Everything seems to get ever bigger. Cars. Phones. Board game boxes. And the cities whose history and board games we explore are no exception: We started with Venice, moved on to Amsterdam, and today, we’re starting with New York. I say starting, because unlike the previous two cities, there is no way to do the vast number of board games set in New York’s history justice in a single post. Thus, this will be a mini-series with (tentatively) three instalments.
Names are given by people. “New York” was what the English called the settlement they took over in 1664, but the place had been inhabited by thousands of years before. While that is thus technically not the history of New York, we’ll take a short look at it.
We don’t know very much about the first humans to live in what would become New York: The indigenous people did not keep written records. Archaeology is hard to do in a place which is almost entirely covered in buildings and streets today. And the oral tradition of the Indians was largely destroyed when the westward expansion of the European colonists pushed them out of their native homes, broke up their communities, and finally confined them to reservations.
Five hundred years ago, several thousand Lenape Indians inhabited an island they called Mannahatta (“island of many hills”). They lived off slash-and-burn agriculture, hunting, and fishing. I am not aware of any board game which depicts their lives before the arrival of the first Europeans, but I think it would be a nice change of perspective while still retaining the familiar geography which draws many board gamers (of course, especially those from New York and its surroundings) to games about the city.
In 1524, Giovanni da Verrazzano, an Italian explorer employed by the king of France, sailed into what would be called New York Bay. There, he met a group of Lenape in their canoes. He called the area New Angoulême to honor the French royal house of Valois-Angoulême. For the next century, European fur traders would occasionally visit the Lenape, but not attempt to build a permanent presence.
Nieuw Amsterdam
Only in the 1620s did the Dutch, by then the premier commercial and maritime country of Europe, decide to colonize parts of North America. They resolved that this colony should include Mannahatta to take advantage of the rich beaver population whose pelts were much sought after in Europe, and put the merchant Peter Minuit in charge of the operation.
Minuit arrived on May 4, 1626. He met with some of the Lenape, and, according to his written report to Europe, purchased the southern tip of Mannahatta from them for trade goods worth 60 guilders. Even though nobody knows any details beyond Minuit’s own account, the deal is the founding story of New York. One thing that stands out about it is that it was a business transaction. Unlike other cities in North America, New York was not founded by a royal agent or religious refugees, but in the spirit and through the means of commerce (which has since remained the supreme political order and religious faith of New York). In that sense, Minuit’s purchase is either a very smart business move – after all, a large tract of land in such a prime position was surely worth more than the trade goods he handed over – or the hostile act of an unscrupulous merchant taking advantage of the less business-savvy (both actions hallmarks of New York’s commercial culture until today). Beyond the foundational myth, the transaction mostly shows different ways of thinking about land – the Lenape only accepted the right to temporarily co-use it, whereas the Europeans subscribed to the tenet of permanent, exclusive ownership.
While the Dutch colonized the whole mid-Atlantic coast of what is today the US, their settlement on Mannahatta was meant to be its center – as evidenced by its name of Nieuw Amsterdam (New Amsterdam), after the Dutch capital. Nieuw Amsterdam grew into a trading hub based on its deep natural harbor, the best on the Atlantic coast. The fur trade was soon complemented by Dutch farms which extended ever further north on Mannahatta, which triggered conflicts with the Lenape. This period is represented in New Amsterdam (Jeffrey D. Allers, White Goblin Games), which casts its players in the shoes of Dutch traders who will gather resources and expand New Amsterdam (at the expense of the Lenape).
Nieuw Amsterdam already contained the seeds of some characteristic New York traits: Its demographics diversified (Africans lived in Nieuw Amsterdam in 1626 already, an Italian followed a few years after); and the municipal council established in 1653, the first of its kind in America, was the start of the great democratic tradition of the city.
The English Colony
The Dutch colony did not last long. When the commercial and maritime rivalry with England flared up again, an English fleet seized Manhattan in 1664. To honor the heir presumptive, James, Duke of York, they renamed the city New York. The Dutch briefly recaptured the city in the next Anglo-Dutch war, but had to cede it permanently in 1674.
New York’s fine deep-water harbor was as valuable to English as it had been to Dutch traders, and the city continued to grow larger and more prosperous. When the British parliament imposed taxes on the American colonies from the 1760s on, the merchants of New York found themselves in a bind: On the one hand, like all entrepreneurs, they resented being parted from money. On the other, a rupture between Britain and its American colonies would cut off trade entirely – much worse than having to pay a moderate due. New York became thus both a hotbed of anti-British activism and one of the places in the American colonies which least wanted a war with the British motherland.
Fierier heads than those of the New Yorkers prevailed. War between Britain and the colonies erupted in 1775. Once George Washington had expelled the British from Boston in the first major action of the war, he moved his headquarters to New York. The city was thus the biggest possible prize for the British smarting from their first defeat. If they could beat the colonials there soundly, force Washington to surrender with his army, they could still quash the rebellion quickly… or so they thought. The amphibious campaign against New York would become the biggest operation of the entire War of Independence. While the British defeated Washington’s army and took the city, the wily colonial commander extricated most of his forces and lived to fight another day. The city of New York, however, would remain under British occupation for the rest of the war.
The British occupation cut New York off from its sister colonies. Many New Yorkers fled to towns which were under control of the American rebels. The loyalists left the town when Britain recognized American independence. In 1783, New York’s population had fallen by 60% compared to the pre-war number of 30,000. From then on, however, the city would know nothing but spectacular growth for over a century… but that’s a story for next time.
For a concise introduction, especially focused on local politics, see Lankevich, George J.: New York City. A Short History, New York University Press, New York City, NY/London 1998.
If you want a treatment which is both more in-depth and more journalistic (and lavishly illustrated) and don’t mind its history practically ending around 1970, see the book version of the 17-hour PBS documentary from 1999: Burns, Ric/Sanders, James/Ades, Lisa: New York. An Illustrated History, Knopf, New York City, NY 2001.
A few years ago, we became acquainted with Andrew Rourke through his Coalitions design from PHALANX that went on to a successful crowdfunding campaign and has recently been delivered. He has since been a busy guy with starting his own publishing company called Form Square Games and also publishing the first 5 designs in a new series called Limits of Glory that will take a look at the campaigns of Napoleon and other contemporary conflicts. In Campaign I, which is called Bonaparte’s Eastern Empire, the game is focused on the campaign of the French in Egypt between 1798 and 1801. Campaigns II, III and IV was Maida 1806 and Santa Maura & Capri. Campaign V was Donning the Sacred Heart, which covers the Vendee Civil War, and just recently fulfilled as I have my copy sitting on my gaming table awaiting an unboxing video.
And now, recently, Form Square Games has announced the next entry in the series which is a two-fer with Campaigns VI and VII called Jersey New Jersey and is set during the American Revolutionary War but also including a 2nd game called A Strong War set during the French & Indian War. I think that these games are well timed with this year being the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and I look forward to playing and exploring both of these games. I reached out to the designer of Jersey who is Peregrine Nicholls about an interview to give us a look inside the design and get more information and he was interested in answering our questions.
Grant: Peregrine welcome to our blog. First off please tell us a little about yourself. What are your hobbies? What’s your day job?
Peregrine: I have been a wargamer ever since my Dad came home with a 1912 1st edition of Little Wars by H G Wells, when I was 8. I have very fond memories of us playing toy soldiers on the floor using these rules and firing matchsticks at each other’s troops from toy artillery pieces. I still have the book and even recently bought a Britains 25pdr gun on eBay to add to my display shelf! Wargaming ballooned from there and today 50 years later I have almost 25,000 miniatures and over 400 board games!
Apart from reading (mainly history books or historically based novels), my main other hobby is following my beloved Leeds United, an English football team, whom I always watch on TV and also manage to get to 4-5 homes fixtures per year – a 500 mile round trip from where I live now in south west England.
My day job is working in the family property business, where with my wife & son we buy, sell, manage and develop property.
Grant: What motivated you to break into game design? What have you enjoyed most about the experience thus far?
Peregrine: Andy, that is Andy Rourke of Form Square Games. I was being shown one of his games at a convention and after he had soundly beaten me, we had a beer and I told him about a game idea that had been sitting in my filing cabinet for almost 40 years! After boring him to death for 20 minutes, he said “I’ll publish that!” – at which point I was speechless! But two years later now here we are, at the Gamefound funding stage!
The most enjoyable part of the process has been rediscovering the history. A lot of reading was needed and now having the internet as a tool, (when previous work on the topic was pre-word processing software!), was a massive advantage and led me down countless rabbit holes of historical threads and narratives.
Grant: What is your upcoming game Limits of Glory Campaign VI: Jersey about?
Peregrine: I am responsible for the Jersey game, not the New Jersey game, which is Andy’s baby.
The Isle of Jersey is the biggest of a small group of islands just off the coast of France in the English Channel. When William the Conqueror (as Duke of Normandy, of which Jersey was a part) invaded England in 1066 the Channel Island become part of the English crown. When Bad King John (he of Robin Hood fame) lost Normandy to the French in the early 1200’s, the Channel Islands decided to remain English and they have been ever since – they are now self-governing British Crown Dependencies.
The French did try to capture them during medieval times, but it was half-hearted as the islands really had no particular value at that time. This changed when England and France became constant enemies in the early 1700’s as by then Jersey had quite a merchant fleet (because of its trade with its colony New Jersey) and like all merchantmen when war came, privateering beckoned.
Jersey then became a real thorn in the French side, massively disrupting French coastal trade; after the first year of the American War of Independence the Jersey fleet had captured and brought back to the island over 200 “prizes”. This is what led the French to the two invasion attempts; the 1779 aborted landing and the 1781 successful landing.
The game covers both these actions, with the 1779 scenario allowing a campaign to develop as if the French had actually landed and the 1781 scenario allowing the player to recreate the actual very brief campaign to see if they get the same or a different outcome.
Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest?
Peregrine: That’s easy – I grew up in Jersey! The Battle of Jersey was something we learned about, although since I left the island in the early 1980’s its anniversary has been elevated locally to include uniformed re-enactors in the town square and all the trimmings!
Grant: What is your design goal with the game?
Peregrine: To give the player an enjoyable game on a topic about which 99.9% of them will know nothing! That is one of the things I love about our hobby, discovering history, stories, narratives and personalities from military history about which one would have been ignorant, without our hobby.
Grant: How have you modified the Limits of Glory System to fit the American Revolutionary War?
Peregrine: I have not really had to change anything about the series. Andy and I have added lots of small flavor elements, but fundamentally the game will be very familiar to anyone who has played other games in the system.
Grant: How has designing a game in a tested and established system been? How constrained did you feel?
Peregrine: A little, but not hugely, as Limits of Glory is after all a very clever and innovative system, particularly the Event Clock and the Glory concept – so there was lots to work with.
Grant: What elements do you feel is most important to model in a game set in the American Revolutionary War?
Peregrine: The Jersey game really doesn’t have the feel of the AWI, in the sense that it is set in Europe, without all the quirks (terrain, native Americans, divided loyalties, etc.), that the fighting in America involves. It was coincidental really that the French decided to attack Jersey during the AWI, it could have easily been in a period during say the War of the Austrian Succession or the Seven Years War – or in the French Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars that followed.
We have included John Paul Jones though – so there is an American link!
Grant: What sources did you consult for the historical details? What one must-read source would you recommend?
Peregrine: Lots of sources. The Societe Jersiaise was most helpful with access to the online resources, some of the contemporary documents were brilliant.
For example, we found a set of standing orders (in Jersey French – a local Normandy dialect) issued by the Colonel of a Jersey Militia regiment, specifying what his men were to bring to the muster point (the parish church) at that time when invasion alert was sounded. Once I had found a connection in Jersey, through an old school friend, who could translate it for us, (although there were a few words in the old copperplate hand writing that alluded us), we had a real flavor for the situation and it even led us to introduce a special rule into the game for 1779 – “harrows” – but you’ll have to buy the game to find out what they are and how they can be used by a player to frustrate his opponent!
One “must read” source? The Battle of Jersey by Richard Mayne, Phillimore Press 1981. There are still second-hand copies floating around on the web bookstores.
Grant: What was it about the French invasion of the Island of Jersey that made you believe the Limits of Glory System would work well modelling the campaign?
Peregrine: The Limits of Glory System is a very open one in campaign terms so fitting Jersey into its strategic mechanics was actually very easy.
Grant: What different units are represented in the game and what advantages do they bring to the battlefield?
Peregrine: In Jersey there are only four types – British Regulars, Jersey Militia, French Nassau Legion infantry and French Royal Regular infantry. There is also some light artillery floating about as well.
The troops were all of a similar standard, although the Legion was an inferior unit, represented by their stats on the Combat table.
We did of course incorporate contemporary doctrine, so you will find that a Jersey Militia officer cannot issue command to British Regular forces – “After all Sir, the cheek of the fellow!”.
Grant: What challenges does this campaign bring to the system? How did you address them?
Peregrine: Great question. There were several:
Tides – how were we to represent that Jersey has one of the most difficult tidal systems in the world (it’s tide range is in the top 5 on the planet), and it frustrated the 1779 attempt to invade and had an affect in 1781 also.
Alarm – in 1781, the island was asleep when the French landed, so we had to bring in rules for how the alarm would be sounded, spread, and how local troops would muster, etc.
Hopefully players will feel we have successfully dealt with these issues, with some simple and innovative mechanics.
Grant: What area does the map cover? Who is the artist and how does their style assist in creating theme and immersion?
Peregrine: It covers the whole island. Jersey is not a big place, approximately 45 square miles, so this was not difficult. We also have a separate “break-out” map showing key locations in the capital, St Helier, which will be the focus of the fighting in 1781.
The artist is from 1795! We were lucky that a contemporary map – The Richmond Map – has been digitized by the Societe Jeriaise and is available through their web portal, so were able to use that. Andy worked his usual graphic magic to clean up the color and tones and we are really pleased with the result. Little details like the fact that we have put the parish crest by the church for each of the 12 Jersey parishes (very important in the cultural & contemporary heritage of the island), is very pleasing and really adds to the period feel.
Also, the picture on the box cover and superimposed behind the map & the player aids is contemporary too – being the painting The Death of Major Pierson by John Singleton Copley which was created in 1782-3 and now hangs in the Tate Britain gallery in London.
The Death of Major Pierson by John Singleton Copley which was created in 1782-3 and now hangs in the Tate Britain gallery in London
Grant: What purpose do the various numbers appearing in each space on the board serve?
Peregrine: These are “difficulty” ratings – the lower the number the more difficult it is going to be to move your forces out of an area. You will notice that the Jersey map has some land and sea spaces that are rated “0” – we built some special rules in for those!
Grant: For those that are not familiar, what is a Glory Rating? What role does it play in the game?
Peregrine: It is a major part of all the Limits of Glory Series games – every Leader has a glory rating. It represents the ability, resources, luck and circumstance of each Leader and is used by them to mitigate failures or to turn success into better success. It becomes intuitive to use after a few game turns.
Grant: What was the process like assigning these ratings to the commanders on both sides?
Peregrine: Fun and difficult! Glory must be set to be playable as well as accurate, so we tinkered and play tested until it felt right.
Grant: What Commanders are included for each side? Are there any real interesting personas here?
Peregrine: Lots – I’m not quite sure where to start, so I’ll give you a few from 1781.
Major Pierson – the British hero, who has a St, Helier street and a pub named after him. At 24, he was young for a Major and because the two Colonels on the island were in England on Christmas leave when the French landed (12th night, 6 January, 1781), he found himself the most senior British officer on the island. He defied a written instruction to surrender his troops from the Governor of the Island (who had been captured by the French), mustered his men and some militia, assaulted St Helier, won, and was killed at the climatic moment of the final assault! Hollywood where are you!
Baron de Rullecourt – the French commander in 1781, who had been the 2IC for the 1779 expedition also. Not a Baron at all, but rather a clever charleton & adventurer who had ingratiated himself in the right circles and persuaded these people to let him command the invasion and had secured a promise he would become the new Governor on the island if successful. A good planner, he pulled off the daring night landing and marched to the capital without detection, capturing the governor in his nightgown! At this point though success went to his head and he assumed all the Jersey & British forces would just surrender as ordered – they didn’t! He was also killed in the climatic battle, at about the same instant as Major Pierson. Some very interesting artifacts were found in his travelling trunk after the battle – I’ll leave the reader hanging here!
Emir Said – a mysterious Indian Muslim “prince”. He accompanied De Rullecourt, dressed in full flowing Arab style dress, turban, the “works”, including a nasty looking large scimitar on his belt. He stood behind De Rullecourt making unintelligent but threatening noises during the surrender negotiations. We have brought him into the game as an NPC – he is fun and unpredictable!
John Paul Jones – a single source identifies the AWI hero as the commander of the naval flotilla for 1781, (following his success at the Battle of Flamborough Head), so of course we had to include the “Father of the American Navy” in the game!
Grant: What is the makeup of the Combat Table?
Peregrine: It is pretty standard for the Limits of Glory System with different troop types (British Regulars, Jersey Militia, Nassau Legion & French Regulars) being given different abilities and success ratings.
Grant: How does combat work in the design?
Peregrine: Again, pretty standard for the Limits of Glory System – although that said there may be some slight changes to reflect the continual nature of the running fights, in what is a truly small campaign in terms of time span.
The big change for Jersey is that there are no sieges. The time span of the campaign is tiny where compared to other games in the system. The actual 1781 campaign lasted less than 1 day; and had 1779 resulted in a landing, 1-2 days would have brought the campaign to a conclusion. That doesn’t mean there are not castles & forts in the game however – we just have a different way of them possibly being captured!
Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play?
Peregrine: If the player has played any Limits of Glory Series game they will be right at home.
Each turn starts with an event, followed by momentum rolls, followed by alternate turns for the players to move or initiate combat, until both players run out of momentum.
Grant: What multiple strategic decisions are presented to the player every turn in this campaign?
Peregrine: Like all Limits of GlorySeries games the player must focus in on the objective and get cracking with their plan or they will run out of time.
Who do I move? Where do I move them to? Can I risk it? Have I got the Glory to mitigate a failure? Where do I muster forces? Do I go and attack the French now, or do I wait until I can rouse more militia out of their beds?
Decisions, decisions, decisions!
Grant: How is victory achieved?
Peregrine: In 1781 the key to the whole game is Royal Square in the center of St Helier (this is where the real climatic battle took place) and whoever holds this location when the time clock runs out, wins.
In 1779 taking overall control of the island is the objective for the French and denying this to them is the Jersey players goal.
Grant: What are some basic strategies for the French and the British players?
Peregrine: That is probably too detailed to go into here, but Andy has promised that I can have multiple pages in the rulebook to walk players thorough some basic ideas for strategies for both games.
In essence though the French must successfully negotiate the tides & coastline to get their force ashore in a concentrated way and then either push for St Helier with the Governor & Royal Square as their prizes in 1781; or spread across the island capturing & holding militia mustering points & forts, whilst also beating the resident troops in battle in 1779.
For the Jersey player it is all about getting your troops mustered and then into strong enough groups to deny the French their objectives – in the words of Wellington, “give them a damned good thrashing!”
Both sides have equal chances of winning the game and with the fluid nature of the Limits of Glory System, replayability is high.
Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?
Peregrine: Tense, with an increase in this tension as the game proceeds – and hopefully fun! This has certainly been the experience of the scores of play testers we have played it with.
Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?
Peregrine: All of it! The idea to bring a game about my childhood home to market has sat in my filing cabinet for almost 40 years, so brushing the dust off and making it a reality has been a dream come true for me. To think that the history of this obscure, globally unimportant, battle will be available to a wider audience is fabulous, as it has a fascinating and vibrant narrative with great characters and heroes that deserves to be better known.
I particularly love the map and the use of the John Copley painting in the game also, as a copy of this painting has hung in my home for as long as I can remember.
Grant: What other designs are you working on?
Peregrine: Wow, give me a chance! Just working on this one has been a major task! Let the dust settle on JerseyNew Jersey and I’ll cogitate from there!
I’ve started a little irregular series called Prime Minister Ratings– assessing British prime ministers by a very general rating system and showcasing one board game in which the prime minister in question or the problems they faced feature. Our first contestant was Robert Walpole, the very first prime minister. Today, we move on to a 20th century heavyweight: Winston Churchill, the man who led Britain through World War II… and was elected prime minister for a second time six years after the war. Our accompanying board game is Churchill (Mark Herman, GMT Games).
Before we dive into Churchill’s life and the assessment of his policies, here’s…
The Rating System
Some caveats ahead: The prime ministers will be rated by the knowledge of their time. If they or their contemporaries could not have known about the effects of something, I will not use my hindsight to mark it as a mistake of theirs. The assessment is focused on their conduct as prime minister, but includes their life after holding the office (in which they will still be regarded in the public eye as (ex-)PMs). And lastly, in the following, “Britain” serves as a shorthand for either Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland as applicable, “British” for the inhabitants of such.
Now, to the system itself: There are three policy field categories (foreign, domestic, and economic policy) and three more general ones (vision, pragmatism, integrity). A prime minister can earn from one to five stars in each category (for a total sum of up to 30). In detail, the prime minister is assessed as follows:
Foreign policy: Did the prime minister increase British influence in the world and the security of the British at home? Did the prime minister wield British power responsibly and with positive results for the regions affected (the latter counting for a greater deal in times of British power being great)?
Domestic policy: Did the prime minister increase the liberty of the British to express themselves and to participate in the political process? Did the prime minister promote domestic security and shape the framework for equality before the law and fair justice dealing with offenses?
Economic policy: Did the prime minister facilitate the prosperity and economic security of the British (including in the mid- and long-term)? Was the prime minister’s economic policy based on mutual benefit of those involved or did it unduly burden one side?
Vision: Did the prime minister have an idea of what Britain and the world (the latter counting for more in times of British influence being great) should look like beyond the immediate future? Did the prime minister’s policies steer Britain (and, if applicable, the world) in this direction?
Pragmatism: Did the prime minister succeed in seeing their policy through from inception to completion? How well did the prime minister manage the support from Parliament, the Civil Service, the media, society (the latter two counting for more in more recent years)?
Integrity: Did the prime minister understand the office as a means to benefit themselves, special interest groups, the entire country, or another community? Did the prime minister respect the boundaries of the office?
Churchill’s Life
Winston Churchill (1874—1965) came from the English high aristocracy, but inherited a knack for populism from his father, a Tory politician. After formative years as an officer and war correspondent, Churchill turned himself to politics, being elected into Parliament in 1900 (as a Conservative) and joining the government (as a Liberal) in 1905. He held various government posts and was First Lord of the Admiralty when World War I broke out. Churchill resigned over the disastrous Gallipoli landings, but re-joined the government in 1917. While being regarded as a major political talent, Churchill seemed too fickle and unreliable for the highest of offices – for example due to his second change of party (back to the Conservatives) in 1924, after which he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Once out of office (in 1929), Churchill searched for new causes – and took up first opposition to Indian self-government and, from 1933, opposition to Nazi expansionism. Neither was a popular stance in the Conservative Party or the country as a whole. Churchill had much time for his second calling after politics – writing.
When Germany went to war with Britain in 1939, Churchill, the great Cassandra on Hitler’s aggression, was called back into government. Less than a year later, prime minister Neville Chamberlain resigned over the failure of the Norwegian operation, and on May 10, 1940, Churchill followed him as prime minister. On the same day, Germany invaded France. Churchill presided over a series of military disasters in his first weeks. In this difficult situation, he excelled at maintaining the fighting spirit of his government, Parliament, and the British people. Not only Hitler was surprised when Britain did not seek peace, but opted to fight alone against the Nazi war machine which controlled half of Europe. Churchill’s great speeches of the spring and summer 1940 – from “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat” over “We shall fight on the beaches” and “This was their finest hour” to “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few” chronicle his defiance.
Britain did not have to stand alone forever. In June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and Churchill disregarded his ardent anti-communism in cooperation with Stalin. Six months later, the United States entered the war on the allied side. Churchill was sure that this great alliance of Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States would emerge victorious. His task was now to drive forward the victory – and make sure that Britain, the least populous and productive of the three powers, was not relegated to second rank. For a long time, he succeeded. It was only after the D-Day landings in France in 1944 that Britain’s comparably small material contribution began to turn Britain into a junior partner. Churchill enjoyed great personal popularity for his role in the war, but in the parliamentary elections held two months after the German unconditional surrender, the British voters gave the Labour Party a majority.
Churchill was nominally the head of the opposition and made some memorable speeches warning of Soviet expansionism, but spent most of his time writing his war memoirs (like his other books, they turned into bestsellers). Labour enacted a series of ambitious domestic reforms (from the creation of the NHS to a housing program), but lost their majority in the 1951 elections – so Churchill returned to Downing Street No 10. By then, he was old and suffered from bad health, and domestic politics had never been too interesting to him. However, when Stalin died in 1953, Churchill hoped that a three-way summit between US president Eisenhower, the new leader in Moscow, and himself could resolve the nascent Cold War. His hope was in vain. He resigned in 1955 due to health reasons, but remained a member of parliament until a few weeks before his death in 1965.
The Rating
Foreign policy: Churchill’s focus of interest, and, as a wartime prime minister, the policy field in which the biggest challenges awaited him. He met them remarkably well. True, he did not increase British power and influence, but he staved off its likely demise by a negotiated peace with the Nazis, and held his own in league with the much larger powers of the United States and the Soviet Union for a long time. More importantly even, while it may have been these powers that eventually won the war, Churchill’s contribution in 1940 was to not lose it – and thus ensuring the liberty of hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Churchill’s wartime record is blemished by his less benevolent approach to the liberty of the peoples under British imperial rule which manifested itself in drawn-out colonial wars during his second premiership.
Domestic policy: Churchill’s main contribution was his unification of the country (and his own party, to begin with) to oppose Nazism – when isolationism, appeasement, and pacifism no matter the cost had been en vogue in the 1930s and still lingered early in the war. Also, the British government’s intrusion into the British people’s lives during the war was remarkably limited given the circumstances, and it can be argued that Churchill’s defense against Nazism was an enormous contribution to the British people’s life in liberty and democracy.
Economic policy: Tough to assess, as Churchill was never too interested in it and let his ministers run the show in these matters. The Labour members of his wartime government were able men, and letting them do their thing without hindrance is an achievement in itself (particularly for a leader as headstrong as Churchill). The British economy also was very efficiently mobilized for war production (and achieved a state of economic “total war” long before Germany’s). In Churchill’s second term, his major economic achievement was to accept and continue the sweeping economic and welfare reforms enacted by the Labour government from 1945 to 1951, even though they had been strongly opposed by the Conservatives when they had been in opposition. Churchill thus became a father of the post-war consensus.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Vision: Churchill’s great mission – the defeat of Nazi expansionism – was in itself not a long-term project. It ended with the Nazis’ unconditional surrender in 1945 – and so did Churchill’s premiership. He took to warning against Soviet expansionism and the hope to end it in a three-way summit between him, the American president, and the Soviet leader in his second term, but this proved futile.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Pragmatism: Churchill was one of only few government members who were committed to fighting on after the fall of France, but he carried his government, his party, and the country at large with him. His broadening of the government to include Labour and Liberal ministers ensured national unity as long as the war lasted. Once Germany was defeated, this unity was over – exactly how it had been designed to be in a competitive democracy. In terms of foreign policy, Churchill seized on the opportunity to cooperate with the Soviet Union and maintained this difficult partnership until the completion of its mission to defeat the Axis countries.
Integrity: As long as Churchill was a wartime prime minister, his conduct in office held up to high standards. Once Germany had surrendered and Churchill switched to election campaign mode, he was not quite as exemplary – alleging that Labour would want to install a “Gestapo” if elected, a smear as baseless as it was unworthy of a man who knew both Hitler and Attlee well enough to understand they stood at opposite ends of the political sphere. As a former prime minister, Churchill was given access to government files for his war memoirs – and used them to shape public opinion and gain another election victory.
Rating: 3 out of 5.
Overall: Churchill had great qualities and marked defects. Fortunately for him, Britain, and the world, he was called into office in a time that demanded just what he could offer – and probably no one else who stood ready for the task at hand. With 25 out of 30 stars, he jumps to the top group of leaders.
An excellent overview with portraits of all prime ministers is Leonard, Dick: A History of British Prime Ministers, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 2014.
A good start on Churchill – and, despite the somewhat grandiose title, no hagiography – is Best, Geoffrey: Churchill. A Study in Greatness, Hambledon and London, London 2001.
Of course, Churchill’s own writings are of great interest to anyone reading on his times, especially his Nobel Prize for Literature-winning The Second World War, six volumes (also published as an abridged one-volume version), Cassell, London 1948—1953.
300 years ago, Robert Walpole was made First Lord of the Treasury for the second time. Not a particularly impressive event – if Walpole had not retained that office for 21 years and turned himself into the leading British politician of his time. Thereafter, the office of First Lord of the Treasury customarily was given to the monarch’s representative to parliament – the Prime Minister, as the holder became known. As times changed, so did the office: Today, the prime minister is much more responsible to parliament than to the monarch. Yet the office, unofficial at first, has endured these 300 years and been held by dozens of very different men and women. And thus, this post about Walpole will kick off a new irregular series on the blog – Prime Minister Ratings! I’ll assess Walpole (and, in the future, other prime ministers (or even leaders from other places)) by a very general rating system – and I’ll introduce one board game in which the prime minister or the problems they faced feature – this time, Imperial Struggle (Ananda Gupta/Jason Matthews, GMT Games).
The Creation of an Office
First things first: Why did the prime ministry arise with Walpole? After all, before him, there had been strong advisers to the kings of Britain (and England before), but not at all times. There are personal and structural reasons for the change: Personally, Walpole was a politician of force and skill, and his long tenure enabled him to shape the British constitution according to his needs in office. Structurally, the British crown’s powers had been curtailed by the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688/89, so more power rested with parliament, where the monarch now needed a forceful representative. George I, the first Hanoverian king of Britain, was particularly in need of that, as he spoke little English (his native tongue was German) and was often away in his electorate of Hanover. These were the conditions that enabled Walpole to rise so high.
The Rating System
Some caveats ahead: The prime ministers will be rated by the knowledge of their time. If they or their contemporaries could not have known about the effects of something, I will not use my hindsight to mark it as a mistake of theirs. The assessment is focused on their conduct as prime minister, but includes their life after holding the office (in which they will still be regarded in the public eye as (ex-)PMs). And lastly, in the following, “Britain” serves as a shorthand for either Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland as applicable, and “British” as shorthand for the inhabitants of such.
Now, to the system itself: There are three policy field categories (foreign, domestic, and economic policy) and three more general ones (vision, pragmatism, integrity). A prime minister can earn from one to five stars in each category (for a total sum of up to 30). In detail, the prime minister is assessed as follows:
Foreign policy: Did the prime minister increase British influence in the world and the security of the British at home? Did the prime minister wield British power responsibly and with positive results for the regions affected (the latter counting for a greater deal in times of British power being great)?
Domestic policy: Did the prime minister increase the liberty of the British to express themselves and to participate in the political process? Did the prime minister promote domestic security and shape the framework for equality before the law and fair justice dealing with offenses?
Economic policy: Did the prime minister facilitate the prosperity and economic security of the British (including in the mid- and long-term)? Was the prime minister’s economic policy based on mutual benefit of those involved or did it unduly burden one side?
Vision: Did the prime minister have an idea of what Britain and the world (the latter counting for more in times of British influence being great) should look like beyond the immediate future? Did the prime minister’s policies steer Britain (and, if applicable, the world) in this direction?
Pragmatism: Did the prime minister succeed in seeing their policy through from inception to completion? How well did the prime minister manage to gain support from Parliament, the Civil Service, the media, society (the latter two counting for more in more recent years)?
Integrity: Did the prime minister understand the office as a means to benefit themselves, special interest groups, the entire country, or another community? Did the prime minister respect the boundaries of the office?
Walpole’s Life
Robert Walpole (1676—1745) was the son of a Norfolk country squire. When he was only 24, his father died, and Walpole moved quickly to seize the vacant seat in the House of Commons for himself. He enjoyed a steady rise in the ranks of the Whigs, and got his first cabinet appointment as Secretary-at-War in 1708. He spent the next years in government, among the opposition, and even in a Whig faction opposing a Whig government until his appointment as First Lord of the Treasury in April 1721 (following the fall of the Sunderland/Stanhope government over the bursting of the South Sea Bubble).
His primacy in the government was contested in the beginning, but assured no later than 1730, when his last weighty rival (and erstwhile ally, as well as brother-in-law) Charles Townshend left the government. Walpole’s dominance over both Houses of Parliament grew, and he also made himself indispensable to two initially skeptical monarchs (George I, and after his death in 1727, George II). Characterizing himself as “no saint, no Spartan, no reformer”, Walpole aimed to bring “security, stability, and low taxation” by a policy committed to peace. When Walpole’s cabinet colleagues pushed the country into the War of Jenkins’ Ear against Spain (which initially went badly), his authority eroded. He lost his control over parliament and resigned in February 1742. Walpole was made Earl of Orford and died in 1745.
Foreign policy: Walpole, a Whig, adopted the traditional Tory policy of peace with France. He stuck to it for almost the entirety of his tenure as prime minister. His “peace at any price” policy saved British lives and money, most notably when he kept the country neutral during the War of the Polish Succession (which ended in a draw anyway, with the candidate Britain preferred ending up on the throne, but French and Spanish territorial gains). At the end of his tenure, the policy of peaceful isolation could not hold anymore, and war with Spain (and then France) erupted against Walpole’s wishes.
Domestic policy: Walpole’s domestic agenda was limited – which was likely a success in itself in a country which had a recent history of religious strife, revolution, and regicide. He made small improvements for the situation of Protestant dissenters (that is, non-members of the Anglican Church). Most significantly, Britain was much more stable and unified at the end of his long rule than at the beginning, and could thus easily deal with the 1745 Jacobite uprising.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Economic policy: Prosperity was Walpole’s key promise. He restored economic stability after the South Sea Bubble. His policy of peace gave the country a respite from the immense expenses in the wars before and after his tenure. Thus, Walpole reduced overall taxation and cut back on the national debt, which would give Britain more financial flexibility in the future. Not everyone benefitted from Walpole’s economic policy, though: His shift from direct taxation (especially on land) to indirect taxation (especially on consumption) favored rich landowners (like himself) at the expense of the non-propertied classes.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Vision: Walpole declared peace to be his main means to attain “security, stability, and low taxation”. In that, he succeeded, and he did so for a remarkable long time without major adjustments. His vision and the policies he used to achieve it strengthened Britain in the long run.
Rating: 5 out of 5.
Pragmatism: Walpole used a variety of means to attract backing for himself and his policies. He was a Whig (and would always rest on his strength among the Whigs), but cooperated with the Tories on several occasions from his early career on. His support for beleaguered men of influence after the South Sea Bubble won him their loyalty for a long time to come. Walpole did not only control the House of Commons, of which he was a member, but also the House of Lords – chiefly through his ecclesiastical appointments, whose beneficiaries would prove thankful to him. Even though the heir to the crown, the future George II, was not a friend of Walpole’s, he did not remove him from office upon his succession: Walpole had gained favor with George’s wife Caroline (unlike most other men of note, who courted George’s mistress, from whom the king would not accept policy suggestions). And when the new king attempted to install Sir Spencer Compton as his new chief minister, Walpole proved indispensable to Compton even in the most basic tasks. Compton’s candidacy floundered, and Walpole remained in charge – for a never-again reached 21 years in total.
Integrity: Walpole lived in an age different from ours. Back then, Members of Parliament and ministers did not receive a salary for their offices, and thus usually saw no problem in using their political career to enrich themselves. That drove Walpole both personally and in the ways he would gain political supporters: “All these men have their price”, he remarked about a group of Members of Parliament. As one of his recent biographers put it: Walpole “operated a species of private interest/public expenditure mini-welfare state for anyone able to elect a Member or persuade one to vote right” (Pearce, p. 383). Even in comparison to the men of his age, Walpole made tremendous use of practices which were based on personal rather than common welfare, and the leading writers of his time lambasted the “Robinocracy” (based on the nickname Robin for Robert) as hopelessly corrupt.
Rating: 2 out of 5.
Overall: Walpole was a forceful politician whose control over parliament and (neither weak-willed nor too-trusting) monarchs was extraordinary. His policy of “security, stability, and low taxation” based on peace was mostly successful and held up for a very long time. With 24 out of 30 stars, his rating is what future leaders up here will be measured against.
An excellent overview with portraits of all prime ministers is Leonard, Dick: A History of British Prime Ministers, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 2014.
The standard scholarly biography remains Plumb, John Harold: Sir Robert Walpole, 2 volumes, Cresset Press, London 1956/1960.
For a more recent biography, see Pearce, Edward: The Great Man. Robert Walpole: Scoundrel, Genius, and Britain’s First Prime Minister, Pimlico, London 2007.
Anmelden
