similar to the previous time, fell quite quickly while hardly making a dent in the Roman forces. Spartacus was not only on the run, but bleeding badly.

Spoiler: Spartacus doesn't make it. Perhaps he would have
won if he had decided to fight standing up.

Here's another time where the whole "unrelenting freedom fighter" narrative of Spartacus goes a little awry. One would think that a man so hardened against Rome would refuse to give even the slightest sign of weakness, but he actually tried to open negotiations with Crassus and the Romans. Now, it's important to note that this isn't a flat surrender deal; instead, Spartacus had hoped that in doing so it would create a sense of legitimacy for his army rather than just a group of rebels. If they opened negotiations then that meant they were against a rival army - an army that had warranted merit, respect. Regardless of the fact that Crassus denied the negotiations, it still leaves an unsettling taste. Spartacus wasn't a one-hundred percent never-surrender, no-compromise warrior that one may hope when reading of his story. It comes as a little disappointing.

Negotiations shot down, Crassus converged with his 50-60,000 troops, better equipped and with higher morale and with equal numbers to Spartacus' own. He hoped to attack before the other armies of Rome arrived as if they supported him it would be them who took the credit for the fall of Spartacus, as it would appear that they came in to relieve the beleaguered forces of Crassus. Backed in a corner, the revolutionaries had to fight. The battle was an absolute slaughter in favour of the Romans, killing thousands of rebels and rounding up several thousand more. Forever cruel, Crassus lined the road of Capua to Rome with six thousand crucified soldiers of Spartacus. The revolution was a failure, and ultimately nothing seemed to change. You can't help feel a little empty after learning that for the most part it was all for nothing.

Sheesh. This is probably going to be one of the darkest
pictures I post on this blog. 

So what happened to our main man?

Here's where it feels a little more Hollywood. Spartacus, enraged and bloodthirsty, charges into the battle on the front lines. Attempting to make it into a personal battle, he called for Crassus to fight him personally in a duel, flying into the fray in search of his enemy. Defeating two centurions in a two-on-one fight, he continue to yell for the commander to come out and meet his challenge. He reportedly took a javelin to the thigh, threw his shield away and continued to fight off Romans until his death, surrounded by his troops. Apparently (and I'm confused how this happened) his body must have been stolen away by the rebels as it was never found, and thus unable to be desecrated by the Romans who I'm sure would have had a field day with it.

Sigh...

If only he had found Crassus on the battlefield. How cool would that have been?

_________________________

The information from this blog came from Aldo Schiavone's "Spartacus".

Spartacus: Part 2 - Romans Tremble

First, before anything else, I want to remind the reader that these are ancient times we're dealing with. The story itself is passed along from a scant few historians and whatever archaeological evidence is left that allows it to be pieced together. Spartacus' actual thoughts are completely lost to history (as well as most of the inner workings of his camp and circles), military size of both the rebels and to a lesser extent the Romans is mostly estimation, and even the outcomes of certain battles are only known as a "win" or "loss" but not entirely by what score. So take it with a grain of salt.

A depiction of Spartacus midway through the
war, passing from his quiet nude contemplation
phase to somewhat clothed power-posing.

We left off with Rome deciding that the uprising has had their fun and it was now appropriate to put them to bed by a great show of force. Three thousand troops (a likely accurate number) were quickly sent from Rome to dispatch the small army of several hundred slaves under the command of our increasingly impressive leader Spartacus (his military's number born more of estimation than anything). Spartacus has and will find multiple chances to flee Italy to perhaps return to his homeland of Thrace or to simply go anywhere but where he was, but the fact that he stayed and continued to battle the Romans shows his true intention; Spartacus did not just wish to be free from the bonds of gladiatorial combat and Roman oppression - he wanted to see Rome itself burn to the ground. Heck, it sounds more like a movie than history. And a movie I'd want to see!

Spartacus backed towards Mount Vesuvius to regroup in a defensive position. It would be here that they defeated the first wave of Roman opposition, the three thousand or so sent towards them. Wikipedia and the Starz television show have them descending the mountain in a brilliant ambush on the Roman camp, but seeing how only one of the two (I won't say which!) is a bounty of historical knowledge, take another grain of salt with that one too. What we do know (at least kind of) is it seems likely that Spartacus himself was mostly doing the planning, but likely with the assistance of some commanders under his wing. Oenomaus may have died along the way as he is not mentioned particularly often after the initial escape, but Crixus was still kicking around. There are some that would say Crixus may have had a few issues with Spartacus' leadership, but the fact that they stayed in one group (until later, in which I will explain why they splintered) suggests otherwise. It was a rebellion growing with speed, slowly becoming better armed, and led by a commander that understands the Roman military methods. It was a force to be reckoned with.

Starz: at least it doesn't just show "Storage
Wars" and "Pawn Stars". I'm looking at you,
History Channel.

Having defeated the first assault, the rebels could continue on their path of scouring the countryside, recruiting all the while. The cruelty of the Roman masters made recruitment particularly easy, and Spartacus found the Roman lands to be full of would-be revolutionaries. They likely split their forces somewhat in order to cover more ground and speed up the recruiting process, further bolstering their ranks. However, with the increase in numbers, the slaves were difficult to control. While Spartacus personally disapproved of the action, rape and torture became increasingly more common, muddling the whole 'righteous war' angle. He had hoped to keep it relatively clean, it seems - he divided the plunder up equally (you have to fairly distribute the goods you're stealing) and demanded that merchants near the camp were simply traded with and not robbed. All the while, their numbers swelled tremendously - up to over ten thousand.

Meanwhile, Rome sprung into action. The number sent after them is not entirely known, but it seems it outnumbered the revolutionaries, and considering they had over two thousand one could guess at the number of the Romans. The reason they didn't send more is because Rome - and Italy as a whole - was mostly legion-free. Quelling rebellions in other parts of their territory and fighting with Mithradates has taken much of their military away from home, leaving it a perfect time to revolt. Regardless, they still had enough to send after Spartacus. The leader of the Roman force, Publius Varinius, with his two legates, Cossinius and (I kid you not) Furius, moved within striking distance and set up camp. Splitting up in the hope to surround and crush Spartacus in a pincer movement, Cossinius and Furius took roughly two thousand soldiers each and moved on the rebels, with Varinius behind them with the bulk of the force. Once again showing his tactical prowess, Spartacus anticipated the move, attacked one wing, annihilated that force, and quickly savaged the other before they had a chance to retreat back to the main army. Furius must have been angry. Incredibly angry. Some might even say...

...Irate.

I can't blame the slaves for wanting to revolt against Rome.
Look how uncomfortable that underwear looks. Can someone
say chafing? 

Regardless of their losses, once more Rome sent four legions (a legion probably being about four to five thousand men) to thwart Spartacus once and for all, and these were in addition to what was remaining of Varinius' forces. Spartacus' army, continuing to grow, hit numbers as high as 40,000. These numbers will be debated (wikipedia says much higher) and that's because the historical texts will say it's a higher number than it likely is. They tend to exaggerate.

Spartacus decided that to defeat these soldiers they would have to split to cover more territory and to set up the ability to flank the enemy. Sending ten thousand to Crixus, they splintered their forces into two. However, Crixus proved to be a brave warrior, but as a commander he was left wanting. His army was routed, and he was killed in the battle. Thinking they had Spartacus on the run, the Roman legions once again tried a pincer movement, but similar to the previous battle, their adversary proved the quicker. Attacking one side and routing them there, the rebels then turned on the other and drove them away as well. Considering it's a massive battle, the documentation on it is few and far between, being lost to history somewhere along the way. The important thing to remember? Spartacus won out. The score, so far, is roughly 3 or 4 to 1 in the major battle count - and the major loss belongs to Crixus.

Crixus' funeral was massive. They sacrificed hundreds of Romans by (ironically) gladiator battles to the death before executing many more. In the coming weeks his numbers would almost double to 70,000. Spartacus felt it may be time to March to the very seat of power in Rome itself.

Spartacus: Part 1 - Rebellion

Spartacus is one of those names that's immediately associated with rebellion, much like Che Guevara. Only the latter, however, has his face plastered on t-shirts worn by people who don't really know who he is or what he's done. Not that I do... but at least my shirts are just H&M sale section garbage and therefore only carry the political stance of "I'm cheap".

I first got involved in the whole story of Spartacus from the Starz television series of the same name in which his story is filled with all the blood, gore, and almost-but-not-quite pornographic scenes that testosterone fueled T.V. has come to thrive on (oh what a glorious age we live in!) I quite enjoyed the show in all its 300 rip-off splendor, but I wondered just how close to the true history it was. Queue "Spartacus" by Aldo Schiavone; a book about a topic I'm interested in and a page length that suits my short attention span (thank you for keeping it under 200 pages, Schiavone). 

Now. some background.

A gladius, the weapon which spawned the word "gladiator".
In modern times, the company "Glad" was named after
 the weapon for the spikey things they have on their
 cling wrap packaging to cut the plastic. Both should
be used with caution around unprotected fingers.

The Roman Empire during the time of Spartacus was growing in power due to the constant warfare, hostile takeovers and general disregard for human life that so embodied their culture - a cornerstone of proper imperialists. Gladiatorial combat came to prominence largely due to this lifestyle; the Romans would storm into Gaul, Thrace, and otherwise, enslave them, and use the prisoners of war to fight it out for the amusement of the general populace. Picking strong slaves was a lucrative business - gladiators victorious in the arena could pull in some serious coin for their owners. It also served the purpose of showing that if slaves could face pain and death with all the bravery of Hercules (not that Greek wuss, Heracles), then for a Roman it should be a paltry task. That, and the Romans were quite simply a fan of mixing violence and sport. I can't fault 'em for that one. 

Spartacus didn't have the clear-cut upbringing of a simple slave, however. It's decidedly more complicated, and the nature of ancient history such as it is, rarely entirely certain with numerous conflicting accounts. What seems likely at the basest level was that Spartacus was actually a soldier in the Roman army. He was a Thracian, and Thrace was a tributary of Rome, and thus had many of their soldiers in their employ - our would-be revolutionary being one of them. Known for being intelligent and courageous beyond his status as a non-Roman, being a member of the cavalry (likely) which was a relatively highly ranked and respected position, and having a female companion that was likely a priestess, Spartacus was well on his way to being commander material. This allowed him to see the Roman military tactics, military technology, and general goings-on of the soldiers, doubtlessly giving him plenty of useful information to use in the days ahead. The Romans learned their command tactics through experience and observation, so in many ways Spartacus wouldn't have been too far behind from their chosen battle commanders. 

Spartacus had a propensity to ponder in the
nude, and was thus immortalized in a
statue doing so.

So what we have here is a man who, for a foreigner, was of a high station, a powerful fighter rising in the military ranks, and having a priestess companion that symbolizes his high social status (who in the T.V. show was a total babe, so add that to the mix). But then he suddenly deserted, at least suddenly in terms of the recorded history of it. Take this all with a grain of salt, as this is all what likely happened, but it seems that Spartacus was in a troop that was meant to storm the lands of the Maidi tribe of Thracians, of whom he belongs. Likely feeling some sort of reservation about slaughtering and enslaving his own people (what a do-gooder) he joined the rebels and fought using guerrilla tactics against them - but only until his eventual capture. 

The slave traders likely picked him up fairly quickly and sent him to Rome to be sold. A strong, young fighter, he would be chosen for a gladiator and sell for a high price. As far as slaves go, this wasn't actually all that bad - you would want to keep your gladiators happy and healthy, with good meals to ensure they're fighting at their best, countless hours to train, and the privilege to keep his lady-friend. 

Regardless, Spartacus got fed up and revolted against one Gnaeus Lentulus Batiatus, the leader of the camp in which the gladiators were being trained. This was incredibly risky - they had to break into the kitchen to steal knives and other potentially violent kitchen tools, and unite the slaves of a variety of ethnic backgrounds and charge the guards. About two hundred or so rose up and easily dispatched the guards, likely caught relatively unawares, and the fugitives were on their way to freedom. Soon after, stumbling on a wonderful bit of luck, they happened upon a wagon carrying a number of gladiator arms destined for Pompeii which they decided to... "commandeer." The nearby garrison of Roman soldiers (bear in mind these were still gladiators, and the Romans were not so stupid as to leave them completely unguarded) went to dispatch them quickly, in what would be the first of a number of severe and damaging underestimations of the strength of Spartacus and company. Upon defeating them, they took their weapons and armour, no longer equipped with the shoddy and barbaric weapons of the arena, but instead with Roman military grade technology. This was a great moment for the slaves, as the weapons served as giving them legitimacy; no longer simple gladiators and brawlers, but a real military force.

Unfortunately for them, Rome didn't treat deserters too kindly. They got word far more quickly than one would imagine they would, and sent three-thousand (!!!) men after them - these ones properly trained, more prepared soldiers. Spartacus, picking up runaway slaves and other men along the way, had his numbers rise to a still relatively meager few hundred.

Rome thought it would be over quickly.