This oath to believe in God and act according to his principles comes from Zoroastrian scripture, a representative of the millennia-old literature of Persia. Despite its age, scholars have not examined Persian literature to any great degree. Many of its few extant remains lay spread across the Earth, residing in public and private hands, improperly inventoried or even unrecorded. Those receive at best incomplete supplementation from meager references in the writings of Greek, Latin, and Arabic authors. Therefore, in combination with their own scarcity, students of Persian literature have yet to construct a whole model of ancient Persian literary works.²

The first written Persian literature appears in Pahlavi, the language of Persia under the Sasanian dynasty, rulers of Iran from 226 to 651 AD.³ Pahlavi spawned from Old Persian, the only traces of which are rock inscriptions commanded by Darius the Great and later Archaemenian kings, and it evolved into Modern Persian. The Pahlavi literature scholars know about today compares to the Bible’s Old Testament in size and deals largely with religion and liturgy.⁴

As it did on the Arabian Peninsula,⁵ poetry also held importance in Persia. When Iranian poetry arose is uncertain, but a legend from the famous Iranian poet Firdausi places its invention at around 3000 BC, during the reign of King Jamshid in Iran’s Golden Age. Two types of poetry existed at first: the ballad and the epic. The ballad, which tells a story, eventually begot the lyric, the hymn, the satire, and the panegyric. The epic, a longer storytelling mechanism, of which The Shah-Namah by Firdausi is an example, likely derived from the ballad as well. In the modern era, nothing remains of the first ballads, nor of any “love poetry” artists might have created. Heretofore-mentioned Zoroastrian scripture comprises the first Persian poetry on record.⁶

Zoroaster, from whom Zoroastrianism takes its name, resided in either northwestern Iran around 600 BC,⁷ or in eastern Iran around 1400 BC,⁸ depending upon the source. Wherever Zoroaster originally lived, the teachings of “one of the great religious leaders of the East”⁹ soon spread throughout Persia.¹⁰ Zoroaster told of a Dualistic world where good and evil dominate; leading the forces of good is Ahura Mazda, or Ormazd,¹¹ the “lord of wisdom, the one, eternal, uncreated, good, wise, and munificent god.”¹² Commanding the forces of evil is Angra Mainyu, or Ahriman. Good and evil will struggle against each other until the end of the present world, when Ahriman will fail, as men, with their free will, choose good, banish evil, and bring vohu hsapra, or paradise.

Meanwhile, before the coming of paradise, Ormazd describes the actions of humans in his “life-book,” which Ormazd will use to determine people’s judgments upon death. Men who have lived well will cross the Cinvat Bridge into heaven, and men who have lived poorly will experience the torture of hell or the wait for ultimate decision in purgatory.¹³ During their lives, humans should pray before “the life-giving force” that is fire. This is not fire worship, as many have erroneously assumed, but worship of God via the fire.¹⁴

Enjoying some of its greatest influence 1,000 years before the rise of Christianity as the state religion of the Archaemenian kings, Zoroastrianism faltered after Alexander the Great conquered Persia in 333 BC and destroyed many of its holy books. Following the Mesopotamian invasion came a dark age of 550 years, in which any literary or religious activity that might have occurred left no trace, either in poetry or in prose.¹⁵ With the coming of the Sasanian dynasty, though, Persian religion and literature restarted. After ousting the Parthians in 229 AD, the Sasanians revived Iranian traditions that had lapsed into disuse.¹⁶ Pahlavi prose evidence reveals a rebirth of Iranian poetry, recording that even two Sasanian kings were poets. One king, Bahram Gur (420 to 438 AD), allegedly created the Persian rhyming couplet while lion hunting with his gorgeous lover, Dilaram.¹⁷

In the spiritual realm, the Sasanians revived Zoroastrianism as the religion of state once more. This time, however, the Sasanians instituted a church hierarchy, similar to that of the Byzantine Christian church. The priests who comprised this hierarchy were the Magi, who had already established themselves as Zoroastrian adepts before the Sasanian dynasty. (Some of these Magi, according to Christian theology, were the Wise Men who witnessed the birth of Jesus Christ.) The Magi maintained the prayer fires and helped people make sense of the myriad forces of light and darkness on Earth.¹⁸

Zoroastrianism prevailed in Iran until the Muslims conquered it in 651 AD. Despite their respect for other monotheistic religions, the Muslims henceforth suppressed worship of Ormazd. To escape oppression, some Zoroastrians ran for India, while a few others elected to weather Muslim discontent and remain in Iran. Remnants of these Zoroastrian groups, known as Parsis, still exist today, and only through them has the modern world learned about Zoroastrianism and its scriptures.¹⁹

The main component of those scriptures is the Avesta, the “bible and prayer book” of the Zoroastrians.²⁰ Though it debuted sometime afterwards, the Avesta’s meter bears similarity to that of the Indian Vedas.²¹ Avistak, the Pahlavi word from which Avesta probably comes, means “wisdom, knowledge, the book of knowledge” or “the original text, the scripture, the law.”²² Appearing throughout the Avesta are bits and pieces of poetry, which though few, prove the utilization of poetic expression in Iran at least 3,000 years ago.²³

The language in which the Zoroastrians constructed the Avesta takes its name from the work: Avestic. It is a sister language of Old Persian and Sanskrit, and therefore, in spite of its manifestations in Pashto, it is not an ancestor of Modern Persian.²⁴ What actual script Avestic might have used is a mystery, because Alexander’s Macedonians ruined most of the original books, and the Sasanians wrote down the Avesta in Pahlavi when they recorded it from their oral tradition. In this Pahlavi text, instead of reading the Avesta from left to right, as a Westerner would, one reads it “from right to left.”²⁵

Several divisions form the Avesta. The oldest part, the Gathas, likely promulgated from Zoroaster himself. Other sections came later, as subsequent generations of Zoroastrians, up to the Sasanians, worked on and added to the Avesta.²⁶ An example of the newer sections is the Yashts, which contained poetry, interspersed with prose, proclaiming the virtues of several demigods, heroes, and powers. Octosyllabic meter formation, a la the Kalevala verse from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “Hiawatha,” characterized the Yashts’ poetry. The language of the Yashts is younger than that of the Gathas, but the Yashts are poetically and religiously older,²⁷ featuring polytheistic notions and other religious principles antedating Zoroaster.²⁸ The tenth Yasht, for instance, praises a figure from early Iranian mythology, Mithra, who observes and helps men, sparks battles, and dispenses justice.²⁹

The Avesta would remain unknown to most of the world but for the Parsis, individuals who continued their Zoroastrian ways after the Muslim seizure of Persia, and who thus preserved the Avesta through the generations. These Parsis, in the middle of the 18^th century, introduced Westerners to the Avesta, exposing them for the first time to a native and contemporary source about early Iranian literature and thought. This allowed scholars to begin serious research of Persian literature and religion.³⁰

Effects of that Persian religion and literature continue to reverberate across the globe. Modern monotheistic religion, still the primary driving force behind geopolitical events, has borrowed extensively from Persian Zoroastrianism, with, amongst other examples, the Muslims appropriating the concept of an “unbegotten” God,³¹ and the Christians copying the notion of a purgatory.³² While in Babylonia’s captivity, the Jews interacted frequently with the Persians, likely adopting, or at least considering, some of their ideas, which in turn passed to their monotheistic progeny.³³ The physical remains of Zoroastrianism and early Persian literary and religious thought might be few—only scraps of manuscripts³⁴ and 140,000 Parsis exist³⁵—but their influence will exert itself for millennia to come.

² Yu. E. Borshchevsky and Yu. E. Bregel, “The Preparation of a Bio-Bibliographical Survey of Persian Literature,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 3 (April 1972): 169.

³ Williams A. V. Jackson, Early Persian Poetry from the Beginnings Down to the Time of Firdausi (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920): 2; Williams A. V. Jackson, An Avesta Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1892): xxxi; and Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, Volume II (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1951): 3.

⁴ Browne, 3.

⁵ Dr. Mohammed Sharafuddin, lectures at The George Washington University.

⁶ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 1, 2, 6.

⁷ Ibid., 2.

⁸ Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair, Islam: A Thousand Years of Faith and Power (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2002), 22.

⁹ Jackson, Avesta, xi.

¹⁰ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 2.

¹¹ Jackson, Avesta, xxiv.

¹² Bloom and Blair, 22.

¹³ Jackson, Avesta, xxiv, xxviii.

¹⁴ Bloom and Blair, 22-23.

¹⁵ Browne, 3.

¹⁶ William D. Whitney, “On the Avesta, or the Sacred Scriptures of the Zoroastrian Religion,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 5 (1855-1856): 341.

¹⁷ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 8.

¹⁸ Bloom and Blair, 23.

¹⁹ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 14, and Avesta, xi.

²⁰ Jackson, Avesta, xi.

²¹ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 4.

²² Jackson, Avesta, xi.

²³ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 6.

²⁴ Browne, 3.

²⁵ Jackson, Avesta, xxxi.

²⁶ Ibid., xxiii, xxix.

²⁷ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 4-5.

²⁸ Ilya Gershevitch, “Zoroaster’s Own Contribution,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 23 (January 1964): 14.

²⁹ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 5.

³⁰ Whitney, 340-341.

³¹ Dr. Sharafuddin.

³² Kevin Knight, “CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory” <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm>, 21 March 2003.

³³ Jackson, Avesta, xxx.

³⁴ Borshchevsky and Bregel, 169

³⁵ “Zoroastrianism and Avesta: Overview and FAQ” <http://www.avesta.org/zfaq.html>, 30 March 2003.

Thus Spoke Zoroaster is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

I allow the paper as written in 2003 remain on this site, though, as a reminder of the establishment’s folly back then as well as my own.

After the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics sputtered and died, thus ending the Cold War, the bipolar system of world affairs evaporated, leaving a planet unsure of what factors would shape events to come. Harvard University Professor Samuel P. Huntington tries to dispel that uncertainty with his book Clash of Civilizations and Remaking World Order, in which he postulates an Earth on which civilizations, linked by culture and religion, would primarily set the course of international affairs. The civilizations, of which seven or eight exist, will inevitably conflict and compete with each other, as the people of the ever-changing and ever-shrinking world seek assuredness and identity in their own civilization, and disdain and stereotype other civilizations. This conflict and competition might lead to a “clash” between some civilizations, in which the participating civilizations would align against each other in mutual fear and hostility, possibly resulting in horrific warfare and bloodshed that would make no distinction between civilian and soldier. After all, in the epic battle between “us” and “them,” “they” cannot survive, if “we” want to preserve the civilization’s traditions and lifestyles.¹

The Islamist terror attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, followed by America’s war against Muslim terrorists, prompted some thinkers to ask, has a clash of Western and Islamic civilizations begun?² Subsequent events have shown the answer to be, “No.”

Indeed, many Muslim countries have been quite cooperative with the United States in prosecuting the War on Terror. For example, in the latest phase of the War, the invasion and liberation of Iraq, coalition ground forces (Americans, British, and Australians—all Western) launched their assault from Kuwait.³ Turkey, albeit belatedly, extended overflight rights to coalition planes.⁴ Also participating in American President George W. Bush’s “coalition of the willing” that supported the American operation in Iraq were the Islamic nations Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan.⁵ Other Muslim states that helped the coalition, by permitting troop basing, were Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Djibouti, and Saudi Arabia.⁶

Because it is the birthplace and holiest land of Islam, Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States merits particular notice. The friendship began in February 1945, when American President Franklin D. Roosevelt met Saudi King Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud after the Yalta Conference, promising to help protect the Saudis in exchange for cheap oil. That arrangement persists today; as well as assisting with domestic security,⁷ the United States acts as Saudi Arabia’s predominant armament and materiel supplier, equipping the Saudi forces with jets, tanks, and airplanes. In addition, the Americans have stationed over 6,000 military personnel in Saudi Arabia, whose purpose was to defend the kingdom from expansionist Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during and after the Gulf War (though with Saddam gone and Iraq on the path to democracy, the troops will soon have little reason for being there).⁸

The Saudi government demonstrates its appreciation for American military aid by exporting oil to the United States, which gets 1/6 of its petroleum from Saudi Arabia.⁹ Even today, despite OPEC fears that newly available Iraqi oil might potentially create a drop in prices, Saudi officials have not reduced oil shipments.¹⁰ If Saudi participation in the early 1970’s OPEC oil boycott is any indicator, such restraint is not necessarily a given, whatever pact the Americans and the Saudis have.¹¹

As heretofore mentioned, the land of Mecca and Medina has assisted with the War on Terror by allowing American troops destined for Iraq to base there. Also, of course, the Saudis authorized the Americans to direct Operation: Iraqi Freedom from the Prince Sultan Air Base in the middle of the Saudi desert,¹² and they let thousands of American Special Forces troops infiltrate Iraq from their territory, eight hours before the attempted decapitation strike of March 19, 2003.¹³ Before the invasion of Iraq, when the United States was focusing on Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia helped the War by severing relations with the Taliban¹⁴ and by, as in the current endeavor, lending the Americans Prince Sultan Air Base as a command center.¹⁵

If a “clash of civilizations” were occurring between the West and the Muslims, the War on Terror would not enjoy the support it does from several Muslim states, including the home of Mohammed, Saudi Arabia. One could try to counter this argument by noting that millions of Muslims vociferously oppose the War on Terror,¹⁶ and that even within Saudi Arabia, an American ally for over 50 years, many citizens revile the hosting of American soldiers and understand Osama bin Laden’s crusade against the United States.¹⁷ But, as realists would argue, since governments are the primary actors on the international stage,¹⁸ not even a conflict between individual countries, much less between whole civilizations, could take place without their support. And even from the liberal perspective, which assumes the importance of non-state forces,¹⁹ the War on Terror is not a civilizational conflict, because most Muslims’ active dislike of the West, through its representative, the United States, has not translated into the masses becoming terrorists and fighters themselves.²⁰

Furthermore, the residents of Afghanistan and Iraq, both Islamic countries, where the United States has toppled brutal regimes over the course of its War on Terror, received Americans warmly and happily. While the Americans conducted their air campaign against the Taliban, some Afghans helped American Special Forces designate targets by providing the soldiers horses from which to operate their equipment. After the Taliban collapsed, the Afghans celebrated their freedom and thanked their “infidel” liberators.²¹ The Iraqis behaved similarly: they cheered the downfall of President Saddam Hussein’s regime, vandalizing his statues and posters, while expressing their gratitude towards the coalition forces who secured their freedom.²² Now, the Iraqis are working with coalition soldiers to restore law and order within the country.²³

Muslims in Kosovo appreciate the Americans as well. NATO, with the Americans at the forefront, halted Serbian ethnic cleansing against Muslims in Kosovo, and today, in a sign of affection, the American stars-and-stripes fly all over Kosovo. A poster of former American President Bill Clinton six stories tall looms above the capital city’s primary street, Bill Clinton Boulevard. One Kosovar doctor, Besnik Bardhi, gave his daughter the name “Madeleine,” after former American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

“If there is a God,” Bardhi proclaims, “his missionaries on Earth are Americans.”

Fondness for Americans runs so strong in Kosovo that, two years ago, after an American troop’s firearm accidentally discharged and killed a young boy, the boy’s father absolved the American of guilt and symbolically welcomed the soldier into his family. Just as remarkably, following the September 11 attacks, some Muslims worried so much about a possible American withdrawal from Kosovo that they proposed their own children face combat in Afghanistan, just so the Americans could remain in Kosovo.²⁴

The joyous rapture with which the Afghans and the Iraqis received the Americans, and the intense esteem in which the Kosovars hold them, show that two vital components of a “clash of civilizations,” popular terror of losing the traditional culture and virulent hatred of the opposing side, do not exist with any uniformity amongst Muslims. If they did, the populaces of the Afghans, the Iraqis, and the Kosovars would have greeted the Americans largely with guns and bombs instead of with demonstrations and cheers. Considering that not even the people of the very countries America and its allies targeted, or in Kosovo’s instance, rescued, view the “other civilization” as a dangerous enemy, one could hardly claim a civilizational war is occurring.

With many states, most societies, and all targeted countries in the Muslim world not lining up to fight the West, an explanation other than a “clash of civilizations” is necessary to describe the War on Terror. The Bush administration, in its National Security Strategy, thinks the struggle that has gripped the world’s attention stems from conflict within Islamic civilization, between authoritarian and undemocratic rulers, and frustrated groups who look to terrorism because they cannot express themselves politically.²⁵ Others, such as the Cato Institute, believe American interference in foreign affairs inspires loathing, and therefore, terrorism, against the United States.²⁶ Which viewpoint is correct is a topic for another paper.

(Sorry, these endnotes aren’t as helpful as they could be, because for this paper, we could skimp on notes referring to class texts.)

¹ Huntington.

² Dr. Kimbra L. Fischel, lectures at The George Washington University.

³ Cable News Network, “Forces: U.S. and Coalition” <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/coalition/index.html>, 13 April 2003, and “Maps/Troop Movement” <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/maps/fullpage.troops/>, 13 April 2003.

⁴ Cable News Network, “Turkey Grants Overflight Rights to U.S.” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.turkey.overflights/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

⁵ Cable News Network, “World Braces for Iraq War” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.int.reaction/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

⁶ Cable News Network, “US & Coalition Bases in the Persian Gulf” <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/maps/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

⁷ Michael T. Klare, “The Geopolitics of War” <http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=klare>, 13 April 2003.

⁸ World Politics, 174-177.

⁹ Klare.

¹⁰ “The Bigger Threat Still Lurking—Economies After the War,” The Economist (12 April 2003): LexisNexis Academic Universe, 13 April 2003.

¹¹ Cable News Network, “Backgrounder: Saudi Arabia is a Key U.S. Ally” <http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/11/09/saudi.arabia/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹² Craig Smith, “Saudis Quietly Play Crucial War Role” <http://www.iht.com/articles/90394.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹³ John M. Broder with Eric Schmitt, “A Nation at War: The Plan,” The New York Times (12 April 2003): B1. LexisNexis Academic Universe, 13 April 2003.

¹⁴ CNN, “Backgrounder.”

¹⁵Deborah Amos, “Saudi-U.S. Tension May Affect Iraq Action” <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/saudi_us021110.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹⁶ Ben Wedeman, “Arab Leaders’ Loyalties Torn Over Iraq” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/19/otsc.wedeman/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹⁷ World Politics, 174-177.

¹⁸ Dr. Fischel.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ As the cable news networks have pounded into viewers’ heads again and again…

²¹ Gaddis, 54.

²²Cable News Network, “Iraqis Attacking Symbols of Saddam” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.baghdad/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

²³ Ellen Knickmeyer, “U.S.-Iraq Joint Patrols Begin in Baghdad” <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030414/D7QDHPHO1.html>, 14 April 2003.

²⁴ William J. Kole, “Reviled in Many Places Around the World, Americans are Adored in Kosovo,” Associated Press (6 February 2003): LexisNexis Academic Universe, 13 April 2003.

²⁵ Gaddis, 53-54.

²⁶ Ivan Eland, “Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?” <http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf>, 14 April 2003.

Whom are We Fighting: Muslim Civilization or Muslim Terrorists? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Dudley Newcomb Carpenter, a doctor on a ship that fought at the Battle of Manila Bay, reached the rank of captain in the US Navy.

What can one say about Dudley Newcomb Carpenter, whom one newspaper called “one of the finest looking, most sociable and brightest officers of his grade in the navy”?¹ Not much, really. I searched the Internet with Google and perused the databases on ALADIN, entering every iteration of Carpenter’s name I could imagine, but I still could not find a lot beyond a rough summary of his life. He entered this world on June 28, 1874, in Kittery, Maine,² and left it on March 26, 1955, in Bremerton, Washington. After graduating from Harvard Medical School, Carpenter worked as a surgeon in the United States Navy, where he eventually achieved the rank of captain.³ During his naval career, Carpenter participated in the Spanish-American War of 1898,⁴ helped establish hospitals at such locations as Bas Obispo, Mexico; Bremerton, Washington; and Baguio, Philippines; he also served as the Reserve Fleet surgeon in the 1910’s, commanded the Division of Planning and Publication at the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery from 1923 to 1927, and sat on the Medical Examining and Retiring Board during the Second World War. Carpenter apparently wrote pieces for the Naval Medical Bulletin,⁵ though I could not find any of them.⁶

Fortunately, Carpenter kept a journal of one of his stints, from May 18, 1897 to August 15, 1898 aboard the USS Raleigh, which along with the letters and clippings that accompany it in his collection at the Library of Congress, provides the only detail about Carpenter’s life available. In his journal, Carpenter describes such locations as Italy, Northern Africa, the Middle East, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Philippines, where Carpenter fought in the Battle of Manila Bay.⁷ The section of the journal in which the Battle rages stimulates the most excitement, so that portion, in addition to Carpenter’s letters about the Battle, was the focus of my research.

Before I recount Carpenter’s experiences during the Battle, I should provide some details about the Battle itself. It took place on May 1, 1898, a few days after the United States had declared war on Spain. An American naval fleet—Commodore George Dewey’s⁸ Asiatic Squadron⁹—steamed into Manila Bay¹⁰ hoping to find and destroy the Spanish Navy’s Pacific fleet,¹¹ under the command of Spanish Admiral Patricio Montojo y Pasarón,¹² thus eliminating any threat it might pose to America’s West Coast. Even though Dewey’s ships lacked full stocks of ammunition, they annihilated the Spanish flotilla at Cavite,¹³ experiencing no casualties themselves while inflicting 381 deaths and injuries on their Spanish counterparts. After the Battle of Manila Bay, Spanish naval power in the Pacific vanished.¹⁴

According to Carpenter, the Raleigh received an official telegram of the war declaration on Tuesday, April 26, 1898.¹⁵ The Raleigh, which had anchored in Hong Kong, then departed for Mirs Bay, a short distance away, alongside the Olympia and the Baltimore, with British sailors cheering on the Americans from the Hong Kong shore.¹⁶ After rendezvousing with the Asiatic Squadron inside Mirs Bay, the Raleigh sat with the rest of the fleet until 2 PM Wednesday. While the ships were waiting, Carpenter writes, “Our one thought is on Manilla [sic].”

The Asiatic Squadron could not head for Manila before Wednesday because it had to wait for the American consul from Manila, who had difficulty leaving the city because of “rough seas.”¹⁷ (Engine trouble on the Raleigh, because a “careless oiler” had damaged the port circulating pump,¹⁸ had also threatened to delay the Squadron, but the ship’s engineers had repaired the pump 12 hours before the consul arrived.) With the consul safely in American hands, Dewey’s fleet stormed towards Bolinoin¹⁹ at eight knots.²⁰

The consul, though, provided one of the ship captains with intelligence that convinced the fleet commanders to go straight to Manila Bay.²¹ Carpenter describes the three-day journey as “auspicious,” with “lovely cool days and beautiful moonlight [sic] nights.” The ocean was so calm Carpenter hardly knew he was afloat. Drills for general quarters, fire, and collision kept the crew prepared for combat, and target practice kept the gunners’ eyes sharp. During both day and night, the fleet practiced signaling each other, with red and white flashes on the foremasts of various ships.²²

Before the Asiatic Squadron attacked the Spanish fleet, the Boston and the Concord searched Subic Bay²³ for Spanish gunboats. After those two ships found the Bay empty, the whole fleet anchored there; Carpenter had expected the fleet to stay the night, but a council of war among the fleet commanders decided not to wait for dawn. To make itself harder to see in the darkness, the Raleigh extinguished all of its running lights but for a shielded one on its rear, as did the other ships. Thusly prepared, the Squadron moved to commence its assault.²⁴

As the ships slid into Manila Bay, bright bolts of lightning pierced their shroud of darkness.²⁵ Spanish forts launched torpedoes at the Americans, all of which the Americans avoided.²⁶ Soon afterwards, the crews saw flashes on the northern shore, after which a “small black rock,” which was really a Spanish fort, lobbed a shell with a “shrill, curdling whirr” at the Raleigh as it passed. The Raleigh gave its opinion of that with its five-inch guns, firing the introductory American shots of the Battle of Manila Bay. The fort continued its assault, until the Boston eliminated its artillery battery. With that peril overcome, the fleet sailed merrily up the Bay.

Even though the crew knew a more fierce battle with the Spanish fleet was coming, one would not have known it by observing their behavior, writes Carpenter. He says they could have been going to a “festive occasion, from their jokes and general good spirits.” Below decks on the Raleigh, the crew even danced to an accordion and a guitar. This continued until the dawn of May 1, 1898, which brought the Battle proper in its wake.²⁷

In the light of early morning, the Americans could see the Spanish ships waiting for them at Cavite. The Americans charged at the Spanish without fear, paying no heed to the Spanish shells that were falling around them but not hitting them.²⁸ Withholding their response, the American ships drew to within 4,000 yards of the Spanish, at which point the Olympia, leading the American attack,²⁹ let loose with its eight-inch guns. The firing accelerated from both sides, orchestrating a cacophony of violence with “the whirr of shells” and “the whiz of shrapnel.”³⁰ The Americans circled around, and in what Carpenter calls “a stirring sight,” they pummeled the Spanish with the eight-inch guns of the Olympia and the Baltimore and the six-inch guns of the Raleigh. Fire started to ravage the Castilla, and the Reina Christina began to sink.³¹

Some Spanish torpedo boats, cloaking themselves with the smoke of the burning ships, tried to assail the Americans by surprise, but the Americans forced them to withdraw; the torpedo boats only tried again by going along the shoreline. They did not even get to retreat that time, “as one doubled like a jackknife” after a shell hit it, and its partner fled to the beach and hemorrhaged its crew, who “scampered like scared rabbits over the embankment.” The defeat of the torpedo boats terminated Spanish attempts to sink the American fleet with torpedoes.³²

By that period of the Battle of Manila Bay, the Americans had experienced no significant casualties: only six sailors on the Baltimore had suffered injury. Carpenter writes that at this time, 7:45 AM, the Americans pulled back in order to facilitate a meeting of the fleet commanders and to have breakfast.³³ As the captains were discussing the Battle, “We cheered each other while the bands of the Baltimore and the Olympia played.” Once the meeting and the breakfast concluded, the Americans, fully refreshed after a good rest, rejoined the Battle at 11 AM, with the Baltimore in front.

This was when the Americans knew they had achieved victory. The Castilla and the Reina Christina sat under blankets of fire, and the only other Spanish ship in sight was the Don Antonio de Ulloa. Carpenter says the most exciting part of the Battle then took place. The Baltimore approached the shore,³⁴ and she swept along the whole coast, firing “shot after shot” at Spanish artillery batteries as they revealed themselves, churning up large billows of dust that showed where the Baltimore had directed her fury. The Baltimore then came upon a fort with two water batteries in front of it.

The Baltimore rammed the batteries, fiercely pushing away whatever was in her path.³⁵

With the batteries annihilated, the Olympia, the Boston, and the Raleigh bombarded the Spanish arsenal at Cavite. They also sank the Don Antonio de Ulloa,³⁶ “which defiantly waved the Spanish flag.” Carpenter gives the crew of the Don Antonio credit by recording they “stood up nobly,”³⁷ even though their ship went down in 15 minutes.³⁸

Meanwhile, the Concord stalked a merchantman that attempted to claim English affiliation, but the captain of the Concord “decided that as they were good Spaniards in the morning they had better be so all day.” After allowing the merchantman a little while to reach the shore, and watching that time expire, the Concord’s captain ordered his crew to shell the merchantman,³⁹ which the Raleigh observed flaming as it passed the crippled merchantman on its way to the city of Manila itself.

The Americans thought the city of Manila would wage yet more battle against them, as it had constantly shelled the American fleet before and after breakfast. Manila instead erected the white flag of peace, ⁴⁰ and promised not to attack unless the Americans fired first, so the Americans anchored nearby, amongst a fleet of sailing vessels.⁴¹

The Battle of Manila Bay was over, and the Americans had won.⁴² The ships of the Spanish Navy’s Pacific fleet were lying either in American hands or at the bottom of the Bay.⁴³ One hundred twenty men perished on the Castilla and fifty-six died on the Reina Christina, and eighty men on the latter ship had wounds. Of the Spanish, Carpenter says they demonstrated admirable courage and possessed excellent weapons, but “they could not shoot straight” with them.

During the Battle, only one American died: an engineer on the McCulloch from heat exhaustion. As an assistant surgeon, Carpenter had little to do but rescue four firemen and take them to sickbay. This afforded Carpenter the opportunity to witness almost the entire Battle, during which he contributed to the Reina Christina’s death by shooting it a few times with a six-pounder. He also observed the activities of the normal gunners, such as “Old Rodman,” who would say before firing on the Spanish, “Farewell, vain ship.”⁴⁴

After reading some of Carpenter’s journal and letters, I have learned much about the Battle of Manila Bay. Before doing this research project, I knew only that the Americans had shattered Spanish Pacific naval power during the Battle; I remained ignorant of most of the details. Now, however, I can play the Battle in my mind, from the “small black rock” treacherously shelling the Americans to the Baltimore crusading against the batteries to the Spanish fleet burning and sinking, with the happiness and confidence of the Americans providing texture to the whole picture.

One thing I still cannot do, though, is understand Carpenter. Throughout the writings of his I read, he relates little beyond what he saw and some of his gut reactions to that. Carpenter fails to record his deep thoughts or feelings, to provide context for the facts of his memories. While he does demonstrate awe at the sight of American shells crashing into Spanish ships, and excitement at the adventure of the Baltimore fighting the Spanish artillery, all that reveals is his basic humanity. Bright lights and loud sounds thrill normal people. As a researcher, I take dissatisfaction in the fact that Carpenter, at least in his descriptions of the Battle of Manila Bay, provided only enough for me to conclude he was normal. By definition, that does not distinguish him from most individuals.

Perhaps some other sections of Carpenter’s journal might convey his ruminations and emotions. Maybe Carpenter left something else somewhere that would allow a researcher to discover him, not just his factual recollections. If not, then, unfortunately, history really has lost him.

¹ Dudley Newcomb Carpenter, papers (1897-1901). Library of Congress, Manuscript Division. Washington, D.C. 1 container (ca. 17 items). This particular bit of information comes from a newspaper clipping. For more information about the collection, see Appendix A. To see the clipping, look at Appendix J.

² Or Portsmouth, New Hampshire, as the National Cyclopedia, cited below, insists.

³ “Deaths,” Journal of the American Medical Association 158 (28 May 1955): 324. See Appendix B.

⁴ Naval Historical Center, “Manila Bay Medal – USS Raleigh” <http://www.history.navy.mil/medals/dewey/dewey3.htm> and “Photo # NH 43347 picture data” <http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h43000/h43347c.htm>, 9 December 2002, along with Patrick McSherry, “USS Raleigh Crew Roster” <://www.spanamwar.com/Raleighcrew.html>, 21 October 2002. Even though these are web sites, I deem them credible, because the first two are from a body attached to the Department of the Navy, and the last is from someone who maintains an elaborate web site full of information that jibes (mostly) with that of the Center and with that contained in Carpenter’s material.

⁵ National Cyclopædia of American Biography, s.v. “Carpenter, Dudley Newcomb.” See Appendix C.

⁶ I could find, however, two other articles Carpenter wrote: “Visit to the Chefoo, China, School for the Deaf,” Association Review 9 (1907): 359-362; and “Gunshot Wounds as Seen in the Philippines,” Medical News (6 August 1898): 174-176. I located the former in the Adams Building of the Library of Congress, and I discovered the latter in the back of Carpenter’s journal. A copy of “Gunshot Wounds” appears in Appendix D.

⁷ He was then an assistant surgeon. From a crew roster in the Library of Congress collection. (Appendix G)

⁸ George Dewey (1837-1917), aside from leading the Asiatic Squadron in the Spanish-American War, also participated in the American Civil War, fighting with the Union Navy in battles at the Louisiana cities of New Orlean (1862), Port Hudson, and Donaldsonville (both in 1863), then with the blockade forces in 1864 through 1865. After the Spanish-American War, in March 1899, Congress fashioned for Dewey the rank of Admiral of the Navy, the highest any naval officer has ever achieved. From Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

⁹ The Squadron’s members included the Olympia, which was the flagship, the Baltimore, the Raleigh, the Boston, the Concord, the Petrel, the McCulloch, the Nanshan, and the Zafiro. From Patrick McSherry, “The Battle of Manila Bay (Cavite)” < http://www.spanamwar.com/mbay.htm>, 21 October 2002.

¹⁰ Manila Bay reaches from the South China Sea into Luzon, the Philippines. The Spanish started constructing the city of Manila in 1571. Aside from hosting a key battle of the Spanish-American War, Manila Bay also witnessed naval and aerial battles during World War II. From EBO.

¹¹ This fleet comprised Admiral Montojo’s flagship, the Reina Christina, the Castilla, the Isla de Cuba, the Isla de Luzon, the Don Antonio de Ulloa, the Don Juan de Austria, the Marques del Duero, the El Cano, and the Argos. From McSherry, “Battle of Manila Bay.”

¹² Patricio Montojo y Pasarón (1839-1917) served on various assignments in the Philippines and elsewhere before taking charge of the Spanish Pacific fleet. After he lost the Battle of Manila Bay, the Spanish court-martialed and imprisoned him. Later, the military exonerated Montojo, but he could not regain his commission. Ironically, Dewey testified in Montojo’s defense. From Jose Poncet, “Admiral Patricio Montojo y Pasarón” <http://www.spanamwar.com/montojo.htm>, 16 December 2002. (The EBO had nothing on Montojo!)

¹³ Cavite, on the southern peninsular coast of Manila Bay, contained the Spanish naval base the Asiatic Squadron seized after the Battle of Manila Bay. From EBO. Admiral Montojo located his fleet there to avoid harming Manila during the confrontation with the Americans. From McSherry, “Battle of Manila Bay.”

¹⁴ McSherry, “Battle of Manila Bay.” See Appendix E.

¹⁵ Carpenter’s journal, p. 282.

¹⁶ Dudley Newcomb Carpenter, Manila Bay, to Anna Carpenter (his mother), 3 May 1898, letter in Library of Congress collection. A copy is in Appendix F.

¹⁷ Carpenter’s journal, p. 282.

¹⁸ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

¹⁹ I searched for this city or place on the Internet, but I could find no reference to it. Perhaps Carpenter spelled it incorrectly.

²⁰ Carpenter’s journal, p. 282.

²¹ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

²² Carpenter’s journal, p. 282.

²³ Subic Bay lies in Luzon, Philippines, 35 miles northwest of Manila Bay. From EBO. Admiral Montojo had stationed his fleet there for the confrontation with the Americans, but the artillery that was to fire on the Americans from Grande Island was not in place, so Montojo took his ships back to Manila. From “History of Subic Bay” <http://www.subicbay.net/Collections/The%20Subic%20Bay%20History.htm>, 12 December 2002. I think this web site is reliable because it fits with McSherry’s description of the Battle of Manila Bay.

²⁴ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

²⁵ Carpenter’s journal, p. 283.

²⁶ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898. The Spanish said the Americans “must have had a map of their torpedos [sic].”

²⁷ Carpenter’s journal, p. 283.

²⁸ Ibid., pp. 283-284.

²⁹ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

³⁰ Carpenter’s journal, p. 284.

³¹ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

³² Carpenter’s journal, p. 284.

³³ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

³⁴ Carpenter’s journal, p. 285.

³⁵ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898. Carpenter says the Baltimore shoved “everything before her,” which I presume to mean the batteries because ramming a fort and surviving is quite improbable.

³⁶ I think Carpenter might have gotten the names of the Spanish ships confused, because in his 3 May 1898 letter to his mother, Carpenter identifies the ship as the San Juan, even though Don Antonio de Ulloa is the correct name, as McSherry indicates in his description of the Battle.

³⁷ Carpenter’s journal, p. 285.

³⁸ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

³⁹ Carpenter’s journal, p. 286.

⁴⁰ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

⁴¹ Carpenter’s journal, p. 286.

⁴² McSherry, “Battle of Manila Bay.”

⁴³ A typed tally sheet pasted to the inside back cover of Carpenter’s journal.

⁴⁴ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

The Fighting Doctor: Dudley Newcomb Carpenter at the Battle of Manila Bay is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos