The Periodic Table Of The Elements Of Urban Restoration: Fill & Download for Free

By all except the most ultra-conservative Spaniards, this historical event is known as just one of the many ways in which Ferdinand VII “the Desired” (or, as he was known in other quarters, "the Felon King") fucked over Spain and gave her a legacy of warfare, poverty and utter backwardness for the best part of two centuries.Must. Resist. Urge. To punch. Screen.I’ll elaborate.From a purely historical standpoint the invasion of Spain by the Hundred Thousands Sons of Saint Louis (100KSSL for brevity) was one of the many events in Spanish 19th and 20th century history in which military means were used by a political faction to impose their views over their opponents’. It was a relatively unique affair in that, as opposed to the vast majority of Pronunciamientos that came before and after, it had a major foreign component as well.Some background first in order to understand this event.The French Revolution and the Spanish ReactionThe motives for the 100KSSL invasion trace back to the French Revolution and the complete upheaval of European politics it caused. As the waves provoked by the ideas of Enlightment and the destruction of the Ancient Regime in France swept Europe, many people in other countries though it was high time for their own monarchs to be removed in order to allow for the people to govern itself. The 19th century is littered with revolutions and counterrevolutions as the forces of liberalism and absolutism fought each other in more or less bloody affairs throughout the continent, and Spain would not be different.Spain spent the 18th century ruled by a series of Bourbon kings (Phillip V, Ferdinand VI and Charles III) who, despite their absolutism, were a breath of fresh air for the country compared to the decadence of the last Habsburg kings of Spain. These Bourbon monarchs were prime examples of Enlightened despotism, and under their rule Spain saw many social and political reforms that significantly improved the life of her people. These circumstances, along with the overbearing (and stabilizing) influence of the Catholic Church, meant that revolts were few and usually directed against specific measures or ministers (e.g. the Esquilache Riots), not so much attempts to subvert the existing order, let alone destroy the monarchy. All that was to change as a result of the Peninsular War (known in Spain as the war of Independence).The years before and during the French Revolution saw a major change in Spanish politics. The ascension of Charles IV to the throne of Spain threw a spanner in the works, as the personally benign but politically incompetent king left the governance of the kingdom to his prime minister, Manuel Godoy, a truly despicable figure who spent his tenure aggrandizing his figure, filling his pockets and (allegedly) seducing the queen. Godoy, with the tacit approval of the king, sent Spain into a series of conflicts that eventually ended with the country in complete disarray and eventually open to French domination (see Why hasn't Spain been a major European power since the defeat of its Armada?for a detailed explanation).Such stately presenceLong story short, Bourbon Spain aligned with the enemies of the French Revolution, participating in the initial wars of reaction and getting her ass handed to her by the French, to the point that Spain had to agree by treaty (Second Treaty of San Ildefonso) to ally with Revolutionary France against the British (at which point it was Britain's turn to mop the floor with Spain). By the time Napoleon Bonaparte took over France and began his European campaigns, Spain was all but a client state of France.Under these circumstances, Spain was forced to wage a proxy war against Portugal (a British ally) in order to remove the British threat from the French rear. Given the inability of Spain (with her armies decimated after fighting both France and Britain) to assert dominance over Portugal, Napoleon finally became fed up and invaded Portugal himself, occupying Spain as well for good measure. Charles IV abdicated on his son, Ferdinand VII, who was then confined by the French in Bayonne as a puppet king.The Peninsular War and the Spanish Constitution of 1812The French occupation of Spain was especially visible in Madrid, where 100.000 soldiers under the command of Joachim Murat ensured the subordination of the Spanish army and kept watch on the remainder of the Spanish royal family. However, this was not enough for Napoleon, who gave orders to move the remaining children of Charles IV to France to be confined with their parents, and place his older brother Joseph Bonaparte in Madrid to rule in his stead as a king in all but name.What Napoleon and Murat could not foresee is that this seemingly minor power move would be perceived by the people of Madrid as a far more heinous act than the ongoing military occupation. On May 2, 1808, as soon as rumors began to circulate among the people that the royal children were being forcefully removed from the city, what began as a spontaneous protest in front of the royal palace soon turned into a bloody revolt, with French soldiers and Spanish commoners killing each other liberally on the streets of Madrid. The Dos de Mayo Uprising, as it was called, and the brutal French repression in its aftermath, quickly spread the uprising to the rest of Spain, triggering the Peninsular War. Military and civilian resistance was organized around local Juntasand for a time pushed back the overstretched French forces. The Battle of Bailén, a complete defeat of a French army corps in conventional battle against a comparatively weaker regular Spanish army contingent, was not only a humilliation and a dent in Napoleon's invincibility mantle, but it provoked a new desire for war in the Austrian Empire, triggering the War of the Fifth Coalition and persuading Britain to throw her Peninsular armies in support of the Spanish revolt.Spain: come for the sun, stay for the stabbingThe ongoing warfare in Spain, if not necessarily an immediate threat to France itself, was a major drain of resources for Napoleon's Grand Armee, who had to committ more and more troops to Spain in order to put out the many fires throughout the country. In order to quell the uprising once and for all, Napoleon himself led a new campaign in late 1808 which completely turned the tables. Victory after victory eventually allowed Napoleon to restore Joseph's rule, now officially crowned as king of Spain (styled Joseph I), and pushed the British back into Portugal and reduced the Spanish military resistance to a prolonged siege to the isolated city of Cádiz (an almost impregnable island fortress joined to the peninsula by a narrow sand spit), where what was left of the Spanish administration coalesced around a newly established parliament, theCádiz Cortes. However, for the French this would only be a temporary victory, as the civilian population began to form militias and wage a bloody guerilla war against the French. The harsh Spanish geography and the partisans' ability to disguise themselves among the population allowed for numerous ambushes and assassinations against the French garrisons, which in turn devolved into even bloodier repression (with reprisals against civilians and massacres not unlike those carried out by the Nazis in WWII). This, of course, built support for the partisans among the Spanish population, creating a circle of violence that would drag the French into a disproportionately costly attrition war that would play a major role in Napoleon's eventual defeat.In any event, during most of the Peninsular War Joseph I had control over the largest cities and vast areas of the country. He tried to implement many of the Revolutionary reforms that Napoleon had spread to other client states in Europe (and Joseph himself had applied in Naples and Sicily before coming to Spain), and he was by all accounts a well intended and wise ruler, although often unable to carry out his own plans over his brother's direct interventions. Still, he carried the banner of Enlightenment and revolutionary ideals into Spain, and despite the carnage going on in many other parts of the country, he won over a significant portion of the Spanish urban elites who preferred them over the absolutism of the Bourbon kings. This fact will be key to understand later events leading to the 100KSSL invasion.At the same time, the Cádiz Cortes, completely isolated from the rest of the country and with no access to the royal family, were tasked with restablishing a legal framework and an administration for the eventual liberation. The new parliament was formed with a wide variety of representatives of all Spanish territories (including Spanish America) and classes, with a clear majority of members representing the "third estate", that is, the common people (as opposed to the first and second estates: the nobility and the church). Provisional bodies were formed to represent the three separate powers: legislative (the Cortes themselves), executive (a regency appointed by the Cortes) and judicial. Elections would require no economic qualification from potential voters. The Cortes also declared popular sovereignity and law to be above the monarch, transforming Spain into a constitutional monarchy. Finally, the Cortes set the goal of writing a constitution to codify all these principles.The resulting document, the Spanish Constitution of 1812, was a revolutionary piece of legislation. It firmly adhered to the principles of liberalism and the rule of law, and wouldn't have been out of place in countries like Great Britain or the Netherlands. It was so far ahead of Spanish politics of the time that it would eventually be rejected by the most reactionary elements of Spanish society, which unfortunately included a significant majority of the common people. Since most of the liberal and enlightened sectors of society in occupied Spain had embraced the revolutionary reforms instituted by Joseph I, they were also labelled as traitors (Afrancesados - literally "Frenchified") by the majority of people suffering the brutal French occupation.As a result, many of these liberal elements (even those like painter Francisco Goya, who had forcefully denounced the savagery of the invaders) were forced to go into exile as the French armies retreated, lest they suffer harsh retaliation for their perceived treason.Not the works of a supporter of the French invasorsThis would prove disastrous once the French were finally pushed back from Spain and the new government tried to maintain these political gains after the restoration of Ferdinand VII to power, because most of the people that would have supported the new Constitution had fled the country, and for many (often manipulated by the church and the nobles), any whiff of liberalism was immediately associated with the French and their reforms.The Bourbon RestorationOnce the French were decisively defeated and forced out of Spain by the British army of the Duke of Wellington, it was time for the previous order to be restored. Ferdinand VII, freed by Napoleon from his comfortable wartime confinement, was in principle expected to be restored to the throne as the new constitutional monarchy intended to preserve the legitimacy of the Bourbon dinasty. The Cortes, however, insisted that before coming back to Spain he should swear the new constitution, and only then he would be recognized as the rightful head of the new Spanish state. Ferdinand agreed reluctantly, and it was soon obvious that he had absolutely (no pun intended) no intentions of keeping true to his oath.Ferdinand entered Spain again in February 1814, and was welcomed by jubilant people at every stop in his journey back to Madrid, giving birth to his moniker of "the Desired". Ferdinand altered his Cortes-appointed return route in order to visit several important cities, in which he received the support of not only the common folk (mostly peasants who had no particular allegiance to the liberal foundations of the new regime) but also the church, the nobility and the local bourgeoisie, which unlike its European counterparts was more interested in joining the nobility than the liberal cause.The people shouted at the king, no kidding, "long live the chains"Unsusprisingly, once Ferdinand was safely restored to power a couple of months after his return to Spain, an uprising by members of the military who supported the return of absolutism was quickly embraced by Ferdinand, who abolished the Constitution of 1812, dissolved the Cortes, exiled the most significant liberal figures to Africa, and created a council of close advisors (mostly sycophants and upstarts trying to enrich themselves) as all powerful ministers in the best tradition of his inept father, Charles IV. With absolutism restored, Ferdinand not only rolled back all the reforms introduced by Joseph Bonaparte and the Cádiz Cortes, but also many of the modernizing reforms of his 18th century ancestors, plunging Spain back into the darkness of History.This sequence of events had the terrible legacy of creating a deep breach between the liberal and conservative sides of Spanish society, which would be the root of many revolts and civil wars to come, until reaching its horrific conclusion at the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39, and in part lasts to this day.The Pronunciamiento of Riego and Conservative ExileAlso unsurprisingly, the restoration of absolutism didn't sit well with the remaining liberal elements of Spain, which even though weakened by the exile of the Afrancesados and not very popular in many sectors of society, did have a wide support among the military, especially those young officers who had endured the siege of Cadiz and had fought alongside the British to evict the French. Of course, under those circumstances it was to be expected that the most significant way to oppose Ferdinand's absolutism came in the form of military revolts. Several liberal pronunciamientos took place and were squashed (often harshly) between 1814 and 1820. With each revolt, Ferdinand doubled down in his move to absolutism. With each counterreform and repression, the divide between liberals and conservatives became wider.Typical scene after a failed pronunciamientoThe political status quo was to change radically in 1820, when a liberal pronunciamiento led by colonel Rafael del Riego in Seville managed to gain steam and survive long enough to spark sympathetic revolts in several other cities, including Madrid. The mutineers, who had declared their allegiance to the Constitution of 1812, managed to surround the royal palace and force the surrender of the king, who had to issue a decree restablishing the constitution and the Cortes. The following period, called the Trienio Liberal (liberal triennium), was a rather unstable era, marked by internal dissension among the liberals and the barely masked royal disaffection for the new regime.During this period, many absolutists exiled themselves to France, which at the time restored her monarchy as well and was in the process of dismantling the revolutionary state, and was therefore very receptive to these exiles. At the same time, conservative forces in Spain became bolstered by the weakness of the liberal government and the ever more obvious support of the king and the Church for their political position. These forces tried unsuccessfully to organize revolts of their own against the liberals, but the growing turmoil convinced Ferdinand of the opportunity to act decisively.In 1822, in the middle of a failed conservative uprising, Ferdinand applied the provisions of the Congress of Vienna, asking support from the reactionary Holy Alliance of France, Russia, Prussia and Austria in order to defeat the liberals. While the Alliance did not lend official support, it gave the French king, Louis XVIII, complete freedom to support his Spanish cousin's bid for the restoration of absolutism.The 100KSSLKing Ferdinand, emboldened by the foreign support for his cause, was however under close control from the liberal government, so his ability to communicate with France was very limited. But with a sizeable number of conservative exiles in France working for his cause, this wasn't a major obstacle. These elements, acting in concert with the conservative leaders in open revolt in Spain, ensured the cooperation with the French until an intervention force was assembled.In early 1823, Louis XVIII openly declared his support for Ferdinand VII of Spain, and assembled an army, the 100KSSL (which was more like 60K soldiers), which would be tasked with invading Spain, freeing the Spanish king from his captors and ridding Spain from any liberal influence. The reference to Saint Louis was a not so subtle reference to the divine duty of France (whose patron was St. Louis) to support the Spanish king's god given absolute power.Leave it to the Brits to extract some humor from any situationThe 100KSSL crossed the border and incorporated the mutinous conservative Spanish forces, moving then to occupy the north, center and east of Spain with little opposition by the regular Spanish army, which was spread too thin, demoralized and disorganized. However, localized opposition by competent Spanish troops (led by some of the leaders of the early liberal pronunciamientos of the 1810's) managed to slow the relentless advance of the 100KSSL enough to allow for the government to flee Madrid with the king, first to Seville, and finally to Cádiz, in a repeat of what happened during the Peninsular War.The difference, of course, was that in this occasion the French didn't have to deal with a British army in the peninsula or the British Navy protecting the only land access to Cádiz. After a brief siege and bombardment, and suffering from the consequences of a complete blockade by the French forces, the liberal government agreed to a negotiated surrender, freeing the king and accepting a compromise in which the king promised to defend the spirit of the constitution and the freedoms gained with it, while a new constitutional framework that was more favorable to the king was devised.The Aftermath of the InvasionFerdinand was returned to Madrid and restored to power. Part of the 100KSSL remained garrisoned around Madrid to provide safety for the king and to ensure that he regained complete control of the country. Once this was achieved, the remaining French troops retreated to France, proud of having achieved in little more than six months what Napoleon had failed to achieve in seven years. Once the French left, Ferdinand VII kept his word and proceeded to restablish the rule of law under his wise rulership.No, of course he didn't. Haven't you been paying attention?Seriously, look at that face. Would you trust this guy with a dollar bill?As soon as the French left, Ferdinand broke his promise and once again abolished the constitution and dissolved the Cortes, this time repressing the liberals ruthlessly. Complete absolutism would be the norm in Spain for decades, with short-lived liberal interludes triggered by the occasional pronunciamiento being the exception. Ferdinand would go on to complete his historical task of utterly destroying Spain and his future. Some of the most remarkable pieces of his legacy were:The loss of the vast majority of the Spanish posessions in America, which had revolted during the Peninsular War and were well on their way to independence by the time Ferdinand returned to Spain, but the ensuing turmoil guaranteed that even the parts of Spanish America that were somewhat loyal to Spain were lost by the inability to mount an organized response. For example, the troops led by Riego in his successful revolt were supposed to be sent to America to quell the rebellion.The continuous cycle of military intervention in civil affairs, with pronunciamientos (usually, but not always, bloodless) of either political bend becoming almost a staple of Spanish politics for more than 150 years. The Spanish military were a significant influence in Spanish politics well into the 1980s.The devastating Carlist Wars, which were triggered by Ferdinand's decision to change the laws of succession of the Spanish crown to benefit his infant daughter, Isabella, later Isabella II of Spain, against the previous heir apparent, Infante Carlos. The Carlists, who had the dubious honor of being even more reactionary than Ferdinand himself.A side effect of the Carlist Wars was the birth of Basque and Catalan nationalism (rebirth in the latter case) as the Carlists were supporters of the ancient laws that had been granted to those territories since the middle ages. Consequently, the Carlists had a major support base in Catalonia and the Basque Country, and the eventual Carlist defeat had the effect of pushing the local conservative elites into a nationalist fervor.The official disdain for any cultural and technological advancement (often associated with liberal tendencies), which deepened the already wide gap between Spain and the surrounding countries, and which would ensure that the Industrial Revolution would not reach Spain until decades later than those other countries.Almost a joke in the overall scheme of things, but very telling of Ferdinand's mindset, was the restablishment of the Spanish Inquisition, more than four centuries after its original creation. This new iteration of the Inquisition had no resemblance to the one that terrorized religious and ethnic minorities in the 15th century, and was little more than an office in charge of censorship and ensuring political and religious compliance to the regime, but it was kind of German chancellor Angela Merkel creating a new branch of the police and naming it the Gestapo for shits and giggles.By the time of Ferdinand's death in 1833, Spain was a shell of its former self, empoverished, backwards and well on its way to a century of bloodshed and internal strife.So, how is the 100KSSL invasion seen in Spain today? Well, for starters, not a lot of people know a lot about it. As I mentioned earlier, the event is taught in Spanish schools as one of the most significant events in the liberal-conservative struggle that marked Ferdinand's reign. It is, however, clearly explained not as a foreign invasion but as a foreign intervention in a local affair.In any event, few people in Spain would recall the event or even the name of the 100KSSL if ambush-asked on the street. The Spanish Civil War of 1936-39 and subsequent dictatorship of Francisco Franco was a watershed time in Spanish history and has eclipsed even the most significant events of the 19th century in the mind of the average Spaniard.Few, if any Spaniards with minimal historical knowledge would say anything good about Ferdinand VII, and the invasion of the 100KSSL was a particularly low point in his reign. Still, you might find some nostalgic ultraconservatives that would not mind yet another go at the old Inquisition thing, or some anachronistic neocon eager to retconn any political fight of the past along modern left-right lines, trying to put some positive spin on the event.If you do find one of those people, please smack them in the face with a history book on my behalf.Or the entire encyclopedia, if you have the time

One can’t establish the dictatorship differences without comparing the men in charge.To the left, Francisco Franco Bahamonde and in the middle António de Oliveira Salazar. One of the rare photos in which the two men are seen together.The two men might have shared many enemies: communists, democrats, homosexuals, free thinkers. However, they also had very different personalities.Francisco Franco Bahamonde (1892-1975) was not a happy child. Being raised in a upper middle class family with strong traditional ties and several generations of high-ranking officers in the Spanish Navy, his father, a General Intendant of the Spanish Navy himself, was extremely violent and, due to his behaviour, Franco’s parents ended up living separately.Not following his family’s naval tradition, due to its decrepit state having being crippled by the Spanish-American war, Franco pursued a career in the Spanish Army as a cadet in 1907, graduating in 1910. He would then go on to serve in Morocco, partly ruled by Spain, rapidly advancing through the ranks for bravery in combat and an assiduous attention to detail in logistics. In 1926, at the age of 33, he became Brigadier General and the youngest General in all of Europe.As a conservative and monarchist, Franco regretted the abolition of the monarchy and the subsequent establishment of the democratic Second Republic in 1931. Because of this, he was an active participant in counter-revolutionary procedures being the July 1936 military uprising, following Calvo Sotelo’s assassination by Spanish Socialist Workers' Party partisans, the most prominent one. The coup failed, thus precipitating the Spanish Civil War.Spanish African Army officials.Franco was tasked with controlling the Spanish African Army, which was air-lifted to Spain. With the death of the other leading generals, Franco became his faction’s sole leader being appointed Generalisimo and Caudillo de España (Spain’s military and political strongman) in the autumn of 1936. In 1939 the war ended, having left a trail of immense destruction which included up to 500,000 direct casualties, and the Nationalists winning the war. The victory extended Franco’s dictatorship over all of Spain, being followed by a period of harsh repression of political opponents and dissenters.On the other hand, António de Oliveira Salazar (1889-1970) grew up in a family of small farmers, in a quiet environment, having studied in the seminary between 1900 and 1908. There, Salazar built the bases of his ensuing fervent Catholicism, inspiring himself in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclicals (papal documents concerning Catholic doctrine) as well as in Charles Maurras and Pierre Guillaume Frédéric le Play’s National Catholic ideas.After finishing his seminary studies, Salazar acquired a taste for Portuguese politics, in turmoil by the recent regicide. He criticized the rise of the Jacobin Republicans and defended the Church, writing several articles in the newspapers. Because of his eloquence he was invited, in 1910, to enroll in Coimbra University to study Law. He accepted the invitation, having developed in the following years a particular interest in Finance, specialising in this field.He graduated in 1914, with 19 points out of 20, a rare achievement which earned him instant recognition. In 1917, he became the regent of the Economic policy and Finance Chair. In the following year, Salazar was awarded his doctorate, again with 19 points out of 20.By 1918, the 15th Republican Government (the Republic having been declared in 1910), couldn’t contain the consequences of the Portuguese participation in World War I: the country was plunged into a deep economic and social crisis, near bankruptcy, in a time marked by a series of traumatic events such as famine and pandemics—whose effects were superior to that of the Black Plague, with tens of thousands of deaths in Lisbon alone.Winter. A man warms himself with Portugal’s socioeconomic problems, which include mendicity, debt and lack of fresh produce.Overall, the Portuguese were extremely unsatisfied with the First Republic. Riots, pillaging, political killings, arbitrary imprisonment and religious persecution were all too commonplace. From 1920 to 1925, 325 bombs burst in the streets of Lisbon. The first government of the Republic lasted less than 10 weeks. The longest-ruling government didn’t even last a year. Revolution in Portugal became a byword in Europe, portugaliser was as depreciative as balkaniser is today. The cost of living increased twenty-five fold, while the currency fell to a ​third of its gold value in 1910.In just 16 years. People were craving for change.The public discontent ultimately led to the May 1926 coup, transforming the country into a dictatorship ruled by the military, gracefully received by the people. With the pressing enormous public debt problem to attend to, the military instantly resorted to professor Salazar, offering him the place of minister of Finance, to which he refused multiple times, not having his demands fulfilled.Both parties eventually agreed upon Salazar’s demands, in 1928, which conferred him with powers associated to czars. The Finances’ Czar.Within a year, Salazar balanced the budget and stabilized Portugal’s currency. Restoring order to the national accounts, Salazar produced the first of many budgetary surpluses, an unparalleled novelty in Portugal and in Europe, still licking its wounds from 1929’s Black Friday. From that moment on, he ascended ever more to power having occupied the position of prime minister in 1932, until the end of his life, in 1970.In what did they differ greatly?Franco was married and had one daughter. Salazar promoted himself as an ascetic, espousing the nation and avoiding any feminine seduction.Franco lived here, in the Royal Palace of El Pardo.Salazar lived here, in São Bento Palace, the official prime minister residence still today.There wasn’t a Portuguese equivalent of the fascist “¡Arriba España! (Spain, forward!)”. Not even close.The cults of personality were also stark.The first picture refers to a painting entitled “Exaltación de Franco (Franco’s Exaltation)” while the second one is a propaganda gravure called “Salvador da Pátria (Savior of the Fatherland)”. They may seem similar, both dictators are dressed as knights, but they symbolize very different things. Franco’s representation presented him as the modern Pelayo, the first king to initiate the Christian Reconquista, because Franco also reconquered Spain. He is surrounded by a group of adoring people which include friars, soldiers and nuns. You can also see a flying horse in the background, Haizum carrying the archangel Gabriel, and Franco’s lavish armour, with a white cloth made of silk.Now look at Salazar. Everything is written in a horrible font, misaligned, Salazar’s armour is blandly coloured and he looks rather apathetic, opposed to Franco’s triumphant look. It’s simply him, dressed as Portugal’s first king Afonso Henriques, presenting him as Portugal’s savior for his feats in Finance. The lack of signs of adoration is by no means random or isolate. Salazar refrained from public acts, Franco embraced them. Salazar’s public and private addressings to the nation were with the same tone: feeble. Much like Putin. Franco, on the other hand, used public speeches to galvanize his supporters (a thing Salazar detested) gesticulating emphatically.And this leaves its marks, ideologically speaking. Salazar’s Estado Novo (New State) was coined by the famous philosopher Miguel Unamuno as a “cathedratic fascism”. Meaning, a theoretical fascism but not truly one. In fact, it was marked by a unique blend of authoritarian and fascist characteristics. Salazar’s idea that Angolans, Mozambicans, Guineans, Cape Verdeans or Santomeans were as Portuguese as Portugal’s inhabitants would definitely be shunned by Hitler and other fascist thinkers. Or the fact that Salazar honored a black player (Portugal’s national icon at the time) with a medal in 1966, Eusébio for the soccer fans, probably the first time this happened in Europe.The Portuguese are African.Salazar awarding Eusébio.The gravure and the honoration were pure propaganda but, this was in 1966, so we need to remember that South African Apartheid was in full swing and Jim Crow laws were finally abolished just one year earlier. I think that, at least, is symptomatic of some tolerance.Salazar also decided to dissolve the National Syndicalist Movement (Portuguese Fascist Party), even arresting its leader. He denounced the National Syndicalists as being “inspired by certain foreign models” and disdained their “exaltation of youth, and the cult of force through direct action, the principle of the superiority of state political power in social life as well as the propensity for organising masses behind a single leader”.He was the only lasting fascistic ruler to do so.Francoist Spain, on the other hand, was more conventionally fascist. In the 40’s Franco didn’t shy away from using the swastika, supporting the Nazi regime.But, he also leaned more toward Conservatism than Fascism. Like Salazar. Even the Falange, by the end of Second World War, began distancing itself from the faltering European fascist parties, stressing the unique "Spanish Catholic authoritarianism”. By defending Catholicism, Franco definitely distanced himself from Hitler’s “Positive Christianity”, a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament.Truthfully, to this day, Salazarism and Francoism don’t offer consensus on their definition. Were they Fascist? Conservative? Autarchy? Corporate?What really separated both countries were the dictators. It resumes to comparing a military man with a clergyman. That’s basically it.From these two, which one seems to be more practical? Less religious? More adaptable? A military man of course. It’s not by random chance that when things get ugly, the generals are invited to take charge. Not a clergyman, when in fact on many occasions it’s him who causes the instability…This is very relevant to our comparison.Franco was not very religious. Yes! I think that even Spaniards are unaware of this, but it’s true. That’s why Catholicism was much more instrumentalized in Francoist Spain than in Salazarist Portugal. Franco was a believer because he had to be. It’s what a practical person would do, at the time Spaniards were overwhelmingly Catholic. If in the beginning of his rule Franco believed in the imbecile self-sufficency and was suspect of international cooperation, he eventually came to his senses. Advised by younger technocrats, he turned the once fascist chant ¡Arriba España! into an economical one. He set his eyes on developed Europe, especially France, and fomented industrial development. He was adaptable.The automotive industry was one of the most powerful locomotives of the Spanish Miracle: from 1958 to 1972 it grew at a yearly compounded rate of 21.7%; in 1946 there were 72,000 private cars in Spain (2.7 per 1000), in 1966 there were over 1 million (34 per 1000). In Portugal, by 1970, there were still just 12 cars per 1000…This growth rate had no equal in the world. Between 1959 and 1974, Spain had the next fastest economic growth rate after Japan.This table shows the yearly growth rate of GDP per capita in Spain, France, Italy and Portugal. You can clearly see the gigantic leap, there’s no other way to put it, of Spain. With an initial growth greatly inferior to Italy, in 1960–1975 the roles reversed. Portugal also grew very much in this period, but not as much as Spain.This table compares GDP per capita in the aforementioned countries. Spain almost doubled its GDP per capita, in a ten year period. Who does that nowadays?Although, I have to say, Portugal’s 70% growth is really better if we compare inflation rates in the period, in the four countries.As you can see, Portugal (fighting a 50% public consumption war) managed to mantain a stable inflation rate, never peaking like Italy did. We are talking about a dictator here but it’s an impressive feat nonetheless.A question arises: Why didn’t Portugal grow as much as Spain?As an initial response, one could talk about sizes. By mid 60’s Portugal’s population rounded 9 million whereas Spain’s was around 32 million. Large scale industrialization can only occur with a numerous, preferably absolute but also relative, educated workforce. Portugal had none of that.Contrarily to Franco, Salazar despised education. As a good ol’ reactionary, he claimed that learning how to write a person’s name and perform simple primary arithmetic sufficed.His intentions were clear: there was to be a ruling, educated elite and an impoverished, obedient society. Pockets of industrialisation were to be allowed, against all odds the Portuguese textile industry was the most modern in Europe between the 60s and the 80s, and pockets of modernity were also instituted, namely in the colonies where Coca-Cola was permitted (in Portugal it wasn't), the secret police’s grip was low and the social norms were laxer. A couple could kiss in public, for example.That’s why Portugal still had in the 60s around 3 million illiterates, roughly the same of Spain but with 3.5 times less population... Yes, Portugal was the least educated European country throughout the mid 20th century.Education is the best social elevator, so they say, so by the mid-60s Spain moved from the “low-labour countries“[1] club, composed in Europe by Portugal, Greece and Turkey, to the “cheap labour countries” club. It may seem a question of semantics, but it isn’t. Portugal is still, for Western standards, a cheap labour country today but not a low-labour one anymore. Nowadays, that’s only applied to Africa and some parts of America and Asia.Portugal was essentially a oligarchical dream: the State’s role was diminished to an indispensable minimum. And even that, as we discussed earlier, were breadcrumbs. The profitable economic fabric was essentially distributed among a dozen powerful families, the economy was based on a set of monopolies. Due to low levels of urbanization—not having wars does this—wages were extremely low. Not skilled jobs, which were frequently higher, in real terms, than in other European countries.Nonetheless, there was an abysmal infant mortality rate (almost 0.8% of babies died before reaching one year of age), the worst in Europe and the fourth worst in OECD.The average life expectancy was also lower than in Spain; it was closer to Hoxha’s hermit Albania or Ceausescu’s kleptocratic Romania.Comparing to Western European countries now:It also had the highest rate of preventable deaths in EuropeAlong with these phenomena, the percentage of the population connected to urban wastewater collecting system was some meager 34% in 1975 and the percentage of dwellings with public water supply was 47% in 1970.These were truly squalid conditions. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise anyone when I say that Portuguese emigrated en masse to Western Europe. The thirteen year long Colonial War, some call it Portuguese Vietnam War for its similar relative death toll, certainly helped propel even further the mass exodus of 1 million Portuguese (remember that we are talking about a country of 9 million) mostly to France. Some years as far as 1.5% of Portuguese emigrated!Here’s a comparison of the migratory balance with Spain and Greece.The registered spike in Portugal is due to Portuguese who returned from Portuguese Africa, after its gradual independence.Finishing the socioeconomic analysis, as the answer is extremely lengthy, allow me to end with one last graph:This graph addresses Portuguese (PRT) and Spanish (ESP) GDP per capita relative to EU average. Portuguese GDP per capita, even if lower, is not as low to make Salazarist Portugal’s development similar to Albania or Romania. It just reveals that Salazar’s sacrosanct avarice was ultimately futile, leading to the enrichment of some industrialists and the absence of a European middle class. That only surged in the 80s. Meanwhile, Spain started having a middle class in the 60s and 70s.For those who don’t know this, the name of Harry Potter’s Slytherin founder was Salazar Slytherin. Yes, it traces his origins to António de Oliveira Salazar. Seems completely far fetched? It really isn’t.Salazar Slytherin was a bright student. Same as his real inspiration;Salazar Slytherin was cunning. Churchill nicknamed Salazar the “fox”;Salazar Slytherin was determined. Salazar had a famous sentence in which he stated “I know what I want, and where to go”;Salazar Slytherin was ruthless. Salazar was unmoved by the thousands of young Portuguese who died in a fatefully lost war;Salazar Slytherin worked in the shadows. Salazar abhorred public attention;J.K Rowling absolutely nailed it.Footnotes[1] http://analisesocial.ics.ul.pt/documentos/1224172603W2bWJ8if0Bg04QN6.pdf

The reason for the perception the “Dark Ages” were less advanced is largely political and ideological. After the Reformation, Protestants spread the idea that the Papacy had created a wasteland in everything it had done prior to Protestantism. The Enlightenment era was anti-religion of all kinds and spread the concept that while it was ‘enlightened’ all that had come before it had been ‘dark.’ And so this view of the Middle Ages moved into western culture and became the unquestioned view.Until people did start asking questions like this one. I think we will find that, upon examination, they aren’t that different at all.Comparing the entire Roman era and the ‘Dark Ages’ is difficult—one’s too large and the other too small. But perhaps if we limited the comparison to Rome’s first thousand years, beginning when it was still a small farming/trading town, and enlarged the ‘dark ages’ to include most of the Middle Ages, we might be able to do some justice to the spirit of this question.Roman civilization is as ancient as Greek civilization. Legend says it was founded in 753 BC as a tiny city-state ruled by kings. By 248 AD, under Marcus Julius Philippus, (aka ‘Philip the Arab’), the Romans celebrated the one thousandth anniversary of their city—an almost unbelievable accomplishment.Rome began as most cities did at that time—with an agricultural base. Even though Rome swiftly moved beyond this humble beginning, Rome never forgot how it started.The Romans were practical people. From the start, they showed a talent for borrowing—and improving upon—the skills and concepts of other cultures. They had strong views on what constituted morality—though it varied by class and gender—they were suspicious of those with over-much ‘brilliance,’ cultivated seriousness (gravity) and emotional self-control.The Greeks thought them dull.They were gifted administrators and governors and it was foundational to their society that everyone must live within their means and submit to the ‘order of nature’ (predetermined by the fates who placed each person in their appropriate class, geographic location, and gender). You were who you were because the fates had determined that’s what you deserved. In Roman eyes, the state did not live to serve the individual so much as the individual lived to serve the state.The sanctity of the family was important to Romans. Divorce was virtually unheard of until the late Republican era. The roles of man and wife, mother and father, were strictly defined. Dad had the authority and the legal power of life and death over his entire household. In general, a Roman matron had more freedom than a Greek one, and participated in educating her children and was present in society more as well, but was not in any sense a legal equal.Religion was important. Every reasonably prosperous Roman household kept a fire burning for the goddess Vesta to ensure the family’s continuity. Above these hearths stood statuettes of Lares the outdoor spirits guarding the fields, and Penates, the protector of the home’s interior. A Roman family revered its ancestors and kept their funeral masks on the walls and used them in domestic rituals.The Kingdom of Rome grew rapidly from a trading town to a prosperous city between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, but this is partly because, in the late seventh century BC, Rome was subjugated by the Etruscans. From the Etruscans the Romans learned how to conduct profitable trade, how to put their language into writing, and how to use the Etruscan numbers we call Roman numerals. From this the Romans developed the alphabets that are widely used in all European languages, including English, and all the ‘romance’ languages still contain some Latin.But it was war which made the city a powerful force in the world. In 509 BC, Romans threw off Etruscan control, and after defeating Carthage, became dominant over the entire Mediterranean region.Romans are probably best known for their feats of engineering: the aqueducts, the paved roads, bridges, and the construction of sewers and drains. The Romans were the ones who discovered concrete. Roman architecture wasn’t entirely original, but many amphitheaters, theaters, stadiums, public spas, Temples, and city squares were still feats of construction. The Romans invented spiral stairs.The ancient Romans formulated many of the laws that most countries use even today. The Roman administration came up with the idea of a census for keeping tabs on the number of citizens under its empire, and their personal and professional details, for better governance and implementation of laws. Under such gifted administration, Rome became wealthy and powerful.Rome’s greatest legacy is probably in the image of what a healthy civilization looks like: orderly, law abiding, multi-ethnic and prosperous.When the aristocrats abolished the monarchy and set up the Republic, they denied citizenship to poor farmers and poor urban dwellers—a policy of exclusion that laid the groundwork for centuries of class conflict.As prosperity increased, Rome began to suffer from the effects of corruption, greed and over-reliance on foreign slave labor. Gangs of unemployed Romans, put out of work by the influx of slaves brought in through territorial conquests, hired themselves out as thugs to do the bidding of whatever wealthy Senator would pay them. The wealthy elite of the city, the Patricians, became ever richer at the expense of the working lower class, the Plebeians.This is the Rome of the pre-Christian era.None of their institutions, per se, have survived, but it is still fair to say Western civilization is built on the ruins of Rome. Western languages, law and education were all based on Roman ideals up to the modern era.Slowly, the Roman empire of late antiquity began to come apart. The barbarians were relentless: Rome was sacked by barbarian invaders three times in the fifth century. The bureaucracy was increasingly incompetent and corrupt; the masses were politically inert and seemed to become more and more apathetic; there was rampant inflation; a crushing and inequitable tax system; and above all else—there was the army: the army became uncontrollable, bringing havoc on state and society.By the time the last Roman emperor was overthrown by the barbarian Odoacer in 476 and he became the first non-Roman king of Roman territory, Anglo-Saxon invaders had already established a German kingdom in the England that Rome had recently lost.The great Roman empire disintegrated into more than two dozen petty kingdoms and baronies with each independent from the others. They raided and fought one another on an almost constant basis.And thus it was that Roman Law and Order passed away.When governments fail, chaos ensues. Businesses die, economies break down, trade is inhibited. People have trouble finding food, shelter, medical care. Education—the arts—all ‘non-necessities’—go by the way side. There is no instance in history where any government has failed catastrophically that has not been followed by violence and disorder.When Rome fell it had little to no effect in the east. The Eastern Roman empire—the Christian Byzantine empire—continued on for another thousand years.But in the West, the fall of Rome was nothing less than catastrophic.In the first years after the fall, life was precarious. People huddled together in search of what little safety and security could be found under the auspices of the Christian church and its spreading network of monasteries and convents. These were not military forts. They were simple ‘villages’ operating at the simplest economic level, with barter as the medium of exchange. Like Rome in its beginnings, it was an agrarian form of existence accompanied by a decline in trade and a lowering of the standard of living.Monasteries generally grew their own food and were self-sustaining, while also supporting their works of charity. Monks divided their days into periods of work, prayer and study—with no real time for what we would call “leisure”— and their monasteries were models of productivity and economic resourcefulness. They were havens for the poor, hospitals, hospices for the dying, and centers for copying texts which were then protected in their libraries.The study of classical and secular texts continued in most monasteries just as it had before the collapse. The idea that many great texts of the Classical period would have been lost without the dedication of the monks, is very real. It may even be said that they saved—for the West—many of the Classical Greek texts from extinction.Christian leaders like the monk St.Benedict (480–543), who vowed a life of chastity, obedience and poverty, instituted rigorous intellectual training and self-denial, and monks were required to live by the “Rule of Benedict”: work and pray. This “Rule” became the foundation of thousands of monasteries across what is modern day Europe affecting all levels of society.This ‘effect’ is partly because virtually all the leaders of western civilization for the next few hundred years were taught by monks. Monasteries established schools called Monastic schools, for local young men, (since the tradition of not educating most women above 12 years old also continued after Rome fell), and these schools were the source of all the education available except for private tutoring. And generally private tutors were monks.The society of the Middle Ages combined the Germanic warrior tradition, Roman and Greek ideals and philosophy, with Judeo-Christian values, morals and religious faith. Medieval society was an amalgam, a syncretism, a melting pot, of all that had gone before it in the West. Middle Ages culture was never just one thing—that’s important to recognize. That sets it apart from the Roman empire in distinctive ways.For example, women had played a major role in the founding and spread of early Christianity, and women continued to play a role in the church in influential ways until about 1200.God creating humans in His image as both “male and female” along with Paul declaring a Christian is a Christian, male or female, produced a kind of “metaphysical” equality not found elsewhere at the time. As a result, while women were routinely excluded from scholastic, political and mercantile life in medieval society, they were not fully excluded from service in the church.Medieval abbesses and female superiors of female monastic houses were powerful figures whose influence could rival that of male bishops and abbots. There was a rite for the ordination of women deacons in the Roman Pontifical up through the 12th century. The popularity of the Virgin Mary secured respect for maternal virtue as a central cultural theme in the later middle ages and helped form the concept of chivalry.Though this is not, by any means, what moderns would consider equality, such powers had, as a rule, never before been available to ordinary women in previous Roman or Germanic societies.By the 600’s barbarians were beginning to settle down in their new previously Roman-held territories. They don’t stop raiding each other completely, but mostly they don’t stray farther than next door either.By the early 800’s, The Franks established enough of a kingdom they bring about what is sometimes referred to as the “Early Rennaissance” or the “Christian Rennaissance.” Taking his inspiration from the Christian Roman Empire of the fourth century, Charlemagne imported intellectuals to his court, set up schools and supported the arts. There was an increase in literature, writings, the arts, architecture, jurisprudence, liturgical, political and legal reforms, and scriptural studies.Charlemagne built the most efficient and centralized state the West had seen since Rome. It had a capable bureaucracy and a fair judicial system. He granted large tracts of land to local warriors and then held them responsible for maintaining law and order in their domains. This administrative system represented a fusion of the Roman approach to governing with the Germanic warrior tradition.By the time the barbarian invasions were over, an enduring western culture had been born, centered in Europe, rather than in the Mediterranean basin.This echoed Rome in its prime, and it worked as long as Charlemagne lived. His grandsons divided his empire into three parts and the divided empire could not hold back the rampaging Viking hordes. This too seems to echo Rome.Charlemagne’s ambitious hopes for restoring what had been lost with Rome did not survive the barbarian invasions of the ninth and tenth centuries. But society grew more settled by the eleventh century and a brighter era—the High Middle Ages—began to unfold in the West.The rediscovery of Aristotle’s works in the Middle Ages led to a cultural ferment that spawned some of the greatest achievements of medieval times, including the founding of the first Western schools of higher education since the sixth century: the universities.The University was a new phenomenon in European history.These were the first establishments of higher learning since the fall of Rome, but in fact, nothing quite like these schools had ever existed before—not in ancient Greece or in Rome.Twice a year a medieval university would hold a quodlibeta - a multi-day tournament of rigorous logical disputation where anyone could propose and defend any position on any subject. Masters and doctors maintained their positions (and their reputations) by their ability to win such debates, often throwing open the floor to all comers.Brilliant students could rise quickly in reputation and renown by taking on the masters and beating them. Often highly radical or even heretical ideas were presented and participants had to defend or attack them using logic and reason alone.The idea of a rational free-for-all where the finest minds of the time used reason alone to bat around ideas like "God is evil" or "the universe had no beginning in time" certainly does not fit most people's ideas of the Middle Ages, yet this was a regular event.The University that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations, and degrees, as well as the distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, comes to us directly from the Middle Ages.The High Middle ages gave us Danté, vernacular literature, and epic poetry such as King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. Stained glass windows and the art of tapestry develop in this era. The Bayeux Tapestry is embroidered during this time period, probably in England, with an illustration of the Battle of Hastings. Not only is this textile an important early work of art but it is also a valuable historical document, as the military events are described in abundant detail.There is artistic innovation in this era. Italian painter and mosaicist Cimabue combines aspects of Byzantine painting with an interest in volume and human emotions that forever after influenced art. In the frescoes the Florentine painter Giotto paints for the Arena Chapel in Padua, he develops a new naturalism and emphasis on emotion that also exerted a strong and lasting influence on art. Mystery plays, Miracle plays, and Morality plays all begin in the Middle Ages—aspects of which we still see in drama today.Musical notation—the basic system for writing down music—upon which all music has since been built—was developed in this age. Gregorian chants with their complex harmonies and the music of medieval troubadours contribute to this rich musical environment that will eventually give rise to classical music and its many offshoots.Architecture such as that at St Pierre in Moissac, decorated with complex figural scenes and porches, are one of the primary innovations of the Romanesque art of this era and represent the earliest examples of large architectural sculpture in Europe since ancient times.Gothic architecture begins in this era giving us such famed structures as the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris. This soaring structure boasts the first use of the architectural technique of flying buttresses, and for a long time, is the tallest building in the Western world.The foundation of modern science begins here, in the High Middle Ages. Medieval scholars discovered elements in physics and mechanics that have long been attributed to much later scientists like Galileo and Newton. These Medieval scientists have been wrongfully ignored and neglected since the Enlightenment, largely for political and ideological reasons.It was actually within the vigorous intellectual environment of the new universities, that Medieval Europe saw the first real flowering of scientific innovation since the ancient Greeks.In the early 1200s Robert Grosseteste (1175–1253) proposed that scholars should use experiments to verify what they had derived from logic. Shortly thereafter, Roger Bacon (1214–1292) developed this idea further, proposing a method based on a repeated cycle of observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. We call it the scientific method.Within the fifty years that followed, scholars developed the idea for making conclusions even more precise by using mathematics as the language of physics. This is probably the most revolutionary of all the many Medieval contributions to the rise of true modern science.The greatest mind of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas the Dominican friar, wrote two monumental works arguing that reason is in harmony with faith. Thus began the rationalist tradition in the West.The Middle Ages gave us the first English Parliament. It was first convened in 1215, with the creation and signing of the Magna Carta, one of the most important documents in history as it established the principle that everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and it guarantees the rights of individuals, the right to justice, and the right to a fair trial.The Middle Ages gave us the marketplace and trade fairs, banks, the horse drawn plow, the horse collar and horse shoes, three-field crop rotation, the mace, the flail, and suits of armor. It gave us the code of chivalry and heraldry.These are a few of the major contributions of the Middle Ages.But late Roman civilization still had a legacy to give to the Middle ages.From late Rome came the sharp division between aristocratic landowners and dependent agricultural laborers, the emergence of the church as a state within the nation states and its entanglement with the secular, and the development of the military power of the large landowners.With all its prosperity and achievements, the feudalistic Middle Ages were nearly as divided by class as Rome.Likewise, the nation states of Europe were unable to overcome the divisiveness of their barbarian beginnings and unite as Rome had. They continued to fight each other up into the modern era.At its peak, the Middle Ages had as many innovations and achievements—and perhaps as many problems—as Rome ever did.