Ansel Adams was arguably one of the most influential photographers of the 20th century. Born in San Francisco, the artist had the opportunity to go back and forth between the thrill of the city and the serenity of the high sierras. As a result, the work of Adams exhibits a tension between urban life and the beauty found in the natural landscape. While many know Adams for his immersive photographs of vast canyons and mountain ranges, his friends also found themselves in front of his camera lens.

1. Ansel Adams’ Cloudy Scenes From Yosemite

At the age of fourteen, the parents of Ansel Adams took the young man to Yosemite Valley for the first time. Seeing it in a book only a few months prior, he was eager to immerse himself in nature on the highest peaks he could climb. It was in this place that Adams was given his first camera and where he took some of his first photographs. Having the desire to explore life in a hands-on manner, the young artist left school at the age of 12 and his education was supplemented through private tutoring and experiential learning gathered from his trips to the mountains.

Adams would return to Yosemite again and again, climbing to new heights and capturing different perspectives of the high sierras. The photograph above exhibits a notable smokey quality as the clouds fill the upper third of the composition. This obscurity lends a sense of expansiveness to the composition that can be felt by the viewer. As the forest recedes into the background, the mountain range opens to us, allowing us to absorb the dramatic light and shadow characteristic of Adams’ early photographs.

The artist’s treatment of the tonal saturation and compositional dynamics is much older than the medium of photography, suggesting Adams’ admiration for landscape paintings of early modern artists such as Winslow Homer and Thomas Moran. A sense of vitality coupled with the truth revealed in scenes of nature inspired Adams to create compositions with lively dynamism that reflected the experience of being on some of the highest peaks in the American West.

2. Landscapes in the City: San Francisco Bay

Photographs of San Francisco Bay comprise a major facet of Adams’ body of work. The composition seen above delivers an expansive view of the clouds and scenery. The atmospheric perspective gives the viewer the sensation of floating above the landscape. Adams highlights the volume of the clouds, while the mountains recede into the horizon. In this work, the viewer is made to feel small in scale compared to the vast expansiveness of the natural landscape.

Adams intentionally chose to photograph places from different altitudes and perspectives to enhance the feeling that we are all a small part of a massive world. This particular moment of the clouds rolling in over the Bay was something Adams sought after for ten years according to a letter he wrote to Mary Austin. After the construction of the San Francisco Bay Bridge, Adams returned here in 1953 to capture the scene once more.

The artist was passionate about preserving the natural environment, urging others to rail against the encroachment of modern technology on land otherwise free of debris, noise, and light pollution. According to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s website, the San Francisco Bay Bridge is one of the longest bridges in the United States, carrying up to two hundred and sixty thousand cars per day as part of a major highway. With this in mind, one might wonder whether Adams’ 1953 photograph of the San Francisco Bay was taken to acknowledge the possibility of the bridge to transform the environment of this area forever.

3. Portraits in the City

While Ansel Adams is known for photographing cascading mountains and river streams, he also honed his craft in the city. This composition shows Alfred Stieglitz, a modern photographer and friend of Adams, looking away from the camera with a painting done by his wife Georgia O’Keeffe in the background. The light rakes over the left side of his face, creating a graduation from light to shadow called chiaroscuro over him. Adams met Stieglitz in April of 1933, and the two remained friends, exchanging letters thereafter. Stieglitz went on to arrange an exhibition for Adams in the same location just a year before he passed away.

Some scholars argue this is not only a portrait of Stieglitz, but instead one of a couple. Stieglitz rests his head close to the painting, serving as an index for O’Keeffe. The painting divides the center line of the composition, evoking a feeling of stability and strength against Stieglitz’s leaning composure and far-off gaze. Adams would also visit O’Keeffe in Taos, where she famously painted flora and fauna. During this trip, he would photograph various elements of the landscape, including the living structures of adobe homes that provide shelter without scarring the foundation on which they stand.

4. Travels to Taos

Ansel Adams’ trips to Taos also reflect a certain regionalist approach that evokes closeness to nature indicative of his passion for showing the beauty of the environment and the people who inhabit it. Artist Georgia O’Keeffe met with Adams during his stay, perhaps sharing the places that inspired her most in her artwork. However, it was with Mary Austin that Adams created a book about the Taos landscape. The two worked separately to create a book where text and image work to present a formal idea of Taos solely based on the environment and the ways in which Indigenous design mirrored the landscape. While no people are seen in this composition, Adams’ photograph of the adobe style architecture in Taos shows how people adapted materials from earth to create an environmentally sustainable home, something the artist himself wrote passionately about in his 1962 book: These We Inherit: The Parklands of America.

Adams was a huge proponent of preserving the natural world. In his book about America’s parklands, he wrote about the toll of man’s use of industrial technology on the environment: “Man lived close to nature—a raw and uncompromising nature—and he was a part of the great pageant of sun, storm, and disaster. By the turn of the century the nation came into its adult strength, technology had launched its triumphant opening campaign, and men turned upon the land and its resources with blind disregard for the logic of ordered use, or for the obligations of an ordered future.”

With these words, Adams set out to create works that embraced the true values of nature with the hope of inspiring its preservation in the coming years. In his exploration of the poetry of Henry David Thoreau and the landscape paintings of Thomas Moran, Adams found that the best way to contribute to the preservation of nature was to show its beauty to people in urban settings.

5. Moments in the Gallery by Ansel Adams

As a San Franciscan, the artist spent a lot of time between the city and the mountains. Later, he would go on to visit museums around the world, including the Art Institute of Chicago where this image resides along with fifty-nine other works by the artist. The men in the foreground of this composition appear close together, with the man on the left leaning into the other, grabbing his lapel. On the right, a gentleman wears a focused expression, perhaps illuminating a particularly engaging conversation about the works of art around them. In the background, Mary leans in, gazing down tenderly at baby Jesus. While the painting and the reality taking place in front of it are undoubtedly quite different, they share a degree of intimacy that Adams sought to capture at the perfect moment in the gallery which is sometimes regarded as a spiritual place by art enthusiasts.

One of the most tantalizing characteristics of Adams’ photographs is his ability to mirror the foreground and the background to create a truly symbiotic composition. This can be seen in all the listed examples of his work, though most notably in this work where the postures of men unconsciously mimic the positionality of the figures in the painted background. The mirroring of elements in the front and back of the composition imbue them with a sense of vitality.

Ansel Adams stands out as perhaps one of the most influential photographers of the modern period for his unique use of tone and contrast that gave his compositions a painterly quality. While Adams is renowned for his breathtaking images of the natural world, portraits of friends also attest to the ways in which his relationships formed part of his artistic vision. While photography typically captures moments in time, Adams’ mastery of depth and contrast enables us to move beyond the surface of the print and delve deeper into the nuances of life.

Prophecies that do not have a conditional clause or are contextually unchangeable are designated unconditional prophecies. Human action or intervention cannot modify the outcome of these prophecies.

There are several kinds of unconditional prophecies. In the Christian faith, messianic and apocalyptic prophecies are the most notable examples. Such biblical prophecies may change the behavior of some people but the outcome remains the same though it may not impact the person who heeded the prophecy.

Messianic Prophecies

As the name indicates, these prophecies relate to the Messiah. In Christianity, sometimes prophecies are embedded in a psalm, and at other times, prophets proclaim them more directly. They usually deal with a specific aspect of the Messiah’s coming, ministry, death, or resurrection.

Examples of messianic prophecies include:

Isaiah 7:14

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

The virgin birth was another unconditional prophecy central to God becoming a man.  Though Jesus was never named Immanuel, the Hebrew term for name—shem—also refers to character, authority, or reputation. Immanuel means “God with us” (see Matthew 1:23), which was realized by Jesus.

Micah 5:2

“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”

Micah 5:2 shares additional information on where Jesus would be born. His birthplace was not a conditional matter. According to Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7, this prophecy was fulfilled.

Zechariah 9:9

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

Matthew 21:7 and John 12:14 record the fulfillment, with John 12:15 pointing to the prophecy that foretold it.

Many scholars consider Genesis 3:15 as the first Messianic prophecy. It is very cryptic and provides no detail other than indicating a savior will come to defeat Satan.

Some psalms also contain elements that scholars believe may reflect aspects of messianic prophecy. Psalm 22 is one example. Verse 1 starts with the words “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” while verses 16 and 18 mention “…they have pierced my hands and feet” and “they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” These elements all reflect Jesus’s experience on the cross.

Prophecies of Promise

Prophecies of promise can relate to restoration or empowerment. Examples would be the promise of the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple when the Southern kingdom of Judah was exiled to Babylon but returned to rebuild their city and holy place by the authority of the Persian rulers in the time of Artaxerxes.

When Jesus foretold the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it served as a promise of empowerment that came 50 days later, on Pentecost. The apostles were empowered, as promised, to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth. The empowerment came as the ability to speak other languages not learned by any natural process. It was a supernatural ability that saw many believers speak languages they did not learn by natural processes. They could suddenly comprehend and speak other languages to spread the gospel message.

Apocalyptic Prophecy

Both the Old and New Testaments contain apocalyptic prophecies. As the name suggests, this kind of prophecy deals with end-time events. One characteristic of apocalyptic prophecy is its symbolism. In books like Daniel and Revelation, we encounter statues, beasts, and other symbols representing various empires, beings, or religio-political systems.

For example, many Christians believe the statue Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream detailed in Daniel 2 reveals the sequence of empires from the time of Babylon up to the establishment of the eternal kingdom of God. Daniel declares to the king that he (Nebuchadnezzar) is the head of gold, pointing to the Babylonian empire he ruled. A chest and arms of silver followed the head of gold, which depicts the Persian Empire. The Greeks conquered the Persians, making them the loins of brass. Legs of iron followed the brass, representing the Roman Empire who conquered the Greeks. The feet of iron and clay reflected a divided Rome and may reflect modern-day Europe. If this interpretation is correct, the prophecy from Daniel 2 has unfulfilled elements. The rock that strikes the feet, which resembles the establishment of the eternal kingdom of God, remains unfulfilled.

Similarly, the sequence of beasts in Daniel 7 also reveals the sequence of empires. The winged lion was a symbol of the Babylonian Empire. The bear with three ribs in its mouth would be the Persian Empire, followed by Greece depicted as a four-headed leopard. The last, nondescript beast serves as a portrayal of the Imperial and Papal Rome.

Sometimes, scholars challenge these interpretations of Daniel 2 and 7, offering alternative interpretations depending on the model of prophetic interpretation they follow. The highly symbolic nature of apocalyptic prophecy lends itself to many interpretations. The challenge is to find one that makes sense and remains true to the principles of prophetic interpretation.

The Purpose of Unconditional Prophecy

While conditional prophecy often serves as a warning and presents an opportunity to change to prevent a negative outcome, unconditional prophecy has a different purpose. John 13:19 and 14:29 provide a partial motivation for revealing the future. Fulfilled prophecy builds faith.

Of course, in some instances, unconditional prophecy can also serve as a deterrent from certain actions, lifestyles, and attitudes, but unlike conditional prophecy, the outcome will still occur, and the individual who modified his/her behavior may not be affected by the outcome.

Unconditional prophecy can also serve as encouragement in times of suffering and strife. The Jews in exile had their hope for the future strengthened by the prophecies of restoration and return to their motherland.

Partially Fulfilled Prophecies

A single event does not necessarily fulfill a prophecy. Consider the destruction of Tyre as an example. Ezekiel 26-28 details the destruction of Tyre and states that no nation will rebuild the city. Nebuchadnezzar II attacked and conquered the city in 586 BCE, but parts of the prophecy remained unfulfilled. Ezekiel 26:12b notes: “Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters.” That never happened during the Babylonian onslaught on Tyre.

After the partial destruction of Tyre on the mainland, the citizens reconstructed the city on an island a short distance offshore. When Alexander attacked the island city, he constructed a causeway from the mainland to the island so his armies could breach it. Even after the conquest of Tyre by Alexander, it still served as a relatively significant port. Through gradual decline, it eventually became no more than a fisherman’s village, which is possibly what Ezekiel 26:14 points out: “I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the LORD; I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD.” Tyre never reached its former glory again.

Unfulfilled Unconditional Prophecies

There are apocalyptic prophecies that are yet unfulfilled. These prophecies deal with a wide range of events and include both destructive and uplifting elements. Of the former, 2 Peter 3:9-12 reads:

“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!”

This prophecy foretells the destruction from creation, yet Revelation 21:1 also speaks of the creation of a new heaven and a new earth:

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.”

These prophecies, found in different books of the Bible, align with many other prophecies (e.g. Jeremiah 4:23-27 and Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22) but remain unfulfilled. To many believers, fulfilled unconditional prophecies from the past guarantee that unfulfilled unconditional prophecies in scripture will also come to pass in the future.

The quotes of the Duke of Wellington, combined with his skills, attitude, and historical achievements, will continue to inspire generations of people for hundreds of years to come. What inspired Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, to deliver his most famous quotes, and at whom were they aimed?

The Quick Wit of the Duke of Wellington

We’ve all heard of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, we have also all heard his witty comments and pearls of wisdom which were deemed valuable enough to be recorded. His words are unmistakably his own. After all, he is responsible for some of the most iconic quotes in British history.

Wellington’s words were not only amusing but also plentiful. He left us so many messages that, when it comes to selecting one to consider, history enthusiasts may wonder exactly where to begin.

“The only thing I am afraid of is fear,” “I never saw so many shocking bad hats in my life,” and “I believe I forgot to tell you I was made a Duke,” are all instantly recognizable to anyone with an interest in 19th century Britain.

On searching for “Duke of Wellington quotes,” either online or in literature, one will be immediately bombarded with hundreds of appropriate suggestions. But quotes, without background and without context, can lack deeper meaning and even lose their humorous elements.

From his famous “Publish and be damned,” to his lesser-known “Sparrowhawks, ma’am,” in this article, we will take a moment to explore the fascinating stories behind some of his words. What inspired Wellington to utter the phrases that have since become remembered as his most infamous quips?

What Do You Need to Know About the Duke of Wellington?

There would be no point in examining the quotes of an unknown or unfamiliar figure. So, to truly understand and appreciate the meaning behind the Duke of Wellington’s quotes, we must first understand exactly who he was, what he did, and what made him worthy of becoming a national hero.

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, was a British soldier and statesman who lived between the years of 1769 and 1852. He lived during the reigns of four Monarchs: King George III, King George IV, King William IV, and perhaps most importantly, Queen Victoria.

Wellington is famous for two reasons. Firstly, he is famous for his crucial role in the Napoleonic Wars and for leading the English army to victory at the Battle of Waterloo. Secondly, he is famous for becoming Prime Minister of Britain on two separate occasions, firstly from 1828 to 1830, and then again for a brief spell in 1834.

Although he enjoyed a successful political career, it was his capability in battle that ensured Wellington would be remembered forever. Even now, he is well known for his adaptive defensive style of warfare, and he is still regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of the modern era.

So esteemed is the Duke of Wellington that the Encyclopaedia Britannica describes him as “the conqueror of the world’s conqueror,” stating that there is still “widespread appreciation of his military genius and of his character as an honest and selfless politician, uncorrupted by vast prestige.”

Wellington continued as one of the leading figures in the House of Lords until his retirement and even remained Commander-in-Chief of the British Army until his death. In the 21st century, Brits are reminded daily of Wellington’s life and achievements. Monuments erected in his honor are dotted all over England, Ireland, and Wales.

Some of the most famous include the Wellington Monument (which stands on Park Lane in London), the Wellington Arch (which stands on Hyde Park Corner, also in London), and a monumental column and statue in his birthplace of County Meath in Ireland.

1. “Sparrowhawks, Ma’am!”: The Duke of Wellington to Queen Victoria 

“Sparrowhawks, Ma’am!” What can we immediately tell about this exclamation? Well, obviously, this famous pair of words were originally uttered in response to a direct question.

It was Queen Victoria who, at the very beginning of the 1850s, specifically requested the Duke of Wellington’s advice. Assuming he would come up with an appropriate and immediate answer, she asked something along the lines of, “ … how are we going to get rid of all these sparrows?”

Queen Victoria was talking about the many hundreds of sparrows that had seen fit to nest in the newly finished Crystal Palace, where the famous Great Exhibition was due to take place within the next few weeks. For this event, more than 14,000 exhibitors from around the world would gather to display the finest and most modern technology of the industrial revolution.

In Victorian Britain (and even had it been built in 21st-century Britain), the Crystal Palace would have been quite a sight to behold. It was nearly 2,000 feet long and nearly 130 feet high. It covered an enormous area of nearly 100,000 square feet. This made it three times as large as Saint Paul’s Cathedral.

An incredible 60,000 panes of glass were manufactured by the talented Chance Brothers and, shockingly, the construction was completed within 39 weeks. Once finished, it was said to have been the greatest area of glass ever seen in a single building. It amazed visitors with its clear walls and ceilings that, during the day, did not require interior lighting.

It seemed that the only problem with this Palace was the selection of uninvited guests that it had attracted. To say that the sparrows had made a nuisance of themselves would be something of an understatement. They not only nested in the elms but also perched on the trusses and girders, and made excellent use of the wide open space in which to fly. If they remained at the Crystal Palace, they were sure to make a severe mess of some of the world’s greatest artistic and scientific treasures.

Allowing them to continue to reside there was simply not an option, and as the Crystal Palace was made entirely of glass, attempting to shoot the sparrows would have been extremely ill-advised. Poison was tried but to no avail. The sparrows needed to be removed within two weeks. Help had been requested from some of the greatest minds of the era, including not only the Palace’s designer Joseph Paxton but also Robert Stephenson and Isambard Kingdom Brunel, all of whom had failed to find a solution.

When Queen Victoria caught wind of the problem, she immediately demanded: “Send for the Duke.” He was sent for, and when presented with the problem, the ever-capable and multi-talented Duke said, “Sparrowhawks, ma’am.” 

The sparrowhawks were brought in and then left to do what came naturally. Since one sparrowhawk is capable of catching and consuming over 2,000 sparrows per year, there is little wonder that by the time the Great Exhibition was due to begin, the infestation had cleared entirely. No doubt some sparrows were caught; no doubt the majority flew away as soon as they realized their new home had been infiltrated.

The Great Exhibition opened, as planned and sparrow-free, on the first of May in 1851. It was the first World’s Fair exhibition of culture and industry and is now remembered as one of the most important events of the reign of Queen Victoria. Some of the highlights included a hydraulic press, a fire engine, and a 27-foot-tall crystal fountain.

The event made £186,000 (equivalent to £21,670,000 today) and the money was used to create several more museums; the Victoria and Albert, the Science Museum, and the Natural History Museum.

The Crystal Palace no longer stands. The astonishing building that took 9 months to complete was utterly destroyed by a fire within just a few short hours. This disaster occurred on the 30th of November in 1936. Although 80 fire engines and 400 firemen attended the scene, it was unfortunately inextinguishable.

The future Prime Minister Winston Churchill was one of the 100,000 people who gathered to watch the blaze. He is said to have commented that the loss of the Crystal Palace signified “the end of an age.”  

Historians now joke that Wellington’s victory over the Crystal Palace sparrows was equal only to his victory at the Battle of Waterloo.

2. “The Battle of Waterloo Was Won on the Playing Fields of Eton!” 

“The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.” Perhaps due to the mention of his most famous victory, this quote has become one of Wellington’s most recognizable.

To put it simply, with these words, Wellington was declaring that the skills learned at Eton College directly contributed to the British successes at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.

Eton College was originally founded by King Henry VI in the year of 1440. However, by the 18th century, Eton had already become widely renowned for its rigorous program of physical exercise and for its variety of sports. Here, Wellington was suggesting that participation in an Eton education was solely responsible for providing the courage, strength, discipline, bravery, and strategic thinking required on the battlefield.

With this quote, Wellington was complimenting not only the College itself, but also his own upbringing, education, and life experience. As you might expect, Wellington himself attended Eton during his school days. He began his education there in 1781, at the age of 12, and left three years later, in 1784.

Eton College has a rich history and prestigious reputation, both of which would certainly have prepared the young Arthur Wellesley for later life as a statesman, politician, military commander, and Duke. In the past, Eton was described as “The nursery of England’s gentlemen,” or “The chief nurse of England’s statesmen,” and has always been associated with the British ruling classes.

It seems feasible that Wellington felt it necessary, on the spur of the moment, to compliment Eton, but there is actually much doubt among historians regarding whether this quote was genuine or fabricated. Even Eton College itself has expressed doubt over whether these words were ever spoken by Wellington at all.

According to the historian Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy (1812-1878), Wellington actually said—while passing an Eton cricket match many decades after the Battle of Waterloo—“There grows the stuff that won Waterloo.” Other variations on the quote, which suggest Wellington was present on the grounds of Eton rather than on the Battlefield when he spoke these infamous words, include “It is here that the Battle of Waterloo was won.”

Even if Wellington did say “The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton,” realistically, the statement could hardly be further from the truth. Wellington led what has since become known as a multinational army. 

More than half of Wellington’s force consisted of Hanoverians, Saxons, Dutchmen, Belgians, and Prussians. Only a quarter of the 120,000 soldiers were British, and it is estimated that one in eight of these soldiers were English.

The political journalist, Colin Brown (1950-2020), stated that “Victorian jingoism fuelled one of the most persistent myths about Waterloo; that it was a British, or even more inaccurately, an English victory.” Nonetheless, the original quote will likely be connected to Wellington’s name for the foreseeable future.

We know that Wellington thought very well of his time at this ancient and distinguished College. His children, Arthur Wellesley 2nd Duke of Wellington, and Lord Charles Wellesley, were both provided with an Eton education.

3. “I Have Seen Their Backs Before!”: To King Louis XVIII of France

Like many of Wellington’s quotes, this one has some notable variations. “I have seen their backs before, Your Majesty,” is also cited in some records as “I have seen their backs before, madam.” This leaves the reader wondering exactly who the Duke was addressing with this statement — either King Louis XVIII of France or an unidentified young lady.

The only thing we know for certain is whose backs Wellington was referring to, in particular. Apparently, either the King or the Lady had apologized for the rudeness of some French soldiers, who had purposely turned away from Wellington as he entered the room.

After receiving the apology for their behavior, as calmly as ever, Wellington assured either the King or the Lady that the incident was “of no matter,” and that he had “seen their backs before.”

According to the Anecdotes of Wellington, this event is likely to have taken place at a ball in Vienna, during the spring of 1814. Wellington’s response is just one example of his cool, confident, uncaring, and unflappable nature.

4. “She Has Grown Ugly, By Jove!”: To His Brother, Gerald Wellesley 

“She has grown ugly, by Jove!” This is certainly the most cutting of Wellington’s comments. The words are made worse given who they were aimed at: Kitty Pakenham, the woman he was soon to marry.

In their youth, this couple had been very much in love. He had asked twice for her hand and had twice been denied by her family, who considered the debt-ridden 23-year-old an inappropriate match. In 1796, the two were conveniently separated when Wellesley and his regiment were sent to India. This meant that, at the point of their engagement in 1806, they had not laid eyes on each other in eleven years.

Kitty still adored Wellesley and had even called off other engagements in the hope that he would remain faithful to her. Feeling bound by his initial promises (having lessened his debt and elevated his own position) Wellesley sent another formal proposal of marriage.

Kitty was delighted. However, she still didn’t instantly accept this offer. Instead, she expressed doubt that Wellesley would still find her attractive when he returned home and saw her for the first time in over a decade. She warned him that “in so many years I may be much more changed than I am myself conscious of. If when you have met you can tell me that you do not repent having written the letter I am answering now, I shall be most happy.”

When Wellesley arrived home in Dublin in 1806, he realized that she was right. How exactly Kitty had changed is not specified. We may naturally imagine that, at the age of 30, she appeared older and larger to Wellington than she had when she was 19.

Whatever had happened to her must have been immediately noticeable. Wellesley was horrified by the supposed transformation and, with disapproval, informed his brother “She has grown ugly, by Jove.”

But he was a man of his word; he kept his judgments to himself and went through with the wedding on the 10th of April of the same year. Although the union produced two legitimate male children, it produced very little in the way of happiness.

Harriet Arbuthnot, Wellesley’s closest female friend with whom he had no romantic attachment, heard much about his marital woes. In response, Harriet described Kitty as “the most abominably silly and stupid woman that ever was born.” However, she did appear to have some sympathy, for she scolded Wellesley, saying that “it would be much better if he would be civil to her, but he is not, for he never speaks to her and carefully avoids ever going near her.”

Wellesley confided in Harriet that Kitty “made his house so dull that nobody would go into it,” and that her demeanor “drove him to seek abroad that comfort and happiness that was denied at home.”

5. “Publish and Be Damned!”: To Harriette Wilson

We know by now that Wellington hated his wife but he also adored female company and could not do without it. Naturally, this led to the taking of many mistresses. Just a handful of the ladies who were rumored to have enjoyed a romantic liaison with Wellington included Lady Frances Wedderburn-Webster, Lady Frances Shelley, Lady Caroline Lamb, Lady Charlotte Greville, and Marianne Patterson.

Some of his more notable relationships with more prominent historical figures included brief affairs with the Italian opera singer (Giuseppina Grassini), and Marguerite Georges (a French actress), both of whom were former lovers of Napoleon Bonaparte. Mademoiselle Georges later claimed that Wellington was “by far the stronger” of her two lovers, but perhaps, the less said about that the better.

Strong or otherwise, women from all over Europe were quite willing to throw themselves at Wellington’s feet.

The Countess Granville described her encounter with the Duke of Wellington, which occurred in Paris during 1817. “The fact is,” she began, “that I really believe the Duke finds so few women who do not make up to him. Granville will be pleased to hear of my successes, for an ugly good sort of woman to be attended to by a man into whose good graces beauties force themselves by dint of servility.”

However, as many men throughout history have discovered, some mistresses cause more trouble than others. One such lady was Harriette Dubouchet, who is now more commonly remembered as Harriette Wilson. Harriette lived between the years of 1786 and 1845, and (like three of her sisters) lived as a Courtesan. She is best known for her relationship with the Duke of Wellington.

Later in life, having been abandoned by her lovers, Harriette Wilson found that she was down on her luck and that her personal finances were lacking. To remedy this problem, she decided to secure an income by some other means. Having written her own memoirs, mainly detailing intimacies with former lovers, she contacted each one individually and offered them the chance to escape the embarrassment she was about to inflict.

We do not know what sums of money were demanded by Harriette, but we do know that many letters were distributed among the British nobility; probably one for every man she had welcomed into her bed throughout her career. Some men responded favorably, paid up, and were removed from the memoir.

However, others didn’t. When Wellington received this threat, he gave a definite answer. “Publish and be damned.” We may assume, from this firm response, that he did not even entertain the idea of weakening.

But, publish she did.

Her 1825 publication is entitled Memoirs of Harriette Wilson, Written By Herself, and is widely celebrated for its opening line, “I shall not say how and why I became, at the age of fifteen, the Mistress of the Earl of Craven.” It was reprinted by the Navarre Society in 1924, as was a follow-up title Paris Lions and London Tigers, in 1935.

Like Wellington, Harriette’s name has also been connected with a variety of other high-profile gentlemen of the era, including William Craven Earl of Craven, Frederick Lamb 3rd Viscount Melbourne, the Duke of Argyll, Lord Ponsonby, and even Prince George of Wales (the future King George IV).

It should be noted that Harriette Wilson never made any mention of bedding or even meeting the Prince of Wales in person in her memoirs. In fact, there are a large number of other politicians and nobles whose names do not feature at all. However, it is worth noting that many of these men would have been willing to do what Wellington was not.

It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that they did have a relationship with Harriette but were spared humiliation after responding to her blackmail. We can assume these threats would have worked on a small selection of her prestigious lovers; especially those who wanted to protect their own dignity, and had the funds required to do so.

The Words of Wellington: A Lasting Legacy 

Although we have looked at five of the Duke of Wellington’s best-known quotes, there are a wealth of others to consider. A few of the most interesting quotes to research include “Habit is ten times nature,” “A great country cannot wage a little war,” and “My rule was always to do the business of the day in the day.”

Seated at the top of the boot, Milan is one of Italy’s northernmost epicenters of culture and history, just a short drive from the stunning Italian Alps. The city has it all, from arts to architecture, food to fashion. There’s something for everyone in Milan.

Duomo di Milano 

With construction spanning over six centuries, the Duomo di Milano is the centerpiece of Milan. Its stained-glass windows, tall spires, and intricate sculptures make it a perfect example of Gothic architecture. As the largest church in the Italian republic, it is still actively holding services and is the current home to the Archbishop of Milan Mario Delpini. At the time of its inception, over three hundred craftsmen and employees helped with its construction, with architectural hands later changing to Frenchman Nicolas de Bonaventure, from whom much of its French Gothic influence originated. The Piazza del Duomo in which it is situated is a bustling intersection of tourists and locals, gazing at the Duomo or making their way to other parts of the city via the many streets and alleyways that branch off from the Piazza. 

Castello Sforzesco

Once a fortification for the Visconti noblemen (1358), the Castello Sforzesco was destroyed by the Golden Ambrosia Republic, formed by scholars of the University of Pavia after the death of the Duke of Milan. The castle was rebuilt by Francesco Sforza and later restored from 1890-1905 by Luca Beltrami. Several notable artists contributed to the decor of the structure including Leonardo da Vinci. Today, it holds a number of museums and galleries including The Museum of Ancient Art, the Museum of Musical Instruments, and the Antique Furniture and Wooden Sculpture Museum among others. 

I Navigli 

Navigli, which means ‘canal’, is a neighborhood in the southwest part of Milan. This artsy section of town is situated on the remaining canals that once encircled the city and were constructed in the 12th-century, serving many purposes from irrigation to defense. Many visitors enjoy strolling along the water at night, taking part in the bustling nightlife, restaurant scene, and many bars and cafes along the sidewalks and even on docked boats and barges. Navigli is easy to reach by foot from the city center or by way of the metro. In addition to evening activities, a visit to the many art shops, galleries, and historical sites make for a full day.

Brera District

Perhaps one of the most elegant and upscale neighborhoods in Milan, the Brera District is as quaint as it is luxurious. Part of the Centro Storico District, it was once a cleared stretch of land outside the city used for military purposes. Now a destination for art connoisseurs and ritzy restaurant-goers, its cobbled streets, boutiques, and galleries draw visitors from all walks. Brera is the home of 15th-century Santa Maria del Carmine Church along with the Academy of Fine Arts, the National Gallery of Ancient and Modern Art, and the city’s Botanical Garden. Visitors can attend a craft market held every third Sunday of the month. 

Milano Centrale

The primary rail station of Milan, the Milano Centrale sees three-hundred and twenty-thousand passengers per day. It is Italy’s second largest station with twenty-four platforms traveling to both local and international destinations. Its design is a combination of several styles with a beautiful glass and metal arch over the tracks, and a two-hundred-meter-wide facade. Opened in the 1930s, the building was once described by Frank Lloyd Wright as “the most beautiful station in the world.” 

Arco della Pace

Originally constructed in 1807 by architect Luigi Cagnola, the Arco della Pace, or “Arch of Peace”, was erected to celebrate the war victories of Napoleon. It wasn’t completed before his defeat at the Battle of Waterloo, however, and when finished, served as a tribute to the peace treaties signed at the Congress of Vienna. Standing at twenty-five meters tall, the arch can’t be missed situated in the Piazza Sempione. Its Corinthian columns and granite and marble arch are topped with several distinctive statues: the Chariot of Peace in the center by Abbondio Sangiorgio and the Victories on Horseback on either side by Giovanni Putti. 

Santa Maria delle Grazie

A Dominican convent and site of Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper, the Santa Maria delle Grazie was originally begun by architect Guiniforte Solari as requested by the Duke of Milan Francesco Sforza. While there is speculation over who later completed the design, architects Donato Bramante and Giovanni Antonio Amadeo both contributed. An explosion destroyed much of the refectory in World War 2 but restoration efforts have preserved both The Last Supper and much of the original building’s glory.

Bragi Boddason was a famous Norwegian skaldic poet who lived in the first half of the 9th century and composed poetry about the legendary Ragnar Lodbrok among others. But some people believe that Bragi Boddason is also Bragi the god, the Skaldic poet of Valhalla who lived among the Aesir gods and composed poems about their deeds.

But what do we know about Bragi the man, and what evidence is there that he is also Bragi the god? Read on to meet the most famous Skald in Viking history.

Bragi the Skald

Skaldic poets were composers and reciters of Skaldic verses, one of the types of poetry popular among the Vikings. They were often attached to the courts of chiefs and kings and composed verses about the deeds of their king, his warriors, and ancestors, or about the legendary deeds of gods and heroes.

Bragi Boddason, also known as Bragil Hinn Gamli (Bragi the Old) was a famous Norwegian Skald from the 9th century. He was from a family of Skalds. He married Loptheona, the daughter of another famous Skald Erpr lutandi, who was a Skald at the court of the Swedish king Eysteinn Beli. Eysteinn was apparently made king of Sweden by Ragnar Lodbrok but then went to war with Ragnar’s sons. Among Bragi’s descendants was another famous Skald, Gunnlaugr Ormstunga (serpent tongue), who was a famous Skald in Iceland.

According to the Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson, Bragi was a Skald for the semi-legendary ruler Ragnar Lodbrok, Eysteinn Beli, and then Bjorn at Haugi, apparently the son of Bjorn Ironside. This suggests that he was active between 835-900. There are enough attestations of Bragi Boddason to confirm that he was a real person, but stories about him confronting a troll woman and identifying a changeling are probably fictitious.

The only work by Boddason that partially survives is the Ragnarsdrapa, a poem recounting the deeds of the eponymous hero, and describing the legendary scenes on a decorated shield that Ragnar gave the poet.

Fragments quoted by Sturluson in his Prose Edda suggest that Bragi’s stories included the story of the heroes Hamdir and Sorli avenging their sister with the help of Odin, the cursed never-ending battle between Hedinn and Hogni, the story of the fishing trip on which Thor almost caught the Midgard Serpent Jormungandr on his line, and the story of the goddess Gefjun separating Zealand from the rest of Sweden with a plow.

According to Egils Saga, Bragi also composed a Skald to ransom his own head when he angered King Bjorn. The hero of the saga, Egil Skallagrimsson, followed his example when he found himself in trouble with Erik Bloodaxe.

Bragi of Valhalla

Bragi was also the name of the god of Skaldic poetry in Norse mythology, and some people have suggested that Bragi Boddason and Bragi the god were one and the same.

Bragi was the Skald of Valhalla, in Odin’s great hall in Asgard, where the bravest fallen warriors lived. There they train, fight, and feast until they are called on to fight again alongside the gods at Ragnarok. Bragi welcomed new warriors when they arrived in the hall and composed poems about their incredible deeds to entertain the group of dead warriors, collectively known as the Einherjar.

The earliest reference to the god Bragi comes from 954, in the Eiriksmal, which describes Bragi in Valhalla asking Odin why he has taken the life of the brave king Erik Bloodaxe. This timeline means that Bragi of Valhalla could have been Bragi Boddason, taken to Valhalla after his death to serve its warriors.

While individual fallen warriors were never treated as gods, Bragi is often described as being among them, suggesting a kind of apotheosis.

Bragi the God

According to the surviving sources for Norse mythology, Bragi was married to the goddess Idun, who tended to the magical orchards of Asgard that produced the golden fruits that ensured the youth and immortality of the gods.

Marrying Idun could have been enough to see the gods accept Bragi as one of them. This is seen in several cases. For example, when the giantess Skadi came to Asgard to seek vengeance for the death of her father Thjazi, rather than fight her, the gods offered to pay for the death. Payment included letting Skadi marry one of the gods.

Bragi at the Lokasenna

Bragi may have served a similar role among the gods as he did in Valhalla. In another story, when Loki tries to invade a dinner to which he was not invited, Bragi is the first to try and turn him away. This may suggest that as the court Skald, this was his role. In the end, Loki is allowed to enter because he reminds Odin of the old blood oath between them to never eat unless it was together.

Loki is allowed to enter and goes on to insult all the gods in a story known as the Lokasenna. Loki initially greets all the gods but pointedly ignores Bragi. The Skald then tries to win his favor by offering Loki his sword, horse, and arm ring as gifts. Loki rejects these, calling Bragi a coward.

Loki’s treatment of Bragi could be because he was considered lesser than the other gods present in some way. He may have called him a coward because he earned his place in Valhalla with his tongue—which was apparently engraved with runes—rather than his sword.

When Idun comes to her husband’s defense, Loki accuses her of embracing her brother’s killer. This is probably a reference to Bragi, but whatever the story is, it is now lost.

With only this information available, we are left to speculate about Bragi’s status among the Norse gods.

God of Poetry

While Bragi is listed in myths as one of the Norse gods, there is no evidence that he was ever worshiped by the Vikings as a god of poetry. He is never invoked in surviving poems for divine inspiration.

Odin may have played a more important role as a muse or source of divine inspiration. This is because Odin was associated with the Mead of Poetry, a magical drink that gave the drinker mastery over the spoken word.

The mead was made after the Aesir-Vanir War when the two tribes of gods mixed their spit to declare a truce. This potent mixture was then used to make a man called Kvasir, considered the most intelligent being in the universe. When two dwarves met Kvasir, they decided to kill him and use his blood to make the Mead of Poetry.

Dwarves who go around killing people for their blood tend to make enemies, and they soon fell afoul of a giant, who demanded the mead in payment. Odin then learned about the existence of the mead and came up with a magical plot to steal it.

At the end of his adventure, Odin drinks all the mead, and holds it in his stomach, and then turns into an eagle to fly back to Asgard with the mead. On the flight, while being chased, he either lets some of the mead fall from his mouth or expels some as urine over the world of men. This is the mead that gives human skalds their skills. The rest he spat into three giant drinking horns in Asgard.

The Apotheosis of Bragi

It is possible that Bragi Boddason was considered such a skilled poet that the Vikings believed that he was taken to Valhalla after his death to serve as the Skald of the fallen warriors there. Marrying the goddess Idun, he soon found himself among the gods.

Did Jesus really exist? Most people will provide their answer from their perspective on faith and religion rather than considering the evidence that would objectively lead to an answer. Christians will claim that Jesus did exist because the Bible says so. Others believe the Bible is an unreliable source filled with myths and that it has been corrupted to the extent that it is untrustworthy. An objective consideration of the historicity of the existence of Jesus Christ should, therefore, rely on evidence from sources outside of the Bible.

Jesus in Non-Christian Sources

Six non-Christian sources are relevant to the question of whether or not Jesus was a historical figure: Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Lucian, and Celsus. Some references by these authors are controversial because they are not entirely specific to Jesus Christ but make mention of early Christians. The historicity of Jesus is not necessarily lost in the inexactness, however, these sources are of lesser value than those that reference Jesus by name. We will, therefore, divide the sources into two categories: specific evidence and indirect evidence.

The specific evidence is limited to the historians Josephus and Tacitus, while the indirect evidence addresses references to Christians that are consistent with the claims of the Biblical narrative and/or history, showing that Jesus did exist. Keep in mind that early Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism in the Roman world, and references to Christ and Christians are sometimes derogatory. Jesus, as the central figure of Christianity, may not be mentioned directly in these references, though the Christian movement had its foundation in the life and actions of Jesus. Such references indicate that Jesus Christ did live during the 1st century CE.

Specific Evidence

Two historians from the early centuries CE made specific references to Jesus in their works. They were Tacitus and Josephus.

Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian lived between 54 and 120 CE, and some scholars consider him the greatest Roman historian of all time. He wrote about Jesus in his work the Annals around 116 CE, where he makes the following comment when discussing the scapegoats Nero blamed for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE:

“Their name [Christians] comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate.” 

Here, Tacitus confirms the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion at the hand of Pontius Pilate, and he continues to speak of the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire, albeit from a hostile Roman perspective. He does not show any doubt that Jesus was a historical person.

Josephus

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived in the 1st century CE, provides significant references to Jesus in his works, primarily in his Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War. Although some of the writings by Josephus have been subject to later Christian interpolations, most scholars agree that the core passages referring to Jesus are authentic. These passages include mentions of Jesus as a wise man, a doer of surprising deeds, and his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

Josephus wrote:

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others…”

Josephus was born shortly after the death of Jesus and, being the son of the high priest Matthias, he grew up in an environment that was acutely aware of the fledgling new Christian sect. He may even have heard some of the apostles preach.

Later, in Antiquities 18.63, Josephus wrote:

“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”

Though some scholars argue that this passage shows Josephus converted to Christianity, the church father Origen stated that Josephus was not a Christian. Whether he was or not, Josephus remains a respected and oft-referenced historian from the first and early second century CE. His work makes direct reference to Jesus and confirms the historical context of the death of Jesus Christ.

Indirect Evidence

Pliny the Younger 

Pliny the Younger was a Roman senator and historian who lived in the 1st century CE. In one of his letters to the Roman Emperor Trajan around 112 CE, he mentions the Christians and their worship practices. Pliny persecuted Christians for not renouncing their faith.

He notes that Christians “met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as if to a god.” Pliny’s comment implies that he believed Christ was a literal man. While not mentioning Jesus directly, Pliny’s mention of Christians and their activities serves as indirect evidence for the existence of Jesus, as these early Christians centered their beliefs and practices around him.

Suetonius

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, a Roman historian who served under Emperor Hadrian, wrote about early Christians in his work, the Lives of the Twelve Caesars, published around 120 CE. In his biography of Emperor Claudius, he mentions the expulsion of Jews from Rome due to disturbances caused by “Chrestus.” While the reference is brief and somewhat ambiguous, many scholars interpret “Chrestus” as a misspelling of “Christus” (Christ). Suetonius also references “a new and mischievous superstition” called Christianity. He mentions that the State accused these Christians of starting the fire that ravaged Rome in 64 CE and punished them accordingly.

Considering the context, it seems reasonable that “Chrestus” could be a reference to Jesus Christ. It is unlikely that Christians would put themselves through the kind of persecution they suffered if the person they were named after as a group was fictitious.

Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a 2nd-century Greek satirist who wrote about various religious and philosophical figures. In his work The Passing of Peregrinus he mentions the Christians and their founder, a man crucified in Palestine.

Lucian wrote of Christians:

“… that one whom they still worship today, the man from Palestine who was crucified because he brought this new form of initiation into the world.”

Lucian does not mention Jesus by name, though he contextually speaks of Jesus Christ as a historical figure. He does not question the reality of Jesus’ existence in his satire.

Celsus

Celsus was a philosopher from the second century CE. Though the original works of Celsus no longer exist, we know of their content from the church father Origen, who wrote a rebuttal. In Against Celsus, Origen argues against the claims Celsus made that Jesus was the illegitimate child of Mary and a Roman soldier, that his miracles were acts of sorcery and magic, and that he taught his followers to beg and steal. There is little doubt that Celsus considered Jesus a historical figure from the allegations he made about him.

Conclusion

The indirect evidence detailed above increases the likelihood that Jesus existed. The contexts they speak to are consistent with the biblical narrative. None of the persons referenced were sympathetic to the Christian cause, and none questioned the historicity of Jesus as the central figure of the Christian faith.

The two primary sources of specific evidence for the existence of Jesus come from two different perspectives. Josephus was a Jewish historian, while Tacitus was a Roman historian. Both mention Jesus by name in such a way that there can be no doubt that they considered him a historical figure. In both instances, the historians refer to the context of Jesus’s death at the hand of Pontius Pilate.

Josephus also references James, the brother of Jesus, indicating that he understood that Jesus Christ was a real person. His lineage as the son of a high priest placed him in the ideal position to be aware of the challenge the new-found Christian religion posed to Judaism.

Both Tacitus and Josephus are credible historians from the first century CE, and there is no reason to doubt their references to Jesus as a historical person when scholars hold the rest of their work in high regard. It is significant that arguably the two most revered historians from the first century CE mention Jesus by name. Neither of them had a Christian bias that may cause the skeptical observer to doubt the veracity of their work when referencing Jesus Christ.

The great Spanish-Mexican artist Remedios Varo constructed her own metaphysical world to inhabit. Her magical Surrealist paintings contain a wide variety of characters, but the artist was also almost constantly portrayed in them. Through her self-portraits, Varo wanted to create an imaginary world that fit her better than the real one. Read on to learn more about the self-portraits made by the Surrealist women artist Remedios Varo.

Remedios Varo: The Surrealist Witch and the Forgotten Hero

Remedios Varo was born in Spain in the early years of the twentieth century and she became famous as one of the most prominent Mexican artists. However, she was almost forgotten as a Surrealist painter, since she was vastly different from her colleagues. In a male-dominated artistic movement, she forged her own path, relying on her inner processes and thoughts, building her imaginary world based on the works of the Old Masters and Medieval manuscripts.

Many of Remedios Varo’s works over the years contain elements of self-portraiture. Self-portraits are loud and bold announcements of oneself not only being able to create art but also being worthy of depiction. Remedios Varo was much less concerned with her pictorial immortality. She was more interested in constructing her private realm of existence—one that was more comfortable, forgiving, and adaptive than reality.

Childhood Rebellion

Remedios Varo never truly fitted into the borders of social expectations, feeling uncomfortable and restrained since her early years. A child of liberal parents, she nonetheless studied in a Catholic school, which annoyed her with its strict rules and indifference to nuances of human personality. Each student had to look, think, and behave the same, but Varo refused to give up on her imagination.

Years later, Remedios Varo reflected on her uneasy years in the Catholic school in a triptych that’s about confinement and ideas of escapism. A group of identical girls dressed in the same blue dresses move and work under constant surveillance of strict androgynous monk-like figures. All girls look like Varo, and are silent and compliant—all but one, who is breaking the fourth wall by staring directly at her audience beyond the canvas. She remains silent, yet her protest becomes more powerful in this silence. Her gaze does not seem like a loud cry for attention but a deeply rooted rejection of the world she is being forced to inhabit.

In one of the paintings, girls are shown while embroidering a mantle with trees, buildings, and humans. One of the girls—probably the same rebel from the first painting of the triptych—is discreetly adding an unexpected extra detail to her corner of the mantle. There, hidden in the folds of the falling mantle, are the figures of her and her lover, embracing each other. The silhouettes are almost invisible at first glance, turned upside down, and concealed by the rest of the composition. However, this mysterious male figure will reappear in the final painting of the triptych.

Gender & Androgyny 

The final painting of the triptych, titled The Escape, shows the young rebel and her lover crossing the sea of fire on a boat made out of an umbrella. Many art critics interpreted this subject as the story of Varo’s marriage to her fellow art student Gerardo Lizarraga. Together, the two moved to Barcelona and then to Paris, where they explored avant-garde art and actively socialized with other artists, often ignoring everyday tasks. According to Varo, her mother occasionally visited them only to find piles of dirty dishes in every kitchen corner and clean them.

One often overlooked aspect of the painting hides in the position of bodies and their limits. Clothed in draped robes of contrasting colors, the figures stand close to each other, but this proximity hardly reminds one of a loving embrace. They are fusing into one organism, looking in one direction with facial expressions still and calm. The unification of the two genders in one androgynous being was a popular motif in art, particularly loved by the late nineteenth-century Symbolists. To them, the ideal spiritual being capable of accessing a higher level of knowledge and spiritual power had to carry both feminine and masculine energy.

Several years later, Varo and Lizarraga separated, but they never got a divorce and they remained in close contact for years. In many of Remedios Varo’s works, the figure of the Creator, the magician, or the alchemist—essentially, Varo herself—has no distinct gender markers. This demonstrates her ability to surpass the limits of the physical body and societal concepts.

Creative Process and Its Enemies

Remedios Varo’s most productive artistic period refers to the decades she spent in Mexico as a refugee escaping the war. Again, the narrative of constant captivity and restricted freedom revealed itself, taking more horrifying forms than before. Months before leaving France, she accidentally recognized her estranged husband in footage from a concentration camp. It took significant amounts of time and bribes to free him, and a new fear would plant itself inside Varo’s mind. Soon, she herself became a prisoner, arrested and detained by Nazi forces occupying France.

She never shared the details of her imprisonment, but her friends noticed a dark shadow of terror and trauma in the spirit of the sensitive Varo. She lost many friends and acquaintances—some died on the battlefield, while others were tortured to death for their anti-fascist views. She never wanted to go to Mexico—although one of her partners told her she should move there to fight her extreme entomophobia—but it was her only option since she was denied a visa for the USA requests.

In Mexico, she completely immersed herself in her imaginary world where she was free to explore, create, and become any creature she desired. She was at once the creator of her world and its brave explorer, never entirely sure what was hiding behind the next corner. Varo was a sorceress, a mystical midnight creature, and even a wise owl giving life to birds by drawing them with a string from her heart and a ray of light. However, sometimes in those self-portraits, we can see another Varo—a living woman who fights the grip of reality, bothered by intrusive thoughts. The voice of an unseen force comes from behind her back, interfering with the creative process, nurturing self-doubt, and feeding the impostor syndrome.

Remedios Varo: The Awakening of the Soul

Varo was an admirer of a Russian occult philosopher Pyotr Ouspensky. Ouspensky was one of the proponents of The Fourth Way, a radically new approach to spiritual self-development. According to Ouspensky, there were three traditional ways of cognition and spiritual development tied to the existing religions and practices, like yoga or monasticism. All of these could be learned through specific institutions and teachers, essentially turning the process of spiritual evolution into a systematic and hierarchic approach. They expect their followers to sacrifice their regular lives, committing them to the chosen path entirely, not allowing them to change their minds or leave.

The Fourth Way for Ouspensky was the free, self-regulated, and independent way of spiritual development that relied entirely on an individual’s own effort, without any gurus and masters. The Fourth Way is intangible, silent, and often unconscious, working with deep emotions and the inner life instead of external attributes. Ouspensky also believed that all human beings were born into a deep spiritual sleep and had to awaken their souls in their lifetime to access deeper knowledge, senses, and perception.

Remedios Varo’s self-portraits can be read as visual representations of these concepts. The artist’s avatars were always evolving and transforming, never staying too long in one particular form. They do not rely on any particular system of beliefs or symbols. The awakening of Remedios Varo’s spirit happens right in front of the viewer’s eyes, regardless of the time and place the artist was trapped in.

From 1863 to the early 20th century, over 62,000 Torres Strait Islander men, women, and children were uprooted from their ancestral lands and brought to Queensland, Australia, to work on sugar cane farms. Many were taken by force, while others were deceived with false promises of decent working conditions and fair pay.

This practice, now known as “blackbirding,” continued for four decades until 1901, when Queensland joined the Commonwealth of Australia. Historians are conflicted about the definition of blackbirding as a form of slavery. What is certain is that the economy of Queensland (and Australia as a whole) greatly benefited from the hard work of generations of South Sea Islanders, whose efforts, stories, and struggles are rarely remembered in history books.

When and Where?

In the early 19th century, Queensland was a part of New South Wales, a penal colony run by the British Crown. In 1859, Queen Victoria granted Queensland its independence and the “land of the Queen” became a separate self-governing colony. One year later, the first elections were held and in May the Queensland Parliament became fully operative.

The first cane plantation in Queensland was established near Brisbane in 1862 by John Buhot and Captain Louis Hope (1817-1894), grazier, miller, and later a Member of the Queensland Legislative Council. According to the data provided by the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, today “around 95 per cent of sugar produced in Australia is grown in Queensland and about five per cent in northern New South Wales, along 2,100 km of coastline between Mossman in far north Queensland and Grafton in northern New South Wales.” 

From the early 19th century until 1840, convicts had been the backbone of the Australian economy. They represented a huge pool of cheap labor that colonies knew they could rely on without worrying too much about their rights and working conditions. In 1840, however, convict transportation from Europe ceased. This led to a shortage of workers, a vacuum soon filled by South Sea Islanders.

Estimated to be between 62,000 and 62,500 in number, they were brought to Queensland between 1863 and 1904 (the exact number is impossible to know for obvious reasons). The first group of 67 men and women were employed on a cotton plantation in Brisbane but were later sent to work in the cane fields. They were commonly known as “Kanakas.”

These people came from at least 80 Pacific islands. Some of them were blackbirded from the Melanesia subregion, namely, the Solomon Islands (colloquially known as the Solomons), Fiji, Vanuatu (also known as New Hebrides), and Papua New Guinea, the latter being one of the largest islands in the area and the world’s third largest island country. Others came from the Gilbert Islands, a chain of coral islands and atolls in Micronesia, and still, others hailed from the region of Polynesia, Tuvalu, and Samoa.

It is worth remembering that all these islands and archipelagos had been inhabited for centuries before the coming of Europeans and that the cultures, languages, and beliefs of their traditional owners were and are as elaborate as those of the people who colonized them.

Was “Blackbirding” Slavery?

The United Nations defines the slave trade as including “all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with the intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves.” There is an ongoing debate among historians about whether the colonial practice of blackbirding can be considered a form of slavery. It is beyond doubt, however, that South Sea Islanders endured awful working conditions; despite what they were initially promised, most workers never received any remuneration and in the rare instances when they did get paid, their salaries were embarrassingly low.

Although not all South Sea Islanders who relocated to Queensland during the blackbirding era were kidnapped, many of those who did so willingly were deceived by false promises. The traditions and cultural practices of these workers were also indirectly attacked.

Can this attack and the working conditions many endured be equated to slavery? Was Queensland a “slave state”? Can we dub Townsville in Queensland the capital of a “slave state”? The debates continue. It’s worth remembering that blackbirding was never legal, and the Queensland government introduced several legislations to try to regulate and halt the practice. For example, in 1868, the Polynesian Labourers Act 1868 was passed in an attempt to prevent the exploitation and kidnapping of South Sea Islanders although many plantation owners and labor agents found ways to get around the law.

How Did Australia Benefit From “Blackbirding”?

For a long time, the use of South Sea Islanders in tropical Queensland was justified by the self-serving colonial narrative which claimed that white European men, who mostly hailed from colder regions such as the British Isles and northern Europe, did not possess the physical strength to work long hours in the tropical climate of Queensland. South Sea Islanders did and were therefore deemed fit for the job.

The reality was that most white Australians or white immigrants felt that working in the fields was degrading and socially beneath them. Only “Black men” (which was essentially used as an all-encompassing label) could and would accept the hard-working conditions required to make a sugar cane plantation flourish.

Ironically, a few decades later the so-called white Australia movement began to actively oppose blackbirding and the presence of South Sea Islanders on Australian soil, although not for humanitarian reasons. By today’s standards, their concern was purely and openly racist. They believed that Islanders, just like workers from Japan or China, were diluting the country’s whiteness, in addition to taking jobs away from white Australians of European descent.

In 1901, the federal government led by Edmund Barton passed the Immigration Restriction Act, which came into law on December 23, 1901, and effectively favored immigration from the British Isles over that from other non-white, non-Anglophone nations. The white Australia policy was now safeguarded and legitimized by law.

For the next few decades and until the late 1960s, Australia was to become a white nation built on the exploitation of non-white men and women. Indeed, as we can read on the poster designed by Aboriginal artist Laurie Nilsen (1953-2020) for the National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) of 1987: “White Australia has a Black History.”

First Kidnapped, Then Deported

In Australia, the 20th century began under the banner of the “white Australia” policy. In addition to the Immigration Restriction Act, Australia’s new federal government passed the Pacific Island Labourers Act, which essentially made it illegal for any Pacific Islanders to enter the country after March 31, 1904. The Act was officially headed as “an Act to provide for the Regulation, Restriction, and Prohibition of the Introduction of Labourers from the Pacific Islands and other purposes.”

Starting in December 1906, any Pacific Islander found on Australian soil could be deported immediately. Employing a Pacific Islander was punishable by law. Over two years, from 1906 to 1908, more than 7,500 South Sea Islanders, most of whom were actually born in Australia, were forcibly deported to their “home country.”

Many South Sea Islanders possessed very little knowledge of the “home country” Australia was sending them back to. It was the country of their parents and grandparents, not theirs. Just 1654 South Sea Islanders were officially allowed to remain in Australia (although there is evidence that the actual number was closer to 2500). Some of them had been brought to Queensland before September 1, 1879. This was the first of the exemptions under the Act. South Sea Islanders employed in ships’ crews were also allowed to stay, as were those in possession of a license allowing them to work under forced labor contracts and those who had been granted an exemption under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. It took Australia almost a century to come to terms with this dark part of its history. For decades, many knew nothing about blackbirding.

Finally, in 1994 the Commonwealth government publicly acknowledged the distinctiveness of Australian South Sea Islander culture, and six years later, in 2000, the Queensland Government followed suit. Today, on August 25, Australians celebrate South Sea Islander Recognition Day.

In August 2021, Jack Dempsey, the Mayor of Bundaberg, the tenth-largest city in Queensland, issued an official apology to the region’s South Sea Islanders for the “abuse which occurred in ‘blackbirding’ people from Vanuatu and other Pacific Islands to work in the Queensland sugarcane industry,” which was built, he said, “on the backs of Pacific Island labor, along with much of our infrastructure.”

The apology was long overdue, he added, and “saying sorry is necessary for healing and to move forward in friendship.” Bundaberg is now in a “Sister City” agreement with Luganville in Vanuatu.

But Why “Blackbirding”?

The origins of the term “blackbirding” are controversial; 19th-century sailors, merchants, and dock workers referred to the slave trade as “blackbird-catching.” The term blackbirds was used to identify people from the African continent, especially those living along the African coast, due to the color of their skin. Blackbird was also the slang term for the slaving ship that transported slaves from Africa to the North American continent. From identifying people with a dark skin color in general, the term came to identify South Sea Islanders or any native of the South Pacific Islands. In Australia “blackbird shooting” was commonly used to describe the killing of Aboriginal people at the hands of white settlers and explorers.

In North America as well as in the Pacific, the term blackbirding was first and foremost dehumanizing. It equated human beings with animals and established a color-based hierarchy: the whiter you were, the more powerful. The darker your skin was, the more easily you could (and would) be exploited and mistreated, both physically and mentally.

For far too long, the history of South Sea Pacific Islanders and the slave-like conditions they endured while working on sugarcane plantations in Queensland and New South Wales has been overlooked, if not entirely forgotten. Today, Australia is finally beginning to confront this dark chapter in its colonial history.

Japan’s Bakufu, or military government, began in 1192 with Minamoto Bakufu and ended with the Tokugawa Bakufu’s fall in 1868. The Tokugawa Bakufu fell on this date, restoring Imperial rule under the young Emperor Meiji. During nearly seven centuries, Japan changed dramatically from feudalism, social change, conflicts, and outside forces seeking trade or contact.

What Does the Word Bakufu Mean?

The word bakufu means “tent government” and is used interchangeably with the term shogunate. This feudal-style government, led by the Shogun or military ruler, made Japan’s Emperor a figurehead. The country’s real power lay with the Bakufu and its military. But no Shogun overthrew the Throne as their rule notionally came from the emperor’s power. 

Why Did the Bakufu Rule Japan Instead of the Emperor?

The samurai rule over the emperor happened gradually, not with one swoop. As Imperial rule faltered around the 12th century, the daimyo, or nobles, assumed local power. The samurai pledged their loyalty to the daimyo in return for economic or political favors. Different factions started to clash, leading to the 1185 Genpei War. The victors, the Minamoto clan led by now Shogun Minamoto Yoritomo, founded the first bakufu – the Kamakura Bakufu. No Shogun would overthrow an Emperor, a descendant of Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess.

How Did Kamakura Bakufu Change Japan?

The Kamakura Bakufu (1185-1333) consolidated power by solidifying the feudal system. With the Emperor’s consent, Yoritomo became the first Shogun or military ruler. With the Shogun, all real military and political power rested. The shift from the Imperial Court to the Shogun marked the first great change. The Bakufu resided in Kamakura near today’s Tokyo and took its name.

With peace came prosperity under the new Bakufu rule. Japanese merchants traded with China or Korea, exchanging goods like gold and lumber for silk, books, and medicines. Buddhism’s influence reached far after 1185. Buddhism’s focus on discipline and concentration appealed to the samurai.

When Did the Ashikaga Bakufu Take Over?

The Ashikaga Bakufu ruled from 1336 to 1573. Its predecessor, the Kamakura Bakufu, fell in 1333 from financial distress and internal politics. Defending Japan against the Mongols in 1274 and 1281 created deep money woes. The end came with Emperor Go-Daigo’s successful 1333 revolt. His reforms ended in 1336 when a supporting clan, the Ashikaga, under Takauji Ashikaga, defeated the emperor’s forces. Their clashes started with allotments of land and power.

The Ashikaga Bakufu’s time is noted for two Imperial Courts. The Northern Court, created by Ashikaga Takauji in Kyoto, crowned a new emperor from the Imperial family. His nemesis, Emperor Go-Daigo, established his own, the Southern Court. This “rebel” court lasted until their 1392 surrender to Shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu.

What Is the Ashikaga Bakufu Noted For?

After its founding, the Ashikaga Bakufu Era created a cultural rather than political change. This cultural era, the Muromachi Period, lasted well past the Ashikiga. Easy-recognizable cultural institutions, such as Noh drama or architecture, developed, adding their richness to Japanese history. The Bakufu propagated and supported Buddhism, supporting Buddhist temples and thus spreading its influence.

Who Established the Tokugawa Bakufu?

Tokugawa Ieyasu established this last of the Bakufus (1603-1868) in 1603 after defeating all his opponents. Tokugawa would also be probably the most determined Shogun. His victory ended the decades-long Sengoku Era, or “Warring States.” These daimyo, Emperor, and even monk-led conflicts had wracked the entire country, ending the troubled Ashikaga Bakufu.

What Changes Did the Tokugawa Bakufu Make?

By 1630, Ieyasu and his descendants enacted radical events that changed Japan, unlike the Shoguns. First, political control was tightened, and the samurai class was affected. Many slowly became administrators instead of warriors. Next, in 1630, Tokugawa’s son banned Christianity, kicking priests out of Japan and massacring or exiling any Japanese Christians who resisted over several decades. 

Finally came Sakoku, or “closed country,” which banned all foreigners, usually Europeans, after 1620. Only the Dutch, Chinese, and Koreans remained as traders. Even then, the Bakufu kept a strict watch on their activities. Even Japanese who settled abroad were refused. The Tokugawa Shogun feared outside influences, seeing how the Europeans split China and other countries.

The Tokugawa tightened their grip further with sankin-kotai, or “alternate attendance.” The Bakufu required daimyo families to live alternate years in Edo, the capital. The families remained as hostages in the capital. Forced to spend money on two estates, the Bakufu hoped to prevent revolt.

Why Did the Bakufu Era End?

The Meiji Restoration of 1868 ended the Bakufu period. A bad economy and the 1853 visit by Commodore Perry’s “Black Ships,” cracking Japan’s isolation with treaties, damaged the Bakufu. Seeing a chance after so many years, Emperor Meiji and his followers struck. The last Tokugawa Shogun resigned in 1869, officially ending nearly 700 years of Bakufu rule.

New York isn’t all about New York City and the Hamptons. It’s easy to overlook the Finger Lakes, the Adirondacks, the Catskills, and other gems that make the state so much more diverse than its urban centers. Upstate New York is an expansive region filled with natural beauty, from sprawling lakes and mountains to charming towns and farmland. Known for its wine trails, vibrant autumn foliage, outdoor recreation, and quaint villages, it’s also a haven for history lovers.

For those intrigued by tales of Revolutionary War battles, Gilded Age architecture, and the birthplace of movements that shaped the nation, Upstate New York’s small towns are where history truly comes alive. Here’s a look at ten historic towns in Upstate New York, each brimming with stories of the past and a sense of place you won’t soon forget.

1. Aurora

This historic village located on the eastern shore of Cayuga Lake was originally inhabited by the Cayuga people. The area was known as Chonodote, or “Peachtown,” due to its extensive orchards. In 1779, during the Revolutionary War, the village was destroyed by the Sullivan Expedition. This led to the dispersal of its indigenous inhabitants.

European-American settlement began in 1789, and by 1837, Aurora was incorporated as a village. It became a hub for canal traffic following the opening of the Cayuga-Seneca Canal, which facilitated the transport of wool, grain, fruit, and pigs to broader markets.

The Aurora Village-Wells College Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is the first historic spot that you need to explore when visiting Aurora. This district showcases well-preserved 19th-century architecture. You also have the Aurora Inn, established in 1833. This one is a must-see as well. If you want to learn about the artistic heritage of this small town in Upstate New York, then head to the nearby MacKenzie-Childs Farm, which features handcrafted ceramics and home furnishings.

2. Cooperstown

Founded in 1786 by Judge William Cooper, this town that you will find at the southern tip of Otsego Lake was named in Cooper’s honor. His son, James Fenimore Cooper, a renowned novelist, immortalized the area in his “Leatherstocking Tales,” referring to Otsego Lake as the “Glimmerglass.”

Cooperstown is perhaps best known as the home of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, established in 1939. This institution celebrates the history of baseball and honors its greatest players, making the village a pilgrimage site for fans of America’s pastime.

Apart from baseball, Cooperstown also has plenty of attractions, which makes it one of the most beautiful historic towns in New York. The Farmers’ Museum provides a glimpse into 19th-century rural life and features historic buildings and demonstrations of traditional crafts. The Fenimore Art Museum houses an impressive collection of American folk art and Native American artifacts.

You can also visit Hyde Hall, a neoclassical mansion dating back to the early 19th century, to get an idea about the architectural heritage of this small town in Upstate New York.

3. Skaneateles

The name “Skaneateles” derives from the Iroquois term for “long lake,” which reflects the indigenous roots of this Upstate New York small town. European-American settlement began in the late 18th century, and the village was officially incorporated in 1833.

Skaneateles is nestled at the northern tip of Skaneateles Lake and is renowned for its well-preserved 19th-century architecture, with many buildings dating back to the 1830s. The downtown Historic District, established in 1985, showcases these architectural treasures. You can explore the Skaneateles Historical Society’s museum, housed in a former creamery building from 1899.

The village’s vibrant downtown features unique shops, restaurants, and historic inns, such as the Sherwood Inn, which has been welcoming guests since 1807. Skaneateles Lake, known for its clear waters, provides opportunities for boating, fishing, and lakeside relaxation.

Throughout the year, Skaneateles hosts various events, including the annual Dickens Christmas celebration, where the village transforms into a Victorian-era setting, complete with costumed characters and festive activities.

4. Seneca Falls

This Upstate New York town is often recognized as the birthplace of the women’s rights movement in America. In July 1848, it hosted the first Women’s Rights Convention at the Wesleyan Chapel, where activists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott presented the Declaration of Sentiments, advocating for women’s equality.

You can visit the Women’s Rights National Historical Park, which includes the Wesleyan Chapel and the homes of key figures such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The National Women’s Hall of Fame recognizes the achievements of influential American women and their contributions to society.

Seneca Falls is also believed to have inspired the fictional town of Bedford Falls in Frank Capra’s classic film “It’s a Wonderful Life.” The town embraces this connection with an annual festival and the It’s a Wonderful Life Museum, which showcases memorabilia from the film.

Apart from its historical significance, Seneca Falls offers scenic beauty along the Seneca River and is part of the Finger Lakes region, which is known for its wineries and outdoor recreational opportunities.

5. Sackets Harbor

Sackets Harbor is particularly noted for its strategic importance during the War of 1812. Founded in 1801 by Augustus Sacket, the village’s deep natural harbor on Lake Ontario made it an ideal location for shipbuilding and military operations.

Sackets Harbor served as the headquarters for the U.S. Navy on the Great Lakes during the War of 1812 and was the site of two significant battles. The Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site preserves these historic grounds, which give you the chance to explore restored 19th-century buildings, exhibits, and interpretive trails that detail the military heritage of the village.

Sackets Harbor also boasts well-preserved 19th-century architecture, with tree-lined streets and historic homes that reflect its rich past. The village’s waterfront offers scenic views of Lake Ontario, making it a popular destination for boating, fishing, and leisurely strolls along the harbor.

Cultural attractions include the Sackets Harbor Historical Society, which provides you with a glimpse into the area’s history through exhibits and events. The village also hosts annual festivals and concerts to celebrate its heritage and community spirit.

6. Lake Placid

Established in the early 19th century, Lake Placid, part of New York’s charming Adirondack Mountains, gained prominence as a resort destination because it attracted visitors to its pristine lakes and mountainous landscapes.

The village’s global recognition stems from hosting the Winter Olympics twice. The first time was in 1932, and the second in 1980. The 1980 Games are particularly memorable for the “Miracle on Ice,” where the U.S. hockey team triumphed over the favored Soviet Union.

Start your visit by exploring the Lake Placid Olympic Museum, where you’ll see artifacts and exhibits from both Olympic events. The Olympic Center, featuring the historic Herb Brooks Arena, offers information about the sporting legacy of Lake Placid.

Apart from its Olympic heritage, Lake Placid offers year-round recreational activities. Whiteface Mountain provides skiing and snowboarding in winter, and hiking and mountain biking during warmer months. Mirror Lake is located in the heart of the village. It is ideal for kayaking, paddleboarding, and ice skating.

The village’s Main Street is lined with shops, restaurants, and historic inns, reflecting its charming character. Nearby, the John Brown Farm State Historic Site commemorates the abolitionist’s life and legacy.

7. Chatham

Established in the early 19th century, Chatham was originally known as Groat’s Corners, named after early settler Captain Thomas Groat. The Upstate New York village became a significant railroad hub in the mid-1800s, with multiple rail lines converging here. This brought to town massive economic growth and development.

When you visit Chatham, start by exploring its well-preserved 19th-century architecture, including the Tracy Memorial Village Hall, built in 1912, and the historic Union Station, constructed in 1887.

Also, the Main Street of Chatham is interesting to explore as it’s lined with unique shops, restaurants, and the Crandell Theatre, one of the oldest continuously operating movie theaters in the region.

Chatham hosts several annual events that celebrate its heritage and community spirit, such as the Columbia County Fair, which has been a local tradition since the mid-19th century. As for the Chatham Village Historical Society, it offers walking tours and maintains exhibits that teach you about the village’s past.

8. Ticonderoga

Strategically situated between Lake George and Lake Champlain, Ticonderoga’s name derives from the Mohawk word “tekontaró:ken,” meaning “it is at the junction of two waterways.”

The town is renowned for Fort Ticonderoga, originally constructed by the French in the 1750s as Fort Carillon. This fortification played pivotal roles in both the French and Indian War and the American Revolutionary War. In 1775, Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold led a surprise attack, capturing the fort from the British, marking the first American victory of the Revolutionary War.

You can explore the meticulously restored Fort Ticonderoga, which offers interactive exhibits, reenactments, and stunning views of the surrounding lakes. The town also boasts a rich industrial heritage, notably in graphite mining. The iconic Dixon Ticonderoga pencil was named after the graphite mined and processed in the area.

The Ticonderoga Heritage Museum showcases the industrial past of this Upstate New York small town, including its contributions to the paper and pencil industries. Additionally, the La Chute River Trail offers a scenic walk along the river that connects Lake George to Lake Champlain.

9. Hammondsport

Found at the Keuka Lake’s southern tip, one of the Finger Lakes, Hammondsport has been a hub for winemaking since the 19th century. In 1829, Reverend William Bostwick planted the first grapevine in the area. This led to the establishment of a thriving wine industry.

The village is also notable as the hometown of aviation pioneer Glenn H. Curtiss. Known as the “Father of Naval Aviation,” Curtiss made significant contributions to early aviation and motorcycle design. The Glenn H. Curtiss Museum in Hammondsport showcases his achievements and features exhibits on early aviation, motorcycles, and local history.

Head to the Pleasant Valley Wine Company, established in 1860 and designated as U.S. Bonded Winery No. 1. The winery offers tours and tastings. This allows you to learn about Hammondsport’s winemaking heritage.

The picturesque setting of the town on Keuka Lake offers opportunities for boating, fishing, and lakeside relaxation. Also, the village’s historic downtown features charming shops, restaurants, and inns, reflecting its rich heritage and welcoming atmosphere.

10. Ballston Spa

Located southwest of Saratoga Springs, Ballston Spa was established in 1807. The village was named after Rev. Eliphalet Ball, an early settler. In the early 19th century, Ballston Spa gained prominence as a premier destination for its mineral springs. Visitors were flocking there seeking therapeutic benefits. The village was also home to the Sans Souci Hotel, built in 1803, which was the largest hotel in the United States at that time.

The first historic place you need to explore is the Brookside Museum, housed in a 1792 building that once served as a resort hotel. The museum offers exhibits on local history and is one of the oldest structures in the village. The National Bottle Museum showcases the history of bottle-making and its significance to the area.

Ballston Spa’s downtown area features well-preserved 19th-century architecture, with unique shops, restaurants, and historic inns. Wiswall Park, located in the heart of the village, hosts community events and concerts that allow you to learn about the vibrant community spirit there.

IRA stands for Irish Republican Army. The term that best sums up the history of the IRA, the undisputed protagonist of recent Irish history, is “breakaways.” After the several splits the IRA has undergone since 1919, the term doesn’t designate a single group anymore but refers to the various paramilitary groups that have pursued nationalist (and republican) goals through armed struggle in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the 20th century. Tracing the history of the Irish Republican Army, from the “old IRA” to the Provos and the New IRA, is equivalent to tracing the history of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

The “Old IRA” (1919-1922) 

The history of the IRA is closely tied to the Partition of 1921, that is, the division of the island of Ireland into two separate entities: the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, also known as the Six Counties, comprises six counties, four of which (Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry, and Armagh) share a border with the Republic.

Protestants and loyalists often refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster. Prior to the Partition, Ulster was a culturally distinct region from the rest of Ireland (the others being Munster in the South, Leinster in the East, and Connaught in the West). Ironically, Ulster was the most Gaelic of the four provinces, both culturally and linguistically. In the 17th century, when British King James I initiated the settlement of Scottish Presbyterians and English Protestants in the region, Ulster slowly but steadily became predominantly Protestant.

During the decades that followed, English and Scottish Protestants gradually took over land inhabited by Irish natives. This act of dispossession fueled a division between (Catholic) nationalists, who wished Ireland to be independent, and (Protestant) unionists, who staunchly defended their right to remain part of the United Kingdom.

The 1916 Easter Rising rebellion was a turning point for all four Irish regions. It showed the world (and especially Great Britain) the determination of the Irish people to be independent while solidifying Catholics and Protestants in their opposing beliefs. While the southern provinces celebrated the Easter rebels as heroes, people in Ulster viewed the rebellion as an act of treason against Great Britain during a time of war.

Back to the IRA. The Irish Republican Army active between 1919 and 1922 was led de facto by Michael Collins (and officially by Cathal Brugha). It is now known as the “old IRA,” or “original IRA,” and its origins can be traced back to the Irish Volunteers, the organization, founded in 1913, that was responsible for the Easter Rising.

By late 1919, the members of the Irish Volunteers who recognized the authority of the first Dáil Éireann (Assembly of Ireland) started calling themselves members of the “Irish Republican Army.” The “old IRA” was born.

The signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 not only ended the War of Independence (1919-1921) by establishing the Irish Free State (and Northern Ireland), but it also led to the first split in the history of the IRA.

The Irish Republican Army (1922-1969)

In 1922, the IRA members opposed to the signing of the Treaty broke away from the IRA and formed the anti-treaty IRA sub-group. This was the beginning of the Irish Civil War, which lasted from 1922 to 1923. During this time, the anti-treaty IRA waged war on the Irish Free State (which always maintained they were “Irregulars”), burning public buildings, and destroying bridges and railway lines.

When they seized the Four Courts in Dublin in April 1922 Michael Collins’s pro-Treaty forces bombed them. The anti-Treaty IRA eventually became outnumbered, and by August 1922, the Free State had regained control of all the major towns with the help of the Dublin Guard, a unit made up of highly trained and motivated former IRA men loyal to Collins. Finally, on May 24, 1923, Frank Aiken, chief of staff of the Anti-Treaty, called for a definitive cease-fire. The Irish Civil War finally came to an end.

After the Civil War, the IRA continued to resist the Irish Free State and the Partition of Ireland. When Éamon de Valera’s Fianna Fáil party won the elections in 1932 a more relaxed and friendly relationship began between the institutions and the IRA. However, it was short-lived, with the IRA denouncing de Valera’s party for not seeking to end the partition of Ireland. In response, de Valera banned the IRA in 1936 in what was the beginning of his increasingly strict anti-IRA policy.

Public support for the IRA was relatively low during World War II. The IRA’s political stance can be summed up as “The enemy of my enemy is my enemy.” Despite Ireland remaining neutral, the IRA declared its support for Nazi Germany in the hopes of weakening the British position.

During the war, both the British and Irish governments took measures to imprison and even execute members of the IRA. As a result, by 1945, the organization was a shell of its former self, with only 200 active members left. However, two years later, a new leadership emerged and managed to resurrect the organization by tying it to the Sinn Féin political party and focusing on the situation in Northern Ireland.

They also carried out several raids on British military bases across Northern Ireland, in Derry, Armagh, and Omagh, as well as in Great Britain, in Berkshire and Essex, between 1951 and 1954, in order to re-arm themselves. Finally, in December 1956, the IRA launched Operation Harvest, also known as the IRA’s border campaign.

The campaign, devised by Seán Cronin, lasted over five years and saw Republicans launch a series of attacks on military and infrastructure targets (courthouses, Army barracks, BBC relay transmitters, and RUC stations) within Northern Ireland. In the 1930s and 1940s, the IRA’s declared aim was to overthrow both British rule in the north and the Irish Free State, which they saw as “alien” and illegitimate institutions imposed upon them by the British.

In the 1950s Republicans shifted their focus to Northern Ireland alone. Although the border campaign ultimately failed, it represented a watershed moment in the history of the IRA. While the tensions resulting from its failure were one of the causes of the split of 1969, they also prompted a rethinking of the organization’s strategy. The IRA’s leaders understood that they needed to seek and gain popular support if they were to achieve their goal of a unified Ireland.

The IRA Becomes the Provisional IRA (1969-2005)

The outbreak of the Troubles in Northern Ireland marked a new and complex beginning for the IRA. Popular support fluctuated during the 1950s, as many felt that the IRA had failed in its objective to protect Catholic communities. After the August 1969 riots (which marked the beginning of the Troubles) and the massive deployment of British troops on Northern Irish soil, the Irish republican movement was divided on how to respond to escalating violence.

The so-called Provisional IRA emerged in December 1969 as a breakaway (minority) faction of the original IRA. In less than two years, the Provos (as it was called) became the primary Irish republican paramilitary force involved in the armed struggle to end British rule in Northern Ireland. Then, in January 1972, the events of Bloody Sunday outraged the world. In the tragic days that followed thousands of young Northern Irish men and women voluntarily joined the ranks of the Provisional IRA.

Support for the IRA continued to wax and wane in the late 1970s and 1980s, particularly after some of the deadliest attacks it carried out. The 1978 La Mon House bombing, for instance, killed twelve innocent people after a bomb caused a devastating miniature-type firestorm that spread throughout the hotel’s rooms. Similarly, the so-called Remembrance Day attack in Enniskillen in 1987 resulted in twelve deaths and 63 people injured, some of them permanently. In both cases, all the victims were Protestants.

Especially in the aftermath of the La Mon House attack, support for the IRA drastically declined both in Ireland and overseas. The president of the Sinn Féin, the political wing of the IRA, publicly condemned the group’s careless disregard for innocent lives and the IRA admitted responsibility.

1978 became the worst year for the IRA in its history. However, the tide changed in 1981 with the hunger strikes in the Long Kesh prison, and support for the IRA began to grow again.

Over the years, many crucial leaders merged from the ranks of the Provisional IRA, including Martin McGuinness (1950-2017), second-in-command in 1972, at the time of the Bloody Sunday, and Gerry Adams (1948). Both McGuinness and Adams played pivotal roles in the negotiations that led to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which was publicly acknowledged by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was also involved in the peace process.

In April 1994, the first ceasefire was announced. It lasted two days. Four months later, on August 21, 1994, another “cessation of military operations” was announced, which lasted until February 1996. It was renewed in July 1997, shortly before the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. After years of disagreement over decommissioning, in 2004, the IRA officially announced the end of its armed campaign.

How Many Deaths Is the IRA Responsible For? 

Over 30 years, 3,720 people lost their lives as a result of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, according to CAIN. They were victims of bomb attacks, shootings, being run over (the Maguire children in August 1976), kidnappings and torture (the victims of the Shankill Butchers), and premature explosions (which happened occasionally to members of paramilitary groups on both sides). Data provided by Wesley Johnston show the Provisional IRA was responsible for 49% of the killings.

Out of the 1696 people who died because of the IRA’s attacks, 790 were Protestant, 338 Catholic and the rest came from outside Northern Ireland. Other sources estimate that the IRA killed between 1,700 and 1,800 people, not only in Northern Ireland but also in the Republic of Ireland and on British soil. It is important to note that the Provisional IRA was not the only republican group active during the Troubles.

Some of the killings were also carried out by the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) and by the Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA). The Catholic community was the most affected, with 1525 people killed, according to Malcolm Sutton. Additionally, most of the civilians killed by British forces (that is, the British Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Ulster Defence Regiment) were Catholics, a fact that underlines the sectarian nature of the Northern Irish conflict.

In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement was signed and welcomed by most paramilitary groups, as well as by the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. However, some members of the Provisional IRA opposed the Agreement and broke away in 1997 to form the so-called Real IRA (RIRA).

In 2012, the Real IRA merged with other republican groups, including Republican Action Against Drugs (RAAD), to form a new organization called the New IRA. On April 18, 2019, Belfast-born journalist Lyra McKee was shot dead while covering a series of riots in the Creggan neighborhood in Derry. She was 29. She died doing her job, which was to investigate and expose the consequences of the sectarian conflict that had plagued Northern Ireland from 1969 to 1998. The conflict still affects tens of thousands of people today. The New IRA admitted responsibility for her murder. Their power base is in the Creggan area of Derry, where McKee was murdered. The New IRA’s main target remains the men of the PSNI, the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

In 2023, the United States added the New IRA to the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. In a way, McKee’s death is the result of that very same sectarian mentality that allowed the Troubles to claim victims for 30 years. The articles and investigative work she carried out tell another story — that of a country that is actively working towards peace to leave the violence of the Troubles in the past.

The term “hipster” is elusive and frequently wielded as an insult, yet it has a rich history. The first hipsters were young Black jazz aficionados in 1940s Harlem. Their hipster culture was appropriated in the 1950s by young middle-class whites of the Beat Generation. By the late 1990s, “hipster” had acquired almost wholly negative connotations, describing affluent, coffee-drinking middle-class whites living in gentrified urban neighborhoods.

From its roots in the Harlem jazz scene to the Beat Generation and its contemporary manifestations, the trajectory of hipster culture underscores a wider shift from a radical revolt against the mainstream to the triumph of consumer culture.

The Original Harlem Hipsters

Following the peak of jazz during the 1920s and 1930s, 1940s Harlem witnessed the birth of the Bebop Revolution. Often known simply as “bop,” this new avant-garde form of jazz was characterized by virtuosic technique, rapid tempos, and advanced melodies, harmonies, and chord progressions. Unlike its previous iterations, bebop was the first style of jazz to distance itself from the lure of mass appeal, catering instead to a niche audience of fellow musicians.

Many pioneers of bebop honed their craft in the big bands of the swing era. The great John Birks “Dizzy” Gillespie (1917-1993) played trumpet for Cab Calloway; Charlie “Bird” Parker (1920-1955), the unquestioned genius of modern jazz, found his feet in Jay McShann’s band; Charlie Christian, jazz guitar revolutionary, played for Benny Goodman “The King of Swing.”

Bop symbolized a rejection of the vapid caricatures of Black minstrelsy and “jazz hands” showmanship of the commercial big bands. It stood as a musical revolt against the mainstream: against the big bands, the arrangers, vertical harmonies, soggy rhythms — and commercial music in general.

Moreover, bebop carried distinct political undertones. Fueled by a desire to protect their artistry from white appropriation, the likes of Parker, Gillespie, and Thelonius Monk (1917-1982), openly spoke of crafting music so difficult that “they” (whites) “would not be able to steal it.”

For Langston Hughes, the essence of bebop stemmed from the oppressive sound of violence. Every time that a cop hits a black man over the head with a billy club, it makes the same sound: “BOP! BOP!… BE-BOP!…MOP!…BOP!” Bebop was: “beaten right out some Negro’s head into them horns and saxophones and piano keys that plays it.”

Bebop was invented in the late-night jam sessions held in the upstairs rooms of Minton’s Playhouse and Monroe’s Uptown House in Harlem, New York City. Monday night jams at Minton’s, with their “cutting sessions” (musical battles) between soloists, played a key role in the evolution from swing to bebop. The essence of this new jazz was thus deeply emotional music, expressionist, not abstract.

However, it was not to everyone’s taste. Some thought bop to be unlistenable. Many of the “traditional” luminaries of jazz were less than impressed. Cab Calloway dismissed bebop as “Chinese music,” while Louis Armstrong lamented the “weird chords” of the style and criticized the boppers as “ young cats [that] want to carve everyone else because they’re full of malice.” Their desire to show up and upstage their predecessors was deeply offensive to the old guard. In response, the boppers dubbed their opponents “moldy figs.”

In contrast to the polished, professional image of the big band and swing players, the bebop players embraced a more laid-back lifestyle, indulged in drugs such as cannabis and heroin, and adopted liberal attitudes towards sex. As “hepcats” or later “hipsters” they forged their own subculture in which language—“jive talk”—played a pivotal role both as a means of cultural expression and insider communication.

Dressed in their trademark zoot suits, and adopting the beret, goatee, and horn-rimmed glasses combination popularized by Dizzy Gillespie, boppers projected an aura of intellectual sophistication and laid-back bohemianism. Bop embraced an ironic detachment from mainstream jazz culture, favoring what came to be known as a “hipster” attitude towards the “preponderance of squares and bad music.”

Despite never attaining the commercial success of the swing era, bebop reshaped jazz into a form of art music, more akin to Western classical music than the popular music of the masses. Nevertheless, the subculture behind it—characterized by a distinct language, fashion, and lifestyle—exerted a profound influence on subsequent waves of American—and global—“hipster” culture.

Hipsters of the Beat Generation

Bebop, with its distinct subculture, emerged as a reflection of Black experience. Nonetheless, it was soon co-opted by young middle-class whites. The Beat Generation—epitomized by writers such as Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs, and Allen Ginsberg—were profoundly influenced by the spirit of bebop. They frequented New York jazz clubs and used bop talk such as “square,” “cats,” and “dig” in their writings. Jazz became the central point of reference in their universe.

The term “Beatnik” was coined in 1958 by San Francisco Chronicle journalist Herb Caen to describe members of a burgeoning movement that influenced many aspects of American culture, from art, literature, and music, to fashion and language. The movement influenced many of the biggest artists and figures of the day, including Andy Warhol, Bob Dylan, and The Beatles.

Naturally, the use of the Russian suffix “-nik” carried derogatory connotations at the height of Cold War America. Yet the Beat Generation constituted a social and cultural movement rather than a political one. They espoused anti-conservative and anti-materialist views but had no significant ties to communism, or for that matter, any other political movement of note.

In his 1957 essay The White Negro, Norman Mailer, a white middle-class Jew, labeled the Beat Generation and their followers “hipsters.” The crux of Mailer’s piece was to draw parallels between the existential angst of the white American “hipster” and the everyday struggles of the American “negro” — both, he asserted, inhabited worlds fraught with danger, violence, and conflict.

Like the boppers, under the constant threat of (in this case existential) death, the beats sought to detach themselves from conventional society and focus on the present moment. Emulating what they saw to be the carefree, cool lifestyle of the “negro” hipsters, the Beat Generation sought above all, to spur the social norms and the values of conservative white America, to chase “Saturday night kicks and the obligatory pleasures of the body” (Mailer, 1957).

Beatnik Culture

While jazz provided the soundtrack to the Beat Generation various other influences were also significant. In particular, eastern religion was mobilized as a means to challenge the conservative norms and values of middle-class society. Philosophically, beatniks prioritized inner growth over material possessions and worldly pursuits.

The Zen Buddhist teachings of D.T Suzuki were deeply influential. Allen Ginsberg’s spiritual journey took him to India in 1963, after which he began integrating Hindu rhythmic mantras into his poetry. In 1958, Jack Kerouac published The Dharma Bums, a semi-autobiographical attempt to contextualize the contradictions of his life within a “Buddhist context.”

The Beats’ eclectic mix of Western Buddhism and jazz led James Baldwin to dub them the “the Suzuki rhythm boys.” More seriously, Baldwin (1961) accused Jack Kerouac in particular of presenting an image of the “happy smiling negro” within his work, which in the pre-civil rights era was emphatically untrue.

The Beatnik emulation of bop culture was highly romanticized and at worst perpetuated the dangerous white myth of black hyper-sexuality to appear “hip.” Nonetheless, for Kerouac and his contemporaries, “beat” signified “beatitude, not beat up” and a cool sense that transcendence could be found in the spirit of the new jazz.

Accordingly, the Beat Generation gave birth to the figure of the white middle-class hipster, dressed in beret and Dizzy Gillespie glasses, and nestled in the bohemian enclaves of San Francisco and the lower East side of New York City. The stereotypical hipster spent their time in coffee shops, bookstores, and bars, reading poetry and talking philosophy; they “made art, smoked dope, dug the new jazz, and spoke a bastardization of the black argot.” (Di Prima, 1969).

Contemporary Hipster Culture 

The contemporary hipster refers to a late-1990s subcultural figure that first rose to public attention in select gentrified enclaves of major global cities. Brooklyn and the lower East Side of New York, Seattle’s Capitol Hill, San Francisco, Sidney, Cape Town, and East London. Today the hipster lives in all these places and more. The hipster trend is global.

The defining marker of contemporary hipster culture is fashion. The archetypal hipster male sports a beard or ironic mustache, flannel shirts, skinny jeans, and rides a fixed-gear bike. His female counterpart has retro tattoos and a top-knot hairstyle and wears vintage clothes with Converse shoes. These figures appreciate vinyl records, vegan food, slick digital design, artisanal coffee, and mid-century Scandinavian modernism.

Interestingly, unlike their hipster predecessors, there is no discernable soundtrack to contemporary hipsterdom. Instead, obscure noughties indie bands, 1980s electro and synth-pop, minimalist techno, IDM, and hip-hop artists all contribute to the scene.

Yet, a notable similarity persists across time: the value placed on insider knowledge. Just as the Harlem hipster prized the advanced knowledge of bebop, and beatniks turned their noses up at the “square” unenlightened commercial culture of white America, contemporary hipsters take pride in being ahead of the curve and “knowing about exclusive things before anyone else” (Greif, 2010).

Hipster culture is about taste, fashion, and being in the know. But like any cultural form, it has a material base. In coffee shops, record stores, bicycle repair shops, bars, etc. within gentrified enclaves of major cities and beyond.

Most importantly, hipster culture is intertwined with the material structures that define the global economy. In line with the “neoliberal” turn of the 1980s and the newfound primacy of the individual consumer, contemporary hipster culture is connected above all to an ethos of consumption. Within a global economy that “specializes in the niched mass production of consumer goods that cater to the needs of small, subcultural groups” (Maly & Varis, 2015) hipsterdom becomes primarily about rejection of mainstream “taste.”

For instance, within the popular imagination, hipsters are associated with their taste in coffee and where they drink it. They drink their (expensive) flat whites under industrial lighting, surrounded by wi-fi, white walls, and stripped-back floors. The branding of the coffee shop is low-key and features nice fonts. Young “hip” people sit on vintage or repurposed furniture on laptops. A sense of authenticity and nostalgia mingles with the modern digital economy. The hipster coffee shop looks suspiciously similar to all the other coffee shops of its kind.

The contemporary hipster has morphed into what Thomas Frank (1997) calls the “rebel consumer” — the target subject of the synthesis of business culture and counterculture, where the imagery of youthful rebellion is mobilized to market corporate products.

The contemporary hipster is degrees from the pursuits of avant-garde jazz and beatnik existentialism, focusing instead on the value of entrepreneurial start-up culture, and its potential to disrupt the mainstream. Their interests encompass craft beer, limited edition drops of trainers, and cryptocurrency. Shorn of the countercultural elements of previous generations of hipsters, contemporary hipster culture is in the last instance about niche consumer taste.

The Vikings were one of the most dominant forces in Western Europe from the 9th until the 11th centuries. They were able to dominate their neighbors in large part due to the superior technology of their longships. They were able to move fast, sail in shallow waters, and even take their ships over land, giving them a strategic advantage. But at the same time, their unusual ship design makes it almost unbelievable that they were able to safely sail to the Americas and back.

How exactly were Viking ships designed, how were they different from ship designs elsewhere in Europe, and what were the benefits and disadvantages of their unique approach to seafaring?

Not Just Warships

While we mostly talk about Viking longships, this was only one of the many types of vessels built by the Vikings. They made everything from tiny fishing boats to barge ferries, to transport goods and livestock.

Heavy freight-carrying merchant ships were called Knarr. They were wide, deep, and slow. They could carry up to 40 tons of goods. These were probably used exclusively to transport goods up and down the Scandinavian coast and to colonies in the North Sea. Traders sailing Russian rivers and the Caspian Sea, on the other hand, used lighter Byrding vessels.

But longships stand out because these were what transported Viking raiders to terrorize their Christian neighbors. This was also the type of ship used for Viking ship burials for wealthy and important individuals.

Longship design was different in different regions and across the Viking period. For example, the earliest Viking longships were made from oak, which is strong and excellent for sailing. It would have taken about three oak trunks to make just one ship. Consequently, by the 10th century, while the Danes were still using oak, the Norwegians and Swedes had switched to more available pine.

Nevertheless, most Viking longships share a few distinct features. Despite this consistency, there is no evidence that the Vikings used written diagrams or plans. The art was probably passed down personally from master craftsman to apprentice, usually a son, over years of working together.

Viking Longship Design

The main characteristic of Viking longships was that they were long and narrow. Exactly how long depended on the number of rowing benches as indicated by holes on each side that allowed for oars to be easily deployed and returned. However, many boats did not have actual benches for the rowers. To save space, rowers would sit on their sea chests.

The smallest surviving longships had only six benches on each side. To be useful in war, a longship needed at least 20 banks. This would mean that it could carry a crew of 41: 40 rowers and the steering cox. These boats, called Snekkja, are the most common surviving ships, measuring an average of 55 feet long and 8 feet wide.

There were also larger ships called Skeid which had 30 rowing benches on each side. The longest of these so far discovered is known as Roskilde 6 and it is one of five ships discovered in Roskilde Fjord in the 1960s. It seems to have been intentionally sunk to form a blockade across the fjord in the early 11th century. The ship was 121 feet long. There are stories in the sagas of even bigger longships, but none have yet been found in the archeological record.

As well as being long, Viking longships were shallow. Most had a maximum draught (the depth a boat sinks under the water) of 0.5-1 meter. This meant that they could sail into shallows and down rivers considered unnavigable by other Europeans. This is how the Vikings arrived at the gates of Paris and how they surprised cities that did not believe they needed river defenses.

The ships were also very lightweight, which meant that the crew could carry them across land between sailable bodies of water. There is also good evidence that they turned their ships upside down and used them as shelters when on land.

According to Norse mythology, the god Freyr owned a ship called Skidlbladnir, which was big enough to carry all the gods and their steeds in full armor, but then folded down like a piece of paper to fit in the god’s pocket. Clearly, a dream vessel.

The boats were made from long planks of timber, usually oak, that were laid overlapping and nailed together. They were made watertight by filling the spaces between the planks of wood with wool, moss, or animal hair mixed with tar or tallow. This type of construction is known as clinker or lapstrake construction.

Three-inch iron rivets and round iron washers were used as fasteners. Wooden treenails that swelled up when wet were also used. A treenail was essentially a wooden dowel crafted to fit a bored hole like a bolt. The strakes were attached to ribs that were in turn attached to a narrow keel running fore and aft down the centerline of the hull. The strakes of the ship were much thinner than most people realize, often only 0.78-1.18 inches thick (almost paper thin).

Some Viking longships were decorated to look like a dragon or a sea snake, with a vicious head carved at the front of the ship. These were called Drakkar and must have been a fearsome sight on the horizon.

How to Sail

Viking longships had wind sails. Most used one large, square sail made from wool that was crisscrossed with leather strips so that it would retain its shape when wet. When there was no wind, the Vikings would take to the oars. And no, slaves weren’t normally used as there simply wasn’t space.

Oars weren’t all the same length. On one ship, oars were found to range from 17-19 feet in length. This was to accommodate the slight bulge in the middle of the ship.

It is also true that the Vikings hung their shields on the side of the boat next to their rowing stations. They could act as protection against arrows while rowing up to a conflict. It was probably also a useful place to store them.

In addition to not leaving behind any ship designs, there is also no evidence that the Vikings used navigational tools such as astrolabes, sextants, or star charts known in other parts of the world. If the sagas are to be believed, Leif Erikson was told how to reach North America by another Viking who had been there, over a mug of ale.

In the early days, the Vikings probably sailed close to the shore and used the physical terrain, the depth of the ocean, and the presence of birds and other sea creatures to determine their location. But this would not have been effective when sailing to England and Ireland, let alone further afield to Iceland, Greenland, and the Americas.

Nevertheless, the sagas indicate that the Vikings used the sun for navigation, as there are several mentions of sunstones. These devices allowed sailors to locate the sun on overcast days. In one famous story, King Olaf of Norway asks the hero Sigurd to determine the position of the sun behind dark clouds with no instrumentation. Sigurd does so, and the king uses a sunstone to determine if he is correct. No examples of sunstones survive in the archeological record.

If the Vikings did use the sun to navigate, then they probably used a sun compass. This is a simple vertical pointer on a horizontal surface that is engraved with a curved line. The shadow cast by the pointer is different at different latitudes, but also at different times of year. This is why other European sailors who used sextants, which functioned in a similar way, also had a nautical almanac to interpret their readings on different days of the year.

But the Vikings had a sailing season, usually the summer, and they would have been aware of where the sun was supposed to be during those months. The Vikings were known to raid year-round, but in the colder months, they would have attacked nearby targets.

Excavations of a Viking age farm in Greenland have revealed the remains of part of a circular disk with carvings, which could have been a sun compass. On the Faroe Islands, people used to use an instrument called the Solskyggafjol, which is very similar to the sun compass. This may have been a technology that the locals adopted from the Vikings that settled there.

Built for Raiding

But how exactly were Viking longships different from the ships sailed by other Europeans at the time?

While there were many different ship designs across the continent, most other Europeans were making ships with bluff bows. This means that the bottom of the ship looked like a barn door curved into a semicircle. This made for much slower ships, since the bluff bow resists the water, rather than cutting through it, like Viking ships and modern ships.

Other European ships also tended to be tall, with superstructures ascending from the stern and bow. Having so much hull above the waterline meant that there was a lot of windage to be battered around.

When it comes to draught, the portion of the ship below the water, other European ships had deep holds and round bilges, and extended far beneath the water. This prevented these ships from entering the same shallow waters as the Vikings.

Why was their design so different? These slower ships had a lot more space, were much safer, and were less likely to be inundated by waves during a storm. Viking ships were vulnerable to flooding during storms, and while they could navigate shallower waters, it took an expert to avoid underwater hazards that could damage the ship’s hull.

In addition, the design of Viking ships meant that they had minimal storage and no protected places to sleep. The evidence suggests that when sailing close to the shore, the Vikings parked up and camped on land. When they couldn’t go ashore, they had to sleep exposed on the deck under animal skins. This makes the fact that the Vikings sailed between Greenland and North America even more impressive. It would have meant between two and six weeks on the open sea.

The Vikings, of course, knew about other European ship technology because they had seen it. Yet they seem to have preferred their faster and more versatile ships, even if they were more dangerous.

A Viking Armada

At the start of the Viking Age, most Viking ships were owned by coastal farmers who used them to transport goods. But when local military leaders called their loyal men to fight, they would bring their boats to contribute to the force. As time passed, wealthy Viking leaders could also construct fleets for themselves, but these would always be augmented by boats owned by their allies.

If the sources are to be believed, the Vikings did manage to gather together some rather large fleets. We are told that when the Vikings attacked the Franks in 845, they sailed up the Seine with 129 ships. It is reported that Canute the Great had 1,200 ships when he was fighting in Norway in 1028. That is a significant armada, even by modern standards.

In many ways, Viking longships reflected Viking society and values. They prioritized the potential for victory and success over safety and security.

When we talk about the history of Christianity in China, most people tend to think about the Jesuit missionaries from the Early Modern Era. However, almost a thousand years before them, the Christian community thrived in medieval China during the rule of the Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE). These Christians belonged to the Church of the East, an ancient church that arose in the Sasanian Empire.

The Christian community in Tang China managed to survive for as long as the emperors were tolerant of other religions. That changed during the rule of the emperor Wuzong (841-846 CE), who banned all foreign religions.

The Tang Dynasty: China’s Golden Age

After a long period of disunity and civil war between northern and southern states, China was reunified into a single state once again during the Sui Dynasty Period (581-617). Emperor Wendi (581-604) managed to restore the kingdom’s bureaucratic apparatus and centralize the state that he ruled from the rebuilt city of Cnag’an. The construction of the Great Canal from 605 to 609 CE united the Empire economically.

Although the Sui Dynasty ruled for a short period of time, it laid the foundation for the power and prosperity that China experienced during the Tang Dynasty. The Sui Dynasty’s rule came to an end with the revolt against the emperor Yangdi (604-617) because of his unpopular and unsuccessful wars against Korea. General Li Yuan, who led the revolt, took the throne and ruled by the name of Emperor Gaozu (618-626). With his rule, the Tang Era began.

During the reigns of his successors, Taizong (626-649) and Gaozong (649-683), China’s territory was greatly expanded. Through a series of successful wars against Turkic tribes to the east, they established control over the Silk Road.

Trade with other Asian countries expanded through both land and maritime routes. Thanks to this expansion of trade, during the early Tang Period, China entered an era of economic, social, and cultural prosperity. A great number of foreigners came to China, mostly from neighboring countries but also from other parts of Asia. They settled in big trading cities and towns and were mostly engaged in business, but they also influenced China’s cultural life during this period.

Various forms of cultural activity bloomed during this period of peace and prosperity, such as art, poetry, and fashion. The capital city of Cnang’an became the residence of many artists, such as Zhang Xuan (c. 713-755). Tang China also served as a model for other Asian countries and their dynasties, such as Korea and Japan. They looked to Tang Dynasty rulers in order to use their experiences to strengthen their states.

Early Tang emperors, like their Sui predecessors, promoted Buddhism, which became an integral part of the Chinese state and society. A great number of Buddhist temples flourished throughout the country, which positively affected the development of both the culture and the economy. However, the promotion of Buddhism did not mean rejection of traditional Chinese religions, such as Confucianism and Taoism, which still played an important role in society.

In times of peace, emperors tolerated other religions that found their way into China during this period. In the capital city of Chang’an, members of various other religious groups lived and thrived, such as Zoroastrians, Muslims, and Manichaeans. Under the early Tang emperors, China became a multicultural and cosmopolitan empire. Such circumstances enabled Christians to find their place among other religions in China at that time.

The Church of the East: Early History and Expansion

In order to better understand the history of Christians in China, we need to look at the history of the church to which those Christians belonged. To do that, we need to look back a few centuries. The Church of the East is an ancient church that has its origins in ancient Persia. Christianity appeared in Persia in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, during the Parthian Empire. It is not known exactly how Christianity spread into Persia. One possibility is that it was done by Greek-speaking refugees from the Roman Empire who fled persecution.

According to Medieval Historian, Wilhelm Baum, the earliest Christians emerged from Jewish communities in Persia. Aside from them, early Christians in Persia included local Persians, Arab tribes, and the Aramaic-speaking population, who made up the majority of Christians in that period.

In the second half of the 3rd century CE, Persian Christians had developed an episcopal structure of their own. At the beginning of the 4th century CE, the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon managed to impose supremacy over all other bishops. This marked the beginning of the Church of the East.

With the rise of the Sasanian Empire during the 3rd century CE, Zoroastrianism was declared the official state religion. Because of that, Christians faced persecution from time to time during the 4th century CE. The situation changed again during the rule of the Yazdegerd I (399-424).

In the first half of the 5th century CE, the Church of the East established its organization, headed by the Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. It gradually distanced itself from the Church of the Roman Empire and declared its independence in 424. However, at the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410, the Church of the East accepted the teachings proclaimed at the First Ecumenical Council in 325. The decisions of the Council of Ephesus in 431, which condemned the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, were not accepted. Nestorius thought that the title “Theotokos” (Mother of God), given to the Virgin Mary, was not appropriate and that only the title “Christotokos” (Mother of Christ) could be applied. The Church of the East did not participate in any other ecumenical councils after this.

Because of this, the Church of the East was, and still is, wrongly described as “Nestorian.” The Christology of the Church of the East was created under the influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia, a representative of the Antiochian school. Members of this school of thought considered that there were two separate natures in Jesus Christ. This was different from the official dogma of the Church in the Roman Empire, according to which the two natures of Jesus Christ were united.

During the 5th and 6th centuries CE, the Church of the East spread throughout the lands controlled by the Sasanian Empire and Christians became a significant religious minority. During the 6th century CE, monasticism spread, and many new monasteries were built.

When Byzantine-Sasanian wars broke out, Christians in Persia faced persecution again. However, thanks to capable patriarchs such as Mar Abba I the Great (540-552), the Church of the East managed to survive and thrive.

During this period, the Church of the East spread beyond the borders of the Sasanian Empire, among the Arab tribes, in Central Asia, and even as far away as India and Sri Lanka. The church even survived the Arab conquests of the 7th century CE. During the rule of the Muslim Caliphs, the Church of the East belonged to the ahl-al-dhimma, that is, religious groups that, in exchange for religious freedom, paid tribute to the state.

A Golden Age of Christianity in China

For many years, very little was known about the history of Christianity in China until the arrival of missionaries from Europe. That changed with the discovery of the so-called “Nestorian Stele” in the city of Xian in the early 17th century. This stele, 2.79 meters high (9 ft 2 inches) and 99 centimeters (39 inches) wide, was erected in 781 CE and is inscribed in Chinese script with a few lines at the end written in Syriac.

The author of the text was the monk Adam, with the Chinese name Qing-Qing. The Xian Stele tells us about the arrival of Christian missionaries from Syria to China during the reign of Emperor Taizong (626-649). At the head of this mission was the Syrian monk Alopen (or Olopen), who came to Chang’an in 635 and presented the Christian holy books to the emperor. This was followed by the imperial edict of 638, which allowed Christian missionary activity in the country. A Christian monastery was immediately built in Chang’an where 21 monks could live.

According to the emperor’s orders, the Christian holy books presented to him by Alopen were translated and stored in the imperial library. Alopen was most likely part of an official mission from the Sasanian Empire as an official representative of the last Sasanian ruler, Yazdegerd III (632-651). His son, Peroz III, was in exile in China after the Arab conquests. Peroz was responsible for the construction of another Christian monastery in 677 CE. In Chinese documents, Christian monasteries are called “Ta-qin monasteries.” “Ta-qin” was the Chinese name for the Roman Empire or the Middle East, depending on the context.

During the decades that followed, Christianity continued to flourish in China. It enjoyed the support of Taizong’s successor, Gaozong (649-683), and many important people in the empire. According to the Xian Stele, Gaozong allowed Christian churches and monasteries to be built in every province of the empire. This does not necessarily mean that monasteries were built in every province, but it is a good indicator of the spread of Christianity in China during that period.

In addition to the central parts of China, Christianity spread to the surrounding countries, to Tibet, and among the Uyghurs. The Church in China was officially organized as the Metropolitan Province of Beth Sinaye under the patriarch Saliba (714-728).

Some Christian priests managed to reach important positions and served as advisors or even generals. For example, general Issu was the right hand of Lord Guo Ziyi. Issu was a priest of Iranian origin. His real name was Yazdebod, and he served as a general, who protected the northern borders of the empire. He was a great benefactor of Christian communities, and his name stands out on the Xian Stele.

Art and Literature

The history of Christianity in Tang China spans two centuries, and a small number of Christian texts in Chinese have survived to this day. Christian monks and priests carried out a great deal of effort in the translation of Christian texts into Chinese. During the 780s CE, an Indian scholar named Pradschna resided in China. He helped a monk named Adam, whose Chinese name was Qinq-Qing, translate Christian texts. By the end of the 10th century, around 500 texts had been translated into Chinese, including the complete New Testament and part of the Old Testament.

Out of these 500 texts, only a handful have survived to this day. Among them, the oldest ones are the Book of Jesus, the Messiah, and On the One God. They were written in 635-638, and 641 CE, possibly by Alopen. A memorial pillar from Luoyang, erected in 814/815 CE, contains the text titled Teaching on the Origin of Origins of the Da Qin Luminous Religion. Aside from that, another pillar contains the epitaph of a Sogdian Christian woman, and it is decorated with pictures of a cross and winged angels.

Some other Chinese Christian texts that have survived to this day include the Book of Praise (presumably written by Qing-Qing in the late 8th century), the Book of Venerable Men and Sacred Books (written in c. 906-1036), and the Book of the Origin of the Enlightening Religion of Ta Qin (written before 1036).

In addition to these texts, some remnants of Chinese Christian art have survived. A silk painting of a haloed Christian figure, dating from the 9th century, was found in the Mogao Caves. A painted male figure is represented with a halo and a winged crown containing a cross. The position of his right hand is taken from Buddhism, and it symbolizes the explanation of a doctrine. The silk painting depicts either Jesus Christ or a saint.

At the beginning of the 20th century, three frescoes were found in the remains of the Christian temple in Kocho, two of which have been preserved. The first one possibly depicts a celebration of Palm Sunday. The fresco depicts a man of Middle Eastern origin, most likely a deacon or priest, in front of three believers. According to another interpretation, it depicts a ceremonial greeting inspired by Buddhism. The second fresco depicts the Repentance and is smaller than the previous one. The third fresco, lost today, once depicted the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.

Persecutions and Demise

At the end of the 8th century, the Christian community in China reached its zenith. However, most believers came from foreign populations: Iranians, Sogdians, Turks, and Uyghurs. Very few Chinese converted to Christianity because it was still a foreign religion to them.

According to Baum, during the middle of the 9th century, there were about 260,000 Christians in China. The survival of Christians in China depended too much on the goodwill of emperors and local rulers. While peace reigned and the emperors promoted religious tolerance, Christians lived in peace. In turbulent times, however, rulers often turned against foreigners and foreign religions.

Christians experienced the first persecutions in China during the reign of Empress Wu (683-705). As a fanatical Buddhist, she elevated Buddhism to the level of the state religion in 691 and turned on members of other religions, including Christians. During her domination of the state, several monasteries were looted and burned. The persecutions ended during the reign of Emperor Xuanzong I (713-756).

Christians experienced their final downfall during the reign of Wuzong (841-846). He was a traditional Taoist and turned against all religions that he considered foreign. First, in 843, he banned the practice of Manichaeism, and later his persecutions were extended to other religions, even Buddhism. His edict from 845 banned “Persian religions,” namely Zoroastrianism and Christianity. All members of these religious groups were ordered to leave China.

During the next century, Christians perished in China completely. With the fall of the Tang Dynasty in 907, China once again entered a period of civil war and internal instability. Because of this, trade routes with the West collapsed, and the remaining Christians lost contact with their patriarch.

Around 980, patriarch Abdisho I sent six monks to China to examine the situation. They reported that Christianity had completely disappeared in China. Churches and monasteries were destroyed, and there was only one Christian left. This, however, did not mark the end of Christianity in China. It would be revived in the 13th century, during the reign of the Yuan dynasty.

Perhaps the most famous Samaritan is one who never existed—the “Good Samaritan” from a fictional story Jesus tells in the fifteenth chapter of the Gospel of Luke. But the Samaritans were and are a real ethno-religious group whose history spans millennia. Like Jews, Samaritans claim to be the descendants of the ancient Israelites.

Where Do Samaritans Get Their Name?

The Bible presents David and Solomon’s reigns as a golden age in Israel’s history due to David’s military might and Solomon’s political acumen. Solomon’s heir, Rehoboam, however, lacked his father’s abilities and, upon taking the throne, failed to negotiate an agreement with disgruntled workers in Israel’s northern half. This precipitated a divide between the northern kingdom, which came to be called simply (if confusingly) “Israel,” and the southern Kingdom of Judah. This divide never healed.

Jeroboam, the first king of the newly-separated Kingdom of Israel, established Shechem as his capital. Later, the capital was moved to Tirzah and then, finally, King Omri moved it to Samaria where it remained until it was conquered by the Assyrians in 722 BCE. 

The Assyrians reportedly forced large numbers of Israelites to move to various locations already under Assyrian rule, and in turn forced other subjugated peoples to repopulate Samaria’s environs. This “mixed” population of northern Israel would eventually be called the Samaritans.

How Does the Bible Tell the Samaritan Story?

Because the Bible does not tell the story systematically, piecing together a Samaritan history from biblical material requires relating key events with their social fallouts. While Assyria successfully conquered Samaria, they failed ultimately to overcome Jerusalem. It was not until the year 586 BCE that the Kingdom of Judah experienced exile under the Babylonians. In contrast to the Assyrian policy, the Babylonians preferred not to forcibly move large, indiscriminate populations of people from one place to another. Instead, they selected particular people and groups who would be of special value to the empire and brought them to Babylon.

While the ethnic label “Jew” can refer to any person descended from any of the twelve tribes of Israel today, the term itself exists due to the distinct exilic experience of the Judahites, from whose name the term is derived. 

Why Did Prejudice Develop Between Jews and Samaritans?

Jeroboam established an alternative religion for his newly-established realm in order to discourage his subjects from traveling frequently to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple. While Israelites in the Kingdom of Judah looked down on these spurious practices, the status of northern Israelites as their true kin was never questioned.

However, this religious prejudice began to acquire an ethnic color when many formerly-exiled Jews, sponsored by the Achaemenid Empire, returned to Jerusalem to rebuild its walls and Temple, which the Babylonians had destroyed. Apparently, tensions arose when these returning exiles discovered that local Israelites had been intermarrying with populations that had emigrated—in many cases forcibly—to Israel from elsewhere. Though intermarriage with neighboring nations had been common throughout Israel’s history, this practice was deeply offensive to those who had worked relentlessly to preserve their national distinctiveness in a foreign land.

While the term “Samaritan” would not be used in an ethno-religious sense until later, the tensions between this supposedly “mixed” population and the Jews returning from exile emerges starkly in the biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah. While a resolution is presented in these books, history both ancient and modern suggest that the division continued to widen.

How Do Samaritans Tell Their Own Story? 

The Samaritan version of their own story sees the source of their division from Jews appearing even before David and Solomon. According to the biblical telling, the first place where the Israelites set up their movable center of worship, the Tabernacle, after entering the land of Israel was at Shiloh, located in the north of the modern-day West Bank. Samaritans, however, believe that this sanctuary was first erected north of Shiloh on a mountain called Gerizim, where Moses had commanded the Israelites to ratify their covenant with God.

Once established at Gerizim, Samaritans believe that the Tabernacle should never have been moved elsewhere. Thus, when the Bible reports that it was moved to Shiloh and then to Jerusalem, Samaritans see this as a departure from God’s command. Faithful Israelites, Samaritans claim, continued to worship at Gerizim after this happened, and this group of faithful Israelites later came to be called Samaritans by outsiders.

Did Jews and Samaritans Ever Reconcile? 

Later, during the rule of the Achaemenid Empire—the same empire that sponsored the building of a new Temple at Jerusalem—a Samaritan Temple was also erected at Gerizim. This temple was later destroyed by the Hasmonean (Jewish) king John Hyrcanus I at the end of the second century BCE, and was never rebuilt. Many historians see this event as the decisive break between the Jewish and Samaritan communities. They remain separate ethno-religious groups today. 

If you’re tired of hearing about Paris or the French Riviera every time France comes up, you’re reading the right article. Here, I will tell you about a part of the Land of Lights that doesn’t always make it onto your Instagram feed, and it’s hiding some of the most captivating corners in the southwest.

Sure, you’ve probably heard of Bordeaux’s wines or maybe even Lourdes with its legendary pilgrimage site. But the real gems are hidden in the historic towns where ancient architecture, cobblestone streets, and vibrant local markets invite you to slow down and soak in the authentic French experience.

Ready for something a little off the beaten path? Here’s your ticket to 10 historic towns in Southwest France that bring the charm, the history, and a serious dose of joie de vivre.

1. Sarlat-la-Canéda

This captivating medieval town is located in the heart of the Dordogne region in France. Originating around a Benedictine abbey in the 9th century, Sarlat flourished during the Middle Ages. This allowed the town to become a significant center of commerce and culture. You’ll be enchanted by Sarlat’s narrow, cobblestone streets lined with impeccably restored stone buildings that’ll take you back to 14th-century France.

A must-see is the Saint-Sacerdos Cathedral, a blend of Romanesque and Gothic styles. This cathedral reflects centuries of architectural evolution. Nearby, the Lanterne des Morts (Lantern of the Dead) stands as a unique 12th-century monument with intriguing shell-shaped architecture.

As for the Place de la Liberté, the town’s central square, it is surrounded by traditional 16th and 17th-century houses and hosts vibrant markets where local delicacies like foie gras and truffles are abundant.

Sarlat’s commitment to preserving its heritage has earned it a place on France’s Tentative List for future UNESCO World Heritage nomination. This makes the town a perfect place to visit for both history enthusiasts and cultural travelers.

2. Saint-Émilion

You can find this town in the Bordeaux wine region of France. Saint-Émilion is a UNESCO World Heritage site celebrated for its rich history and exceptional wines. Its origins date back to the 8th century when a Breton monk named Émilion settled in a hermitage carved into the limestone. He attracted followers and established a monastic community.

You can explore the remarkable Monolithic Church, Europe’s largest underground church, hewn entirely from limestone. The town’s medieval architecture is evident in its narrow, cobblestone streets and historic buildings, including the King’s Tower and the Collegiate Church.

Surrounded by rolling vineyards, Saint-Émilion is renowned for its prestigious wineries and wine cellars, where you can taste world-class wines.

3. Cahors

Established as Divona Cadurcorum during the Roman era, Cahors was a significant center of commerce and culture. You can find this town in the Lot Valley of southwestern France, and visiting it offers a journey through time. The Pont Valentré, a 14th-century fortified bridge, stands as a testament to medieval engineering and is recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage site.

You also have the Saint-Étienne Cathedral, which dates back to the 12th century. This iconic site showcases a blend of Romanesque and Gothic architecture through its impressive domes and intricate carvings.

Strolling through the old town reveals narrow streets lined with half-timbered houses and hidden courtyards. The Maison Henri IV, a 15th-century building, exemplifies the Renaissance influence in the region.

Cahors is also renowned for its Malbec wines, offering numerous vineyards and cellars where visitors can indulge in tastings. Its vibrant markets, particularly the Marché de Cahors, provide a sensory experience with local produce, cheeses, and truffles.

4. Rocamadour

Perched dramatically on a limestone cliff in southwestern France, Rocamadour is a medieval village renowned for its historical significance and breathtaking vistas. Established in the 12th century, it swiftly became a pivotal pilgrimage site. Devotees were flocking to its revered Sanctuary of the Black Madonna.

One of the most interesting things you’ll enjoy doing in Rocamadour is ascending the Grand Escalier, a staircase of 216 steps traditionally climbed by pilgrims on their knees, leading to the sacred complex of chapels and the Basilica of Saint-Sauveur, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

You’ll see stone houses, artisan shops, and quaint cafés lining the narrow and winding streets of the village. All of these cling to the cliffside, which provides you with a unique medieval ambiance.

5. Lourdes

In 1858, Bernadette Soubirous, a 14-year-old girl, reported 18 apparitions of the Virgin Mary at the Grotto of Massabielle. This was what made Lourdes one of the world’s most important pilgrimage sites.

Nestled in the foothills of the Pyrenees, this famous town in southwestern France provides you with the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, which encompasses the revered grotto, the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, and also the Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary. The sanctuary attracts millions annually. It’s a place for prayer, reflection, and participation in the nightly candlelit processions.

Apart from the religious landmarks, Lourdes offers attractions like the Château Fort, a medieval fortress housing the Pyrenean Museum, and the Pic du Jer, accessible by funicular. The latter offers panoramic views of the town and surrounding mountains.

6. Auch

As the ancient capital of the Celtiberian tribe of Ausci, Auch evolved into a significant center during Roman Gaul, known then as Elimberris. When you visit Auch, you’ll be embarking on a journey through time. The town is located in the heart of Gascony, and one of its most notable historic sites includes the Sainte-Marie Cathedral, a masterpiece of Gothic and Renaissance architecture found in the town center. Its intricate stained-glass windows and meticulously carved choir stalls are particularly noteworthy.

Adjacent to the cathedral, the Monumental Staircase descends to the lower town. It features a statue of D’Artagnan, the famed Musketeer born in the region. Wandering through Auch’s narrow streets will allow you to witness half-timbered houses and hidden courtyards that showcase the medieval heritage of the town.

The rich history of this unique French area is further showcased in the Musée des Amériques – Auch, which houses France’s second-largest collection of pre-Columbian art outside Paris. Auch’s lively markets, offering local specialties like foie gras and Armagnac, provide a taste of Gascon gastronomy.

7. Brossac

Brossac’s history dates back to ancient times, with evidence of human presence from the Neolithic era, including dolmens and megaliths. Nestled in the Charente department of southwestern France, this picturesque village provides you with a tranquil retreat as you’ll be surrounded by rolling hills and lush landscapes.

A notable historical site near Brossac is the Villa Gallo-Romaine de la Coue d’Auzenat, a must-visit ancient Roman villa. The village itself is characterized by traditional stone houses, narrow lanes, and a serene atmosphere that reflects its rich heritage.

For visitors, Brossac offers a range of activities. The Étang Vallier Resort features a leisure lake ideal for swimming, paddleboarding, and lakeside relaxation. The surrounding countryside is perfect for hiking, cycling, and exploring the natural beauty of the region.

As for the local markets and eateries, they provide a taste of Charente’s culinary delights, including regional wines and cheeses. If you’re looking for an authentic French countryside experience, then, for sure, Brossac is a great destination combining historical significance with natural beauty and recreational opportunities.

8. Jonzac

Also located in the Charente-Maritime department of southwestern France, this town’s origins trace back to the medieval period, with the Château de Jonzac standing as a testament to its rich past. This 15th-century castle, perched on a rocky promontory overlooking the Seugne River, has withstood numerous historical events, including the Hundred Years’ War.

You’ll get the chance to explore the castle’s impressive architecture and enjoy panoramic views of the surrounding area. The town center features narrow streets lined with traditional stone houses leading to the Église Saint-Gervais-Saint-Protais, a Romanesque church dating back to the 12th century.

Jonzac is also renowned for its thermal springs, making it a popular destination for wellness tourism. The Les Antilles de Jonzac is a tropical-themed aquatic center that offers a variety of relaxation and recreational facilities, including pools, spas, and fitness areas.

The town hosts vibrant markets where visitors can sample local specialties such as cognac and regional cheeses.

9. Aubeterre-Sur-Dronne

The Charente department is actually home to plenty of interesting historic towns and villages that I personally had the unique chance of visiting. Aubeterre is one such destination, celebrated as one of the “Plus Beaux Villages de France“ (Most Beautiful Villages of France). The village’s history dates back to Roman times, with its name derived from “Alba Terra,“ meaning “white land,“ referencing the local limestone cliffs.

Aubeterre is renowned for its Église Saint-Jean, a monolithic church carved directly into the cliffside during the 12th century. This subterranean church features a 20-meter-high nave and is among the largest of its kind in Europe.

The streets are lined with white stone houses adorned with wooden balconies and vibrant flowers. The central square, Place Ludovic Trarieux, is a lively hub with cafés and artisan shops, which will allow you to learn about the local culture.

I recommend that you explore the Église Saint-Jacques, notable for its intricate Romanesque façade, and enjoy recreational activities along the Dronne River, such as canoeing and swimming.

10. Guizengeard

This tranquil commune, again in France’s Charente department, is renowned for its striking Lac Bleu de Guizengeard. This artificial lake, formed in a former kaolin (white clay) quarry, is celebrated for its vibrant turquoise waters, a result of the mineral composition and absence of aquatic life.

The village itself offers a peaceful retreat characterized by its rural charm and proximity to natural landscapes. Visitors can explore the surrounding forests. This will allow them to enjoy hiking trails while marveling at the scenic views of the lake and its unique geological features.

While Guizengeard may not have a bustling town center, its allure lies in the serene environment and the captivating beauty of the Lac Bleu, making it a noteworthy destination for nature enthusiasts and those seeking tranquility.

The colonial history of Australia is a small chunk of time in the history of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. European settlement brought many changes to their lives, some of them irreversible. In many cases, the colonial attack on Aboriginal bodies was also an attack on their culture and on aboriginal languages. Before 1788, different Aboriginal tribes spoke at least 300 languages (some believe the number goes up to 700). Some were extremely different from each other, as shown by the dissimilarities between the so-called Pama-Nyungan (PN) and non-Pama-Nyungan languages. Today many Aboriginal Australians are active speakers of Aboriginal English, a colonial product originating from the contact between English and Indigenous languages.

Aboriginal Languages: Pama-Nyungan (PN) and non-Pama-Nyungan (PN) 

For Indigenous communities across what is now Australia, language is a vehicle of culture, identity, allegiance, tribal unity, and belonging. It represents a millennia-long relationship to a specific tribal territory.

Indigenous languages are also a vehicle for history, as linguists believe that relatively small differences among two or more Aboriginal languages are often due to tribal splits or mergers that occurred at some point in the past. Tribal names often derive from the name of a language. In certain parts of Australia, for instance, even among those languages conventionally called dialects, the smallest differences are extremely meaningful because they point to the tribal specificity of their speakers. In this framework, the colonial attack on Indigenous languages represents an attack on the very core of Indigenous identity.

At the end of the 18th century, when the first settlers and explorers crossed the Blue Mountains, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders spoke between 300 and 700 distinct languages. The exact number is unknown for obvious reasons, but we owe much of what we know to Norman Tindale (1990-1993), an Australian anthropologist from Perth who spent years mapping the various Aboriginal groups and the languages they spoke across the continent.

Between 160 and 250 of these languages are still spoken today, despite numerous 20th-century government policies that prevented children in missions from speaking the language of their parents and ancestors. According to AIATSIS, in the Torres Strait alone, Indigenous people speak three main languages: Kala Lagaw Ya, Meriam Mir, and Yumplatok (or Torres Strait Creole). They have various dialects, are as varied as European languages can be, and are as different from each other as Italian, French, Hindi, Arabic, and Bengali.

Despite their many differences, as well as the influences from the Macassan and Dravidian languages of southern India, Indigenous languages in Australia can all be traced back to a common source, an ancestral Aboriginal language called proto-Australian. Today linguists differentiate between Pama-Nyungan (PN) languages and non-Pama-Nyungan languages.

Non-Pama-Nyungan languages were (and are) spoken mainly in the northern regions of Australia, in the Top End and the Kimberley, the areas that remained untouched by the spreading of proto-Australian. They use prefixes that give rise to long compound words and tend to have more elaborate verbal structures.

The Pama-Nyungan languages, on the contrary, were spoken in the lands where Melbourne, Canberra, Perth, and Brisbane were built. They essentially cover most of the continent. Grammatically, they are characterized by the use of suffixes to indicate grammatical functions. Over the centuries, they have changed as people moved across the continent, crossing deserts, or following waterways or coastlines.

What Is Aboriginal English?

The language that linguists call Aboriginal English is a product of Australia’s history of colonization. Aboriginal English (and its many varieties) originated upon contact with Europeans in the late 18th century. However, it can by no means be described as a simplified or random deviation from an expected norm.

For many Aboriginal people today, it is in effect a mother tongue, as well as an expression of Aboriginal identity. It is a distinct language whose phonology, terminology, and grammatical structures reflect the patterns and constraints of both Australian Aboriginal languages and Standard Australian English.

This is evident in the following extract from Taboo (2017), a novel written by Noongar writer and scholar Kim Scott, and a must-read for anyone interested in contemporary Australia and Aboriginal culture. Here, two characters, Gerald and Gerrard, discuss their encounter with Tilly, a girl of mixed descent, long estranged from the community of her Aboriginal father, Jim.

“Boy still on holiday?”

“Do him good in a way”

A prison was named.

“Yeah. They still doing those classes, Jim was showing them?”

“Dunno”

“Jim was teaching them?”

[…] “What we doing today?”

“Stuff.”

“Better get everybody up”

“He up, himself?”

“Oh yeah, he up himself alright”

“Ha. I mean awake, out of bed.”

“Well, this one is.”

“She Jim’s girl?”

“Yeah”

“She know about her mum and dad?”

“Just met her dad. Only ever known him inside”

“Shame” (Taboo, 123-4)

In this short dialogue, we find many distinctive features and non-standard patterns of Aboriginal English. In Aboriginal English, connecting verbs (to be in this case) tend to be omitted. This occurs in the present tense and continuous-aspect forms, such as in “He up, himself?” and “What we doing today?” They are never omitted in the past form (as in “They still doing those classes, Jim was showing them?”) or the meaning would not be clear.

Aboriginal English is, in fact, a rational language with its own set of rational rules. Its features are never arbitrary. Questions of the yes/no type are formed simply by adding a question mark at the end (“Jim was teaching them?”; “She Jim’s girl?”). If the question mark had been omitted, the sentence would have functioned as an affirmative clause and would have been identical to a statement.

This feature, namely the construction of interrogative clauses as statements, is one of the most persistent grammatical features of Aboriginal English, as its speakers commonly ask questions using the structure of an affirmative clause with a rising intonation (signaled in literary texts by the question mark at the end). Linguists believe it originates from the Aboriginal customs of resorting to a range of indirect means to obtain information.

In addition, Aboriginal English contains many vocabulary items and terminology not commonly found in Standard Australian English. Despite some local differences, they are unique to Aboriginal English speakers.

The novel Taboo abounds with Aboriginal English terms. The most common is lingo, which means “Aboriginal language” (“You reckon that’s our lingo?”). Readers will also find wadjela, indicating “a white man” and the term mob, which translates to “group” (“You’re that Wirlomin mob”).

The Western Australian question-tag “unna” is also very common. It is used as “inna” in South Australia, and “eh?” in much of the country (“We’re on time so far, Wally, but for how long, unna?”).

Although typical of Aboriginal English, mob is also used today by non-Aboriginal English speakers: indeed, big mob is often used as a substitute for much, many, a lot, especially in the Kimberley region of far northern Western Australia. Furthermore, in some Australian languages words cannot end with stop consonants, that is, /p/, /t/, /k/, /b/, /d/, and /g/: to conform to this pattern, in Aboriginal English English words will have their final sound dropped or another letter added (“Musta been bushfire not far”).

Language Switching 

Language switching, that is, changing register according to the social situation one is in, is a common practice among Aboriginal people. In many Aboriginal languages special “respect” speech varieties are required when the speaker is addressing someone who stands in the kinship relation of a potential mother-, son-, or father-in-law. Similarly, a speech variety with distinct phonetical and grammar rules is employed when talking to children under a certain age.

Honoring and respecting registers is crucial to maintaining peaceful relations, to the point that in a creative context such as that of storytelling, failure to respect such registers is often used to create irony and misunderstandings. Linguistic switching is particularly important when considered in the context of the Australian judiciary system. For a long time in Australia, Aboriginal evidence was not allowed in court.

Aboriginal voices were silenced and events were twisted and wrapped in euphemism by white men in newspaper reports and official documents. The use of language in courts, as Michael Christie notes in his interesting essay The Language of Oppression, was particularly important, since Aboriginal actions were “usually termed ‘attacks, incursions, atrocities, outrages, crimes, murders, or depredations,’” whereas the activities of the squatters and border police are referred to as “‘incidents, clearing operations, self-defense, punitive expeditions or police actions.’”

While retaining their unique language, the Aboriginal characters in Taboo are aware of the importance of using a mutually understandable language in particularly important situations where no room can be left for misunderstandings. Language not only serves the purpose of communication, but it also maintains a kind of separateness in language use that allows for privacy and reinforces a sense of separate identity. The endless subtleties of Aboriginal English are often invisible to non-Indigenous speakers.

Dormant Languages?

For many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, English has been (and sometimes still is) the language of oppression. Because of its strong connection with the bodies of its speakers, language is also a fragile tool, always hovering between life and death, between survival and forgetfulness. Today, reconciliation with non-Indigenous Australians and community survival also depend on language retention and the possibility of language revitalization.

Many of the Aboriginal languages spoken before 1788 are now extinct. Nonetheless, some of them are experiencing a renaissance. Arrernte in the Red Centre or the Yolŋgu language of Arnhem Land are regularly spoken by both young and old. AIATSIS reports that “in Port Headland, Western Australia, the Wangka Maya Pilbara Aboriginal Language Centre preserves, promotes, and maintains around 31 Aboriginal languages across the Pilbara. Today it holds a unique and diverse cultural collection including 5000 recordings of Pilbara languages in its archives.” 

In a country with a history of colonialism, “the oppression of the Aborigines began with words,” as Michael Christie notes. It is with words and languages that Indigenous peoples around the world are finally able to reclaim the value of their cultures, the importance of their ancestral languages, and their place in society.

The Vikings conceived of a very different universe centered around the great sacred ash tree Yggdrasil, which held the nine worlds of the Norse cosmos in its roots and branches. But where did the Vikings think that the worlds came from?

The Viking creation myth describes a universe that emerges from primordial goop, and which is then shaped by cooperation and conflict between the gods and the giants. These same forces will eventually destroy the universe at Ragnarök. This is the Norse creation myth.

The Ginnungagap

According to the Norse creation myth, at the beginning of time, existence was dominated by a massive void known as the Ginnungagap. This name means “yawning void” or “magical void” in Old Norse. According to the Voluspa, at the start of time: “there was no sand, nor sea, nor cool waves, no earth nor sky, no grass, only Ginnungagap.”

That said, while the void was large, it had limits. At one end of the void was a world of heat and fire known as Muspelheim, At the other end of the void was a world of cold and mist called Niflheim.

Over time, a collection of rivers known as the Elivagar started to flow up into the void from Niflheim. These rivers carried with them a poisonous substance that hardened and turned into ice in the void. The ice emitted a poisonous vapor that solidified into a solid salty rime, which was constantly growing and filling up the void.

At the same time, hot winds from Muspelheim were also reaching out into the void. Eventually, as the heat and the ice grew closer and closer, the heat melted some of the solid salty rime, creating a primordial ooze.

The First Living Beings

The first living beings in the cosmos emerged from the primordial ooze. The very first being was not a god, but rather a giant, Ymir, also known as Aurgelmir. With a hermaphroditic body, he was able to give birth to the race of giants, with male and female giants emerging from his body, springing from the sweat of his armpits. While most of his children were humanoid, some were also described as hideous monsters, such as a six-headed beast.

Ymir nourished himself on the milk of the primordial cow Audumbla, who also seems to have emerged from the primordial goop. As Ymir was feeding on Audumbla, she was sustaining herself by licking away at what was left of the solid salty rime.

Over the course of three days, Audumbla licked a being called Buri out of the salt rime. His hair emerged on the first day, his head on the second, and the rest of his body on the third day. The first of the gods, he emerged beautiful and strong, and like Ymir, started to create life.

By some unknown method, Buri gave birth to Borr, who would mate with the giantess Bestla and give birth to three sons, the gods Odin, Vili, and Ve.

Origins of Yggdrasil

While the origins of the Yggdrasil tree aren’t specifically noted in any of the surviving myths, it probably also grew out of the primordial goop of the universe. Yggdrasil is a mighty ash tree that is the backbone of the universe. Its roots are in Niflheim and they are fed by three wells: the well of destiny Urdarbrunnr, the well of wisdom Mimisbrunnr, and the well of fire Hvergelmir.

Yggdrasil seems to have created a breeding ground for a variety of animals. In addition to Audumbla, a serpent dragon called Nidhogg lived in Niflheim among the roots of Yggdrasil, which he gnaws on constantly. Meanwhile, an enormous eagle with a hawk perched between its eyes lives at the very top of the tree.

A squirrel called Ratatoskr runs up and down the tree, carrying messages between the dragon and the eagle, who are mortal enemies. Four harts or stags also chomp on Yggdrasil’s leaves and branches, and morning dew forms on their horns, which feeds Yggdrasil’s wells and rivers.

But the four stags do not seem to be friends of the tree. They are called Dainn, “dead one,” Dvalinn, “unconscious one,” Duneyrr, “thundering in the ear,” and Durathror, “thriving slumber.” Yggdrasil, constantly being gnawed and eaten, is described as being in more pain than any man can imagine.

The Murder of Ymir

It seems that for some time the world was then occupied by gods, giants, and other primordial beings. But, over time, Odin and his brothers began to grow concerned about the number of giants that were coming into existence. Ymir’s asexual reproduction meant that giants (or jotun) were quickly outnumbering the gods.

To deal with the threat, Odin and his brothers killed Ymir. His body expelled so much blood that it created an enormous flood that killed almost all the existing giants, greatly limiting their numbers and offering a unique spin on the flood myth.

Odin and his brothers then used the body of Ymir to create the “Earth,” located in the very middle of Yggdrasil. They used Ymir’s blood to make the sea, his body, and bones to make the land and mountains, and they hung his skull over the new world as the sky. The brothers then took sparks and flashes from Muspelheim and placed them within Ymir’s skull to create the stars and used the remaining brains of the giant to make the clouds.

What they created, in the end, was a circular disk. They gave the land on the outskirts to the giants as a place to live. A desolate land, it became known as Jotunheim. The fertile inner land became known as Midgard, literally Middle Earth, and they separated it from Jotunheim, using Ymir’s eyelashes to create a fence. Odin and his brothers then created mankind to populate their new world.

The first man and woman were called Ask and Embla, whose names mean ash tree and vine. Initially lifeless, they were given tree gifts by three different gods to bring them to life. Odin gave them souls, Hoenir gave them senses, and Lothur gave them blood’s heat and a godly hue. They would become the progenitors of all humanity.

Formation of the Worlds

This section of the creation myth explains the creation of Midgard and Asgard, but these were only two of the nine worlds in the Norse cosmos, which were tucked into the roots and branches of Yggdrasil.

Both Niflheim and Muspelheim also already existed. But, at this time, the gods also appear to have closed Muspelheim, trapping the fire giants in this realm. This was a separate group of giants to those living in Jotunheim, sometimes called frost giants to differentiate them. This was probably another step taken to protect mankind from the giants.

Meanwhile, Niflheim was occupied by various creatures. In addition to Niddhog, the Norns—the Norse fates—lived in Niflheim at the Well of Destiny. Later, Odin would install his friend Mimir in Niflheim at the Well of Wisdom. But one of several underworlds was also placed in Niflheim. It is possible that it was created following the death of Ymir, as an underworld for the first giants who died. It would later be known as Helheim.

At the same time, one tribe of gods, led by Odin and known as the Aesir, decided to make their home in a realm closer to the top of Yggdrasil which became known as Asgard. Meanwhile, another tribe of gods, known as the Vanir, would make their home in Vanaheim. It is possible that these were the children of one of Odin’s brothers.

The Aesir and the Vanir would go to war near the beginning of time but would form a peace agreement. This included the exchange of hostages that resulted in several important Vanir gods taking up residence in Asgard, including the Vanir twins Freyja and Freyr. After the war, the Aesir would build fortifications around Asgard to protect them from the giants rather than the Vanir. They also connected Asgard to Midgard via the Rainbow Bifrost Bridge so that they could protect mankind.

It is not recorded anywhere how the other realms of the Norse cosmos were created. But the elves had a home called Alfheim. The elves were sometimes treated as gods, and sometimes as divine ancestors, and may have been the children of another of Odin’s brothers.

The dark elves, more commonly called dwarves, settled in a dark underground world called Svartalfheim. There they became the master craftsmen of the Norse cosmos making most of the treasures that appear in the Norse legends, including Thor’s hammer Mjolnir.

Shaping the Universe

While the Norse cosmos was essentially shaped following the creation of Midgard, the gods did a few other important things that would add to the nature of existence.

First, the god Heimdall visited the world of men to define social order. He spent a night with a poor and ugly couple, ensuring that they had children who would become thralls and slaves in Viking society. He then spent a night with a middle-class couple and ensured that they had children who would become farmers, smiths, and other workers. Finally, he visited an attractive and wealthy couple and ensured that they had children who would be earls and kings. He even fostered one of their children and taught them how to conquer new lands.

Second, the gods learned that Loki had had three children with the giantess Angrboda. The gods decided that the offspring of such a monstrous union were too dangerous to be left to their own devices. They decided to place each somewhere in the universe where they could do the least harm.

Hel was a giantess born half-living and half-dead. She was sent to be the ruler of the underworld Helheim in Niflheim. This was not the only underworld in the Norse cosmos. Odin took brave fallen warriors to live in his hall Valhalla in Asgard, while Freyja also chose brave fallen warriors to live in Folkvangr, which means field of warriors. There was an underwater underworld called Ran for those who died at sea. Many dead were also believed to live in Helgafjell, which means holy mountain.

Fenrir was a giant wolf and the gods tricked him into letting himself be chained up on a deserted island. He gnashed and growled when he realized that he had been tricked, so the gods placed a sword in his mouth to wedge it open. The drool from his mouth created an enormous river called Expectation.

The third child, a serpent Jormungandr, was thrown into the waters surrounding Midgard. There he grew to such an enormous size that he could encircle the whole world and hold his tail in his mouth. His size makes him part of the ecosystem, and his movements can cause tidal waves.

While the banishment of Loki’s children was in some ways an act of creation that made the world the way it is, these acts also created the prerequisite conditions for Ragnarök. The word Ragnarök means the twilight of the gods and is a prophecy that records the death of all the gods and the destruction of the universe.

One of the longest-standing dynasties in history, the kingdom of Silla (57 BCE to 935 CE) in Korea is remembered today through its scattered burial mounds. For generations these mounds have preserved the secrets of Korea’s history, hiding valuable treasures within. From crowns to belts and earrings, the archeological finds in these mounds justify the Silla capital Geumsong’s moniker (today, Gyeongju) — the “city of gold.” They reveal much about the society of the Silla Kingdom during this time, including trade relations, religious beliefs, and power dynamics.

The Three Kingdoms Period

During the Three Kingdoms Period in Korea (57 BCE to 935 CE), the Korean peninsula was dominated by three states: Goguryeo in the North, Paekje in the South West, and Silla in the South East. The three groups competed for hegemony in the area, creating alliances and rivalries among themselves, and with China and Japan along the way. There were continual skirmishes between the groups and each kingdom’s borders fluctuated in position over time.

Despite their disputes, the kingdoms were similar in language and culture, sharing the Buddhist religion and a power structure that was centered around the warrior class. They were also influenced culturally by China and Japan — adopting the Chinese writing system, for example, which at the time was the classical Chinese script.

Ultimately, the Silla kingdom was able to overcome the other powers and it totally dominated the peninsula in 668 CE, unifying the country. In absorbing the other states, Silla was able to gain new wealth and power, which informed their lavish burial practices.

The Mysterious Burial Mounds of Silla

Upon visiting Silla’s ancient capital Gyeongju today, you will be struck by the size and quantity of burial mounds that dot the landscape. The larger of these tombs are occupied by powerful monarchs and other royalty, with the smaller ones reserved for members of the aristocracy. Their extravagance and imposing nature remind us of the power and wealth that their occupants once held.

Within these mounds of stones and earth are wooden tombs sealed with clay. This makes for an almost impenetrable structure, with the force of gravity and the weight of soil pushing the tomb further into the ground over time, protecting it from grave robbers.

These tombs not only held the remains of the deceased but also a plethora of treasures, many of which were specifically created to reside with the dead in their new home. Many of these treasures are made from gold. Crowns, belts, jewelry, and other regalia have all been found in the tombs. They stand as a testament to the kingdom’s prosperity and its investment in arts and culture.

Golden Crowns 

The crowns found in the burial mounds are, as in most other places, markers of royalty. They are made from gold, with jade embellishments, and have two antlers and three tree shapes protruding from a band. The antlers and trees link the crowns to shamanism, emphasizing the power of the rulers.

The appeal of gold began with trade connections with China, from which it was imported. Gold was later found in abundance in the capital city of Gyeongju, located in the sand of local rivers. It was also easy to work with, making it the perfect material with which to shape the delicate crowns. The crowns themselves are made from a thin sheet of gold, which is impractical to wear. This has caused many to believe that the crowns were intended for burial purposes only.

Korean Shamanism

As mentioned, the design of the crowns alludes to a connection between the rulers and shamanism. Korean shamanism dominated the peninsula at the time. As we shall see, the crowns were unlikely to have been worn while the rulers were alive, suggesting they were designed solely for use in the afterlife. Rulers were expected to have special spiritual powers, with the gold of the crowns acting as a halo, showing their spiritual authority.

The trees link with the tree of life, the connector between the three spiritual worlds of the underworld, the earthly world, and the upper world. The curved, jade beads on the crowns were commonly used to represent spiritual power on the peninsula from the Bronze Age onward. It has been suggested that they are similar to the teeth or claws of wild animals, further connecting the crowns to shamanism.

Shamanism has a strong connection with animism. Both share a belief that chosen practitioners can connect with unseen spirits, which hold control over the material world.

Their practices included song and dance rituals, as well as the drinking of rice wine. Shamans were believed to be able to see the future based on the appearance of nature. It is also important to note that with the arrival of Buddhism in the mid-6th century CE, shamanism did not disappear, and its beliefs have been practiced in Korea to this day.

Gender and Artifacts

Inheritance ran both through the female and male lines, and queens ruled equally to kings in Silla. Gender equality extended to the rest of society, too. They operated on a caste system, called “bone ranks,” which segregated people based on birth (particularly within the aristocracy) rather than gender. Queen Jinseong, for example, was the last ruler of Silla. She continued the kingdom’s alliance with Tang Dynasty China (618 – 907 CE), encouraging bilateral trade. However, during her reign factions began to rebel which led to the collapse of Silla society.

Archeologists use the artifacts found in the burial mounds to gender the ruler confined there. In Tomb 98 (of 155), a golden belt was found which was inscribed with the words “belt for milady,” among other artifacts believed to be attributed to the royals including crowns. From this and other similar findings, archeologists have deduced that women were able to hold power similarly to men.

Other Notable Accessories

A large number of gold earrings have been found in the Silla tombs. They are diverse in style but are classified into two types — those with a thick central ring versus those with a thin one. Some are small and simple, others large and intricate. Their elaborate and detailed nature reveals the great amount of skill required to craft them. Decorated with spangles, gold granules, and embossing, the beauty of the Silla earrings is undeniable.

Archeological finds in the burial mounds are not limited to gold and jade. Chest pendants, worn over the chest and back, share in the extravagance of the other accessories found in the tombs. Hanging jade ornaments are attached to gold and glass beading.

Belts, rings, vessels, and swords, to name just a few items, were also found within the burial mounds. There is also evidence of human sacrifice, with multiple different human remains found at the sites in Gyeongju. This alongside Korean folklore about Inju practice—the ritual killing of people to satisfy the Gods—suggests that this was something typical for the period.

The mysterious-looking burial mounds of the Silla Period contain fascinating treasures that have many stories to tell about this transformative time in Korea’s history. Gender, spirituality, and power are just some elements of Silla’s society that we can gain insight into when examining the tombs.

Of course, we have also come to understand much about the Silla peoples’ burial practices; they buried a plethora of treasures with their rulers’ remains while creating a mound-like shape to protect them. The gold crowns, in particular, show the role of shamanism in society and its connection with power through their imagery. Alongside other objects, they suggest that gender was not a determiner of power during this period.

With the arrival of Buddhism in the Silla Kingdom in the mid-6th century CE, the practice of burying rulers in mounds began to disappear in favor of cremation. As a result, Silla craftsmanship from this period can be seen more in treasures found in temples. Despite these changes, the objects found in the burial mounds are undeniable markers of the skill of metalworkers from the Silla Period. Their discovery has made a huge contribution to Korean cultural heritage, and with some sites still unexcavated, there is still more to learn.

Further Reading

Milledge Nelson, Sarah, Gyeongju Capital of Golden Silla, 2017, Routledge: New York.

Demons form an essential part of the type of Buddhism practiced in Tibet. Derived from the native Tibetan religion, these negative forces were absorbed into the Mahayana Buddhism that took hold in Tibet.

In Tibetan mythology, these demons were conquered by the Buddhas, who made the demon protectors of Dharma, which is universal truth or cosmic law. Consequently, in Tibetan Buddhism, they take on the role of powerful but wrathful gods that maintain the world order. Tibetan Buddhism is animist, so there is no limit to the number of demons in existence, but the most important demons conquered by the Buddhas have complex mythologies.

1. Yama: The Demon of Death

Yama, or Shinje, oversees the afterlife, where souls go after they are separated from their bodies. He is responsible for judging how good a person was in life and, therefore, their next step on the karmic wheel of reincarnation. He is wrathful and may send disease and disaster into the human world to remind everyone to behave.

Yama sometimes holds the wheel of life, also known as the wheel of becoming, in his hands. He is often shown with the head of a buffalo or alongside a bull that is crushing a man.

According to legend, one day robbers stole a buffalo or a bull and cut off its head. Entering a cave, they found an ascetic monk meditating. They cut off his head to leave no witnesses. The ascetic seized the buffalo’s head and placed it upon his neck, then killed the robbers and went on a rampage of fury. The terrified people appealed to Manjushri (the Bodhisattva of wisdom) for protection, and he tamed Yama.

Yama has three eyes and a crown of skulls, horns, and flames. He holds a stick topped by a skull in one hand and a lasso in the other.

2. Mahakala: The Great Black One

The demon Mahakala was unleashed upon the world, tormenting even the gods with his greed and aggression. The Bodhisattvas Manjushri and Avalokiteshvara teamed up, transformed themselves into a horse and a pig, entered his mouth and anus, and then began to expand in size. When the demon, about to explode, begged to surrender, the Bodhisattvas chained him up and then began a process of converting him to gentleness and compassion.

Mahakala is now the protector of education and Dharma and he helps to guide us on our best life path. He appears in many different forms depending on the different schools of Buddhism but always wears a crown of five skulls, which represents the transformation of the five kleshas (negative afflictions) into the five wisdoms. The negative afflictions are ignorance, will to live, ego, attachment, and repulsion. He is often seen as a protective deity.

He is usually depicted as black or dark blue, which represents his ability to absorb and embrace all things in existence. He can appear with two, four, or six arms. He may also be depicted with a trident, the symbol of the Hindu god Shiva.

3. Vaisravana: The Demon of Wealth

Vaisravana is one of the four heavenly kings and is considered the guardian of the northern quadrant of the world. His home is on the mythical Mount Sumeru, which is a five-peaked mountain believed to be at the center of the physical, metaphysical, and spiritual universes. He is the leader of the Yaksas, nature spirits that inhabit trees, rivers, and so on.

Vaisravana is associated with wealth but is the antithesis of greed. He represents wealth sufficient to allow a person to focus on their spiritual path and also generosity with what they have.

He is usually represented as a man with a yellow face holding an umbrella or parasol. He often rides a snow lion. He is sometimes shown with a mongoose spewing jewels. The Mongoose is the nemesis of the snake, which represents greed. He often appears with a citron, the fruit of the Jambhara plant, in one hand.

4. Hayagriva: The Horsenecked One

The name Hayagriva means horse-necked, and he was originally depicted with the body of a man and the neck and head of a horse but is also often depicted with three demonic heads. He sometimes has wings. He tends to have a scowling countenance with three penetrating eyes and a raised sword.

He is the demon of the passion at the heart of anger and represents powerful emotions, which are both a source of power and trouble. He can help Buddhists channel their frustrations to overcome obstacles. He is also the protector of the realm of animals.

Hayagriva is known for curing ailments, especially skin diseases such as leprosy. He confronts potent adversaries, as exemplified by his cosmic battles with Rudra. The two engaged in nine mighty battles until Hayagriva made himself very small, entered Rudra’s anus, and destroyed him from the inside out. Hayagriva is also said to have imitated Rudra to impregnate his wife, and then devoured him, purified him in his stomach, and excreted Rudra in a new, more benevolent form.

5. Palden Lhamo: Wrathful Protectress of Wisdom

Born a human woman known as Magzor Gyalmo or Remati, she was married to the evil king of Lanka. She vowed to either convert the king to Buddhism and prevent him from killing Dharma practitioners or to end his line. She felt like she failed when her son was raised to kill Buddhists. As a result, she killed her son, eating his flesh, drinking his blood, and making his skin into a saddle.

When she died, she found herself in hell, but she fought her way out by stealing a bag of diseases and a sword. When she escaped hell, she felt like she had no reason to live and prayed for guidance. The Buddha appeared to her and charged her with becoming the protector of Buddhism.

Palden Lhamo is shown riding a mule with an eye on its haunch and with reins made from poisonous snakes. She also became the protector of all Dalai Lamas by promising aid to the first Dalai Lama, Gendun Drupa, at Lhama Ta-tso, or Oracle Lake. This lake is held in high regard and is visited by Lamas when they wish to receive visions that will help them find the next Dalai Lama.

6. Begtse: Demon of War

Begtse is sometimes called Chamsing, which means the Great Coat of Mail, or red Mahakala. He has red skin and hair, two arms, three bloodshot eyes, and is dressed like a Tibetan warrior.

In his right hand, he holds a sword with a black scorpion-shaped handle. In his left hand, he clutches a fresh heart with a bow and arrow held in the bend of his elbow and a long lance and banner leaning against his shoulder. Aside from his armor, he wears wrathful vestments such as the crown of five skulls and a necklace of 50 freshly severed heads common to many demons.

According to legend, many ages ago two sons were born into the family of King Sergyi: Shugchen and Queen Upale Ke. The two brothers had different religious beliefs and they could not agree with each other.

The older brother unsuccessfully tried to force the younger brother to follow his religion. The younger brother convinced his brother not to kill him by promising that, in the future, when his brother had reached enlightenment, he would protect his brother’s religion. The older brother gave his younger brother armor and weapons and let him go.

In another lifetime, the older brother became Buddha (Shakyamuni). Meanwhile, the younger brother was reborn inside an egg. When the egg was broken open, the younger brother emerged in the armor that his brother had given him and took up his role as Begtse, a demon of war and protector of Buddhism.

Tibetan Shamanism

While the Buddhas overcame these great demons and made them protectors of Buddhism, normal people on the path to Nirvana are constantly confronted by their own demons, which can be internal afflictions such as illness and fear, or external.

Again, since there is no concept of pure evil, these are simply obstacles to be overcome through ritual action, offerings of appeasement, and meditative detachment. They generally appear to warn practitioners to be more diligent in their spiritual efforts.

Tibetan shamans are mediators who have a stronger connection with the spiritual realm and therefore are better able to understand and deal with the demons. They can also use their vision to detect demons that may be negatively influencing a person. They help that person to communicate with that demon to figure out what they want, and either come to an agreement with the demon or engage in activities to exorcize the demon. They can also perform other shamanic services such as divination. Buddhist philosophy, demonic religion, and magic and ritual practices coexist with little friction in Tibet.

Early next year, a brand-new Mucha Museum is set to open its doors in Prague. The new institution follows an extensive palace renovation in the city center—as well as some controversy surrounding the display of Alphonse Mucha’s art in the Czech Republic.

Mucha Museum Opens January 2025

The name Alphonse Mucha has long been synonymous with the term Art Nouveau. The turn-of-the-century Czech artist popularized the aesthetic with his distinctively decorative poster designs. To preserve Mucha’s lasting legacy in his homeland, a brand-new Mucha Museum is opening in Janaury 2025 in Savarin Palace, a newly-renovated Baroque building in Prague’s city center. The museum, which occupies over one thousand square meters of the palace, will house an expansive permanent collection of Alphonse Mucha’s works. It is the result of a collaboration between the Mucha Foundation and Prague-based real estate developers Crestyl.

According to a recent statement from the museum’s directors, a debut exhibition will accompany the new Mucha Museum’s grand opening. The exhibition “will present previously unexhibited works, including early oil paintings, hand-drawn studies for decorative documents, items exploring Mucha’s fascination with Freemasonry, and study materials for The Slav Epic.“

Will Mucha’s Slav Epic Join the New Collection?

Alphonse Mucha was best known for his theatrical posters and commercial advertising designs. However, he was also keen to assert himself as a fine artist. Mucha’s late-career series The Slav Epic did just that, depicting key events from the history of the Slavic people across 20 monumental paintings on canvas. Mucha and Charles Crane, the American philanthropist who funded The Slav Epic, bequeathed the series of paintings to the city of Prague in 1928, the tenth anniversary of Czechoslovakia’s independence.

Mucha’s gift was conditional upon the city providing a permanent exhibition space for the paintings. Controversially, such a venue has yet to be constructed nearly 100 years later, and The Slav Epic remains at the center of disputes over its exhibition and ownership. The new Mucha Museum hopes that The Slav Epic might finally find its permanent home in Savarin Palace. Marcus Mucha, great-grandson of the artist and director of the Mucha Foundation, said that “a number of negotiations are ongoing” with the city of Prague regarding this aim.

The “Only Official” Mucha Museum

The new Mucha Museum is more than double the size of Prague’s pre-existing Mucha Museum, located nearby on Pánská Street. As of a few months ago, the Pánská Street institution is no longer affiliated with the Mucha Foundation. Now, the new Mucha Museum in Savarin Palace is positioning itself as “the only official museum dedicated to the Czech artist,” according to its website.

Marcus Mucha explained the foundation’s reasons for opening a new Mucha Museum in Prague. “The existing premises were very crowded, especially in the summer,” he said. “We were looking for a new place to enable as many people as possible to admire Mucha’s work. We want the new location of our collections to attract not only tourists, but also Czechs, and become a popular place for them.”

We waste much of our lives burying ourselves to conform to what others expect us to be. Certainly, some situations demand conformity to a certain code of conduct, such as professional engagements, crisis management situations, etc. But often self-inhibition becomes our habitual state in most, if not all, of our social interactions. In extreme cases, the fear of how others may perceive us becomes so internalized that we don’t allow ourselves to be even when we are alone. Why can the mere thoughts of another person have such a powerful hold on our lives?

What Is the Evolutionary Perspective on Social Awareness?

In Meditations, Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius pondered “how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value of his own opinion of himself than on the opinion of others”. Certainly, from an evolutionary perspective, we are social animals and our need for approval springs from our desire to belong to our communities. Group interdependency was essential to our survival, without which we could not access necessary resources, mates, and protection. While social integration is still crucial for our well-being as a species, it is no longer a matter of life or death. Yet, many among us still react to social disapproval as a life-threatening experience, driving us to travel to great, often self-destructive, lengths to fit in.

While fitting in satisfies our inherited evolutionary impulses, it is not the equivalent of healthy social integration. Professor Bréne Brown argued that fitting in is the opposite of belonging: “Fitting in is about assessing a situation and becoming who you need to be to be accepted” whereas “belonging doesn’t require us to change who we are; it requires us to be who are” (Brown, 2010). Fitting in involves inauthenticity and conformity, whereas belonging requires authenticity and acceptance. Let’s take a closer look at how conformity works. 

What Is the Omnipresent Eye of Society?

Many thinkers have analyzed the intricate mechanisms of social conformity. Some view it in a positive light, while others in a negative one, but what most of their theories have in common is that the borders of conformity don’t end in the sphere of socialization but extend as an internalized voice of social norms and expectations. While philosophers such as Adam Smith contended that this results in greater social harmony and moral integrity, others tended to disagree. 

Although Smith is best known for his contributions to economics in The Wealth of Nations, he considered his magnum opus to be The Theory of Moral Sentiments, published in 1759. In this seminal work, he attempted to demystify moral conscience.  He argued that the accumulation of our knowledge of other people’s opinions of praise-worthy and blame-worthy traits acts as a mirror by which we come to evaluate and regulate ourselves. The impartial spectator is an imagined third party through which we evaluate and regulate our behavior objectively, through the eyes of an imaginary ‘other’.  While Smith argued that this inner judge is empathetic, allowing individuals to develop balanced and neutral assessments of their behaviors, most of us experience a corollary inner spectator best known in pop psychology as ‘the inner critic’.

How trustful can we be of the judgments, expectations, attitudes, and beliefs we absorb and internalize since our youth from others that constitute our inner judge? Philosophers such as Michel Foucault argued that social norms and even what society holds as true knowledge statements are constructed within the context of existing power relations. A society with power discrepancy between men and women will produce sexist norms, expectations, and beliefs that diffuse and reproduce existing power relations between both sexes. Aside from the prevalent skepticism regarding the so-called impartiality of our socially-constructed ‘inner judge’, why do we choose to see ourselves from the eyes of the ‘other’ rather than our own?  

Is There a Loss and Redemption of Authenticity?

The simple answer is that we do not truly accept ourselves, rather, we outsource that acceptance from external sources. Here is a situation where one’s self-definition and self-worth are entirely dependent on the perceptions of others. Our eyes are replaced, as it were, by the eyes of the ‘other’ through which we see, judge, and censor ourselves. When we place barriers to the stream of our self-expression, we lose ourselves in inauthenticity, constantly striving towards an unattainable ideal self, shaped by societal expectations. 

Living in a state of inauthenticity is to be in limbo, neither allowing oneself to be nor being able to be someone else. The difference between the real self and the ideal self is between the ‘I am’ and the ‘I should’, the latter being the product of our social conditioning. Paradoxically, as prominent psychologist Carl Roger noted, “When I accept myself just as I am, then I can change” (Roger, 1961).

According to Rogers, authenticity is lost once there is incongruence between who one is and who one is expected to be. In early childhood, we experience a confrontation between our spontaneous expressions of self and society through the responses of our primary caregivers. We learn that some expressions are rewarded and others punished, what Rogers called conditioned positive regard. In a time when we are completely dependent on our caregivers, catering to the conditions of their acceptance becomes a matter of survival, and eventually, a matter of self-worth.  A child raised in this manner will grow unable to recognize their inherent worth, unable to accept themselves unless they meet the ‘conditions of worth’.

According to Roger, the path of redeeming our authenticity lies in the practice of unconditioned positive regard. Once we accept ourselves without the condition that we must be someone other than ourselves to be loved, we can start to reclaim our need for external validation, which is in essence a misdirected need for internal validation. When this happens, “the individual increasingly comes to feel that the locus of self-evaluation lies within himself – less and less does he look to others for approval or disapproval; for standards to live by; for decisions and choices” (Roger, 1961). As many philosophers have noted, freedom lies in reclaiming authenticity, as your ability to be who you truly are is the ability to make your own choice.

Stretching over 3,000 miles from northern Canada to New Mexico, the Rocky Mountains are an iconic North American range, forming the backbone of the continent. Known for their dramatic peaks, lush forests, and sweeping alpine landscapes, the Rockies attract millions each year for hiking, skiing, and adventure. But they’re more than just stunning mountains and scenic trails. Tucked among the rugged peaks are historic small towns that offer glimpses into a past filled with mining booms, pioneering spirits, and architectural treasures. From Colorado to Montana, these places hold stories of gold rushes, Victorian-era communities, and frontier life, all preserved within their charming streets and historic landmarks. Here are ten must-visit historic small towns in the Rockies that will take you back in time while surrounded by breathtaking natural beauty.

1. Silverton, Colorado

Founded in 1874, this Colorado town became a bustling mining area due to rich silver and gold deposits. The Denver & Rio Grande Railway’s arrival in 1882 spurred its growth. This allowed for easier transport of precious metals. Though the silver market crash of 1893 slowed operations, Silverton shifted focus to gold mining, which allowed it to sustain the economy well into the 20th century. The town’s last mine closed in 1991. This marked the end of the flourishing mining era of Silverton.

Today, this beautiful historic town is a National Historic Landmark District. It preserves its Victorian architecture and mining history. Visitors can ride the historic Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad, a journey that offers breathtaking mountain views, and explore the Mayflower Mill, an ore processing mill from 1929.

Some of the notable historic sites you need to visit in Silverton include the Old Hundred Gold Mine, where visitors can tour underground tunnels and experience the life of early miners, and the iconic Grand Imperial Hotel, dating back to 1882, which offers a glimpse into the elegance of a bygone era.

2. Ouray, Colorado

Ouray is named after Ute Chief Ouray and was established in 1876. The town began as a mining camp during the gold and silver rushes. Its strategic location made it a vital supply center for surrounding mining regions. Today, Ouray is renowned for its well-preserved Victorian architecture and is designated as a National Historic District.

When you head to this iconic Colorado town,  the first place you need to explore is the 1881-built Ouray County Courthouse. Another historic place, a must-see, is the Beaumont Hotel, an 1886 luxury establishment that has hosted numerous dignitaries.

As for the Wright Opera House, it was constructed in 1888, and it provides you with what the cultural past of Ouray looked like. Also, the Ouray County Museum, housed in the original 1887 Miner’s Hospital, showcases artifacts from the mining era of the town.

One interesting thing to note is that Ouray is known as the “Switzerland of America” due to its stunning mountain scenery. The Ouray Hot Springs, continue to welcome visitors since 1927, where natural mineral pools offer relaxation amidst the stunning mountain backdrop.

3. Georgetown, Colorado

“The Pike’s Peak Gold Rush in 1859 marked the beginning of Georgetown as a bustling silver mining center, earning it the nickname “Silver Queen of Colorado.” This historic Colorado town is a must-visit for fans of Victorian architecture, offering a glimpse into the era of frontier expansion, a time marked by profound conflicts with Native American tribes amid the race for precious resources. You’ll have the chance to visit plenty of historic sites in town, such as the Georgetown–Silver Plume Historic District, a National Historic Landmark, which includes the Georgetown Loop Railroad. The latter is a restored narrow-gauge railway offering scenic rides through the mountains.

Other historic places worth visiting in Georgetown include the Hamill House Museum, showcasing 19th-century life, and the Hotel de Paris Museum, a former French inn from 1875. The town is so rich in history and preserved sites it makes for a compelling destination to learn more about the mining heritage of Colorado.

4. Virginia City, Montana

As you already know, the Rocky Mountains are not all Colorado. You also have Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, and, above all, Montana. And Montana, particularly, is home to one stunning historic town that is absolutely worth visiting in the Rockies. That is Virginia City, which was founded in 1863 following a significant gold discovery in Alder Gulch. This allowed the area to rapidly become a bustling mining town. Virginia City actually served as the territorial capital from 1865 to 1875.

Designated a National Historic Landmark District, Virginia City features over 200 nineteenth-century buildings, including the Thompson-Hickman Museum, which houses artifacts from the mining era of the town. You can explore the original Madison County Courthouse, constructed in 1876, and the Bale of Hay Saloon, Montana’s oldest operating saloon. The Virginia City Players perform in the Opera House. They offer authentic 19th-century theater experiences.

5. Leadville, Colorado

Situated at an elevation of 10,152 feet in the Rockies, this ranks as the highest incorporated city in the United States. It was founded in 1877 and is known for its rich mining history, which began with a gold rush in 1860 and was followed by a silver boom in 1878. This allowed Leadville to attract thousands of prospectors and grow so rapidly.

Nowadays, when you head to this historic town, you’ll have the chance to explore the 1879-built Tabor Opera House. It was constructed by mining magnate Horace Tabor. Another historic site to visit is the National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum, which will teach you a whole lot about the area’s mining heritage. As for the Leadville Historic District, designated a National Historic Landmark, it encompasses 70 square blocks of original Victorian architecture, which gives you a unique window into the mining era of Colorado.

6. Crested Butte, Colorado

Crested Butte began as a supply town for nearby silver mines in 1878 before transitioning into a coal mining hub. Located at 8,885 feet in the Elk Mountains, part of the Rockies, it earned the nickname “Gateway to the Elk Mountains.” It became a vital center for commerce and mining thanks to the growth spurred by the arrival of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad in 1881.

Start your visit by checking out the Crested Butte Historic District, designated a National Historic Landmark, which includes over 300 historic buildings. Also, another historic place to explore is the Crested Butte Museum. It will offer insights into the mining heritage of the town and its evolution into a ski destination.

Known as the “Wildflower Capital of Colorado,” the area boasts stunning summer blooms and is a haven for outdoor enthusiasts year-round.

7. Nederland, Colorado

Nederland’s name, meaning “low lands” in Dutch, is proof of its role as a supply center for nearby high-altitude mining communities like Caribou. The town was established in 1874, where it began as a trading post between Ute Indians and European settlers.

Situated at 8,228 feet in the Rocky Mountains, Nederland became a hub for silver and tungsten mining in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

When visiting Nederland, it would make sense to first head to the Nederland Mining Museum. The town is also home to the Carousel of Happiness, a restored 1910 carousel featuring hand-carved animals. This is a must-see. If you’re an outdoor enthusiast, then you’ll enjoy nearby attractions like the Indian Peaks Wilderness and Eldora Mountain Resort.

8. Ward, Colorado

Ward is one of Colorado’s oldest mining towns. It was actually established in 1860 and is situated at 9,450 feet in the Rockies. Named after prospector Calvin Ward, who discovered gold in the area, Ward experienced rapid growth during the Colorado Gold Rush, which allowed it to become a significant mining hub.

Ward retains its historic charm with plenty of preserved structures, such as the Ward School, which dates back to 1898. It now serves as the town hall, public library, and post office and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Other notable historic places you should explore in Ward include the Historic Ward Community Church and the old Catholic church. They’re both highlights of the rich past of Ward.

9. Lake City, Colorado

Nestled at 8,661 feet in the San Juan Mountains, which are part of the Rocky Mountains, Lake City was established in 1874. Founded during the Colorado Silver Boom, it served as a vital supply center for surrounding mining districts. Head to the Lake City Historic District, which is home to over 200 historic structures. It’s also a National Historic Landmark.

Other historic sites you need to visit in Colorado’s Lake City include the Hinsdale County Courthouse, built in 1877, and the Lake City Museum, housed in the original 1880s school building. The museum makes for a perfect visit if you want to see artifacts from the mining era of Lake City. The nearby Alpine Loop Scenic Byway offers breathtaking views of the Rockies and access to ghost towns like Capitol City.

10. Manitou Springs, Colorado

Located at the base of Pikes Peak in the Rocky Mountains, Manitou Springs is known for its natural mineral springs that attracted Native American tribes and, later, settlers seeking the waters’ reputed healing properties. It was founded in 1872, and in the late 19th century, it became a popular health resort. This explains why the town houses lots of grand hotels and spas.

At present, you will mostly love visiting the Manitou Springs Historic District, which encompasses much of the town and features well-preserved Victorian architecture. Head to the Cliff House at Pikes Peak, a historic hotel dating back to 1873. Also, make sure to visit the Manitou Springs Heritage Center and Museum. Here, you’ll see exhibits on the rich history of Manitou Springs.

The nearby Manitou Cliff Dwellings provide a glimpse into the ancient Ancestral Puebloan culture.

Wandering the embankments above the River Thames it is not unusual to see people down on the foreshore at low tide. Kneeling or hunched over, with eyes scanning the gravel and mud, they are mudlarking  — hunting for little treasures. With the help of museums, the finds they make are shaping our understanding of London’s past. In this article, we will explore the world of mudlarking, look into the hobby’s grimy origins, and talk about some of the many pieces that can be found on the muddy banks of the famous river.

One Giant Archaeological Dig

With centuries of riverborne activity and human habitation along its banks, the Thames foreshore is one giant archeological dig. This is especially true along the frontage of the City of London, Southwark, Wapping, Rotherhithe, Deptford, and Greenwich, which was a maritime center for hundreds of years.

Discoveries can be made as far east as the Thames Estuary, up to 40 miles from central London, although mudlarks tend to use their own boats in this broad island-strewn reach of the river.

The mighty churn of the Thames, with its powerful currents and massive tidal range, dredges and deposits material on the foreshore. When the opaque brown water retreats, beachcombers step down to hunt for things that have been mislaid or discarded over the course of London’s long history. Objects survive in near-perfect condition, partly because oxygen cannot permeate the Thames’s mud.

Many mudlarks uncover something interesting on their first try. Each year, hundreds of finds with real cultural or material value qualify as treasure. But more often the worth of a find comes from the story that springs from it, and the picture it can help build about London’s past.

Long before mudlarking became a hobby, a lot of exciting things had been hauled from the bed of the Thames. During bridge construction in the mid-19th century, workers came across the Battersea Shield. On show at the British Museum, it is considered one of the finest pieces of Celtic art discovered in the UK.

The History of Mudlarking

One glance at the thick gloop that coalesces in patches along the banks, and it is easy to see why these collectors are commonly known as mudlarks and not beachcombers. All through the Victorian Era, mudlarks eked out a desperate living hunting for scrap.

It was often children who scavenged the banks. This was dangerous and highly unpleasant work, picking through sewage among the corpses of animals and sometimes humans for a pittance.

By the early 20th century, the mudlarking trade, in its traditional sense, had ended. Later that century the name was readopted by hobbyists, some swinging metal-detectors but many simply using their own eyes. Indeed, over time, mudlarks develop an astonishing ability to spot long-lost trinkets in the collage of pebbles, gravel, and mud.

What Treasures Can Be Found on the Banks of the Thames?

The variety of pieces waiting to be discovered is vast. Just to summarize, they might include Tudor earrings, or buttons of all shapes, sizes, and periods. People find thimbles, Roman hairpins, shards of 17th-century German glazed stoneware, keys, padlocks, coins, clay pipes, guns, and shell casings. Also hiding in the mud are medals, trade tokens, Medieval belt mounts, engraved lockets, 18th-century gin bottles, and clustered links of 15th-century chainmail armor.

Poison bottles, manufactured to hold hazardous chemicals like arsenic, show up often, usually in fragments, but sometimes whole. Dating from the 17th to the early 20th century, these were made in a standard hexagonal shape out of blue or green glass. This makes them easy to distinguish by those fortunate enough to find one.

Iron nails are ubiquitous. Most of these once held boats and ships together, and date from the 17th and 18th centuries. There are subtle clues that help people distinguish the exact time they were forged.

A big help is that the mass-production of nails, an American innovation, began at the turn of the 19th century. These streamlined nails differ from handmade nails, which have larger, pyramidical shanks with four distinct panels created by a blacksmith’s hammer. It can be humbling to pick up something as simple as a nail and inspect a professional’s handiwork 300 years later.

A Couple of Captivating Recent Finds 

Every few months a news story surfaces about an interesting discovery made by a mudlark. In 2018, one Alan Suttie was taking a few minutes to browse the foreshore by Old Billingsgate Market while passing time before a meeting in the City. It was only the second time he had ever stepped onto the foreshore.

His eye was caught by something that had just been washed ashore by a wave and had lodged in the mud. What he found was an intact Roman-era oil lamp. It was crafted from terracotta in Carthage in the 4th or 5th century CE, and after appraisal was declared a “significant artifact” and claimed by the Museum of London.

The river’s highly preservative mud yields a lot of extremely delicate pieces that might otherwise not survive. For example, in 2021 another mudlark came across something utterly unique. Perusing the shore, her gaze was met by a human skull in miniature. This had been carved into a spherical piece of bone, and on the reverse side was a woman’s face, most likely representing the Virgin Mary. It was a single rosary bead, dating from around the mid-15th century, with the skull serving as a memento mori.

The Present and Future of Mudlarking

This niche hobby went mainstream in the early 21st century. In 2016, the Port of London Authority (PLA) introduced a permit scheme for mudlarking to keep things under control. Then, spurred by social media accounts and a need for outdoor hobbies during the Covid-19 pandemic, the 2020s brought on a “Wild West” of mudlarking.

Something easy to forget is that every stretch of the foreshore has an owner, requiring permission for access, as well as the right to pore over the beach. One of the largest landowners is the Crown Estate, which jointly runs the license scheme with the PLA.

At the time of writing, the PLA had put a temporary pause on applications for new foreshore permits. This is to preserve the historical integrity of the Thames foreshore. On the upside, the explosion in beachcombing hobbyists has helped historians understand London’s past better. Mudlarks are diligent when it comes to reporting finds that are deemed to be important, or are at least 300 years old, to the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), administered by the British Museum.

Since the turn of the 2020s, annual records for reported treasures have tumbled year on year. The most recent figures at the time of writing were for 2022, in which some 53,500 finds were recorded across the United Kingdom. Of which almost 1,400 were legally defined as treasure.

Since 1998, the PAS has built an ever-growing, publicly accessible database of objects, with 1,715,745 items registered at the time of writing.

A Few Mudlarking Musts

The River Thames has an astonishing tidal range of more than 25 feet. Like the rest of the UK, London usually has two high tides and two low tides each day. This means that in a couple of hours a wide open beach will not just be submerged, but lost under multiple feet of roiling, murky water. So while the foreshore is engrossing, it is important to be aware of exit points.

A mudlark’s typical inventory will include a trowel, wellington boots (rubber boots), and gardening knee pads to make it easier to spot a Roman coin in the gravel. Many do not bring full-size metal detectors, which can be impractical, but may pack a handheld pinpointer. However, magnet fishing is not permitted on any part of the Thames foreshore.

Finally, while it has never been entirely safe to poke around the River Thames, microbiological dangers lurk in the 2020s. The quality of the water has declined sharply in recent years, and there are a few factors to blame. Lack of investment in the infrastructure is a big one, another is the sharp increase in groundwater caused by a series of record-breaking wet winters. Also key is that London’s population has increased from seven million in 2000 to nine million in 2024. The result is more sewage, which overflows more often when the groundwater level is high.

E. coli is a threat, as is the highly dangerous Weil’s disease, which is contracted from the urine of infected rats. Mudlarks are encouraged to wear gloves, keep cuts covered, and always refrain from touching their face when they’re on the foreshore.

How Can I Get Involved in Mudlarking?

We have seen that there is a hiatus on new permits, and new regulations from the Port of London Authority are in the pipeline. So for now, the best way to get a feel for mudlarking and the history on the Thames foreshore is through the Museum of London Archaeology. They run a variety of programs, including guided walks on the foreshore, community digs, exhibitions and conferences.

It is impossible to separate Christianity from the Roman context in which it developed and spread. Some of the influences the Roman Empire had on Christianity were negative, though it also strengthened the fledgling religion. In other ways, Christianity was well served by the vastness of the empire and the infrastructure it had in place. The effect of the Roman Empire on Christianity is recognizable to this day. From the Christian creeds to Papal titles, the fingerprints of the Roman Empire can be seen in Christianity.

The Roman Empire and Christian Origins

Jesus Christ lived and ministered less than a century after the death of Julius Caesar. At the time the Roman Empire stretched from the Middle East to Spain throughout Southern Europe and from Egypt to Mauritania in North Africa. A vast empire indeed. It was the Roman judicial power that allowed Jesus to be crucified at the hands of Roman soldiers, who also guarded the tomb where Jesus was resurrected. These two events are central to the Christian faith.

The Roman Empire was generally tolerant of other faiths, as long as they did not impede on emperor worship, a practice common throughout the Roman Empire. To people from polytheistic faiths, this posed no problem. To Christians, however, emperor worship was diametrically opposed to their monotheistic views. Christians, therefore, found themselves at odds with the Romans.

Saint Paul, on occasion, called on Rome when persecuted because of his faith. He could do so because he was a Roman citizen. This gave him the opportunity to minister in the capital of the empire before its rulers and the elites. As a Roman citizen, he could also freely traverse the Roman Empire on his missionary journeys which may have seen him travel as far West as Spain. Well-established Roman infrastructure in terms of road networks and merchant shipping would have made traveling to remote parts of the empire much easier. In this way, the gospel message was indirectly served by the Empire.

However, before long, the Roman persecution began, declaring Christianity illegal and utilizing a variety of tactics to force pagan converts to revert back to traditional Roman religion. Nero, for instance, led a persecution in which many early Christians were martyred. He executed both Paul and Peter and conducted indiscriminate slaughter of Roman Christians. They were scapegoated and blamed for the fire that destroyed much of Rome in 64 CE. Persecutions also continued sporadically on a local level, throughout the reign of Domitian 81-96 CE.

Later there emerged a series of empire-wide persecutions beginning with Emperor Decius, in 250 CE. Among other things, Christians were ordered to sacrifice to the gods. The persecution only ended when the empire itself faced the prospect of collapse.

The next and worst persecution of all was under Diocletian. During his reign, Christian churches were destroyed, Christian scriptures were burnt, clergy were imprisoned, and many were forced into performing pagan sacrificial rites. Christians were banned from holding state office positions and some who previously had were sent into exile.

The persecution had a similar effect to the Reformation persecutions many centuries later. It galvanized the faith of Christians and served as a witness to those who observed the faith of Christians being punished or executed.

Refining the Faith

Persecution was a significant force in strengthening the Catholic Church. It became apparent to early Christians that their faith was worth dying for and many Christians were called upon to defend their faith.

Initially, there was much diversity in Christian beliefs, as the apostles and missionaries spread Christianity throughout the world. However, the prospect of martyrdom forced Christians to solidify their beliefs. If Christians were going to die for their faith, it was essential to know exactly what they believed. It was under persecution that the early Christian creeds began to take shape because it was important that unity be maintained.

The Apostles’ Creed was based on the teachings of the apostles in the New Testament, and it lists the precise Christian beliefs. The need for statements of faith later gave rise to many councils where the church could develop creeds defining the core Christian beliefs. These creeds served to separate authentic Christian beliefs from those of cults and heresies. They were fundamental to the development of orthodoxy and unity within the Christian faith.

From Acceptance to State Religion

Constantine the Great was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity (though some scholars doubt whether his conversion was true). He supposedly did this after seeing a vision just before the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 CE. In this vision, he saw a cross in the sky with the words “IN THIS SIGN CONQUER.” After he became emperor, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, which accepted Christianity along with all other religions. In 330 CE, Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to its new seat in the East, Byzantium (later named Constantinople and today known as Istanbul, located in Turkey).

The decision to call the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, was a result of Constantine’s desire to have a unified Christian faith to help support his authority, not a result of Constantine’s own conversion. Nevertheless, it helped establish consensus on some aspects of the Christian faith. Only with the reign of Theodosius I from 379-395 CE did Christianity become the official state religion.

This change did not come without compromise. Christians had faced internal pressures to change certain aspects of their religion to fit better with Roman culture for more than a century before becoming the official state religion. Accommodations made included the introduction of a hierarchical leadership structure, a shift in the religion’s focus from symbolic acts to ritual acts, and a reinterpretation of the “love feast” (agape) into the “Eucharist” as the central ritual act of Christianity.

With the favor of various emperors and a new freedom from persecution, Christian leaders could quickly adapt Christianity to contemporary Roman cultural norms while capitalizing on the religion’s newfound ability to openly compete with alternative faiths. Staunch opponents of the Roman Catholic Church go as far as to call these compromises “baptized paganism,” claiming pagan feasts, statues, and rituals were reassigned “Christian” names and significance. They allege that these pagan themes thus entered Christianity.

From State to Church

Most scholars agree that Papal dominance in Rome happened gradually. According to the Donation of Constantine, a document many scholars believe to be a forgery from the 8th century, the emperor gave charge of Rome to the papacy in the 4th century CE. Whether this claim is true or not, it is evident that the papacy rose in prominence and power after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Many writers and historians have attested to this fact:

“Out of the ruins of the Roman Empire there gradually arose a new order of state whose central point was the Papal See.”

The Church and Churches, p. 42, 43.

“And if a man considers the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof: for so did the papacy start up on a sudden out of the ruins of that heathen power.” 

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 436.

“While this Christian Church, little by little, was emerging from the general dissolution of the Roman Empire, there also emerged gradually at its head a new figure, the Pope.”

Coulton, Medieval Panorama, p. 20.

Since the popes claim lineage from Peter, who was martyred in Rome, it follows that they would prefer their seat to be located in that city, where the Vatican is to this day (although there have been times of turmoil in and outside of the Roman Catholic hierarchy when the pope resided Viterbo, Orvieto, Perugia, and Avignon).

The transition from the Imperial Roman Empire to Papal State is evident from the transfer of certain titles the Roman Emperor had, which were given to the pope — such as “Pontifex Maximus,” from which the term Pontiff arose. Pontifex Maximus means “greatest pontiff,” the title of the head of the College of Priests in the ancient Roman religion. Today, it is the title of the pope.

Roman Empire & Christianity: Conclusion

It would be impossible to comprehensively address the origins of Christianity without taking note of the influence the Roman Empire had on it. Some influences were negative, such as the persecution of Christians, though even these had a positive result. Having some Christians martyred for their faith, galvanized the faith of others, and caused Christianity to work toward establishing confessions of faith. These creeds helped differentiate between orthodoxy, heresy, and cult.

The Roman Empire provided the environment in which Christianity could move from persecution to recognition as the official State religion. Its vast empire and infrastructure also facilitated the quick spread of the Christian faith. Several scholars and historians see a continuation of the Roman Empire in the Roman Catholic Church, claiming the latter is a later, yet very different iteration of the former.

Since early Spanish colonial chronicles of the 16th century first alleged the existence of a lost city of gold in the depths of the South American continent, El Dorado has fired the imagination of explorers, scholars, and historians worldwide. What began with chroniclers’ secondhand accounts of a Muisca king bathed in gold in the Colombian Andes soon took on a life of its own as myth and legend, fueling numerous expeditions by gold-crazed explorers through the centuries. But where does history end and myth begin in the legend of El Dorado?

Origin Story: The Golden King of the Muisca

For millennia before the Spanish first landed in the territory of what is today Colombia, the northern end of South America was inhabited by diverse Indigenous societies, each with its own culture, language, identity, and social structures. In the Andean highlands of the modern-day Colombian departments of Cundinamarca and Boyacá, an Indigenous civilization known as the Muisca (also called the Chibcha) flourished beginning between 1270 BCE and 500 BCE, establishing a far-reaching and socially complex network of settlements called the Muisca Confederation.

As in many other Indigenous populations throughout the Americas—namely the Inka, who flourished further south along the Andes in what are today Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile—gold held important religious, symbolic, and ritual significance within Muisca culture. Gold was mined and worked extensively by Muisca artisans, and frequently employed in handicrafts and religious iconography. An iconic example of Muisca goldwork—and today, a national emblem of Colombia exhibited prominently in the Museo del Oro (Gold Museum) in Bogotá—is the Muisca raft, a votive offering in the form of a raft made in an alloy of gold, silver, and copper.

This brilliant piece of pre-Columbian art offers some clues into the prominence of gold within Muisca religion and mythology—and represents one of the historical foundations of the myth of El Dorado. According to legend, one of the rulers of the Muisca Confederation, known as the zipa, would inaugurate his rule through a ritual taking place at Lake Guatavita, high in the central Colombian Andes. The new zipa would be anointed with gold dust, taken aboard a raft onto the lake, and would throw gold objects into the lake as an offering to the gods. He would then immerse himself into the lake, washing the gold from his body, to emerge from the lake reborn from the divine sun as the new ruler of the Muisca. Historically, then, “El Dorado” refers not to a city but to a man—the golden king of the Muisca.

From History to Myth: The Birth of the El Dorado Legend

When the Spanish began their decades-long conquest of Colombia beginning in the early 16th century, they encountered a land already dense with highly developed civilizations such as the Muisca, as well as the smaller chiefdoms, tribes, and bands that populated the peripheries of those socially complex confederations. What was common to a great many of those societies, however, was their abundant use of gold for artisanal and religious purposes. It was this that fueled both the rapid conquests of the gold-crazed Spanish conquistadors and the accounts of El Dorado that fired their imaginations—and their typically ill-fated expeditions—for centuries to come.

There are six original accounts that gave rise to the legend of El Dorado. Three were written by the early Spanish chroniclers Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, Pedro Cieza de León, and Juan de Castellanos. The other three were recorded by the conquistadores Gonzalo Pizarro, Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada, and Sebastián de Belalcázar. While these accounts each differ in the details, they all feature the same basic story of the Muisca zipa adorned in gold and the ceremony at Lake Guatavita. These six accounts are the basic foundation of all subsequent versions of the legend of El Dorado, which was embellished with each retelling and soon took on a life of its own.

As the El Dorado narrative underwent transformation, partly a consequence of the rapid speed of the conquest and the highly mobile lives of conquistadors, chroniclers, and colonial administrators, the concept became synonymous with a lost city of gold located somewhere in the South American hinterland. Some versions even extended the concept to include a kingdom of gold, containing the mythical cities of Manoa and Omagua. The rumored location of these cities appear in various spots on colonial-era maps, with the most common placements in the river valleys of the Amazon and the Orinoco, South America’s two largest river basins. There in the depths of the great South American rainforests, explorers fruitlessly sought for over two centuries—in the process, charting and sometimes conquering swaths of the South American interior.

Searching for El Dorado: Early Expeditions

One of the earliest European expeditions in search of El Dorado was led by Gonzalo Pizarro, the half-brother of the conquistador Francisco Pizarro, who led the conquest of the Inka Empire. Infamous for his brutality, which exceeded that of even his brother and other ruthless conquistadors of the early Spanish conquests, Gonzalo Pizarro was appointed vice-governor of Quito in 1539. He was then ordered to head east from Quito to explore the interior of modern-day Ecuador in search of the rumored kingdom of El Dorado. Assembling an expedition of several hundred Spanish troops and thousands of Indigenous men, Pizarro crossed the Andes in early 1541 and marched into the Amazonian lowlands along the course of the Coca and Napo rivers.

With provisions running low and disease rampant, Pizarro commanded his subordinate, the conquistador Francisco de Orellana, to sail downriver in search of food before rejoining the company. When Orellana failed to return—instead opting to continue downriver, becoming the first European to explore the length of the Amazon River—Pizarro accepted defeat and marched back to Quito with his few remaining men, mosquito-bitten, arrow-shot, and half-starved. The first expedition to El Dorado was a failure, one which set the precedent for all subsequent expeditions. Meanwhile, while Orellana never found El Dorado on his months-long trip down the Amazon, he eventually returned to Spain telling tales of huge, complex, and ancient civilizations flourishing along the banks of the world’s largest river, fueling the legend for years to come.

New expeditions were mounted throughout the 16th century. Conquistadors such as Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada, his brother Hernán Pérez de Quesada, Pedro de Ursúa, and Lope de Aguirre all made their attempts, launching expeditions inland from modern-day Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela. While all ended in defeat—and often the deaths of most of the explorers—these expeditions did extend Spanish power, at least partially, further into the remote interior of the Amazon and Orinoco river basins.

Sir Walter Raleigh’s Search for the City of Gold

Perhaps the most famous of all El Dorado expeditions were those led by the English explorer and soldier Sir Walter Raleigh, taking place in the context of the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585–1604. In 1595, Raleigh sailed to the island of Trinidad just off the coast of modern-day Venezuela with the objective of capturing the Spanish settlement of San José de Oruña, along with its governor, the Spanish official Antonio de Berrío, who was also searching for El Dorado. Raleigh captured de Berrío and, with the Spaniard’s guidance, sailed 400 miles into the Orinoco River basin in search of the fabled city of gold. While he eventually reached the Guiana Highlands and established contact with several Indigenous communities of the region, he found no gold and was eventually forced to return to England, where he published an embellished account of his journey that soon inspired other explorers to try their luck.

The 1595 expedition was not to be Raleigh’s last. Raleigh’s final attempt occurred in 1617, this time under orders from King James I of England to avoid any conflict with the Spanish; a peace treaty had since been signed between the two powers. Again using the island of Trinidad as his base, Raleigh opted to stay on the island and send ahead his subordinate, an English captain named Lawrence Kemys. Kemys sailed down the Orinoco and, disobeying orders, sacked the Spanish settlement of Santo Tome de Guayana. When Spanish forces retaliated, Raleigh’s son Watt was killed in the fighting. Kemys soon returned to Raleigh with no gold and begging for forgiveness; when Raleigh refused to give any, Kemys committed suicide. Raleigh himself would fare no better; returning to England in 1618, King James ordered him executed for disobeying his orders not to engage in conflict with the Spanish.

Despite Raleigh’s ill-fated expeditions, the legend of the golden city did not die with him, and his exaggerated accounts of his explorations in the Guianas only bolstered European interest in El Dorado. His expeditions also had the effect of permanently weaking Spanish influence in the Guianas, allowing other European powers—among them the English, the Dutch, and the French—to establish colonies in the region, permanently altering the history of the northeastern corner of South America.

The Search Continues: Later Expeditions

Despite the failure of all previous expeditions in search of El Dorado, new ones were launched by several European powers throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. In 1603, Portuguese explorer Pêro Coelho de Sousa sought El Dorado in the rainforests north of the Brazilian state of Pernambuco, while in 1609 the English explorer Robert Harcourt made another attempt in the Guianas. Further expeditions occurred under other explorers in 1611, 1627, 1637, and even well into the 18th century.

Many of these expeditions centered on a huge mythical lake along which El Dorado was said to stand, Lake Parime. Based on the reports of the expeditions recounted above, European cartographers began to include Lake Parime and El Dorado itself on maps of South America, which convinced many explorers that the existence of both had been confirmed. The first map to include both sites was published by the Dutch cartographer Jodocus Hondius in 1598, based on Raleigh’s embellished narrative of his first expedition. This map inspired other cartographers to include the fabled lake on their own maps, a practice that continued into the 18th century—although no one had ever seen the lake and the city of gold which was usually placed on its northern shore.

Only by the late 18th century did most cartographers begin to leave the lake off their maps due to the failure of all attempts to confirm its existence. In 1804, the existence of Lake Parime was definitively disproved by the German explorer Alexander von Humboldt, who surveyed the region and found no lake. Humboldt instead proposed that the seasonal flooding of the Rupununi savannah in Guyana may have been mistaken for a lake. Still, the long-held belief in this nonexistent lake was partly responsible for the numerous doomed expeditions in search of El Dorado that Raleigh’s account and others inspired.

The End of the Legend?

By the early 19th century, most scholars and historians came to consider the existence of El Dorado to be a myth—albeit one that had cost many ill-fated explorers their lives and fortunes. By the turn of the 20th century, the existence of El Dorado was well and truly discredited. From its origin in the rituals of the Muisca to the dozens of doomed expeditions it inspired throughout the colonial era, the long-sought lost city of gold has returned to the realm of myth and legend.

However, the historical and cultural influence of the legend of El Dorado lives on, especially in the South American lands where so many sought in vain for the city of gold. Expeditions in search of El Dorado no longer take place, but the lust for gold has not abated; gold mining remains a major—and often illegal, dangerous, and environmentally disastrous—industry in much of South America, especially throughout the Amazon and Orinoco river basins.

The explorers of the colonial era may have never found their gold, but today illegal gold mining brings riches to some while ravaging communities and ecosystems throughout South America. For those today immersed in this dirty business, perhaps the dream of El Dorado never died…

The 13 Pauline Epistles make up the most books contributed by a single author to the New Testament — although scholars dispute Paul’s authorship of some of these books. The term “epistle” means “written message” or “letter.” These letters are vital to understanding early Christianity, Christian theology, and church structure.

Paul had extensive theological training as a Pharisee and vehemently opposed the new Christian sect before his conversion. He did not boast about his prior training or status among the Jews, even though his training contributed to his ability to significantly expound on theological matters and explain the significance of Christ and his actions in the light of Old Testament ceremonies, rituals, and prophecies.

The Writing of Paul’s Letters

Paul’s knowledge did not just come from previous training or later exposure to other apostles who used to be disciples of Jesus. His letters indicate that certain information was revealed to him by Christ directly (1 Corinthians 11:23 and 2 Corinthians 12:1-10).

Paul supposedly wrote these letters over about two decades, from approximately 48 to 67 CE. This period is an approximation as there is no consensus on the exact dates for authorship of these letters.

Authorship of the Pauline Epistles 

The Pauline Epistles were supposedly written by the Apostle Paul. The protestant Bible lists them as consecutive books from Romans to Philemon. These letters identify Paul as the author, however, many scholars debate the authorship of some of these books. The debate gave rise to three classifications of the authorship of the letters: The Pauline Epistles, the Deutero-Pauline Epistles, and the Pseudo-Pauline Epistles.

The Pauline Epistles are epistles scholars generally regard as authentically written by Paul. These epistles are Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon.

“Deutero-Pauline” refers to certain letters that were written in the spirit of Paul but which were probably authored by followers of Paul or perhaps by a Pauline school. Early church fathers like Polycarp, Justin, Marcion, Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome, and Tertullian considered them authentic. Second Thessalonians and Colossians fall into this category.

The Pseudo-Pauline Epistles are letters that were neither written by Paul nor in the spirit of what Paul would write. They may be pseudepigrapha, a common occurrence in the last centuries BCE and first centuries CE, where an author would attribute his work to another person to give it more authority. Some scholars assign Ephesians, First and Second Timothy, and Titus to this category, though others categorize them as Deutero-Pauline.

Many scholars believe Paul may have used a secretary, also referred to as an amanuensis, to do his writing. This view, however, would not explain the letters dated to a decade after Paul’s death.

Audience and Purpose

The Pauline Epistles had a variety of audiences in mind. Some letters were addressed to churches and faith communities who faced social, theological, or ethical problems, while others were addressed to individuals and gave pastoral guidance on conduct.

Unlike the general epistles, named after the supposed author, the Pauline letters carry the names of the communities or individuals addressed in them. Romans through to Second Thessalonians addressed those faith communities, while the pastoral letters guided Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Though addressed to these communities and individuals, their content benefits all faith communities or individuals facing similar challenges. They are also beneficial for the establishment of doctrine.

In general, the Pauline Epistles deal with doctrine (things Christians need to know), application (how doctrine should translate to action), and logistics (specific instructions or greetings). In a sense, Paul explains the significance of the Gospel narrative and how it impacts the believer.

The Sequence of the Pauline Epistles 

Many scholars have proposed different motivations for the sequence of the Pauline Epistles. Their theories range from the time of authorship to the suggestion that the epistles constitute two categories: letters written from prison and letters written while free.

An alternative hypothesis is that the length of the epistles determined the sequence with the caveat that a second letter to a congregation or person follows directly after the first letter. Another proposition was that the first letters addressed congregations or faith communities while the last were pastoral letters addressed to individuals.

Structure and Content

The Pauline Epistles generally follow the following structure: an introduction of the author (and his associates), prayers for the readers, answers to questions the readers may have sent, discussion of issues among the target audience, things that Christians should believe, things that Christians should do, then greetings. Not all these elements appear in every letter. Paul uses the term “grace and peace” in his introductions.

The letters to the Romans and the Galatians contain detailed discussions of the Law and its significance in a Christian context. This focus on the Law may indicate that the letters targeted converted Jews. Alternatively, Paul was addressing new Christians confronted by Jews about the Law.

First and Second Corinthians deal with Christian conduct in a gentile environment. In First Corinthians, several issues in the church had to be addressed. These included but were not limited to, quarrels and divisions in the church, sexual immorality, offerings to idols, and proper conduct in a congregational setting.

First and Second Thessalonians tend to focus on eschatological issues such as the second coming of Jesus. Second Thessalonians addresses certain misconceptions that surfaced in the church after the previous letter. The second letter aimed to clarify the issue and correct the Thessalonians’ understanding of end-time events.

Philippians is a compendium that has no specific focus. It addresses various matters that the believers from Philippi needed guidance on. The letters to the Colossians and Ephesians overlap in content with the latter, seeming like a more compact version of the former.

The pastoral letters to Timothy, Philemon, and Titus guide these individuals in their unique circumstances. The letter to Philemon addressed the situation of a slave in the epistle with that name. Timothy was a young believer and associate of Paul who showed great promise. The letters addressed to Timothy encouraged and advised him on conduct in his ministry and what Paul expected of him. The letter to Titus addresses a companion of Paul who needed guidance on issues such as leadership and church organization, false teachers versus sound doctrine, good works, and relationships in the church.

The Pauline Epistles constitute approximately 25% of the New Testament and make up the second largest contribution ascribed to a single author by volume — if the attribution of authorship is correct. The Gospel of Luke and Acts, traditionally attributed to Luke, are larger in volume by 126 verses.

Hebrews and the Pauline Corpus

The authorship of Hebrews has been a contentious issue for many centuries. Initially, the early church fathers did not consider Hebrews a Pauline letter, with Origen being a proponent of the non-Pauline view. In the fourth century CE, Jerome and Augustine suggested that Paul did write the letter and that remained the view on Hebrews for some time.

One reason for considering Hebrews as a letter by Paul is that the 13th chapter mentions Timothy as a companion. Timothy was a known associate of Paul. Gradually, the view reverted to it being a general epistle, rather than Pauline, by the time of the Reformation.

Luther was convinced that Hebrews was not of Pauline origin and placed it at the end of the Pauline corpus when he translated the Bible into German. Most Bibles today follow the same sequence. One motivation for not considering Hebrews a work of Paul is the lack of a salutation, identification of the author, and recipient(s), or a benediction at the end, which Paul’s letters usually have.

The Significance of the Pauline Epistles

Paul contributed the largest volume of Christian doctrine to the New Testament. Though Luke contributes a larger verse count, his content is primarily narratives.

Paul addresses the largest variety of issues from doctrine to conduct and from encouragement to admonition. He tends to speak on complex matters and goes into much more detail than the authors of the general epistles do. Peter addresses this in 2 Peter 3:15-16, in which he acknowledges the wisdom of Paul and the complexity of some of his work. Paul was a theological leader among the apostles.

In addition to the doctrinal value of the Pauline Epistles, this corpus provides insight into the early history of the Christian church and its struggle to bridge cultures, distinguish itself from other religions, and establish itself in the gentile Roman Empire.

The work of Paul forms the basis of the moral, ethical, leadership, and organizational teaching in the church. He played a significant role in shaping Christian theology throughout Christian history. His work speaks to believers of gentile and Jewish origin and often seeks to establish unity in the diversity of constituent members.

Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley was born into an aristocratic family as the eldest son of a 5th Baronet on November 16, 1896. After a career in politics, Mosley led the British Union of Fascists (BUF) for 8 years, a period marked by violence and rich in anti-Semitic sentiment, with a strong presence in the East End of London. Although never fully able to establish himself or his ideas, Mosley is still remembered as the leading figure in British Fascism.

How Did Mosley Establish Himself?

After serving in a cavalry regiment and as a pilot during the First World War, Mosley kicked off his political career with the Conservative Party and later the Labour Party. During his early career, he married the heiress Cynthia Curzon in 1920 (he would later marry Diana Mitford following Curzon’s death).

During his time with the above parties, Mosley grew disillusioned with the British government and resigned in May 1930. Following his resignation, Mosley and 5 other Labour Party MPs created the New Party and, although it did not have much success, it did act as a precursor for the BUF. In January 1932, Mosley visited Italy to study fascism where he met Benito Mussolini and was so influenced that he became convinced that it was time to establish a fascist party in Britain. [1]

What Was the British Union of Fascists?

The BUF was officially launched on 1st October 1932 with 32 members, including several former members of the New Party. The party was most active in the inter-war years, reaching around 40,000 members in 1934 with branches across the country. Mosley wanted members to wear a ‘uniform’ which included a black shirt, coining the nickname ‘Blackshirts’ for members and supporters of the BUF.

The most notable event which took place in the inter-war years was the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 – a clash between fascists and anti-fascists. To increase support for their campaign, the British Union of Fascists intended to march through the East End on 4th October 1936, wearing their Blackshirt uniforms. Around 50,000 people gathered to prevent the entry of the march into the East End, and between 100,000 and 300,000 additional protesters waited on the route where barricades were erected. [2]

Following this battle, the government passed the 1936 Public Order Act which gave the Prime Minister and the police the power to ban marches and made it an offence to wear political uniforms. [3] With new barriers in place, Mosley decided to use more democratic methods and took part in municipal elections but had little success.

What Did Mosley Do During and Following World War Two?

Despite the war against Germany, fascism in Britain persisted during World War Two and the government issued Defense Regulation 18B, which allowed for persons believed to be a threat to the country to be interned. The first arrests of BUF members occurred on 23 May 1940, and hundreds were eventually detained, including Mosley. [4]

Mosley was released from internment in November 1943 on the grounds of declining health, a decision that was met with much hostility from the British public who were keenly aware of the Nazi threat. Mosley was released on the condition that he was not to engage in any political activity and during this time he laid low on his farm in Wiltshire, but he was still formulating behind the scenes. [5]

Although Mosley did not re-enter active politics until 1947, he was still involved with fascist groups after the war and claimed that his time as a detainee had given him the chance to strengthen himself intellectually.

What Was the Union Movement?

Mosley returned to active politics with the Union Movement (UM) in February 1948, uniting 51 groups under one movement. No Jews were allowed to join. The UM attracted an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 followers and Mosley was careful to work within the law to try and establish a legitimate movement.[6] Speakers were encouraged to wear black tops and grey trousers. Flags bearing the Union Jack and the lightning flash, a symbol adopted from the BUF, were also flown. Following the Windrush in 1948, members of the UM also began to attack immigrants from the West Indies but antisemitism remained at the core.

Despite Mosley’s charisma, he lacked the energy he had in his pre-war career and even his followers became disillusioned with membership declining to half its numbers by 1949. Mosley stepped back from the running of the movement, and by 1951 he had left for Ireland.

How Did Mosley Spend His Final Years?

Mosley did not return to Britain until 1958 when immigration growth became a popular subject amongst the public, especially regarding Windrush (again). He ran as an MP in the 1959 General Election for Kensington North and in 1966 for Shoreditch and Finsbury but did not have much success and later retired to France. During his final years Mosley experienced ill- health and suffered with Parkinson’s disease. He died at home in Orsay on 3 December 1980 aged 84.

Sources:

[1] https://spartacus-educational.com/PRmosley.htm

[2] Martin Pugh, Hurrah for the Blackshirts (2006), page 225

[3] https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/public-order-act-1936

[4] David Stephen Lewis, Illusions of Grandeur: Mosley, Fascism and the British Ideology 1931-1981, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987, p.231

[5] Nigel H. Jones, Mosley: Life and Times (London: Haus Publishing, 2005), p.144

[6] Nigel Copsey, Anti-fascism in Britain (Hampshire: MacMilllan, 2000), p.96

Formed during the last Ice Age, almost 10,000 years ago, Italy’s Lake Como’s distinctive inverted “Y” shape was sculpted by retreating glaciers. This natural masterpiece has captivated visitors for centuries now. Throughout history, Lake Como has been a favored retreat for aristocrats, artists, and intellectuals. The Romans recognized its strategic importance, establishing the town of Novum Comum, modern-day Como, as a vital center for trade and commerce.

Some of the most impressive aspects of Lake Como are its opulent villas adorning the shores. These grand estates, often accompanied by meticulously landscaped gardens, have served as summer residences for nobility and affluent families. But among all these illustrious estates, one stands out above the rest: the world-famous Villa d’Este.

How Old is Villa d’Este and Why Was It Built?

The story of this iconic villa began in 1442. This was when Gerardo Landriani, the Bishop of Como, established a female convent near the Garovo stream. Over a century later, meaning in 1568, Cardinal Tolomeo Gallio, a native of Cernobbio, acquired the site and commissioned architect Pellegrino Tibaldi to design a grand summer residence. The resulting Villa del Garovo, completed in 1570, showcased the elegance of Renaissance architecture and became a hub for politicians, intellectuals, and ecclesiastics during Gallio’s lifetime.

Following Cardinal Gallio’s death, the villa remained under the Gallio family’s ownership for nearly two centuries. During this period, it experienced phases of neglect and restoration. This was a sign of the changing fortunes of its proprietors. Fast forward to 1749, and the Jesuits utilized the estate as a center for spiritual exercises. This marked a significant shift in the function of the villa.

Transition of Villa d’Este from Noble to Aristocratic Ownership

The late 18th and early 19th centuries saw Villa del Garovo transition through various aristocratic hands. In 1778, it was acquired by Count Mario Odescalchi and later by Count Marliani in 1784. Subsequently, the Milanese Calderari family purchased the property and undertook extensive restorations, including the creation of a new Italian-style garden featuring an impressive nymphaeum and a temple housing a 17th-century statue of Hercules hurling Lichas into the sea.

After the death of Marquis Calderari, his widow, Vittoria Peluso, a former ballerina at La Scala, married Napoleonic General Count Domenico Pino. In honor of her husband, Peluso added a mock fortress to the park. This was a clear representation of the era’s fascination with romanticized military structures.

A Royal Chapter and the Renaming to Nuova Villa d’Este

A pivotal chapter in the villa’s history commenced in 1815 when Caroline of Brunswick, the estranged wife of the future King George IV of the United Kingdom, took residence. She renamed the estate “Nuova Villa d’Este,” a nod to her claimed descent from the House of Este. During her tenure, Caroline transformed the gardens into an English landscape style. This introduced a picturesque aesthetic that contrasted with the formal Italian design.

Caroline’s residency brought a period of grandeur and social prominence to the villa. However, following her departure and subsequent death in 1821, the property changed hands multiple times, including ownership by Prince Torlonia and later Prince Domenico Orsini. Each proprietor left their mark, which contributed to the enrichment of the architectural and cultural heritage of the villa.

What to Know About Lake Como’s Villa d’Este Transformation into a Luxury Retreat

The modern era of Villa d’Este began in 1873 when a group of Milanese businessmen purchased the estate and converted it into a luxury hotel. This transformation marked the beginning of the villa’s status as a premier destination for the elite. The hotel’s opulent interiors, expansive gardens, and stunning lake views have since attracted a distinguished clientele, including royalty, celebrities, and political figures.

In 1913, the Italian government recognized the villa’s historical and cultural significance by designating its 25-acre park as a National Monument. This acknowledgment shows the importance of the villa as a heritage site and its major role in Italy’s artistic and architectural history.

The Architectural Grandeur and Garden Splendor of Villa d’Este

The meticulously designed gardens of Villa d’Este, alongside its architectural grandeur, offer a setting rich in history and beauty. The estate features a blend of Renaissance and Baroque elements, with ornate facades, grand staircases, and intricate frescoes adorning the interiors. The gardens are renowned for their terraced design, incorporating fountains, statues, and a variety of plant species that thrive in Lake Como’s mild climate.

One of the most notable features is the Nymphaeum, adorned with polychrome mosaics, leading to the Viale d’Ercole, a pathway of stairways and waterways culminating at the statue of Hercules and Lichas. Additionally, the mock fortress built during Vittoria Peluso’s time remains a charming element within the English garden section.

The Villa’s Cultural Impact and Iconic Events

Villa d’Este plays a major role in cultural and social events, on top of being a luxury hotel. Since 1929, it has hosted the annual Concorso d’Eleganza Villa d’Este, a prestigious event showcasing vintage and concept cars. This gathering attracts automobile enthusiasts and collectors from around the world. They gather to celebrate automotive design and heritage.

The villa has also served as a backdrop for various films and artistic endeavors, further cementing its status as a cultural icon. Its timeless beauty and historical ambiance continue to inspire artists, writers, and filmmakers.

Modern-Day Villa d’Este

Today, Villa d’Este remains a symbol of luxury and elegance. The hotel offers 152 rooms, each uniquely decorated with antique furnishings and vintage artifacts. All of this provides guests with a sense of the Belle époque era. Amenities include a floating swimming pool on the lake, a wellness center, fitness facilities, and world-class dining options. The estate’s commitment to preserving its historical charm while providing modern comforts ensures that it continues to be a sought-after destination for travelers from all around the world.

Can You Visit Villa d’Este Even If You Don’t Want to Stay the Night?

Villa d’Este welcomes guests from around the world to experience its history as well as luxury. If you want to stay overnight, then we recommend that. However, if you’re just visiting for the day, then the estate’s grounds, restaurants, and amenities will be open for you so that you can immerse yourself in the villa’s Renaissance charm. Reservations are highly recommended, especially during peak seasons, as the hotel is a renowned destination for travelers seeking a serene yet opulent retreat on Lake Como.

Commitment to Sustainability at Villa d’Este

Villa d’Este also prioritizes sustainability, as it engages in various practices to protect the surrounding natural environment. The estate has implemented eco-friendly initiatives, such as sourcing locally grown produce, reducing waste, and conserving water within its gardens. These efforts reflect a commitment to preserving Lake Como’s ecosystem while maintaining the villa’s legacy of luxury and elegance. Villa d’Este is committed to historical preservation, luxury, and environmental consciousness, which solidified its reputation as not just a hotel but a cherished cultural institution.

Must-See Sights and Activities Near Lake Como’s Villa d’Este

When visiting Lake Como, it wouldn’t be enough to just explore Villa d’Este. The surrounding area is filled with charming towns and cultural sites. For instance, the nearby town of Como is known for its beautiful Duomo, historical museums, and lively markets. Guests can also explore Bellagio, often called the “Pearl of Lake Como,” where narrow cobblestone streets are lined with quaint shops, cafes, and historic villas. Outdoor enthusiasts can hike up to the Volta Lighthouse for panoramic views of the lake or take a cable car to Brunate, which offers scenic vistas and picturesque walking trails.

The region is obviously rich with Italian culture, which makes it a fantastic extension of any visit to Villa d’Este.

Many people think of the American Civil War as a battle of might and wits between two generals: the South’s Robert E. Lee and the North’s Ulysses S. Grant. Their actual struggle against each other did not begin until May 1864, after Grant was transferred to the Eastern Theater of the war and made general-in-chief of Union armies. The Battle of the Wilderness was the first of many Lee-vs-Grant battles.

Victory Claimed by Confederacy, but Likely Inconclusive

The Battle of the Wilderness was a massive engagement that opened the final, and perhaps most brutal, phase of the American Civil War. Ulysses S. Grant, the new general-in-chief of all Union armies, had a simple mission: attack Confederate general Robert E. Lee and Lee’s vaunted Army of Northern Virginia wherever it was. This army defended the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia and had defeated all previous Union attempts to seize the city. Defeating Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia would end the war.

Between May 5 and May 7, 1864, Grant’s massive Army of the Potomac clashed with the Army of Northern Virginia in territory that had seen multiple previous battles. The densely forested terrain in Virginia, known as the Wilderness, saw brutal fighting as both sides often stumbled into each other. Despite a strong start on May 5, Grant saw his offensive worn down by Lee’s skillful defense. Ultimately, Grant did not defeat Lee, giving the Confederates a chance to claim victory, but neither did Grant withdraw. Grant’s refusal to withdraw leaves many to call the battle inconclusive.

Timeline of the Battle of the Wilderness

By May 2, 1864, Confederate General Robert E. Lee knew that the Union’s Army of the Potomac was about to go on the offensive. He figured that another attack on Richmond was underway. This time, the Union forces were under the command of an aggressive new general-in-chief: Ulysses S. Grant. Lee quickly spread out his forces to be ready to intercept Grant no matter which way the Union general chose to march.

On May 4, the Army of the Potomac crossed into Virginia.

Just before dawn on May 5, the first Union cavalry regiments encountered Confederate infantry marching into position in the Wilderness region. Grant had tried to march through this thickly wooded territory to surprise Lee but had been caught.

Real fighting began later that morning, and an afternoon Union attack surprised Lee, who had wished to avoid a general engagement thus far.

By about 9:00 PM, the Union attack had been halted just short of a breakthrough.

Fierce fighting resumed that next morning, May 6, with another Union attack. Confederate general James Longstreet responded with a counterattack, and fighting raged throughout the day, most of it inconclusive.

By the morning of May 7, Grant decided to continue moving his army south rather than attack against strongly-constructed Confederate defenses. This would lead immediately to the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House.

What Caused the Battle of the Wilderness?

Ulysses S. Grant knew he needed to change the Union’s tactics for fighting the Confederacy. Previous attempts to take Richmond had been repulsed, but the Army of the Potomac’s withdrawal always gave the Confederates ample time to rest and build more defensive positions. Although a war of attrition would be painful, it would be more harmful to the South than to the North. Thus, Grant embarked on this new strategy in May 1864 and planned to continue until he had battered his way into Richmond. Grant thought, incorrectly, that taking his army through the woods would prevent its detection until he could fight the Confederates on open ground and use his artillery advantage.

For his part, Lee knew that he had to attack while the Army of the Potomac was still mired in the Wilderness. Outnumbered two-to-one, Lee risked a solid defeat if he allowed Grant to reach open ground and make use of his cannons. Hoping to use a similar strategy as at the Battle of Chancellorsville a year earlier, Lee wanted to send a few divisions forward to pin the Army of Potomac in place while other divisions struck suddenly from the sides. Unfortunately for Lee, the thick woods of the Wilderness would hinder his own troops as well during the fighting.

Why Was the Battle of the Wilderness Significant?

The battle was significant because it marked the opening of a war of attrition in Virginia. Grant would not give the enemy time to regroup, marking a tremendous shift in strategy from previous years. Time had been on the Confederacy’s side after previous engagements, with the South able to build more defenses. Although the South had limited manpower and could not sustain losses as easily as the North, the administration of Union President Abraham Lincoln faced political pressure to end the war as the months dragged on. A weary Northern public would not accept a “forever war” against the South.

Secondly, the Battle of the Wilderness was one of the largest battles of the war. Roughly 100,000 Union troops faced just over 60,000 Confederates, resulting in about 30,000 total casualties. After three years of combat, this was a painful addition to the already war-ravaged Union and Confederacy. Thus, Grant had incentive to push on and try to finish the war quickly—the voters in the North would not stand for these mounting casualties for long without clear signs of progress. Fortunately, Union victories further south, such as Sherman’s March to the Sea in Georgia, helped give Lincoln some political breathing room.

5 Facts About the Battle of the Wilderness

1. Casualties

Casualties during the Battle of the Wilderness totaled some 30,000 men, with roughly 17,000 from the Union and 13,000 from the Confederacy. These numbers have been disputed, with some arguing that Grant lost twice as many men as Lee. Regardless, even at a two-to-one ratio, the North could better handle the losses than the ailing South.

2. Commanders

Union forces were led by General Ulysses S. Grant, though Major General Gouverneur K. Warren directed most of the fighting on May 5. An engineer and topographer by training, Warren was an 1850 graduate of West Point. Warren’s topography skills helped the Union in the Battle of Gettysburg, for which Warren was promoted. Later, Warren was relieved of his command by General Philip Sheridan, and a feud lasted until an 1879 inquiry found that Sheridan’s action was unjustified.

Confederate forces were led by general Robert E. Lee. His most prominent field commander during the battle was lieutenant general James Longstreet, whose counterattack on May 6 helped save the Confederates from defeat. Longstreet was a West Pointer who served in the Mexican-American War and resigned from the US Army upon the outbreak of the Civil War. Unlike most colleagues, Longstreet openly questioned some of Lee’s decisions and later joined the Republican Party and worked with the Grant administration during post-war Reconstruction.

3. Number of Forces Involved

Under Grant and Lee, over 160,000 men fought in the Wilderness. About 100,000 of these were Union soldiers in the Army of the Potomac, and about 62,000 were Confederates in the Army of Northern Virginia. Due to the densely-forested terrain, it is difficult to determine how many men were engaged in fighting at any given time, or how many casualties truly occurred.

4. Visiting the Wilderness Region of Virginia Today

Today, visitors can see sites of the Battle of the Wilderness as part of the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Military Park in Virginia. They can engage in a driving tour with audio guidance, though some of it is on regularly used public roads. There is a specific outdoor battlefield exhibit for the Wilderness, which is accessible on a hiking trail. Many historic farms are part of the tour, representing locations where soldiers rested during the battle.

5. Trivia: One of Confederacy’s Best Generals Hit by Friendly Fire

With fewer soldiers and less industry than the North, the South relied heavily on skilled leadership to retain a rough combat parity. One of the Confederacy’s most prized generals was James Longstreet, who performed well despite the anguish of losing three children to scarlet fever in 1862. Longstreet often attacked and saved the day during battle, giving him a stellar reputation at the time despite outspoken disagreements with other generals, including Robert E. Lee. However, Longstreet’s reputation began to decline after the Battle of Gettysburg, where he openly disagreed with Pickett’s Charge.

On May 6, Longstreet was wounded by friendly fire during the Battle of the Wilderness in circumstances similar to those of fellow Confederate General “Stonewall” Jackson a year earlier. Longstreet survived, though his arm was paralyzed, and rejoined the war in October. By this time, Longstreet was on defensive duty and could do little to affect the outcome of the war. After the war, Longstreet helped the Grant administration with Reconstruction and received a pardon for his efforts in 1868.

Aftermath of the Wilderness: “The Grandest Act of Grant’s Life”

For the first time, the Army of the Potomac did not withdraw to the north after failing to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia. Instead, Grant continued to move south, keeping pressure on the Confederacy. Grant had promised President Lincoln that he would continue his offensive regardless of the outcome of the individual battle and held to that promise despite the high casualties. When fellow Union general William T. Sherman heard of Grant’s continued offensive, he called it the “grandest act” of Grant’s life.

Ultimately, Grant’s continued offensive in the Overland Campaign would be successful, resulting in the Siege of Petersburg and, later, the capture of Richmond. With no room to maneuver, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia was worn down. Exhausted and out of supplies, Lee finally surrendered after the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse in April 1865, effectively ending the American Civil War. Grant would go on to win two terms as president of the United States.

After completing his second labor, slaying the immortal Hydra, King Eurystheus commanded Heracles to capture the Ceryneian Hind. The Ceryneian Hind was a mythical female deer with golden horns and bronze hooves. It was as big as a bull and incredibly fast, capable of outrunning arrows. However, the real challenge was not the deer’s speed but that she was sacred to the goddess Artemis. Any attempt to harm or hinder the deer would incur Artemis’ divine wrath. Read on to learn how Heracles caught the deer without evoking Artemis’ anger.

The Ceryneian Hind: A Different Kind of Challenge

Upon returning to Tiryns after defeating the Lernaean Hydra, Heracles was accused of cheating by King Eurystheus for allowing Iolus to help him. Eurystheus planned to punish Heracles with an additional eleventh task. Despite the fuss Eurystheus made over how Heracles defeated the immortal Hydra, it did not change the fact that the monster was still dead. When Heracles had left with Iolaus for his second labor, the king was confident that he would never return. However, defying Hera’s will, Heracles did return.

Much to the dismay of Hera and Eurystheus, Heracles proved to be highly gifted in defeating monsters that were thought to be unbeatable. The Nemean Lion and the Lernean Hydra were considered invincible creatures, but Heracles managed to find their weaknesses and destroy them. Therefore, a new and different challenge was required to make him fail. It needed to be something that could not be overcome by brute force, something which would require a more nuanced approach.

Through Hera’s divine whispers, Eurystheus assigned Heracles a task unlike any he had faced before, and that would, without a doubt, lead to his demise. Standing outside the gates of Tiryns, King Eurystheus revealed the third labor: to capture and deliver to him the Ceryneian Hind.

The Ceryneian Hind: Not an Ordinary Deer

The Ceryneian Hind was a different sort of challenge for Heracles than his previous two labors. The Nemean Lion and Lernean Hydra were monsters that caused havoc and death among the locals and needed to be defeated. The Ceryneian Hind was generally a non-aggressive creature that did not cause destruction or harass the local population. Instead, it was a peaceful animal that spent its days frolicking in the wilderness near Ceryneia, a town located in the region of Achaea in the northern Peloponnese.

Despite its relatively peaceful nature, capturing the Ceryneian Hind posed a significant challenge to Heracles. This was no ordinary deer. She was as large as a bull and had golden horns, bronze hooves, and a dappled hide. Most accounts of the Ceryneian Hind describe her as a gentle and peaceful creature. However, some versions of the story portray the Ceryneian Hind as a more hostile animal that breathed fire, attacked nearby vineyards, and threatened local farmers.

The Ceryneian Hind was said to be one of the swiftest animals in the world, easily outrunning an arrow. Her speed was only part of the challenge. The main issue was that the Ceryneian Hind was sacred to the goddess Artemis, and any attempt to harm the deer would bring down the goddess’s divine wrath upon the culprit.

The Ceryneian Hind: The Golden Deer of Artemis

Ceryneian Hind was likely an ordinary deer before becoming entangled in the lives of the immortals, who transformed it forever. Her story begins, as is often the case with Greek myths, with the lust of Zeus. According to the legend, Taygete, a Pleiad nymph, caught the eye of the King of gods. The Pleiads were seven sisters who were renowned for their striking beauty. They were the daughters of the Titan Atlas and the Oceanid Pleione. Over time, various male Olympians such as Zeus, Poseidon, and Ares courted or pursued the Pleiads.

Taygete was a devoted follower of Artemis and often accompanied the goddess on her hunting expeditions. Like her patron, Taygete had taken a vow of chastity and refused Zeus’ advances. However, Zeus persisted and began to chase her across the Peloponnese. Taygete knew she could not outrun the King of Olympus and prayed to Artemis for help. Artemis heard her followers call for help and transformed Taygete into a deer or cow, hiding her from Zeus. The disguise worked and Zeus stopped pursuing Taygete for the time being.

In gratitude for Artemis’ assistance, Taygete presented her with a herd of five exquisite and swift-footed female deer. According to some versions of the myth, after Taygete dedicated the herd to Artemis, she transformed their horns into gold and hooves into bronze.

Artemis was so taken by the magnificent animals that she began using four of them to pull her sacred golden chariot while leaving one deer alone in the Olympian stables. This remaining deer escaped, either on its own or with Hera’s help, who planned to use it against Heracles. The Ceryneian Hind was allowed to return home to the northern Peloponnese under the divine protection of Artemis. The goddess chose not to capture her sacred animal, preferring the Golden Hind to be free in the wilderness.

The Hunt for the Hind: The Gentle Approach

Heracles accepted his new task without complaint but knew it would be more challenging than his previous labors. The Ceryneian Hind was sacred to his half-sister Artemis, notorious for her violent retribution towards those who wronged her. Heracles recognized that capturing the Hind would require a delicate touch, which was not one of his strong suits.

Heracles was a brave and strong character, unafraid of going into battle and bashing his enemies using his club. However, this time, his brute strength would be of little help to him. Instead, he had to employ his speed, intelligence, and patience to capture the creature without causing it any harm. Heracles knew that even a small injury to the Hind could have dire consequences. If he caused any damage to the animal, Artemis might instantly kill him or, worse, transform him into an animal and hunt him down.

Heracles had no trouble tracking down the Ceryneian Hind in the dense forests around Ceryneia. Despite its reputation for incredible speed, its glittering golden horns and bronze hooves made it easy to spot for any hunter foolish enough to pursue it.

When Heracles tried to capture the Ceryneian Hind, he faced a dilemma. He could not risk injuring the creature by attacking it from afar with his bow, and even using a net failed due to the Hind’s incredible speed. Heracles attempted to approach the Golden Hind quietly, but as he drew near, the creature quickly fled beyond his reach. This left Heracles with only one option: to chase the Ceryneian Hind until it was exhausted and could no longer run, then capture it. This new strategy led to an elaborate chase lasting over a year.

The Hunt for the Hind: The Great Chase 

Heracles chased the Ceryneian Hind across Greece, swiftly moving away from the Peloponnese and heading northward, passing Athens and his hometown of Thebes. Whenever Heracles caught a glimpse of the Hind’s gleaming horns, it darted away before he could get close.  Heracles pursued the Hind to Hyperborea, a fabled land far north of Greece, beyond the Danube River. Hyperborea was considered a mythical paradise, where the Hyperboreans solely worshipped Apollo and it was home to Griffins, who guarded mountains of gold.

After reaching the far north, Heracles chased the Ceryneian Hind back to Greece. The pursuit continued until they reached the foothills of Mount Artemisium in the Peloponnese, just a short distance from where the hunt had started. At first, the Hind was just a distant golden glimmer on the horizon. But after a relentless year-long pursuit, she was significantly fatigued while Heracles never tired due to his supernatural stamina. Heracles’ patience had paid off.

The Ceryneian Hind was now exhausted and struggling to stay ahead of Heracles. At last, the elusive creature was within his grasp. Heracles’ moment came as they reached the banks of the River Ladon.

As the Ceryneian Hind crossed the river, it slowed down. Heracles saw this as an opportunity and took out his bow. Instead of aiming at the Hind, Heracles fired an arrow into the ground just ahead of her. The arrow hit its target, causing the Hind to trip and lose its balance near the riverbank. Heracles quickly took advantage of the situation, leaped forward, seized the golden horns of the Hind, and wrestled her to the ground.

In some versions, Heracles captures the Hind using a net or tackles it as it approaches the river instead of using a bow. Heracles shoots and fatally injures the Ceryneian Hind in versions of the myth in which she is portrayed as a hostile, fire-breathing beast that terrorizes local farmers.

Wrath of Artemis: Helpless Heracles

After successfully wrestling the Ceryneian Hind into submission, Heracles carefully bound it and slung her over his shoulders. He then began his journey back to Tiryns to present his quarry to Eurystheus. Heracles knew that the capture of the Ceryneian Hind was just the start of his labor. As he walked, he waited for Artemis’ response to his blasphemy, knowing that the goddess would not be pleased with his actions.

Sure enough, Artemis appeared before Heracles less than an hour after capturing the Hind. Artemis’ expression was one of simmering rage. Heracles, despite his strength and courage, was taken aback by the anger in her eyes. He stepped back, bumping unexpectedly into Apollo. Heracles found himself in a precarious situation, wedged between the twin deities of the sun and the moon. The divine twins gave Heracles disdainful glares as he carried off one of their sacred pets.

Heracles is remembered as a courageous hero who overcame every obstacle with overwhelming strength. Even with his supernatural strength, Heracles knew he was no match for one Olympian, let alone two. All Heracles had left was his bravery and wit, and so the hero did something out of character: he surrendered.

Heracles knelt and bowed before the goddess of the hunt, showing his humility. As a punishment for his disrespect and sacrilege, Artemis insulted the hero relentlessly, and he accepted every word without protest. With a heavy heart, Heracles asked for the goddess’s forgiveness and began to tell the story that led him to this position to both her and Apollo.

Heracles recounted the tragic series of events that Hera orchestrated, forcing him into a position where he had to capture the Ceryneian Hind. When Heracles mentioned Hera, the expressions of both Artemis and Apollo changed. This was Heracles’ most impressive feat during his third labor. He gambled his success on revealing Hera’s involvement in his struggle.

The Wrath of Artemis: The Wanderings of Leto

Heracles was punished because of Hera’s anger toward him for being born from one of Zeus’ affairs. Hera had punished others before Heracles for the same reason. Another victim of Hera’s wrath was the Titaness Leto, the mother of Apollo and Artemis. Leto was among the few Titans who evaded punishment after the Olympians overthrew them. It did not take long for Zeus, the newly crowned king of the gods, to become entranced by her beauty, and before long, Leto and Zeus began an affair. Leto soon became pregnant, but before she could give birth, Hera found out.

Hera channeled all of her shame and anger toward preventing Leto from giving birth, as she later did with Alcmene, the mother of Heracles. With the assistance of her mother, Gia, the Queen of Olympus cast a potent curse upon the world, which deprived Leto of any safe land to give birth. Like Alcmene, Hera also prevented her daughter Eileithyia, goddess of childbirth, from aiding Leto during her labor, which resulted in a challenging and prolonged birth.

Zeus, the king of the Olympians, could not overrule the decisions of other Olympians. As a result, Leto was abandoned and left to wander the world in search of a place to give birth, enduring agonizing labor pains. To make matters worse, Hera dispatched a draconic Python to pursue Leto, depriving her of any chance for rest.

After wandering in pain for nine days and being refused refuge on land, Leto found herself in the sea and prayed to Zeus for assistance. Zeus then appealed to his brother, Poseidon, who created a strong current directing Leto to the island of Delos. Delos was a small, uninhabited island that floated unattached to the Earth in the sea, rendering it immune to Hera’s curse.

Leto finally found a safe place to give birth to her daughter, Artemis, but she continued to experience labor pains even after the delivery. Several goddesses came to help Leto while she endured excruciating labor. Artemis assisted her mother for nine long days, while the goddess Iris persuaded Eileithyia to disobey Hera’s orders and help Leto give birth to Apollo.

The Wrath of Artemis: Sibling Comradery

Artemis was no stranger to Heracles’ plight. She could still vividly hear her mother’s screams during the nine days of agony Leto endured while giving birth to Apollo, all because of Hera. Moreover, Artemis was upset with Hera’s attempt to manipulate her into punishing Heracles for capturing the Ceryneian Hind. No one would dare use Artemis as a pawn in a petty revenge game.

Artemis forgave Heracles despite being enraged at seeing her sacred animal bound. She allowed him to take the Ceryneian Hind to Eurystheus, refusing to let her stepmother win. Artemis instructed Heracles to release the animal after presenting it to King Eurystheus. If Heracles failed to do so, Artemis and Apollo would kill him.

After thanking Artemis and Apollo for their kindness, Heracles continued his journey back to Tiryns. King Eurystheus was left speechless when he met Heracles outside the city gates. Heracles had done the impossible once again. He stood before Eurystheus, unscathed by Artemis, with a bewildered but unharmed Ceryneian Hind.

King Eurystheus forced a smile and thanked Heracles for his effort, but he could not help but complain about how long it took him to capture a simple deer. Eurystheus then announced to everyone present that he would add the Ceryneian Hind to his menagerie.

Heracles found himself in a difficult position. Although he had promised Artemis to release the Hind after presenting it to the King, he was bound to obey all of Eurystheus’ commands. Heracles came up with a cunning scheme. He managed to persuade Eurystheus to take the Ceryneian Hind from him and lead it to his menagerie. When Eurystheus was about to take hold of the Hind, Heracles let it go, allowing the majestic creature to escape effortlessly.

Eurystheus accused Heracles of cheating, but many witnesses saw the King fail to grasp the Hind before it escaped. As the Ceryneian Hind bounded over the horizon on its way back to Ceryneia, Heracles’ third labor finally ended. The hero then turned to the red-faced King, awaiting instructions on his fourth labor: capturing the Erymanthian Boar.

The 1920s was a period of cultural revolution that came soon after the traumatic events of World War I. The mass-scale violence and terror, as well as the significant technological progress, made traditional forms of art seem outdated. Some artists aimed to reinvent their visual language by rejecting the physical world altogether and focusing on intangible concepts. Others preferred escapism to exploration, diving deep into the loud and dramatic bohemian lifestyles, reflecting upon the new modernity. Let’s take a look at the eight important artists of the Roaring Twenties.

1. Tamara de Lempicka: The Queen of the Roaring Twenties

Tamara de Lempicka, the French artist of Polish origin, lived a long and dramatic life full of sharp turns. From a penniless refugee escaping the turmoil of the Russian Revolution, she turned into a Parisian celebrity and a legendary artist who was welcome in the most affluent circles. She first started to paint from a dire need to support herself and her daughter. With her fame growing, she carefully formed not only her style but her artistic persona too. Lempicka did not only work in Art Deco style—she lived it with her dresses, cars, and public appearances contributing to the legend of a modern emancipated woman.

In terms of artistic style, Lempicka’s Art Deco referenced earlier explorations by Cubist artists and the decorative style of Post-Impressionists like Maurice Denis. Her identity as a free-spirited queer woman allowed her to develop her own optics, through which she treated the subjects of female sexuality, desire, and beauty. Lempicka’s female characters, both wealthy women and random models encountered on the streets, exude confidence and controlled eroticism. They seem completely in charge of their behavior and opinions.

2. Salvador Dali

The most famous Surrealist of his time hardly needs an introduction. Salvador Dali spent most of the 1920s in his native Spain, soaking in the influences of Diego Velazques and Francisco de Zurbaran. His art of that period developed from his studies of Spanish landscapes, the Old Masters paintings, and Sigmund Freud’s research on sexuality and psyche. Colleagues have always seen him as a talented artist, but on a personal level, Dali often seemed too weird, even for the odd crowd of Surrealists.

Apart from his prolific artistic career, Dali worked with product design and advertising. In the 1930s, he collaborated with the legendary fashion designer Elsa Schiaparelli, designing dresses and perfume bottles for her brand. He painted stocking ads in his signature complex style and even created several famous brand logos. The older Dali got, the more abundant and absurd his media presence became, with the famous artist promoting almost everything, from chocolate bars to anti-hangover pills.

3. Wassily Kandinsky

Wassily Kandinsky, considered one of the fathers of abstract art, was a well-educated man with versatile interests. His decision to become a painter came to him in his thirties and reflected his previous decades filled with various experiences and education. In the 1920s, he taught art theory at the Bauhaus, a progressive art school that aimed to revolutionize design and visual expression.

One of the most significant episodes of Kandinsky’s creative life happened in his early twenties, when he joined an ethnographic research group as their lawyer, traveling with the group to remote Russian villages. There, he encountered local folk art that filled churches and houses from floor to ceiling, creating an impression of all-encompassing work that absorbed its viewer. From that impression, Kandinsky developed a fascination with folk arts and crafts, first translating it into the language of expressionist art and later departing into complete abstraction.

4. Ernst Ludwig Kirchner

Ernst Ludwig Kirchner was among the leaders of the German Expressionist movement. Like many of his colleagues, he had a profound interest in non-Western and primitive art, experimenting with the simplification of forms to maximize the emotional impact. In his compositions, Kirchner often used aggressive neon colors, sharp angles, and distorted proportions. His signature subject matter was the anxiety and chaos of modern cities, both threatening and alluring, desirable and nauseating. Apart from painting, he worked with woodblock prints, creating similar rough-edged compositions.

Like many other German artists, Kirchner volunteered during World War I and experienced the scale of destruction first-hand. A year after entering service, the artist was dismissed due to a severe mental breakdown. While his pre-war paintings attracted crowds and inspired younger creatives, Kirchner was spending his 1920s recovering from deep mental trauma caused by the war. Despite all efforts, he committed suicide in 1938, leaving his fears and anxieties to inhabit his paintings forever.

5. Marcel Duchamp

The long and prolific career of Marcel Duchamp covered many art forms and movements but retained its multi-layered contextuality and ambiguity. Working with found objects and readymade, Duchamp was among the first artists who decided to sever the link between a work of art and its embodiment. In other words, he was the pioneer of Conceptual Art, which prioritizes artistic ideas over artistic effort. Duchamp’s authority in artistic circles was unshakeable, with generations of artists following his example.

The 1920s was among the most prolific periods in Duchamp’s career. He constructed intricate mechanisms and encased them between glass panels, like in one of his most famous works The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even. Duchamp spent seven years planning and executing the work, yet, ironically, the finishing touch came from a clumsy art handler, who dropped the glass panel which made it crack. Duchamp eagerly accepted the involvement of fate, conserving the damage.

6. Piet Mondrian

The Dutch abstract painter Piet Mondrian, like many other creatives, spent the Roaring Twenties in Paris, which was then the heart of artistic innovation. The artist was already in his fifties and had a significant record of artistic achievements and innovations. His minimalist abstract art was a highly intellectual alternative to the abundance of Art Deco and Surrealism, focusing on pure line and color rather than form. However, in Paris, Mondrian came up with a new idea. He started to tilt his canvases at a 45-degree angle, thus creating diamond-shaped square paintings.

Like many other abstract artists of his generation, Mondrian searched for a way to revive and reinvent dated art forms and techniques. In his art theories, the artist explained the need to reject everything conventional and established and reduce art to the simplest forms possible. These forms—mostly squares of primary colors—were supposed to gradually develop into a new artistic language that would retain values and ideas relevant to the current age.

7. Georgia O’Keeffe

The great American artist Georgia O’Keeffe started to gain prominence during the 1920s and quickly became one of the most famous artists of her time. In that decade, she found her most recognizable artistic language, close-up paintings of flowers arranged in a way that almost turned them into abstraction.

Georgia O’Keeffe’s gender was an insurmountable barrier to many who tried to interpret her work. Her work was criticized as too feminine or too sexual, despite the artist rejecting any erotic connotations of her paintings. Unlike many other women artists, her romantic affiliation with another famous creative did not bring harm but rather propelled her career. In the late 1910s, O’Keeffe met the famous photographer Alfred Stieglitz, who actively promoted her art and helped her gain prominence in the early years of her career.

8. Andre Breton: A Roaring Twenties Legend

Andre Breton is most frequently mentioned as a poet or the ideological leader of the Surrealist movement rather than an artist. Nonetheless, he was both an intellectual and creative force behind many of the 1920s artistic innovations. Before turning to art, he was a medical student with a profound interest in psychiatry, and later brought his knowledge and curiosity to creative use. Like Marcel Duchamp, Breton was initially affiliated with the Dada movement, a radical and provocative form of art reacting to the societal crisis.

As an artist, Andre Breton often worked with collages and drawings, bringing together seemingly unrelated elements to evoke associations and subconscious ideas. Sometimes, his literary practice transgressed the limits of text and turned into visual art. He comprised nonsensical poems from random newspaper clippings or even found objects which he arranged in an order understandable only to him.

Archaeologists recently discovered an “exceptional Bronze Age fortified site” in the Hejaz region of Saudia Arabia, a mountainous area near the Red Sea. According to a new study, which was published last week in PLOS One, the Bronze Age town offers important insights into the scope and scale of ancient urbanization.

Bronze Age Town Reveals “Low-Level Urbanization”

Little was known about Bronze Age civilization and culture in western Saudi Arabia before the 21st century. Recent archaeological excavations in the region’s Khaybar Oasis revealed a previously unknown Bronze Age town, which researchers named al-Natah. Spread across just under four acres, al-Natah was inhabited approximately between 2400 BCE and 1300 BCE, after which the settlement was abandoned for unknown reasons. It was home to about 500 residents at its peak, making it an unusual example of “low-level urbanization” in Saudi Arabia during the Bronze Age.

The ruins of al-Natah have been hidden beneath layers of basalt for centuries. High-resolution photography finally revealed the layout of a Bronze Age town, which includes a residential sector, a central district that researchers called a “decision-making zone,” and a necropolis. Al-Natah was surrounded by a nine-mile-long wall to protect against nomadic raiders. The discovery marks the first time that archaeologists have been able to study a Bronze Age town so extensively in Saudi Arabia. Their research suggests that the area experienced an increase in urbanization due to growing trade routes, beginning around 2,500 BCE.

The “Socio-Economic Complexity” of al-Natah

During the Bronze Age on the Arabian Peninsula, towns like al-Natah sprung up within an interconnected network of oases in the desert. Compared to other Bronze Age towns in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the eastern Mediterranean, al-Natah experienced urbanization at a slower—but steady—pace. “This radical change in lifestyle, from a pastoral-nomadic way of life to more agro-pastoral subsistence…had a profound impact on socio-economic organization and complexity,” said Guillaume Charloux, lead author of the PLOS One study.

Archaeologists at al-Natah unearthed several pottery fragments and grinding stones used for tool preparation. They also found the remains of approximately 50 earthen dwellings, each unusually unified in style, size, and composition. In contrast, the remains of most known Bronze Age towns comprise a subset of larger and higher-quality homes for higher-status individuals.

Discovery Debunks Old Archaeological Assumptions

It was previously assumed that the Hejaz region of Saudia Arabia was home to a small population of pastoral nomads during the Bronze Age. However, a Saudi-German archaeological team called that theory into question in the early 2000s when they found a fortified settlement with strong trade links in the region’s Tayma oasis. Later, in 2015, a Saudi-Austrian team found another urbanized oasis nearby. Now, the discovery of another prosperous Bronze Age town in the Hejaz region further debunks prior notions about pastoral nomads. The archaeological team wrote, “More excavations in Khaybar and other Bronze Age settlements in the region are needed to assess the level of socio-economic complexity during this period.”

Over the years many films have been written, produced, and shot about (and in) Northern Ireland. This article will explore four films about the Troubles directed by four different directors, starting with ’71, Yann Demange’s feature directorial debut. It will also discuss how these filmmakers, from different countries, have dealt with the history of Northern Ireland. Through their works and unique perspectives, we will try and understand why Northern Ireland continues to inspire filmmakers from across Europe and what it is in the history of this country that continues to resonate deeply with audiences worldwide.

1. ’71: A British Soldier on the Streets of Belfast

“Posh c*nts telling thick c*nts to kill poor c*nts. That’s the Army for you.” This is perhaps the most iconic and befitting line of ’71 (2014), directed by French filmmaker Yann Demange in his feature directorial debut and written by Scottish screenwriter Gregory Burke. The film centers around Gary Hook (Jack O’Connell), a new recruit in the British Army.

It is 1971, one of the worst years of the Troubles, and Hook’s unit is deployed on the streets of Belfast to provide support to the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary), the (overwhelmingly Protestant) Northern Ireland police force. During a house-to-house search in the city’s Catholic neighborhood, the RUC men start beating and verbally abusing people outside (and inside) their homes. A crowd gathers. Young men and women begin hurling stones at the British soldiers present in the area, who are ill-equipped for the riot.

The soldiers had been instructed not to wear their riot gear to avoid provoking anyone. Eventually, as violence escalates, Hook is left behind by his retreating unit. While running for his life, he hides in a toilet, and behind its walls, Hook realizes he can trust no one. Why? Because he is a symbol — not for the viewers, but for all the other characters in the film.

He is a symbol for Billy (Corey McKinley), the loyalist child whose father was killed by the IRA (Irish Republican Army) and who is adamant he is going to join the Ulster Rifles to kill as many “Fenian bastards” as possible. He is a symbol for Paul Haggerty (Martin McCann), the Provisional IRA gunman who shoots Hook’s fellow soldier Thompson (Jack Lowden) at point-blank range, backed by his blank-faced friend Sean (Barry Keoghan).

He is a symbol for Sergeant Lewis (Paul Anderson), a member of the Military Reaction Force (MRF), the British Army’s counter-insurgency cover unit, which Hook glimpses while building a bomb with a Loyalist group. He is also a symbol for Brigid (Charlie Murphy), the daughter of Eamon (Richard Dormer), the former army medic who rescues Hook and utters the iconic line from the beginning of the article as he tends to his wounds. For the British Army, Hook is just “a piece of meat.”

Through his ordeal, we catch a glimpse of a profoundly sectarian society. In Northern Ireland in the 1970s, those who decided not to actively take sides and fight for a cause often found themselves spending their lives dodging bullets, trying to survive, trying not to end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is exactly where Hook ends up.

This is perhaps what ’71 captured best in its accurate depiction of the Troubles. In a sectarian society, everything is a symbol. Anyone can become a symbol. As soon as Gary Hook steps out of the army truck, he stops being a human being. He stops being a “Derbyshire lad” and is transformed into a symbol — to be valued and cherished or demonized and destroyed. Shortly after meeting him, Billy the Loyalist kid remarks, “You’re not a Catholic, not with a name like that,” and proceeds to ask him the dreaded question, “Are you a Protestant?”

Hook shrugs, he doesn’t know. Billy stops in his tracks, stunned, “You don’t know?” In war, there is no place for subtlety.

2. Belfast: Through the Eyes of a Protestant Kid

A major 1960s poll found that most Northern Irish people were willing to justify armed struggle. Catholics and Protestants alike saw themselves as members of a community under attack.

If ’71 captures 1970s Belfast through the eyes of a man on the run, Belfast (2021) is above all a film about a child’s happy childhood in a city at war and about a family that wants to live in peace. Everything, from the Troubles to human relationships, comes through the scrutiny of nine-year-old Buddy (Jude Hill).

Written and directed by Kenneth Branagh and shot in black-and-white, Belfast captures the outbreak of the Troubles and the first August riots that kick-started the conflict, pitting one neighbor against another, and one family against another. The Troubles officially began with an uprising in August 1969, when the Bogside, Derry’s overwhelmingly Catholic neighborhood, witnessed the full-scale uprising of its inhabitants.

To prevent the RUC from entering their district, people began erecting barriers and throwing bricks at armored police vehicles. The RUC men responded with tear gas and stones. When they finally entered the Bogside, Protestant mobs charged in after them. This event went down in history as the Battle of the Bogside.

Branagh’s admittedly autobiographical film focuses on the August 1969 riots in Belfast as seen through the eyes of Buddy and his family, his Ma (Caitríona Balfe), his Pa (Jamie Dorman), his Granny (Judi Dench) and his beloved Pop (Ciarán Hinds). They are common people stuck in an uncommon situation. As their world falls apart, they remain true to their values, refusing to give in to violence, even, and perhaps especially, when violence takes the form of a nine-year-old stealing a box of laundry detergent from a riot-hit supermarket.

But how do you remain true to your morals when everyone around you urges you to take sides and to fight for the “cause”? How do you set an example for your children when the world around you seems to equate the desire for peace with cowardice and treachery?

Spoiler Alert. Belfast ends with Buddy’s family packing up and leaving for England, as Branagh’s own family did in early 1970. At that time, Branagh was nine, just like Buddy. In the end, violence won out. A peaceful family is forced to leave their home and everything else, with the children’s grandmother waving them goodbye from afar.

But is this the case? Or is it the other way around? After all, sectarian violence fails to infiltrate Buddy’s family. It fails to divide it, to turn one family member against the other (as often happened). Buddy’s family resists, albeit while moving away. Belfast never succumbs to the somber tones of other films centered around the Troubles. All in all, this is a sweet coming-of-age gem, is gorgeous to watch (and for that, we have Haris Zambarloukos, the cinematographer, to thank), and is filled with a kind of proactive nostalgia rarely seen nowadays.

3. The Wind That Shakes the Barley: Across the Irish Island

Let’s step back in time with British filmmaker Ken Loach. Loach depicts the birth of Northern Ireland in his award-winning film The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006). Loach’s film tells the story of two brothers from County Cork, Ireland, Damien (Cillian Murphy), and Teddy O’Donovan (Pádraic Delaney) over several years, from the War of Independence (1919-1921) to the Irish Civil War (1922-1923).

In Belfast, Ma and Pa choose to leave Northern Ireland and settle in Great Britain, away from the threat of violence. In so doing, they save their family, securing a future for their children away from war and sectarianism. In The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Damien, a promising young doctor about to leave Ireland to practice medicine in London, decides to stay. He decides to side with his brother and fight for a free Ireland.

This decision will change his life forever. It will trigger a series of events that will permanently alter his relationship with his brother Teddy. In discussing the upheavals caused by the Civil War, the film investigates the impact of history on family and friends, how history and the fight for a common cause—an independent Ireland—brings two brothers together only to later separate them in the most brutal way. Just like Belfast, this is a film about human beings and about making difficult decisions in times of war.

The 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, commonly known as The Treaty, ended the Irish War of Independence and led to the creation of the Irish Free State, no longer a part of the UK but still a dominion within the British Empire.

Through the lives of Damien and Teddy O’Donovan, and their friends and fellow fighters, we also get a glimpse of what was happening in Ulster after Partition, in those Six Counties that many anti-Treaty Irishmen and women felt the Treaty had betrayed and left behind. During a heated debate, Sinéad (Orla Fitzgerald), Damian’s love interest, who is staunchly anti-Treaty, reminds the group that “my cousins are on the streets of Belfast, burned from their homes by loyalist mobs,” and that there are “refugees all over Dublin.” In two years, in fact, between July 1920 and July 1922, 557 people were killed, according to figures provided by Thomas Hennessey. Most of them were Catholics, 172 were Protestants, and 82 were officers of the police and the British army.

As Belfast Catholics were being driven out of their houses en masse, and Catholic socialist workers kept losing their jobs, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) acted on behalf of the Northern Irish Catholics by raiding police barracks and ambushing police officers on patrol. Finally, in 1949, Ireland left the Commonwealth, and the independent Republic of Ireland was born.

Northern Ireland, with its Protestant majority “a Protestant state for Protestant people,” remained part of the UK. The Partition, perfectly captured by Ken Loach in The Wind that Shakes the Barley, helped set the stage for the conflict that would ravage Northern Ireland between 1969 and the late 1990s.

4. In the Name of the Father 

From the story of two brothers fighting for Ireland’s independence to the (true) story of a father and son falsely accused of terrorism during the Troubles. In Jim Sheridan’s In the Name of the Father (1993), the father, Patrick “Giuseppe” Conlon, is majestically played by the late Pete Postlethwaite. Daniel Day-Lewis stars in the role of the son, Gerry Conlon, one of the Guildford Four.

Along with Paul Hill, Patrick Armstrong, and Carole Richardson, Gerry was accused of being one of the IRA members responsible for the bombs that destroyed two pubs in Guildford Surrey on October 5, 1974. In 1975 they were all convicted and sentenced to life. Seven more people, known as the Maguire Seven, were charged with possessing the nitro-glycerine that the IRA allegedly used to make the bombs. They had all been framed.

The Gerry Conlon portrayed in Sheridan’s film couldn’t be more different from his father: he is feckless, irresponsible, a naïve drifter, and a petty thief. Giuseppe, on the other hand, is a hard-working man, loyal to his principles and ethics. It doesn’t matter. He will end up in jail alongside his son. It took more than 20 years and the hard and scrupulous work of British solicitor Gareth Peirce (played by Emma Thompson) to overturn the convictions of Gerry and the other Guildford Four.

In 1989, they finally walked out of the Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, in London. Unfortunately, Giuseppe Conlon had passed away by then. The world had changed, but the Troubles were still ongoing in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Even when Sheridan’s film came out, four years later, the Troubles were far from over.

In the Name of the Father was nominated for seven Oscars at the 66th Academy Awards. Ten years after the release of the film, Sheridan responded to the critics accusing his film of historical inaccuracies explaining that when the film came out “I was accused of lying in In the Name of the Father, but the real lie was saying it was a film about the Guildford Four when really it was about a non-violent parent.” It is through the example set by Giuseppe, by his life, his words, and his actions, that Gerry Conlon is able to change and evolve, to become a better man determined to prove to the world his and his father’s innocence. In the Name of the Father is essentially a film about human relations, about how they can be disrupted and altered, for better or for worse, by war.

Just like Belfast and The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Sheridan’s film shows us the long-term effects of violence, how it affects future generations, and how it inherently possesses the potential to generate further grief and death. This is something Professor Marianne Hirsch has discussed at length in her seminal book The Generation of Postmemory, albeit in the context of the Holocaust. Postmemory, Hirsch writes, “describes the relationship that the ‘generation after’ bears to the personal, collective, and cultural trauma of those who came before – to experiences they ‘remember’ only by means of the stories, images, and behaviors among which they grew up” (Hirsch, 2012). “These events,” Hirsch adds, “happened in the past, but their effects continue into the present.”

To put it with Jim Sheridan, “the more these situations are talked about, the less the rage is likely to convert to violence. Telling those stories matters.”

The French Revolution was one of the most significant events of the 18th century. Borne out of the need to replace the oppressive feudal system put in place by French leaders, it inspired societies across the globe to become more proactive in overturning the status quo of tyrannical regimes. It also forced governments around the world to rethink their governance strategies and adopt more inclusive models that were unlikely to cause upheaval. Ultimately, the French Revolution inspired many of the democratic systems that are prevalent in modern societies today. 

When and How Did the French Revolution Start?

The French Revolution took place between the years 1789 and 1799. That said, the revolution was not a single event but rather a sequence of events that took place between those years.

Many of the problems that led to the uprising began in the late 18th century, when France was reeling from economic turbulence. The economic problems were caused partly by the country’s involvement in the American Revolution, which resulted in a heavy financial cost. The economic problems were further compounded by King Louis XVI’s extravagant spending. The worsening economic conditions increased hardships among the working class and forced the Third Estate (made up of commoners) to revolt against the ruling class in order to form its own National Assembly and push for constitutional reforms. And thus, the French Revolution was born.

Eventually, the uprising led to the storming of the Bastille, which was a symbol of royal authority. Soon afterwards, Paris fell from the King’s control. The revolution led to the execution of King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie-Antoinette. Both were executed for treason in 1793.

How Did the French Revolution Affect Governance in Other Countries?

The French Revolution had a significant global impact. This is because it was able to galvanize and, in some instances, divide societies around the world in continents such as Europe and the Americas. For example, it set off the slave revolution in Haiti which resulted in the abolition of slavery in the country in1804. This is after French revolutionaries declared that all men were free and equal. The turn of events caused African slaves in Haiti to rise up. The conflicts it triggered also disrupted existing power structures in countries such as Egypt, India, and parts of Africa.

Egypt, for example, was conquered by Napoleon Bonaparte after he became a military leader following the French Revolution. With a formidable fleet of more than 300 naval ships, he and his army of over 30,000 soldiers left for Egypt on May 19, 1798 under the orders of the Directory that controlled France. The primary objective was to free Egypt from the oppression of the Ottoman Empire ruling class, while the secondary objective was to block Britain’s route to India. 

Despite initial victories, the French military was eventually defeated by the British army. The invasion by the French marked the beginning of increased interference in the region by major Western powers due to the strategic importance of the Suez Canal.

What Were the Effects of the French Revolution in Europe?

The French Revolution had a domino effect that led to similar uprisings in Europe. Countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands experienced similar uprisings that were partly inspired by French Revolution ideals. At some point, the situation culminated in the secession of Belgium from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands following The Belgian Revolution of 1830. In Ireland, there was the emergence of the 1798 United Irishmen Rebellion which sought to establish a republic based on the French revolutionary principles. However, it was short-lived and ultimately failed. That said, the storming of the Bastille in the French Revolution gave rise to the realization that collective action among the masses could force constitutional reforms.

For centuries, France, like many other countries, had been governed by monarchies and autocracies before 1789. The French Revolution changed all this and thus it is commemorated today as a key turning point in history.

One of the greatest rivalries in history, the contest between England and France lasted for many centuries. The animosity between the two nations led them to become bitter enemies who fought against each other not just in Europe but throughout the entire world.

From these conflicts, a hatred grew that solidified the two country’s national identities. It spurred its government and people to perpetuate a conflict that would culminate in a war between two globe-spanning empires for ultimate control.

However, all of this had its beginnings in the interconnected families ruling England and France. Monarchic designs brought these nations into conflict.

Making sense of all the wars fought between England (and subsequently the United Kingdom) and France can be a tricky subject.

This is a timeline of its beginnings in the medieval era.

1076-1077: The Breton War

Relations between Anglo-Saxon England and France were generally positive. Once the Normans conquered England, however, the entire dynamic shifted. Norman kings frequently saw themselves as the rightful heirs to various parts of France and even the French throne.

The first conflict was the Breton War. While England did not play a major role in the war, it was the first between an English and a French monarch. At the time, the Normans considered England to be a territory of Normandy, not the other way around.

The war was fought between the semi-independent fief of Normandy under the control of William the Conqueror and Philip I of France. William attempted to seize Brittany but was checked by the forces of Philip I, thus ending the period of Norman expansion in the region.

1087: The Vexin War

The Vexin was a small county in the middle of the Seine that acted as a buffer between French and Norman lands. When the Vexin count retired, this buffer no longer existed, and the French and Normans raided each other for control of this country. During an attack on the French town of Mantes, William the Conqueror suffered an injury from which he died.

The Rebellion of 1088

Upon William the Conqueror’s death, Normandy was given to his eldest son, Robert Curthose, while his middle son, William Rufus, inherited England. The youngest son, Henry, inherited several English estates and a considerable sum of silver. The older brothers came to blows, mainly over the fact that William was sleeping with Robert’s wife.

Nobles who owned lands in both territories grappled with the question of loyalty, and many banded together to overthrow William II. A brief civil war ensued, but William’s position as King of England proved unassailable, and a huge division was created between the Kingdom of England and the Dukedom of Normandy.

1097-1098: Vexin and Maine 

In 1096, Robert Curthose left to go on a crusade. Robert mortgaged Normandy to his brother, William II of England, to raise funds for the expedition, and as such, Normandy was left under his brother’s control. The brothers made a pact that if either of them were to die, the other would inherit both Normandy and England.

William wasted little time and attempted to expand Normandy by attacking the counties of Vexin and Maine. He successfully conquered Maine but had to make do with an inconclusive truce over Vexin.

While Robert was in the Holy Land, William II died during a hunt under suspicious circumstances. An arrow from Walter Tyrell pierced the king in the back, and Tyrell fled the kingdom. Within days, the youngest brother, Henry, with the support of the nobles, declared himself king. Robert, away on a crusade, could do very little about the situation.

1109-1113: Anglo-French War 

Henry I was in a difficult position with the king of France. As king of England, Henry was Louis’ equal, but as Duke of Normandy, he was his vassal. This produced an awkward arrangement that would result in a series of conflicts.

The first war known as the Anglo-French War was fought over the castle of Gisors on the border between Normandy and the French crownlands. Henry seized the castle, which was supposed to be under the rule of a neutral lord. This move angered Louis VI, and hostilities opened. After a series of skirmishes that lasted four years, there was no clear victor, and a truce was called.

1116-1119: Anglo-French War

After many years on the throne of England, Henry I found himself having to defend his possessions in Normandy. At the Battle of Brémule in 1119, English forces successfully repulsed a French invasion. The English took many knights prisoner and made a fortune by ransoming them off.

1123-1135: Anglo-French War

The war between 1123 and 1135 was brought about by an unfortunate incident in which a ship carrying Henry’s heir struck a rock and sank, killing all but one of the crew. With his line in jeopardy, Henry found himself in a delicate position. Louis tried to capitalize on this by fomenting rebellion in Maine. Henry’s daughter, Matilde, married the heir to the County of Anjou in 1128, Geoffroi Plantagenet. Thus, an heir was secured as well as an expansion of lands under the influence of Henry I.

With order restored in Maine, by 1135, the Anglo-Normans could claim victory over the Kingdom of France.

1158-1189: Anglo-French War 

The first Plantagenet king, Henry II, was immensely powerful, holding England, parts of Wales, Ireland, and the entire western half of France. The Angevin Empire, as it was known, gave Henry much more power than that of the French king, Louis VII. As Duke of Normandy, Henry II was still technically a vassal to the French king, and Louis was not happy about the amount of power his vassal had.

The Anglo-French War of 1158 to 1189 was a period of intermittent fighting. During this time, Louis managed to convince Henry II’s wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, to persuade two of their sons, John and Richard (later known as “Lionheart”), to conspire against their father.

In 1180, Louis VII died, and Philippe II became king. Richard and John joined in the war on Philippe’s side. During the campaigning in 1889, Henry II died of dysentery and was succeeded by his eldest son, Richard.

1193-1199: Anglo-French War

The alliance between Philippe II of France and Richard was one of convenience at the time. Richard felt no compunction in turning on his former ally, so the two kings went to war in 1193 after Richard returned from the Third Crusade. The Anglo-Normans and the French jostled for power, trying to expand their territory on the border between the two kingdoms.

Richard won a significant victory at Gisors in 1198, but the following year, Richard was struck by a crossbow bolt while in battle. The wound, which was considered minor, was not treated properly, and on April 6, 1199, Richard the Lionheart died from a gangrenous infection.

His death brought an end to the conflict. Despite losing their monarch, the Anglo-Normans exited the conflict in a better position than they had entered.

1202-1204: Anglo-French War

After Richard’s death, there was a power struggle as Richard had left no legitimate heirs. Richard’s half-brother John, supported by the Anglo-Normans, fought for control of the Angevin Empire against Arthur of Brittany, the legitimate grandson of Henry II, who was supported by the French crown. In 1202, Philippe II took the opportunity to invade Normandy and expand the French empire into Angevin territory on the continent. By 1204, the poor leadership from King John (who earned the nickname “Lackland”) saw the French regain territory in Normandy, Anjou, and Maine.

1213-1214: Anglo-French War

King John of England wished to regain the lost territories of the Angevin Empire and struck a deal with the Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV, who had major concerns about the rising power of the Kingdom of France. John also acquired the help of the Counties of Flanders and Boulogne.

The war began well, and the English managed to destroy the French fleet, but the tide turned when Otto reneged on his promise and pulled out of the conflict. The French, still stretched thin, maneuvered back and forth, winning victories against their enemies in the process.

In the end, the French won a decisive victory at Bouvines and conquered the territory of Flanders, ending the war and John I’s ambitions.

1215-1217: Anglo-French War & First Barons’ War

After the collapse of the Angevin Empire, many of the noblemen under John I’s rule rebelled against their king. Thus began a period of civil war in England in which Philippe II’s son, Louis, attempted to gain the throne by supporting the rebels.

Louis had neither the support of his father nor the support of the pope, who later excommunicated him for the venture. He managed to take Winchester and was in control of about half of England when he was proclaimed “King of England” by the rebellious barons, but Louis was never crowned.

When King John died of dysentery in 1216, many of the barons who had supported Louis switched allegiance and gave their support to Henry III, John’s nine-year-old son. The decisive moment came at the Second Battle of Lincoln on May 20, 1217, when Louis’ forces were defeated.

Later that year, an attempt to reinforce the French in England failed, and the French fleet was beaten off the coast of Sandwich.

Louis was forced to sign the Treaty of Lambeth, in which he gave up all possessions in England and agreed never to make claims on the English throne.

1242-1243: Saintonge War

The Saintonge War was fought between 1242 and 1243 in the region around Saintes in the center-west of France. Rebel sentiment in Poitou against Louis IX of France prompted Henry III to invade in an attempt to regain some of the lost territories of the Angevin Empire.

English and rebel forces were soundly defeated at the Battle of Taillebourg. After the Siege of Saintes, the English and rebel forces could no longer muster any strength to oppose the French and were forced to sign a treaty. Henry III was forced to renounce his claim to French lands.

1294-1303: The Guyenne War

Clashes between French and English seamen off the southwest coast of France prompted a settlement between the French king and the nobles of Gascony, which was still under the control of the English crown.

When French forces did not vacate occupied Gascon castles upon the agreed due date, Edward I used this as a pretext for war and invaded France.

The English allied themselves with Flanders, while the French managed to strike an alliance with Scotland.

With mounting pressure on the north of his kingdom and a failed campaign in France, Edward managed to secure a status quo ante bellum, which sowed the seeds for further conflict between France and England.

The troubles with Scots, however, would continue for some time.

1324: The War of Saint-Sardos

A short war between England and France from July 1 to September 22, 1324 was fought over the dwindling power of the English king’s power over lands in France. As Duke of Aquitaine, Edward II was still technically a vassal of the French king, and the French wanted the English monarch gone and a return of all English lands on the continent to France.

Wary of the constant whittling away of English territories, the situation between France and the English king was extremely tense. A minor incident involving the town of Saint-Sardos escalated beyond control. The town had been under English control, but the abbey and church were under French control.

When French troops arrived and erected defenses around their territory, retaliation was prompted, and violence broke out, eventually leading to a French invasion. Edward II lost Aquitaine due to poor military performance.

1337-1453: The Hundred Years’ War

One of the more famous conflicts between France and England, the Hundred Years’ War, was a period of sporadic fighting between the two kingdoms that lasted for 116 years.

The fighting started as a result of the death of the king of France, Charles IV, in 1328 at the age of 33. He left no direct heirs, and his closest relative was Edward III, the king of England. French nobles, however, refused to acknowledge any rights Edward had on the French throne, and crowned Philippe, Count of Valois, as the new king of France. Thus ended the Capetian dynasty, and began the reign of the Valois monarchs.

After the French demanded the return of Gascony, Edward III responded with military force. The English saw major successes in the first phases of the war, winning significant victories at Crécy in 1346 and Poitiers ten years later. English victories and the capture of the French king, Jean II, led to the Treaties of Brétigny and Calais, where vast portions of French land were ceded to England.

Jean, however, died in captivity, and his son, Charles, refused to abide by the treaties. He reignited the conflict and put France on the offensive. French pressure on the English petered out after the death of Charles V in 1380. Civil unrest in both kingdoms led to a pause in the conflict, but the unrest in England was quelled earlier than in France, and Henry V of England decided to take advantage of the situation by launching an invasion.

Henry V’s invasion went poorly and was a near-complete disaster. However, it ended with a completely unforeseen English victory at Agincourt, which decimated the French nobility and turned the tide of the war in English favor.

By the 1420s, the English and their Burgundian allies were in control of vast portions of France, including Paris. The English were on track to finally conclude the war and completely defeat their long-time rival.

It was at this time that a young peasant girl from the town of Domrémy began acting upon visions that she had received, telling her to lead France’s armies to victory. Joan of Arc became a powerful rallying point for the French, who had almost given up all hope of victory.

She inspired the French to victory, raising the siege of Orléans and proceeding to win significant victories over the English and the Burgundians.

Joan of Arc was betrayed, captured, and burned at the stake, but the motivation she inspired within the French led to their complete victory over England. By 1453, French king Charles VII captured the last of the English possessions on the continent, leaving only the port of Calais in English hands.

The Hundred Years’ War created a strong sense of nationalism in both countries, which would continue to define the many future conflicts between them.

The end of the Hundred Years’ War was by no means the end of conflicts between England and France. The two countries would continue to be at each other’s throats for centuries to come. The bitter rivalry extended beyond that of war, entering politics and sports as they would seek to best each other in every realm possible.

An accomplished diplomat, statesman, scientist, writer, philosopher, and many other things, Benjamin Franklin was a man of many worlds. Known as one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, he has left mostly a political legacy.

Franklin, however, was a complex man with a deep interest in the world around him and a willingness to explore the boundaries of what was possible. Behind the public figure, there existed a man with personal relationships, hopes, and dreams that often evade stories that focus on his political career.

Franklin lived a fascinating and rich life, full of triumphs and failures, and left an indelible mark on the history of the world and the people around him.

Early Life of Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin, born on January 7, 1706, came from a very large family. He was the fifteenth of 17 children fathered by Josiah Franklin. His mother, Abiah Folger, was Josiah’s second wife. As can be expected, his father, a soapmaker, did not have the money to send all his children to school. His desire for Benjamin to enter the clergy could therefore not be realized, as it required several years of schooling.

However, Benjamin was extremely proactive in his life from a young age. At just 12, he apprenticed himself to his older brother, James, who was a printer, beginning his career in the printing industry. His brother started the New England Courant, one of Boston’s first newspapers and the first to print local news as opposed to the other newspapers that only reprinted news from Europe. Benjamin managed to convince his brother to let him write for the paper.

James, however, was a harsh boss and did not treat his younger brother well. Benjamin left the business in 1723 and decided to go to Philadelphia. At the time, Benjamin was too young to make this decision alone without his family’s approval, and it was deemed “running away,” which was considered illegal at the time.

He first tried to get a job as a printer in New York but failed. He then traveled across New Jersey, ending up in Philadelphia, where he ran out of money. Tired and worse for wear, it was here on October 6, 1723, that he met his future wife, Deborah Read. She was just 15 at the time, and Benjamin was 17.

Having just bought three bread rolls with the last of his money, he walked past her house, where she noticed him looking awkward and disheveled. They struck up a conversation and became good friends in the days that followed.

Franklin found work at a printer but needed accommodations. Read’s father was kind enough to rent a room in his house to Franklin, and a romance developed between Benjamin and Deborah.

Promises and Lies

Meanwhile, the governor of Pennsylvania, Sir William Keith, had convinced Franklin to go to London to acquire equipment to start a newspaper. Franklin took up Keith’s offer, but while in London, it became apparent to Franklin that Keith’s promises were false.

Before he left, Deborah and Benjamin “interchang’d some Promises,” as Benjamin later wrote of the events before he set off. With Keith’s promises proving to be lies, Benjamin found himself compelled to spend longer than anticipated in London. He sent Deborah a letter stating that he would be in London indefinitely.

After several months, Benjamin returned to Philadelphia and found that Deborah had been heartbroken by his absence. Believing that she may never see him again, she entered into a relationship with a potter (or a carpenter, depending on the source) named John Rogers, whom she later married. Franklin would later write of the event, describing it as a “great Erratum” for which he felt a certain responsibility and guilt.

The marriage was in large part due to the interference of Deborah’s mother, who had matched the two and urged them to get married. She was not keen on the idea of her daughter waiting indefinitely for Benjamin to return (which he did in October 1727).

Upon his return, Benjamin put his hands to work, briefly working as a shop assistant before getting back into the print industry. After borrowing money, he was able to set up his own business. He garnered a reputation as a hard worker and became successful, bringing in both government contracts and regular work.

In 1728, Benjamin became a father. The woman’s name is unknown, but their child, William, ended up being raised by Benjamin. During this time, Franklin courted another woman but plans for marriage fell through.

Meanwhile, Deborah Read developed marital problems when she discovered her husband already had a wife in England. Predictably, this led to her leaving him. Rogers then fled to the West Indies, where it was presumed that he died in a fight. His death, however, was never confirmed.

Marriage to Deborah Read

Rekindling their old affection, Benjamin and Deborah were married shortly thereafter, and Deborah agreed to raise William as her own. The marriage, however, had to be a common-law marriage as Rogers’s status was unknown. In the Province of Pennsylvania, Read could not legally be divorced on the grounds of desertion, and since it could not be proven whether Rogers was actually dead, Read could not claim to be a widow.

Nevertheless, the two were joined, and Deborah moved into Franklin’s house on 139 Market Street. The residence also served as a printing house, and Deborah opened a small stationery shop on the first floor.

Children and Tragedy

In 1732, Deborah gave birth to Francis Folger Franklin. Little “Franky” was an extremely bright child whose parents doted on him. In 1734, Benjamin hired a tutor for his two sons. Franky was just two years old when he began his education.

Benjamin’s work as a writer and publisher was going well. He also founded the Library Company of Philadelphia, and there was no shortage of money. In 1734, he had accrued enough to buy a house for his family, which at the time consisted of just four: Benjamin, Deborah, William, and Franky.

Of note is that Benjamin was against smallpox inoculation early in his life, believing that it made people even sicker. As he learned more about the science, his views changed radically, and he became a vocal supporter for inoculation, especially as Philadelphia had been hit by waves of the disease. At the time, however, inoculation did carry with it significant risk, as it could indeed develop into full-blown smallpox.

Franky, however, was never inoculated. Deborah was against the idea; Franky already suffered terribly from the flux, and his parents worried that having him inoculated while he was not healthy was a risky decision. In 1736, just one month after his fourth birthday, Franky died from the disease. Benjamin spent the rest of his life regretting having never had his son inoculated, and his pro-vaccination stance became solidified.

Smithsonian’s Stephen Coss suggests that the episode led to resentment between Benjamin and Deborah, as Deborah had been against inoculating her son. This would later lead the two to become estranged.

On September 11, 1743, the couple had another child, Sarah. Franklin didn’t enjoy a close relationship with his daughter. When she was a child, much of his time was spent delving into experiments with electricity, and he found he had little time for his daughter.

Later in life, she married Richard Bache without her father’s consent or knowledge. Benjamin was furious, but he was enamored with his grandchildren. Sarah would go on to be a staunch patriot during the American War of Independence.

Writing and Printing

In the early 1730s, Benjamin Franklin became a member of the local Freemason Lodge. It is likely that this would have helped him achieve success in business. Freemasons were (and still are) known for elevating their own within society.

Franklin became prominent in many sectors of public life. He was heavily involved in the printing industry and saw the printing press as a way to educate the public. He printed newspapers through which he could disseminate his views through various methods such as essays and satire.

He went into business with many other printers, collaborating on published materials. The industry proved to be a phenomenal success for Franklin, and by 1753, eight of the 15 English-language newspapers in the American colonies were owned by him and his partners.

From 1737 to 1753, Franklin also served as postmaster of Philadelphia, after which he became Postmaster General of British America.

He was also an author and penned Poor Richard’s Almanack, an annual publication upon which much of Franklin’s prominence and fame were based. Of note is an essay he wrote dated June 25, 1745. “Old Mistress Apologue or Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress” contained subject matter that was rather misogynist, although satirical, and the document went unpublished for hundreds of years after his death.

Many years later, he would also write another famous satirical essay entitled “Fart Proudly,” a prime example of flatulence humor.

Fallout With William

Benjamin’s eldest son, William, grew up to become a lawyer. He worked closely with his father, and the two were close confidants. World affairs, however, would tear the two apart.

William was appointed Royal Governor of New Jersey and was a staunch royalist, while Benjamin became a leading figure in the Patriot cause. William spent much of the Revolutionary War imprisoned, and upon his release, he urged guerilla war against the rebel forces. After the war, he moved to England and continued to lobby for the Royalist cause.

Sadly, Benjamin and William were never reconciled.

Licentious Predilections

Benjamin Franklin was a human being with notorious sexual urges, and this fact was not compatible with the idea of a virtuous founding father in the eyes of the American public. The truth is that Benjamin Franklin’s private life has been the subject of intense academic inquiry in modern historical research.

At the age of 49, he met Catherine Ray, 23, and the two began a flirtatious relationship, but it seems never to have gone beyond that. They did, however, keep in regular contact via letters that had a noticeably saucy theme.

His role as a political figure led him to spend lengthy periods away from his wife. From 1757 to 1775, he spent most of his life in London and made frequent trips to the continent. Deborah was deathly afraid of ocean travel and never accompanied him abroad. Benjamin wrote to her over the course of his stays in Europe but made excuses as to why he could not return home. Deborah died in December 1774 from a stroke. She had spent just two years with her husband in the last 17 years of their marriage.

Meanwhile, Franklin was enjoying life in England. He is said to have attended Hellfire Club meetings, a secret society of high-profile politicians and socialites who engaged in orgies and other taboo sexual activities.

His activities were certainly not of the conservative kind. He was fond of nudism and took morning “air baths,” in which he wandered around the house naked. This would have been less controversial had he lived alone, but he was a boarder in the house of a widow, Margaret Stevenson. She was responsible for nursing him back to health after he developed breathing problems, likely from the foul air of London. It is unknown whether the two had any romantic feelings towards each other, but Franklin did, however, have an eye for her 18-year-old daughter, Mary, who went by the name of Polly.

By all accounts, Polly was quite flirtatious with Franklin, who was hired to tutor her. On one occasion, an artist, Charles Willson Peale, called upon the residence unannounced and discovered Franklin kissing a young woman who was sitting on his lap. It is thought that this woman was Polly. Peale sketched what he saw.

The extent of Benjamin and Polly’s relationship regarding physical intimacy is ultimately unknown and subject to speculation. What is known, however, is that when Franklin died in 1790, Polly had crossed the ocean to be by his side.

Benjamin Franklin in Paris

Perhaps the most notorious of Franklin’s escapades came about from his endeavors in Paris. He was sent there by Congress in 1776 to gain support for the cause of American independence.

While there, he spent much of his time attending parties that lasted all night and took delight in wooing the ladies of high society. His fellow diplomat, Arthur Lee, described Franklin’s activities to Congress, writing that Franklin had made Paris a “corrupt hotbed of vice.” Franklin did little to deny the claims; his reputation did not seem to bother him.

He was notably involved with a married noblewoman, 33-year-old Madame Brillon de Jouy. It was observed that she would sit on his lap and engage in flirtatious banter. They would take long walks in the gardens and exchange amorous affection for one another, but when Franklin suggested taking the relationship to a deeper level, to his surprise, she refused.

After being rebuffed by Brillon de Jouy, he began a relationship with Madame Helvetius, a widowed woman who lived a Bohemian life in a commune. He proposed marriage to her, but she turned him down, citing that she had promised never to marry again.

After returning home to America, Franklin kept correspondence with Brillon de Jouy and Helvetius, as well as Catherine Ray (Green).

Perhaps it’ll never be known the extent of his flirtatious dalliances. It is plausible that they never went beyond playful petting.

Whatever the truth, his own words should be taken into account as he wrote in his autobiography, “That hard-to-be-governed passion of youth had hurried me frequently into intrigues with low women that fell in my way.”

Death

Franklin’s final days were spent suffering from an empyema, a buildup of fluids in the pleural cavity, as a result of pleurisy. He had chest pains and a high fever and spent his last days frequently vomiting. His condition was causing him to slowly suffocate. He passed away on April 17, 1790 at around 11 o’clock in the evening.

He was buried in Christ Church Burial Ground in Philadelphia next to his wife, Deborah, and his late son, Francis Folger. Around 20,000 people attended his funeral, slightly less than half the population of Philadelphia at the time.

While Benjamin Franklin is lauded as one of the greatest Americans who played a huge role in the founding of the United States, the history of this man is often presented in a sanitized form.

Benjamin Franklin was a human being with a life full of happiness and grief, as well as love and lust. He was a man who certainly took full advantage of the opportunities that life presented, much to the detriment and joy of those around him.

One of the most striking features of Renaissance maps are the sea creatures embedded in their cartography. More than just decorative elements, they represent what people truly believed was out there swimming in the deep. Our past relationship with the ocean is also revealed, with maps representing changing perspectives of this untameable element of nature. A vast array of mythical sea monsters are depicted, from the siren to the leviathan. Each tells its own tale of both the experiences of explorers as well as the perceptions of those on land.

The Role of Maps in the Renaissance

During the Renaissance, maps were used for purposes beyond the navigational. Instead, many were utilized as art objects, often displayed in people’s homes to exemplify their wealth. Among the aristocracy, they were used to help carefully construct an identity within society. Commissioning a map was a way of showing wealth and power through the ownership of an expensive object, as well as control over the land depicted.

As a result, the aesthetics of many maps moved beyond the geographical, displaying decorative elements including people, ships, and sea monsters. Such maps can be dissected as art historical objects; they allow us to gain insight into the imaginations of people during this period, from the patrons of the maps to cartographers, sailors, and the general population.

Three primary types of maps existed during the Renaissance: nautical maps, world maps, and those derived from Ptolemy’s Geography. While nautical maps were primarily used for navigation, world maps were often held by private collectors for display in their homes. These maps were people’s main source of information about the rest of the world, including the creatures of the oceans.

Renaissance Perceptions of Marine Life

By the time of the Renaissance, the dominating perception of the ocean was that it was an unruly force that needed to be tamed by humans. It was the Age of Exploration and the rich and powerful in the West sought ownership and control of much of the globe. This included the so-called “high seas,” a name from the Old English “heahflod” meaning “deep water,” given to the seas outside of a country’s territorial control.

Maps were used to display landed possessions, however, the ocean too, was a place for domination. While local peoples likely posed the largest threat in uncharted lands, the deep ocean was filled with natural dangers. Alongside the threat of stormy seas, or getting lost, sailors lived in fear of sea monsters which lived in the deep.

Sailors’ stories of sea monsters often stemmed from folklore and Biblical stories. However, sometimes they mistook animals, particularly whales, for sea monsters. Cartographers drew on these stories when creating their maps, using the monsters for decoration. In particular, they were used to deter any foreigner from sailing waters which the patron of the map sought to protect.

The sea monsters shown on maps provide useful insight into the minds of those who lived in Renaissance society — both their imaginations as well as their global outlook. The sea monsters present on maps can teach us much about the Renaissance imagination.

Sea Sirens and Perceptions of Women in Society

Stemming from Greek mythology, sea sirens are half-woman, half-fish creatures that lure sailors off their boats and into the murderous depths of the ocean. In Homer’s Odyssey, Odysseus saved his crew’s lives by blocking their ears so that they were unable to hear the sirens’ irresistible song and he tied himself to a mast in order to prevent himself from jumping overboard at the sound of their calls.

Alongside classical mythology, religious ideals were also influential. In a time of rampant misogyny and the demonization of the female figure, sea sirens were understood to lead men away from their righteous path into the realm of lust and infidelity. On maps they are sometimes shown holding a fish, the Christian symbol of the human soul, stolen from God and the Christian faith.

Sirens were accepted within society as a serious and real threat. Cartographers picked up on these tales and included them in their maps, often ships, where they put their alluring powers to use.

Images of the sea siren reflect the perception of women in society at the time as being inferior to men. Women had few rights and were seen as the possessions of their husbands. They were required to fit the Renaissance ideal of chastity and motherhood. Any woman who existed outside of that ideal was seen as a threat to men. In particular, the female musician was deemed to have the ability to control men through their music, similar to the sea siren.

Leviathan and the Role of Christianity

Tales of the Leviathan originated from mythology, with descriptions of it developing over time. By the Renaissance, with the expanded influence of Christianity, its depiction in the Old Testament greatly influenced people’s belief in the monster. It is described as a fierce, untameable beast that cannot be destroyed by man. Instead, it is killed by God, and its body is given as food to Hebrews in the wilderness.

Undertaking work related to the Devil, its primary role was seen to be to punish sinners. It was thought to bring great chaos to the oceans, consuming sailors as they swam through the waves, seeking out evildoing. It supposedly resided in the Mediterranean and is therefore depicted in many Renaissance maps of the region. It is even sometimes shown in murderous action, attacking ships and killing sailors.

As a monster that dwells in the inky depths, Leviathan was feared for its strength, it was thought to be over 300 meters (over 900 feet) tall with impenetrable scales. Sailors stood no chance against this giant creature, and cartographers drew on its ferocity. It was seen as a great force that many believed would attack them from the ocean’s depths. Generally, it reveals the anxieties at the time surrounding sea travel.

Other Sea Monsters 

There were other monsters too; pristers, for example, resemble a kind of sea snake and were also shown on maps, attacking ships. Like Leviathan, they were huge beasts — cartographer Olaus Magnus described them to be over 200 feet long and covered in spikes.

Some depictions were more familiar. Cartographers drew fish-like variations on land mammals such as the sea cow, giving them fish tales instead of legs. Monsters could sometimes be large-scale renderings of real animals, such as giant lobsters and giant squid. Existing animals were also included such as walruses and narwhals.

As mentioned, ideas about sea monsters were often based on whales. Whales themselves were regularly included on maps, often with monstrous heads. Alexander The Great’s myth of “the Whale Island” also played out on some maps; like in the tale, they show two sailors resting on what they think to be an island, setting up camp, and lighting a fire. The island soon reveals itself to be a whale and plunges into the ocean, carrying them to their deaths.

The sea creatures depicted in Renaissance cartography were diverse in nature and reveal much about the imaginings of people during this time, particularly sailors. Most importantly, anxieties surrounding sea travel are revealed. It is important to remember that these maps were produced in the Age of Exploration. Sailors were often visiting uncharted waters, in which the fear of the unknown contributed greatly to their experiences of the ocean. This was heightened by the mythology surrounding sea monsters which permeated society.

Ultimately, sea monsters were creatures to be feared that would sink or wreck ships during voyages, or in the case of sea sirens, lure sailors overboard. In particular, Renaissance conceptions of womanhood led to a fear of sea sirens, and Christian values resulted in a belief in the Leviathan. Fear of existing sea creatures, on the other hand, led to exaggerated renderings of them within cartography too.

Toward the end of the Renaissance, when technology was advancing, these sea monsters evolved on maps to represent sea creatures in a more realistic way. The mysteries of the deep disappeared and with them the thrilling tales of the sea monsters that lived within.

In Luxor, Egypt—near the storied Valley of the Kings and the picturesque Nile River—a team of Egyptian and American archaeologists discovered a previously unknown 4,000-year-old tomb. Excavations at the site revealed 11 sealed burials and dozens of ancient artifacts.

Middle Kingdom Tomb Found in Luxor

Last Friday, Egypt’s Tourism and Antiquities Ministry reported the excavation of sealed burials dating back to the Middle Kingdom (1938 to 1630 BCE). The tomb was discovered next to the Temple of Hatshepsut on the West Bank of the Nile in Luxor. Among the oldest inhabited cities in human history, Luxor is home to some of the most famous archaeological sites in the world, including Tutankhamun’s burial chamber in the Valley of the Kings.

In a statement, Mohamed Ismail Khaled, Secretary-General of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, explained that the newly-unearthed Luxor tomb likely served as a multigenerational family burial site, as it comprised eleven burials for men, women, and children. These had remained sealed for the past two millennia.

Artifacts Demonstrate “Cultural and Artistic Sophistication”

The wooden coffins and linen wrappings at the Luxor burial site had mostly been ruined by ancient floods. However, a trove of valuable artifacts comprised of more sustainable materials managed to survive for the past 4,000 years. Among the recovered artifacts are exquisitely crafted pieces of jewelry, including a necklace with 30 amethyst beads, two agate beads, and a hippo-head amulet.

Archaeologists also unearthed two copper mirrors—one with a lotus-shaped handle and another featuring a depiction of Hathor, an ancient Egyptian goddess associated with women, fertility, love, and the sky. There were also several surviving stone figurines, most of which depict animals or ancient Egyptian deities. Catherine Blakeney, the lead American archaeologist on the Luxor tomb excavation team, said, “Such craftsmanship underscores the cultural and artistic sophistication of the Middle Kingdom.”

Archaeology and Tourism in Luxor

The discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922 put Luxor’s Valley of the Kings on the map. Amidst the city’s swath of ancient temples and tombs, the discovery of another treasure-laden burial site reinforces Luxor’s unique archaeological importance. It also bolsters Egypt’s efforts to replenish its tourism sector, which has been impacted by political unrest and the COVID-19 pandemic in recent years. Last month, Egypt partially opened its much-anticipated Grand Egyptian Museum in hopes of attracting more tourists to the country.

The story of Heracles is one of the most beloved and popular Greek myths. The goddess Hera cursed Heracles because he was born the son of Zeus. She tricked him into committing an unthinkable crime, which led the hero to undertake twelve seemingly impossible labors to atone for his sins. During these labors, he had to slay monsters, capture mythical beasts, and even outwit immortals. Learn about this epic hero’s origins and the tragic events that led him to undertake his first labor — the slaying of the Nemean lion.

The Birth of a Hero: The Lust of Zeus

Heracles was the son of Zeus and Alcmene, princess of Mycenae, and granddaughter of the hero Perseus. Alcmene’s beauty rivaled even Aphrodite’s, and Zeus greatly desired her. However, Alcmene was already in love with and married to another grandchild of Perseus Amphitryon, the King of Tiryns.

One day, while hunting, Amphitryon accidentally killed his father-in-law, King Electryon. Amphitryon was banished from Tiryns and sought purification from King Creon in Thebes along with Alcmene, for his crime. After Creon purified Amphitryon, the couple remained in Thebes. Before consummating their marriage in Thebes, Amphitryon vowed to avenge Alcmene’s brothers, who had died at the hands of the Taphians pirates.

During Amphitryon’s absence, Zeus saw an opportunity to seduce his wife, Alcmene. However, he knew Alcmene was in love with her husband and would not fall for his usual tricks of turning into animals or handsome shepherds. So, Zeus came up with a cunning plan — he disguised himself as Amphitryon hours before Amphitryon returned to Thebes after avenging Alcmene’s brothers.

Zeus told Alcmene about Amphitryon’s triumph, and they made love. The next day, Zeus slipped away just in time for the real Amphitryon to arrive and tell his wife the same story she had heard the previous night. When Alcmene asked why he was repeating what he had already told her, Amphitryon brushed it off as he was eager to consummate their marriage.

After a passionate night, Amphitryon and Alcmene questioned the odd discrepancies in his arrival time. They consulted an oracle, who revealed the truth — Alcmene was pregnant with twins, one fathered by Zeus and the other by Amphitryon. This rare occurrence—heteropaternal superfecundation—happens when a woman carries twins with different fathers.

Alcmene and Amphitron were thrilled to hear the news despite Zeus’s trickery. However, Hera, the Queen of the Olympians, was enraged upon learning about yet another extramarital affair by her husband. Hera was known to punish the lovers and children of Zeus’s infidelity, and it seemed that Zeus’s child by Alcmene was the final straw for her. She vowed to torment the child throughout their life for daring to exist and reminding her of her husband’s adultery.

Birth of a Hero: Cursed Before Birth

Hera’s first attempt to harm Zeus’s new child happened when Zeus announced to the Olympians that the next child born from Perseus’s lineage would become the ruler of Argolis. Hera asked Zeus to swear officially in front of everyone and guarantee that he would do everything in his divine power to ensure it.

Zeus agreed as he knew that his child with Alcmene, Perseus’s granddaughter, would soon be born. He was confident that nothing could go wrong. Another descendant of Perseus was Sthenelus, the new King of Tiryns, whose wife Nicippe was also pregnant. However, she was not due to give birth for several more months.

Unfortunately for Zeus, Nicippe, and Alcmene, Hera was the protector of women during childbirth. Hera commanded her daughter Eileithyia, the goddess of childbirth, to speed up Nicippe’s pregnancy and prevent Alcmene from giving birth. Eileithyia achieved this by sitting outside Alcmene’s room with her legs crossed.

Alcmene endured several days of painful labour, while Nicippe gave birth prematurely to a son named Eurystheus. This forced a stupefied Zeus to ensure that Eurystheus would one day rule the Argolid instead of his son. However, Hera was not done with Alcmene; she planned to let the poor woman die during her unrelenting labour, ensuring that Zeus’s son would never be born.

Hera’s plan would have almost succeeded if not for the quick thinking of Alcmene’s attendants, Historis and Galanthis. While Eileithyia waited outside Alcmene’s room, wondering when she could finally uncross and stretch her legs, she heard sounds of celebration.

Galantis swung open the doors and announced that Alcmene had given birth to two healthy boys. Eileithyia uncrossed her legs and rushed in, but she realized too late that she had been tricked when she saw Historis assisting Alcmene with the baby’s delivery. Hera was enraged and punished Galanthis by turning her into a weasel for fooling her and Eileithyia. Historis seems to have escaped punishment.

Alcmene and Amphitryon were blessed with the birth of twin boys who were quite large. They decided to name the elder twin Alcides and the younger one Iphicles. Although it was not immediately apparent to them which child was the son of a mortal and which was the son of a god, they did not have to wait long to find out.

Birth of a Hero: Hera’s Torment and Glory

Shortly after midnight, a few months following the birth of the twins, Hera devised another plot to eliminate the innocent son of Zeus and Alcmene, who had committed the unspeakable sin of being born. The Queen of Olympus sent two venomous snakes to kill the twins while they slept.

Hera, unable to distinguish which twin was the son of Zeus, ordered the snakes to poison both. A panicked Historis woke Alcmene and Amphitryon the next day, urging them to see their children. The couple rushed to their babies and were greeted by an absurd sight. Iphicles was crying and red-faced in his cradle while his brother Alcides lay on his back, happily gurgling. In his tiny fists, Alcides clutched two strangled vipers. The sight answered the question of which child was the son of a mortal and which was a god.

Alcmene and Amphitryon were worried about their children’s safety and sought advice from the blind prophet Tiresias. He told them that Alcides would face continuous harassment from Hera during his life, but he would also gain immense fame and kill many monsters. Upon hearing this, the couple decided to change their son’s name from Alcides to Heracles, which roughly translates to “Glory of Hera,” to appease and mollify the goddess.

In an alternate version of the myth, Alcmene abandoned baby Heracles in a Theban field to avoid Hera’s anger. However, Athena, the patron guide of heroes, rescued her little half-brother and devised a clever plan to safeguard Heracles and trick her stepmother.

Athena took Heracles to Hera on Olympus and presented him as an innocent orphan who needed rescue. Hera’s maternal instincts took over, allowing the baby to nurse at her breast for nourishment without realizing who she was feeding. The infant Heracles suckled so forcefully that it caused Hera immense pain, and she flung the baby off her, causing her milk to spray across the heavens, creating the Milky Way.

Hera’s divine milk granted Heracles the superhuman strength and endurance he is widely known for. Athena rescued the infant after Hera threw him and returned Heracles to Alcmene, reassuring her that he was strong enough to withstand Hera’s wrath.

Early Life: Heracles’s Youth

Heracles was raised in Thebes alongside his half-brother and best friend, Iphicles. Their parents treated them equally and provided them with an education that befitted their royal status. Their father, Amphitryon, taught them chariot driving, javelin throwing, and other gymnastic skills. Meanwhile, Eurytus, the King of Oechalia, the best archer in Greece and the grandson of Apollo, taught Heracles how to string and shoot a bow with remarkable accuracy and speed.

At the age of ten, Heracles was already proficient in chariot racing, archery, and various gymnastic sports, surpassing even the abilities of fully grown adults. However, despite his impressive skills, he also had a reputation for having a deadly temper. Heracles tended to become easily agitated, leading to uncontrollable fits of anger and he became difficult to manage.

Befitting their royal status, the twins received an education that included rhetoric, mathematics, and music training. Alcmene and Amphitryon spared no expense and hired Linus, the brother of Orpheus, to teach the twins music and dance. However, Heracles struggled with musical skills and often refused to listen to his teacher’s instructions. Linus struck Heracles with a stick during a lesson for not paying attention. This sent Heracles into a blinding rage, and he threw Linus across the room, killing him.

Despite his violent outburst, Heracles was not punished, thanks to Iphacles’s testimony that he had been unfairly provoked. However, Heracles’ reputation for having a quick and violent temper began to spread. Elumolpus, the son of cattle thief Autoculus, took over the twins’ music lessons. Meanwhile, Castor, one of the Dioscuri twins also born through heteropaternal superfecundation, trained them in weaponry and martial arts.

During his schooling, it became apparent that Heracles was skilled in physical activities but struggled with academics. Although Heracles was not the brightest star in the Milky Way, this does not imply that he lacked intelligence. Rather than relying on cunning, wit, or wisdom like other Greek heroes, his strength lay in his ability to take direct action. Heracles’ greatest strength was his actual strength as well as his confidence in his physical skills.

By 18, Heracles had become the world’s strongest, tallest, and fastest man. Many Olympians offered their support by bestowing gifts to help him prepare for a life of challenges, adventure, and warfare. Athena gave him a robe, Poseidon gifted him with exquisite horses, Hermes gave him a sword, Apollo presented him with a bow and arrow, and Hephaestus equipped him with a breastplate made of pure gold.

Early Life: Hero of Thebes

Heracles became known as a hero and protector of Thebes after he set out to defeat the monstrous Lion of Cithaeron, who had been attacking his father’s cattle and causing destruction in the lands of King Thespius of Thespiae. It took Heracles 50 days to hunt the beast, during which he stayed with King Thespius, who offered one of his 50 daughters to Heracles every night.

Heracles defeated the monster on the 50th day and fathered a child with each of the 50 daughters. In addition to slaying the Lion of Cithaeron, Heracles also led an army to defend Thebes against an attack from King Erginos of Orchomenos. Erginos and his Minyan army had long troubled the city of Thebes. Heracles defeated Erginos and returned to Thebes as a celebrated war hero.

Creon, the King of Thebes, rewarded Heracles for his services to the city by offering him his daughter Megara’s hand in marriage. Heracles and Megara were blessed with two children, a son and a daughter, whom they cherished dearly. Life was going perfectly for Heracles. He was a celebrated hero, a loving husband and father, and his marriage to Megara guaranteed that he would one day ascend the throne of Thebes.

However, all this infuriated Hera, who despised seeing Heracles living a happy life. The Queen of Olympus still hated Heracles and devised a new plan to lead him down a path of shame, torment, and eternal suffering.

The Madness of Heracles

After a typical day guarding Thebes, Heracles returned to his family villa. However, upon entering, Hera sent Heracles into a maddening rage, which would change his life forever. Heracles’s madness caused him to murder his wife and children. According to some accounts, Heracles, in his madness, mistakenly believed that his family were dangerous monsters. Tragically, he killed them, thinking that he was protecting his family.

After the delusion faded, Heracles finally saw the truth of what he had done and fell into a deep grief. This incident was one of the cruelest tricks Hera had ever played on him. In one swift move, the goddess had taken everything away from Heracles — his family, reputation, and self-respect. Overnight, Heracles went from hero to zero. Society shunned him, and he was now seen as a detestable and polluted blood murderer. Heracles could barely function due to his overwhelming grief. He wished for death, but he knew that death alone was too easy of a punishment. Before reuniting with his family in the underworld, Heracles had to suffer and punish himself for his actions.

In ancient Greece, the most heinous crime one could commit was killing a family member or blood murder. The only way to be forgiven for such a crime was to receive purification from an anointed king, oracle, or priest. If the perpetrator failed to receive this purification, the furies, goddesses of vengeance, would relentlessly pursue them until they were driven to madness. However, if one could not seek purification from these individuals, there was another option: they could attempt to cleanse themselves through voluntary exile and atonement.

Exile and Seeking Atonement

Heracles exiled himself from Thebes and sought guidance from the Oracle of Delphi. The Oracle informed Heracles that to atone for his terrible crime, he must serve Eurystheus, the King of Argolis, for ten years without hesitation and perform every task he commanded. Heracles didn’t know that Hera had enchanted the Oracle to say this. As Heracles was about to leave, Apollo, the god of prophecy, took control of the Oracle and told Heracles that if he served without complaint, he would be rewarded with immortality.

Heracles went to Tiryns, the capital of Argolis, to meet his cousin King Eurystheus. Eurystheus was Zeus’s appointed ruler of Argolis, born prematurely due to Hera’s intervention. Eurystheus and Heracles were complete opposites in every way. Heracles was brave and straightforward, while Eurystheus was deceitful, cowardly, and cunning. Although they had never met, Eurystheus deeply resented Heracles’ immense popularity, hearing many stories of his heroic deeds.

The envious King must have relished the sight of Heracles kneeling before him, awaiting his first set of instructions. Eurystheus declared that as punishment for Heracles’ unthinkable crime, he would have to undergo ten tasks for the king over ten years without any assistance or payment. Only after Heracles completed all ten tasks would Eurystheus forgive and cleanse him of his crime. Hera had instructed Eurystheus, through her priestess, on exactly how to torment and punish Heracles.

The First Labor of Heracles: The Nemean lion

Eurystheus assigned Heracles his first labor: to kill the Nemean lion terrorizing his Kingdom’s people in the Northeast. This was no ordinary lion — it was believed to be the offspring of the monstrous Chimera, Typhon, or Echidna, mother of monsters. Hesiod wrote that the lion was nurtured by Hera and was sent to haunt Nemea. The beast had a thick coat of impenetrable golden fur that no arrow, spear, or blade could ever pierce. Its razor-sharp claws could easily slice through metal like soft butter. Its mighty jaws could effortlessly bite through stone like biting into freshly baked bread.

When Heracles was told about his first labor, he remained fearless and asked if he only needed to kill the monster and not bring it back alive or dead. Heracles’ calm attitude irritated Eurystheus, who believed that the beast would quickly kill his cousin. Eurystheus angrily told Heracles that he only needed to kill the monster and did not require its body.

The Hunt

Heracles devoted several weeks to stalking and observing the Nemean lion, just as he had done while hunting the Lion of Cithaeron. After stalking the lion for some time, Heracles tried to kill it with arrows from a distance. Although his arrows hit the target, they bounced off the lion’s impenetrable golden fur. This initial attempt made Heracles realize that his weapons were useless against the lion and that he would have to rely on his strength and bare hands to defeat the beast.

Heracles may have been a man of action, but he was not foolhardy. After realizing he needed to confront the lion up close, Heracles trained for several weeks to enhance his strength. He began a training regimen by uprooting trees, running marathons, and lifting boulders above his head, which made his already superhuman strength even greater.

Heracles devised a plan to face the lion while it rested in its den. While preparing, he discovered that the lion’s cave had two entrances. Just before the final showdown, he blocked one of the entrances with boulders, preventing the lion from escaping when he launched his attack.

The First Labor of Heracles: Hero Versus Lion

With all the preparations done, Heracles crept as silently as a hulking hero could into the lion’s den. Once the monster was in sight, Heracles leaped forward and tackled the massive beast to the ground.

The lion was taken entirely by surprise. No person or beast had ever attacked the lion in this manner before. Heracles grappled the lion with all his strength, denying the beast any chance of fighting back with its deadly claws or fearsome jaws.

The fight between the hero and the lion lasted for hours, with Heracles gradually tightening his grip around the lion’s throat. Despite its impenetrable golden fur, the lion was helpless against Heracles’s mighty hold. After struggling for hours, Heracles finally defeated the Nemean lion, and it took its last breath.

Heracles then knelt before the lion’s body and paid his respects. Even though he showed no mercy to his opponents when they were alive, he did his best to honor them in death. After completing the necessary rituals, Heracles decided to skin the lion and use its impenetrable fur as armor and a trophy of his success.

Although Heracles had calmly accepted his first labor, Eurystheus’s disrespectful attitude had annoyed him. This is why he asked the King if he only wished to see the lion killed or if he had any interest in its body. This allowed Heracles to do as he pleased with the lion’s remains.

Heracles attempted to skin the lion, but neither his sharpest knife nor sword could penetrate its hide. He may have spent hours or days futilely trying to skin the creature if Athena had not appeared and offered her advice. The patron of heroes suggested that Heracles use the lion’s razor-sharp claws to skin its fur.

Following her advice, Heracles successfully skinned the creature and created a cloak with the lion’s head included. He also turned the lion’s wicked claws into a necklace. Heracles then searched for the largest oak tree, uprooted it, and stripped it of its branches to create a massive club. From that day on, he would no longer rely on the sharpness of blades or spears to defeat his enemies.

Victorious, Heracles returned to Tiryns, but his appearance had changed significantly. He wore a lion’s skin pelt over his shoulders, with the ferocious beast’s open jaws resting on his head, and he carried a great club by his side. This became Heracles’ iconic look, which would be recognized for generations.

However, this was only the first of many labors Heracles had to endure to atone for his crime.  By the time Heracles returned, Eurystheus had already devised another impossible task for the legendary hero: to slay the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra.

John Avery Lomax was a trailblazing folklorist, musicologist, and educator. Born in Mississippi and raised in Texas, he grew up immersed in the songs of the cowboys on the Chisholm Trail. Lomax transformed his passion into his first book, Cowboy Songs and Other Frontier Ballads (1934). As the curator of the Archive of Folksong at the Library of Congress, he helped establish the primary institution for the preservation of American folk songs and culture. His groundbreaking work collecting American folk songs and popularizing the academic study of folklore was monumental.

Early Life and Education

John Avery Lomax was born in Goodman, Mississippi, in 1867. Amidst the chaos that followed the Civil War, his family left Mississippi and traveled by wagon to Texas when he was two years old. The Lomazes settled just outside of the frontier town of Merdian. As a child, John worked on the family homestead and developed a fascination with the cowboys who passed by on their way up the Chisholm Trail. He copied their style and wrote down the lyrics to their songs. 

He studied English literature at the University of Texas at Austin and Harvard, where he was mentored by the leading folklorist of the day, George Lyman Kittredge. At Harvard Kittredge and his colleagues encouraged Johns’s interest in cowboy songs and inspired him to begin collecting ballads. After Harvard, he lectured at Texas A&M, became the first secretary of the Texas Folklore Society, and published his first book Cowboy Songs and Other Frontier Ballads in 1910. 

On The Road

As the Great Depression hit the United States in 1931, like most Americans the Lomaxes were hit for six. Refusing to give up on his work, John traveled to New York and secured an advance from Macmillan Publishers to produce an anthology of American folk songs, that would include the black music of the South. 

The next day, he went to Washington and gained the support of the Library of Congress Archive of American Folksong. With a grant to cover their expenses, a car, and recording equipment, John and his 18-year-old son, Alan, hit the road. 

Their journey took them across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky, where they recorded the ballads of poor farmers on southern plantations, field hollers, and work songs in lumber camps, state penitentiaries, and prison farms. The recordings they collected became founding statements of modern cannon of American folk music.  

American Ballads and Folk Songs

Unlike the “white” tradition of folk ballads, in the prisons of the South, the Lomaxes uncovered songs about cotton, boll weevils, the misery of hard labor, and the hot southern sun. These songs were characterized by deep personal significance and sincerity (Szwed, 2010). John quickly realized that what he had found was something special. Besides the hundreds of recordings archived at the Library of Congress, the result of the trip was American Ballads and Folk Songs (1934). 

Emerging at a time when Americans were beginning to think seriously about their national culture and heritage, American Ballads and Folk Songs introduced black American folk culture as something worthy of appreciation. However, while the book featured songs sung by cowboys and convicts, lumberjacks, soldiers, miners, and hobos, it was criticized for excluding Spanish and Native American songs from the national picture. It was nonetheless highly influential.  

Lomax and Lead Belly

John Lomax is perhaps best known for his relationship with Huddie “Lead Belly” Ledbetter, a folk singer and convicted murderer he met during a recording trip to Angola State Prison in Louisiana. After Lead Belly’s release, he contacted John in search of work. A magisterial talent – and the true gem of his fieldwork efforts – John enthusiastically agreed and hired Lead Belly as his assistant in September 1934. 

Together, they traveled the South for 2 months and recorded over 100 records. Subsequently, they were joined by Alan and traveled to Washington, Philadelphia, and New York to promote American Ballads and Folk Songs. Along the way, Lead Belly performed in front of large audiences and began attracting tabloid attention. John became his manager and got him his first recording contract in 1935. In the end, sales were poor despite his relative fame, and their relationship soured. After six months together they called it a day. 

Legacy

John Lomax’s legacy is substantial and multifaceted. In his collection of folksongs, he visited all but one of 48 contiguous United States, recording music that otherwise may have been lost. His contributions to the Library of Congress Archive of American Folksong are invaluable. His field methodologies continue to inform the practice of contemporary folklorists. Likewise, his publications, from American Ballads and Folk Songs to Our Singing Country (1941) have had a lasting impact on the academic study of folklore. 

Among the musicians that Lomax discovered, Lead Belly stands out as the most significant. His diverse repertoire and profound influence on subsequent generations of musicians have cemented his place as one of the most important folk musicians of the twentieth century. Perhaps John Lomax’s greatest legacy is the work carried forth and advanced by his son Alan, who became a legendary musicologist, author, broadcaster, and oral historian, who raised the profile of folk music worldwide.

After three years of bloody warfare, the Northern public was growing weary of the conflict. To try and secure a victory, President Abraham Lincoln summoned General Ulysses S. Grant from the Western Theater to the Eastern Theater, where Grant’s aggression could be focused against Confederate General Robert E. Lee. After a first battle ended inconclusively, Grant would remain on the offensive and try to score a knockout.

Victory Claimed by Both Sides

The large and lengthy Battle of Spotsylvania Court House was inconclusive, but both sides claimed victory in the aftermath. Over almost two weeks of fighting, Confederate General Robert E. Lee held his ground and prevented Union General Ulysses S. Grant from winning a breakthrough. However, Grant inflicted proportionally greater casualties on Lee compared to the size of their respective armies. Due to the Confederacy’s limited manpower and industrial base, these were casualties that the South could scarcely afford.

Strategically, however, Lee could also argue a Southern victory on the grounds that the bloody battle increased pressure on Union President Abraham Lincoln to negotiate an end to the war. The clock was ticking for an end to the Civil War, and each month that the Confederacy could delay its collapse gave a glimmer of hope for an armistice where the Confederate States of America would remain an independent country. At Spotsylvania, Lee showed that Confederate defenses in Virginia remained strong.

Timeline of the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House

In March 1864, Union General Ulysses S. Grant was transferred from the Western Theater to the Eastern Theater and made general-in-chief of all Union armies. President Abraham Lincoln was impressed with Grant’s aggression and innovation and wanted it put to good use against Confederate General Robert E. Lee, whose Army of Northern Virginia had protected the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia against multiple Union offensives. Grant was now pitted against Lee, with the goal of finally defeating the Army of Northern Virginia and effectively ending the Civil War.

On May 5, 1864, Grant began his Wilderness Campaign, which was part of his broader Overland Campaign in Virginia.

After the Battle of the Wilderness on May 5-6, Grant’s army approached the small village of Spotsylvania Court House, hoping to cut off Lee’s army from returning to Richmond to defend it.

Instead, on May 8, the first Union forces discovered that the Confederates were already in Spotsylvania.

Grant tried to break up Confederate defenses at the village for three days, culminating in the epic skirmish at Bloody Angle on May 12.

After days of rest, Grant tried to attack again on May 18 but was repulsed and faced stronger Confederate fortifications.

Between May 19 and 22, both armies withdrew to the south, giving the battle an inconclusive ending.

What Caused the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House?

Instead of withdrawing back to Union territory after the Battle of the Wilderness, Grant remained on the attack. This was different from previous Union offensives against Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and was intended to wear down the Southerners. Grant wanted to keep the pressure on Lee and either wear him down or force him to make a strategic error. However, Lee had anticipated Spotsylvania Court House as a likely destination for Grant and ordered troops to occupy it. Confederate cavalry raced to the village, arriving before the Union.

When Union General George Meade discovered that Confederate troops remained in the village, unable to be driven off by advance Union cavalry, he ordered a general assault. This engagement on May 8, 1864 prompted the wider battle, which was encouraged by Grant when Union cavalry general Philip Sheridan insisted that he could drive back the opposing Confederate cavalry. Sheridan was correct and successfully defeated J.E.B. Stuart’s cavalry; by this point, Confederate infantry had constructed large defensive fortifications. Thus, the stage was set for a large battle between the Union’s Army of the Potomac and the Confederacy’s Army of Northern Virginia.

Why Was the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House Significant?

The battle was significant because it revealed a new determination by the Union: there would be no more lengthy withdrawals and regroupings. After the Battle of the Wilderness, Grant did not take weeks to recoup and reorganize; he continued his offensive. This would spell disaster for the South, which needed time as an ally to increase political pressure on Lincoln’s administration. By speeding up the North’s offensives, Grant increased the chances of winning the war by unconditional surrender and preserving the entire union.

During the battle itself, Grant also allowed strategic innovations that helped improve the Union’s combat effectiveness. First was letting cavalry general Sheridan attack on May 8, expanding the role of Union cavalry beyond scouting. This resulted in a successful defeat of J.E.B. Stuart, a renowned Confederate cavalry general. A second innovation was attacking defensive fortifications with fast-moving columns rather than slow-moving parallel lines, which was pioneered by Colonel Emory Upton. Upton’s attack was successful, though faltered when backup did not arrive. Grant later promoted Upton for this innovation.

5 Facts About the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House

1. Casualties

Casualties during the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House totaled some 31,000 men, with about 18,500 from the Union and about 12,500 from the Confederacy. A majority of these came from the Battle of Bloody Angle on May 12-13. Although the Union suffered more casualties, these represented a small percent of the Union’s manpower at the battle. In a rarity, the Confederates took more casualties for their size.

2. Commanders

General Ulysses S. Grant led Union forces, though General George Meade still held official command over the Army of the Potomac. Grant had been given command over all Union armies in March 1864, thanks to his effectiveness in the Western Theater. Of note in Union leadership during the battle was Philip Sheridan, whose cavalry offensive ended the life of Confederate rival J.E.B. Stuart. The West Point graduate—class of 1853—was only a captain when the Battle of Fort Sumter started the Civil War but quickly rose through the ranks. Sheridan later became general-in-chief of the US Army in November 1883, toward the end of the Indian War era.

Confederate forces were led by General Robert E. Lee. During the battle, his most prominent field commander was Richard H. Anderson, replacing James Longstreet as Lee’s primary subordinate general. Like many colleagues, Anderson was a West Point graduate and veteran of the Mexican-American War. Like Lee himself, Anderson had resigned his commission in the US Army at the outbreak of war and joined his native state as a Confederate. Unlike Sheridan, Anderson’s post-war career was unsuccessful, and the former general lived in poverty in his home state of South Carolina.

3. Number of Forces Involved

Under Grant and Lee, over 150,000 men were under arms at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. Two-thirds of these men were part of the Union’s Army of the Potomac, significantly outnumbering those of the Confederacy’s Army of Northern Virginia. Despite the high casualties, the sheer size of both armies made them highly formidable even after the battle.

4. Visiting Spotsylvania, Virginia Today

Today, visitors can enjoy tours of the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park in Virginia. Due to so many battles fought in the vicinity during the course of the Civil War, visitors can see exhibits from multiple engagements. There is an exhibit shelter for the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, as well as a driving tour. A total of 6.8 miles of hiking trails await visitors who wish to enjoy the countryside. The nearest town is Fredericksburg, Virginia, which has many accommodations for travelers.

5. Trivia: “They Couldn’t Hit an Elephant at This Distance”

There are two noteworthy pieces of trivia from the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. Tragically, the battle saw the highest-ranked Union officer combat death during the war, with Major General John Sedgwick being shot by a Confederate sharpshooter just after declaring, “They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” Sedgwick died instantly and was mournfully remembered by his soldiers and his superior officer, Ulysses S. Grant.

On a more positive note, the battle saw two Union generals go on to become presidential nominees. Ulysses S. Grant went on to serve two terms as president, and subordinate general Winfield Scott Hancock was the 1880 Democratic nominee for the office. Although Hancock had been successful in battle at Spotsylvania, he lost the presidential election to fellow Union general James Garfield, who was the Republican nominee.

Aftermath of Spotsylvania: Grant Applies Continuous Pressure

After the battle, Grant refused to withdraw north, keeping the pressure on Lee. This began a trend that slowly forced the Army of Northern Virginia back toward Richmond. In less than a month, Grant was laying siege to Petersburg, the second-largest city in Virginia and necessary for supplying Richmond. Although painful and costly, Grant’s aggression deprived Lee of room and time to maneuver strategically, forcing a war of attrition. The Union could survive this, but the Confederacy could not.

Combined, the battles of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania signaled the doom of the Confederacy, as Grant was not going to give the Confederacy any room to maneuver. With the Northern populace seeing progress being made, Lincoln was given time to win the war. Still, the war would drag on for almost another year, thanks to strong defensive fortifications that bolstered Confederate strength even with declining manpower. Once these were broken, however, the South had no choice but to surrender.

By 1812, Napoleon seemed to be on the brink of complete European conquest. His armies had humbled the might of the Prussians and tied down the British on the Iberian Peninsula. Although the United Kingdom would prove to be an unattainable goal, Napoleon still sought glory. He turned his attention to the East and prepared for a campaign that he hoped would net him the biggest territorial gains of his career as the French emperor.

The flat lands of Russia were inviting, and the promise of victory was tempting. The decision to invade, however, would prove to be a fatal mistake for Napoleon’s imperial ambitions. The Russians would not be easy to conquer. They knew their land well, and they knew how to fight, using tactics for which Napoleon’s army was completely unprepared.

The French invasion of Russia would mean the death of many hundreds of thousands.

Events Before the Invasion

In 1807, Napoleon had beaten the Russians at Friedland and concluded the Polish Campaign with a resounding and decisive victory. Following this, Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I of Russia signed the Treaties of Tilsit. Despite the events that had taken place beforehand, the two emperors took a liking to each other and formed a friendship.

Political needs, however, began to sour this relationship almost immediately. Napoleon turned Poland into the Duchy of Warsaw, and the Russians feared that this action would lead to an independent Poland. Given the history between Russia and Poland, this development displeased the tsar.

Other strategic and social developments also led to a breakdown of relations. The proud Russian aristocracy was displeased by the alliance, which they viewed as thwarting an opportunity to exact revenge for their losses. Further afield, Napoleon’s political maneuverings denied Russia the opportunity to annex Constantinople and, as a result, cut them off from the Mediterranean.

In 1810, developments in the Duchy of Oldenburg, southwest of Denmark, became a bone of contention. Napoleon annexed it, a move that contravened the Treaties of Tilsit. It was owned by Alexander’s sister’s father-in-law, and thus, the Russians saw it as part of their sphere of influence.

Of prime importance to the collapse of relations between the two empires, however, was the issue of trade with Britain. Russia had agreed to abide by Napoleon’s wish to blockade the United Kingdom and starve it economically, but Russia was experiencing economic difficulties of its own, and abiding by Napoleon’s designs made the situation even worse. The Russians continued to trade with Britain secretly, and when Napoleon found out, he was furious.

As a result, France and Russia prepared for war. When Alexander demanded the French evacuate their occupation of the Duchy of Warsaw and of Prussia, Napoleon refused, and war was declared between the two empires.

Napoleon assembled an army of over 600,000 soldiers drawn from all corners of the French Empire. It was the biggest army ever assembled at the time. Over two-thirds of the initial force comprised Germans, Poles, Austrians, and Italians. Some of these troops had been former enemies of Napoleon and thus lacked morale in any significant quantity to fight for France.

The War Begins

From the very beginning, Napoleon referred to the invasion in terms of propaganda. Calling it the “Second Polish War,” he hoped to garner support from the Poles and stated that liberating Poland was one of the major goals of the war.

The invasion of Russia began on Wednesday, June 24. Hundreds of thousands of troops from Napoleon’s Grande Armée crossed the border and continued to march towards the Russian hinterland.

With Napoleon at the head of the army, the first goal was reaching the Lithuanian city of Vilna (now Vilnius), where the Russians held substantial command functions. With 217,000 troops in the main force, Napoleon planned to defeat the main Russian forces under the command of Field Marshall Barclay de Tolly and then swing south towards Minsk.

Meanwhile, the French forces, under the command of Napoleon’s younger brother, Jérôme, to the south, would pin down the forces of General Pyotr Bagration in the center. By doing so, Bagration’s army would eventually be surrounded and forced to surrender.

The plan, however, failed to materialize in the way Napoleon had envisioned. He had expected the entire campaign to last less than two months. Bagration and Barclay de Tolly refused battle and pulled their armies out of harm’s way, retreating eastwards. They burned crops and resourced as they went, practicing a scorched-earth policy to deny the French army the ability to live off the land.

Jérôme, criticized for his inability to pin down Bagrations’ army, resigned from his post, and his soldiers were put under the command of Marshal Davout.

The Casualties Begin to Mount

Knowing the risks that would be encountered in supplying his massive army, Napoleon had supplies brought in from the rear, but the terrible state of the Russian roads hampered progress. When summer rain turned the roads to mud, progress was hampered even further, and the French armies had to make frequent pauses to allow the wagon trains to catch up.

Supplies trickled in, but they weren’t enough. Napoleon’s soldiers were already growing weak, and many collapsed from exhaustion before they even had a chance to fight the Russians.

Things didn’t go perfectly for the Russians either. They were completely outnumbered. Barclay de Tolly retreated to Smolensk, where he hoped Bagration would be able to link up with him. Bagration’s forces, however, were blocked by Davout, and a battle was forced.

The Battle of Saltanovka followed on July 23, and Bagration’s forces were defeated and forced to abandon their hopes of linking up with Barclay de Tolly’s forces. This development was caused in part by poor communication, and a string of confusing orders caused Bagration to grow irritated with Barclay de Tolly, whom he blamed for the blunder. Nevertheless, the battle was not a major one, and Bagration only lost around 2,500 men.

Napoleon’s army, meanwhile, was faring terribly. Disease and desertion had whittled his effective fighting force to minimal levels, and his fighting capability had been reduced to about half. All of this happened without even fighting a major battle.

At the same time, horses were dying in droves and furthering the logistic and supply problems, while Russian cossacks and partisans harried their enemies every step of the way.

In the Balance

On July 27, far behind the vanguard of the French forces, a Russian army under the command of Alexander Tormasov attacked the contingent of the French army sent by the Kingdom of Saxony. The Russians prevailed, and Napoleon was forced to send the Austrian Corps to bolster their allies and check Tormasov’s advance to the rear.

Meanwhile, Bagration and Barclay de Tolly had finally managed to link up their forces near Smolensk, and the two argued over whether to give battle or continue the retreat. Bagration,  who wanted to go on the offensive, managed to sway the more cautious Barclay de Tolly, and Russian armies turned around and faced the enemy. An advance force was sent west and encountered a French force under the command of Marshal Michel Ney.

Ney won the first Battle of the Dnieper on August 14, but the Russians managed to retreat in good order back to Smolensk. Things looked better for the French when word reached Napoleon that the Russians had failed to inflict damage on the flanks. Tormasov was defeated at Gorodechno to the south, and in the north, French and Bavarian Troops prevented the Russians from making any gains, thus securing the northern flank.

Napoleon marched on Smolensk, and from August 16 to 18, the two armies were engaged in bitter fighting. The Russians finally decided to pull back, but the French hesitated in outmaneuvering their enemies and failed to block the Russian retreat, which would have made the overall strategic situation dire for the Russians. Both armies lost about 10,000 men.

The war was still not decided. Napoleon consoled himself with the idea that he would be in Moscow in a few weeks and the Tsar would sue for peace.

Alexander, deciding it was time for change, placed Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov in overall command of the Russian armies. Seventy miles west of the city, at a place called Borodino, the Russians waged battle.

The Battle of Borodino

On September 7, the two armies met. The Russians had dug themselves into hilly terrain, hoping to halt the French advance. The forces at Borodino were evenly matched, with each army having around 130,000 soldiers. What unfolded that day was the single bloodiest day of the entire Napoleonic era, and both armies lost around a third of their troops, killed, captured, or wounded. Among the losses was Pyotr Bagration, who died from wounds inflicted at the battle.

Technically, the battle ended in a French victory, as the Russians retreated (in good order) and allowed the French to occupy the city of Moscow. However, the battle was extremely costly and far from the decisive blow that Napoleon needed. The French army lost more than 30,000 troops, while it’s estimated the Russians may have lost more than 50,000.

Disappointment

After the battle, Napoleon marched on Moscow. He expected to be greeted by the city’s authorities offering surrender, but when he arrived, he found an empty city. Virtually the entire population of Moscow had fled. What’s more, the city’s governor, Count Fyodor Rostopchin, had ordered key points in the city to be set on fire, and over the course of a few days, the city burnt, and French troops began looting.

Napoleon moved his headquarters to the Kremlin and sent a message to Tsar Alexander, inviting him to talk peace, but a reply never came. Napoleon waited as long as he could, hoping for a reply, but the oncoming winter and the growing number of Russian troops around Moscow convinced him and his generals that he would have to retreat to Smolensk, where there would hopefully be enough accommodations for his troops to wait out the brutal Russian cold.

Retreat

On October 18, French forces under Joachim Murat were surprised and defeated by Kutuzov’s army at Vinkovo, and on October 19, Napoleon’s forces began their long retreat. Foremost in Napoleon’s mind was outmaneuvering Kutuzov, whose army now outnumbered the French and their allies.

The next day, French operations in Belarus were put to a halt when the Franco-Bavarian force under the command of Laurent Saint-Cyr was soundly defeated by Russians under the command of Peter Wittgenstein. At the Battle of Polotsk, the French lost another 7,000 men.

On October 24, elements of both armies clashed at Maloyaroslavets. The battle was a tactical victory for the French, but it turned into victory on the strategic level for the Russians, as they forced Napoleon to redirect his army onto a predictable route already stripped of supplies. With temperatures now dropping below freezing, the situation was irrecoverable for Napoleon.

Thus followed Russian victories at Vyazma on November 3 and at Krasnoi on November 15-18. Meanwhile, the French retreat was continuously harried by hit-and-run assaults. So many French horses had died by this point that Napoleon had little in the way of cavalry left. The French were completely at the mercy of Russian light cavalry, which could strike and disappear long before the French could respond or follow up.

Lacking supplies, Smolensk was not able to support what was left of the army, and Napoleon had to continue the retreat. As the days in November grew colder, soldiers froze to death, and others became desperate for survival, ignoring orders and leaving their comrades to die by the roadside. Discipline broke down, and much of the army turned into a mass of stragglers who were unable to be used in combat. Over one thousand horses died each day from starvation and from being overworked as the French army desperately tried to push them far beyond what could reasonably be expected from horses unaccustomed to the Russian winter.

Escape

Blocking Napoleon’s army was the Berezina River, which should have been frozen to allow for crossing, but an unexpected thaw had turned the river into an icy torrent. The only bridge was at the village of Borisov, which had been captured by Russian forces under the command of Pavel Chichagov. The French launched an attack to take the town, but the Russians retreated and burned the bridge.

There was still hope for escape, however. Shallow water near the village of Studienka to the north allowed for pontoon bridges to be built. Dutch engineers worked throughout the day and night of November 25 to construct the bridges, a job which claimed many of their lives in the freezing torrent.

Meanwhile, a diversionary force was sent south to lure Chichagov’s army away from the crossing. The ruse worked, and the remnants of Napoleon’s army crossed the Berezina virtually unopposed.

The Russians were hot on their heels, however, and among swirling blizzards, much of the French rear guard was annihilated. With three Russian armies converging on the French positions, desperate defenses were put up to allow the bulk of Napoleon’s forces to continue their retreat.

Tens of thousands of stragglers in the rear were not lucky enough to escape. To ensure their own retreat, the French burned the pontoon bridges, leaving the stragglers to fend for themselves on the far bank of the Berezina. The Russians took many prisoners but were also in short supply of any desire to give mercy. Thousands of stragglers were simply killed.

As soon as the way was clear, Napoleon departed for Paris, abandoning the army, in order to settle rebellious sentiment in the city where there was a major threat of a coup.

In mid-December, what was left of Napoleon’s Grande Armée crossed the Niemen River to safety. Of an army that had numbered 615,000 on June 24, only around 100,000 were left.

The Russian Campaign had been a disaster of such proportions that it doomed the French Empire. Emboldened by his victory, Alexander called upon the European nations to throw off Napoleon’s yoke and rise against the French Empire. Prussia and Austria heeded the call.

So much had been lost that Napoleon would not be able to defend against the combined forces that would now drive deep into French territory, towards Paris.

The French invasion of Russia was a total disaster.

Napoleon and his armies were completely defeated and driven back to Paris by the triumphant Russians and their allies. Forced to abdicate in 1814, Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba in the Mediterranean.

This, however, wasn’t Napoleon’s final chapter.

There are two categories of Biblical prophecy. The first are the conditional prophecies. The second are the unconditional prophecies. For a conditional prophecy, the outcome of the prophecy depends on the actions of the person or group the prophecy addresses. For unconditional prophecy, no action from man can prevent or change the outcome. Messianic prophecies, time prophecies, and end-time prophecies fall into this category.

Conditional prophecy serves as a warning to the target audience. It warns of the results of continuing the current path and is how God displays mercy. He warns first, allowing repentance and corrective action.

A Conditional Prophecy With the Conditions Met

Let us first consider an example of conditional prophecies where the group the prophecy spoke to met the condition, and the prophecy did not come to fruition because of the actions taken.

When the condition of a conditional prophecy is complied with, the prophecy does not come to fruition, and the result is averted. The person or group the prophecy addressed could make behavioral changes to prevent calamity from striking. The conditional clause of a prophecy may not appear in the text, but Christians infer the conditionality by the outcome changing due to altered behavior.

Jonah serves as an excellent example of conditional prophecy. God told Jonah to go to Nineveh and tell people that the city would fall in 40 days. The king of Nineveh decreed that his people fast, put on sackcloth, and turn from their wicked ways. They repented, and God did not destroy the city. The text does not provide the entire message, yet we can deduce part of it from the words of Jonah in Jonah 3:4. The King of Nineveh believed the impending disaster could be averted and decreed that the people of Nineveh put on sackcloth, fast, and call out to God, presumably in repentance.

God noticed the changed behavior and “relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.” This outcome indicates that the prophecy was conditional. They met the condition, and the prophecy did not come to fruition.

Jonah’s reaction to the conditional prophecy not coming to fruition is surprising. Instead of rejoicing at the repentance of the Assyrians, Jonah was angry and wished to die. He knew God was merciful but did not want mercy for the Ninevites. He said: “O LORD, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster.”

Conditional Prophecies Fulfilled

Conditional prophecy comes to full or partial fulfillment soon after the person or people it addresses meet the condition of the prophecy. Moses provided the nation of Israel with the principle of conditional prophecy in his address to them shortly before they took the promised land into their possession. Moses proclaimed:

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.”

This proclamation by Moses did not speak to a specific instance of idolatry, but laid the general principle before the nation and would serve as a warning to them in the future. The conditionality of the prophecy is undeniable. The choices the nation of Israel would make would determine whether or not the land was taken away from them and destroyed. It is a general prophecy and does not provide specific details. Later prophecies, when some Israelites did follow other gods, were more specific.

The Fall of Israel and Judah

Shortly after the split of the unified Nation of Israel into the Northern Kingdom, consisting of ten tribes, and the Southern Kingdom, consisting of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, the Northern Kingdom of Israel fell into apostasy. The Prophets Amos and Hosea prophesied that the Northern Kingdom of Judah would go into exile if they did not turn back to God. However, the Northern Kingdom of Israel did not heed these warnings, and starting around 740 BCE, they were sent into exile by the Assyrians. Eventually, in 722 BCE, the capital city of the Northern Kingdom fell, and the remainder of the nation that was fit to travel and useful as slaves went into exile.

The Southern Kingdom of Judah suffered a similar fate. According to the Bible, God used Jeremiah to warn Judah about their fate. He said:

“If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’”

Jeremiah 18:7-11

The Kingdom of Judah had prophets who told the nation that the warnings Jeremiah gave were erroneous and that they had nothing to worry about. God then gave more specific details about what would happen to Judah if they remained disobedient:

“For thus says the LORD: Behold, I will make you a terror to yourself and all your friends. They shall fall by the sword of their enemies while you look on. And I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon. He shall carry them captive to Babylon and shall strike them down with the sword. Moreover, I will give all the wealth of the city, all its gains, all its prized belongings, and all the treasures of the kings of Judah into the hand of their enemies, who shall plunder them and seize them and carry them to Babylon. And you, Pashhur, and all who dwell in your house, shall go into captivity. To Babylon you shall go, and there you shall die, and there you shall be buried, you and all your friends, to whom you have prophesied falsely.”

-Jeremiah 20:4-6

The Babylonians invaded Babylon and killed thousands of its people. They took the remainder into exile and destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 BCE. The treasures of the Temple fell into the hands of the Babylonians, and some of it was later used by Belshazzar during a feast that dignitaries of his kingdom attended (Daniel 5:2).

Conclusion

For Christians and Jews, conditional prophecy is the way in which God warns a person or group of future events that will come about unless and until they repent and turn from their previous path. In a sense, it is an act of mercy to warn, allowing corrective action and avoiding calamity.

Moses presented the nation of Israel with the principle of conditional prophecy before they entered the promised land. He was not addressing a specific instance of idolatry, but his words warned future generations that their actions have consequences.

There are many instances of conditional prophecy where the target audience takes heed of the warning, repents, and takes corrective action. In these instances, the resulting troubles did not come to fruition. Jonah’s prophecy to the city of Nineveh is one such example.

The exile of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah resulted from not taking heed of the conditional prophecies given by various prophets. They took no corrective action, and both kingdoms went into exile. The Northern Kingdom went into exile to Assyria in the 8th century BCE, and the Kingdom of Judah fell when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 568 BCE.

In March 1864, late in the Civil War, the Confederacy had taken to using some irregular tactics to continue its fight against the more-industrialized Union. Cavalry raiders were used to attack occupied territory behind Union lines, hoping to demoralize, intimidate, and disrupt Union operations. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest took the opportunity to attack the 600-man Union force at Fort Pillow with his larger group of around 2,000 men.

Victory Goes to the Confederacy

The Battle of Fort Pillow, also known as the Fort Pillow Massacre, was a Confederate victory over a significantly smaller number of Union soldiers. Fort Pillow, located in Tennessee near the banks of the Mississippi River, had initially been seized by the Union in 1862, shortly after it had been built by the new Confederate States of America. Two years later, Confederate cavalry raids in the state, largely occupied by the Union, targeted the small fort. On April 12, 1864, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest attacked the garrison.

Heavily outnumbered, the Union garrison held out for hours before a final, decisive Confederate attack at about 4:00 PM. In addition to greater numbers, Confederate sharpshooters also held higher ground near the fort and were able to shoot down into it. The Union troops, a mix of freshly-trained African American soldiers from the United States Colored Troops and pro-Union white volunteers from Tennessee, were massacred by the victorious Confederates. Later, one of General Forrest’s men confirmed that the cavalry leader had given the order to fire on the surrendering Union soldiers.

Timeline of the Battle of Fort Pillow

In March 1864, Confederate cavalry general Nathan Bedford Forrest began a raiding campaign from northern Mississippi, aiming for Paducah, Kentucky. These raids were intended to intimidate any who might consider cooperating with the Union authorities and seize supplies for a struggling Confederacy. Far less industrialized than the Union, the South suffered from constant supply shortages during the Civil War.

On March 25, Forrest’s troops successfully raided Paducah but could not dislodge Union troops from nearby Fort Anderson.

Swinging into Tennessee, Forrest successfully raided the towns of Union City and Bolivar before focusing on Fort Pillow, which had been in Union hands since mid-1862.

Early on the morning of April 12, 1864, Forrest’s advance units reached the fort and began fighting. Morning fighting saw the death of the Union fort’s commander, Major Lionel Booth. Multiple Confederate attacks on the fort were thrown back, and a truce was called in the afternoon to request that the outnumbered garrison surrender.

When the Union officers refused to surrender, Forrest launched a final, concerted attack that broke Fort Pillow’s defenses.

What Caused the Battle of Fort Pillow?

The Battle of Fort Pillow was the result of Confederate cavalry raiding, which had become a popular tactic. On horseback, mounted soldiers could travel further and faster than infantry and attack areas far behind the front lines. Thus, they could have a significant psychological impact on the enemy, both military and civilian. Even though the Union had the military advantage in the war, thanks to its larger population and much greater industrial base, the Confederacy could maintain political pressure to end the war by launching successful cavalry raids into Union territory.

What turned the Battle of Fort Pillow into the Massacre of Fort Pillow was the presence of Black Union soldiers. The participation of Black soldiers had been authorized in the North on July 17, 1862, with combat service beginning in 1863. Combined with the Emancipation Proclamation, which President Abraham Lincoln had made after the Battle of Antietam, the presence of Black Union soldiers in the South was an outrage. The Confederates’ discovery of Black soldiers at Fort Pillow led to rage, which resulted in the execution of many surrendering Union troops, both Black and white.

Why Was the Battle of Fort Pillow Significant?

Despite the small size of the battle, its ferocity and the atrocities inflicted upon surrendering Union troops made it very newsworthy. It was also one of the first battles in which Black soldiers participated, many of whom were killed despite surrendering to the larger Confederate force. These war crimes revealed the challenges facing Black soldiers during the Civil War: although many African Americans wanted the opportunity to fight to help free their enslaved brethren in the South, the Confederacy would treat any captured Black soldiers terribly.

Fortunately, President Abraham Lincoln acted to force the South to treat any captured Black soldiers as lawful combatants rather than escaped slaves, as the South wished to do. Lincoln threatened to treat captured Confederate soldiers in a similar manner to how the Confederacy dealt with captured Black soldiers (and their white officers). This prevented the South from being as brutal as it might have been toward captured Black soldiers, though they were typically still mistreated. In the North, news of the Massacre of Fort Pillow was used as a rallying cry for months afterward to encourage support for the war and defeating the Confederacy.

5 Facts About the Battle of Fort Pillow

1. Casualties

Casualties at the Battle of Fort Pillow contrasted greatly between the two sides. The Union defenders of Fort Pillow suffered six hundred casualties, which was most of the entire garrison. Some 230 were killed, 120 were wounded, and 30 were captured.

The Confederates, by contrast, suffered only fourteen men killed. Among the Union troops, most of the African Americans were killed, with only 58 of 262 Black soldiers still alive after the battle.

2. Commanders

Union forces were led by Major Lionel F. Booth. Booth was killed early in the fighting, and command fell to the relatively inexperienced Major William Bradford. Bradford was executed after the battle, with his body left unburied. The execution by angry Confederates was likely influenced both by Bradford’s initial refusal to surrender the fort and his willingness to work with African American soldiers. Booth’s widow, Elizabeth Booth, famously urged President Lincoln to ensure that the widows of Black soldiers killed at Fort Pillow would have the same pension benefits as the widows of white soldiers. This was passed by Congress in the summer of 1864.

Confederate forces were led by Cavalry General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Unlike most of his colleagues, who had attended West Point and served in the Mexican-American War, the 40-year-old Forrest entered the war as a civilian volunteer who used his personal wealth to volunteer to raise and outfit a unit. In the summer of 1862, Forrest quickly became the master of the cavalry raid, starting his meteoric rise to becoming a general. After Fort Pillow, Forrest continued his cavalry raids that antagonized the Union. Following the end of the Civil War, Forrest became infamous for founding the Ku Klux Klan, which inflicted violence and terror on African Americans in the South.

3. Number of Forces Involved

Roughly 2,000 Confederate soldiers assaulted the fort, with estimates ranging from 1,500 to 3,000. These men were a portion of General Forrest’s total command of about 7,500 troops. Defenders of Fort Pillow numbered about 600, meaning they were outnumbered by about three-to-one. The 600 Union soldiers were a mix of United States Colored Troops (USCT) and white volunteers from Tennessee, who were largely viewed as traitors by their fellow Southerners.

4. Visiting Fort Pillow Today

Today, the battlefield can be seen as part of the Fort Pillow State Park in Tennessee. The 1,600-acre park is about 40 miles west of Memphis, and the inner part of the fort has been reconstructed. Visitors can watch a video documentary about the battle and request guided tours of the park. On-site, there is a museum that is open from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. For those who want to explore on their own, there are approximately 20 miles of hiking trails.

5. Trivia: Confederate Brutality Backfired

The Battle of Fort Pillow was strategically inconsequential for the Confederacy, as General Forrest quickly abandoned the fort and continued on his raiding course. His massacre of the garrison, however, became a rallying cry for the Union, especially Black soldiers. The atrocity only strengthened President Lincoln’s resolve to push on to a military victory over the South. Therefore, Confederate brutality at Fort Pillow, instead of intimidating the North and dissuading Black men from volunteering for military service, backfired terribly.

Aftermath of Fort Pillow: Holding the South Accountable

President Abraham Lincoln was appalled by the murder of surrendering Union soldiers and vowed not to let the war crime go unpunished. On May 3, 1864, he convened his cabinet and sought answers on how to respond to the massacre. Cabinet secretaries prepared their responses in writing, with many advocating efforts to determine the identities of which Confederates participated in the massacre. Some wanted retaliation, with an equal number of Confederate prisoners to be executed as surrendering Union soldiers had been killed at Fort Pillow.

Lincoln decided against formal retaliation, but did threaten the Confederate government with it. The president argued that only winning the war would lead to justice. He met with Elizabeth Booth, widow of Union commander Major Lionel Booth, on May 19. After the meeting, Lincoln asked US Senator Charles Sumner to craft a bill that would provide equal pension benefits to the widows of Black soldiers as to the widows of white soldiers. On July 2, 1864, this bill was signed into law.

The Carnegie libraries were part of a philanthropic venture by steel industrialist Andrew Carnegie. There were 2,509 libraries built between 1883-1929 with 1,689 of them being in the United States and the rest in over 8 other countries. While they were originally connected to Carnegie himself, and places that were significant to his background, funding was opened to grants places could apply for which expanded their reach.

Who Was Andrew Carnegie?

Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland on November 25, 1835. While he would become one of the richest men in the steel industry in the United States, he had more humble beginnings. His father was a loom maker and the economy in Scotland and shifts with the Industrial Industry meant that it was harder to make ends meet. Eventually the Carnegie family moved to the United States in Allegheny, Pennsylvania where there was a large Scottish population.

Carnegie took a job in a factory in a cotton mill as a bobbin boy for $1.20 a week while still going to night school. He moved on to become a messenger boy and became an assistant of Thomas Scott in the Pennsylvania Railroad. This is the company he worked his way up in while making investments and helping to form different companies.

The Carnegie Steel Company

Eventually he moved back to his hometown area, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and built the J. Edgar Thomson Steel Mill, essentially starting the Carnegie Empire. His company became the Carnegie Steel Company in 1899 when all his smaller companies were brought together, one of the largest steel companies in the world. He was interested in different philanthropic causes and after selling his company to J.P. Morgan’s United States Steel Company for $250,000,000 he focused on these projects, including his Carnegie Libraries. He married Louise Whitfield in 1887, and they had one daughter, Margaret Carnegie. Carnegie died August 11, 1919.

A Mini History of Libraries

Libraries had originally been places of classical documents, tablets and archives. One of the most famous libraries in the ancient world was the Library of Alexandra in Egypt, the largest and most historically significant library from the 3rd century B.C.E. to 30 B.C.E when the Romans took over Egypt and it accidentally and tragically burned down, and many parts of history lost.

Private libraries were also common at that time, with limited access depending on who you were. The first type of public library was created in the Roman Empire, with different emperors and leaders trying to outdo each other in designs. These public libraries had scrolls that readers could read and copy. The idea of libraries, both public and private, was spread across many different countries and cultures throughout history. 

In 19th century Britain there were public libraries known as subscription libraries that were members only and required payment for memberships which would bar access for only people who could afford this. Skipping ahead the first tax paid library like how public libraries are today in the United Staes was in New Hampshire 1833.

Carnegie Libraries Then

In the mid-19th century, Carnegie said that he would be spending some of his money by “establish[ing] a free library in any community that is willing to maintain and develop it.” He wrote the essay originally titled “Wealth,” now known as “The Gospel of Wealth.” The first library that he established was in his own birthplace in Dunfermline Scotland that opened in 1833. Meanwhile, the first Carnegie Library in the United States that didn’t have specific ties to Carnegie’s past was in Fairfield, Iowa in 1893. By 1908 his staff, including James Bertram, oversaw the library applications and grants instead of Carnegie himself.

Looking at the plans of the different libraries many of the designs emulated the architectural style of Italian Renaissance and Beaux-Arts although that wasn’t a requirement of the designs. The application process required for the applicants to demonstrate the need for a public library, provide site where the library would be built, be responsible in paying the staff and maintaining the library, use public funds to run the library not just private donations, and allow free access to everyone who wanted to use it.

Carnegie Libraries Now

Not all the Carnegie libraries have survived over time. Some have been demolished or repurposed due to a lack of use or a change in the setup of the town or the library simply getting too big for its original space. The photo shows Woodys, which was a Carnegie Library in Carmel, Indiana that when sold was turned into a restaurant. It contains most of the original architecture and has some details of the library for patrons to enjoy. This is just one example of someone buying one of these historic libraries and changing it into something entirely different. These repurposed spaces include museums, city halls, businesses, and private residences.

Thankfully some of these libraries have remained in their original form. Carnegie had created these grants and funded this project because of his drive to allow public libraries to be available to as many people as possible, following his desire to donate his money to many different projects as possible. A famous quote of his says, “the man who dies thus rich dies in disgrace.” While not all these libraries remain, and some were even taken down, many will live on for future generations to enjoy, as beautiful examples of architecture and philanthropy.

The Q source hypothesis is a prominent theory in New Testament scholarship that seeks to explain the literary relationship between the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. According to this hypothesis, there was a hypothetical written source, known as “Q” (short for the German word “Quelle,” meaning “source”), which contained the sayings and teachings of Jesus that were shared by Matthew and Luke but are absent in Mark.

The Synoptic Problem

Scholars refer to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the synoptic gospels. The term “synoptic” comes from two Greek words: syn, meaning “together,” and opsis, meaning “seeing.” It refers to the fact that these three gospels share a similar structure, tell the same stories, and parallel each other in content and wording to a large extent.

Consider the following passages from each of these gospels:

Matthew 3:16-17

“And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’” 

Mark 1:10-11

“And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.’”

Luke 3:21-22

“Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.’”

The similarity of the texts is undeniable, and this is one of many examples.

Scholars have long held that Mark was the first of the gospels, dated to around 65-70 CE. Matthew and Luke are dated at least a decade, if not two later, sometime between 80 and 95 CE. It is highly likely that Matthew and Luke had copies of the Gospel of Mark at their disposal when they authored their versions.

Having Mark as a mutual source for Matthew and Luke would explain their many similarities. What it does not explain, however, is the literary similarities between Matthew and Luke that do not appear in Mark. These similarities are attributed to Jesus, but never to any narrative.

The parallels unique to Matthew and Luke gave rise to the theory that these gospel authors made use of a second source for their material, resulting in the equivalencies in their work. Scholars called this hypothetical second source “Q.”

The Q Source Hypothesis

The “Q” in “Q source hypothesis” comes from the first letter of the German word “quelle” which means “source.” Given the similarities between Matthew and Luke, this source must have consisted of the sayings of Jesus. The lack of narrative similarities in these two gospels makes it unlikely that Q had a narrative framework.

The Q source hypothesis developed in the late 18th century and early 19th century as a means of explaining the parallels between Matthew and Luke. Two German biblical scholars, particularly Johann Gottfried Eichhorn and Heinrich Julius Holtzmann were prominent in the development of the Q source hypothesis, postulating that a proto-gospel, probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic, was the source for the three synoptic gospels. In the mid-1920s, with the work of B. H. Streeter, the theory seems to have gained traction.

This original source may have been an oral tradition on the sayings of Jesus that the authors of Matthew and Luke codified. Alternatively, their capturing of the Q sayings in their gospels could have resulted in the original written Q source becoming redundant as these gospels expanded on and provided context for these sayings.

Various scholars have made attempts to reconstruct Q by analyzing Matthew and Luke and using the parallels to identify the original material. The process involved, among other things, identifying distinctive characteristics such as theological emphasis, literary style, and cultural context. By its very nature, it remains a speculative endeavor. Scholars also regularly investigate parallels with other Early Christian sources such as the Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, and similar works that contain sayings of Jesus.

Though no evidence for Q exists, there are several reasons why such a source is likely. First, there are overlaps in the wording and the order of the sayings and teachings between Matthew and Luke, particularly in passages not found in Mark, which suggest a common origin. This includes a consistent thematic focus on ethical teachings, wisdom sayings, and teachings about the kingdom of God.

Secondly, statistical analysis done by Markos Papapetrou showed quantitative support for the existence of Q by demonstrating statistically significant patterns of verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke in passages not found in Mark.

Thirdly, variations in order and wording make it unlikely that Luke copied from Matthew and more likely that they shared a common source. Each of them adopted the original material to fit their style, narrative, and focus.

Fourth, Matthew and Luke parallel other early Christian works. They may not have used Q as a source directly, but they indicate a broader circulation and influence of Jesus’ teachings beyond the canonical gospels.

Variations and Alternatives of the Q Hypothesis

One variation on the Q source hypothesis proposes that Mark also made use of Q or a similar proto-gospel. This is an unorthodox approach since the original hypothesis had Q as a source for similarities between Matthew and Luke that exclude similarities with Mark. The three initial Bible passages referenced in this article show some sayings are shared among all three. This idea of a proto-gospel as the source for all three synoptic gospels dates back as far as the 1800s.

Scholars have come up with alternatives to the Q source hypothesis to explain similarities in the gospels of the different authors. The Farrer hypothesis proposes that Matthew used Mark as a source, but Luke used both Mark and Matthew as a source. This approach is simple and negates the need for a Q source altogether.

Arguments Against the Existence of Q

Some scholars argue that the similarities between Matthew and Luke can be adequately explained by literary dependence on each other or on oral tradition, without the need to posit a separate written source like Q. Similarly, scribal traditions may also have resulted in literary parallels between Matthew and Luke and would provide a much simpler explanation than the Q hypothesis.

A weakness of the Q source hypothesis is the absence of any textual evidence despite extensive scholarly efforts to find it. The entire hypothesis is based on statistical and literary analysis and inference. It adds complexity to the synoptic problem by introducing an additional layer of tradition, transmission, and composition, which may not be warranted given the available evidence (or rather lack thereof).

The lack of any textual evidence for Q leads to a variety of proposed reconstructions. It results in a lack of consensus which undermines the reliability and validity of the hypothesis.

What Q Lacks

From reconstructions of Q, it is evident that it does not contain the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection narratives that are at the core of the gospels — the “good news.” As such, Q could not be the source of the gospels but could be a source of the sections of the gospels that relate to the sayings of Jesus.

With the abundance of manuscripts and indirect evidence for the New Testament and other early Christian works, it is hard to imagine that a source as prominent as Q would leave no trace of evidence. That said, the reasoning behind the likely existence of a single source—the parallels in Matthew and Luke—seems reasonable.

Conclusion

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke have much in common, resulting in scholars referring to them as the “synoptic gospels.”  While most scholars believe Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, similarities in Matthew and Luke gave rise to speculation that these two gospels share a second source that is absent in Luke.

Scholars have not been able to verify this hypothesis with manuscript evidence. While the existence of the Q source remains a hypothesis, there were good reasons for positing a single source for the parts of Matthew and Luke that parallel one another but are absent in Mark. From a statistical-analytical perspective, such a source is likely. It would explain the similarities between the two later synoptic gospels and even the parallels with other early Christian sources.

On the other hand, it would also make for a more complex explanation than other scholars have proposed, violating the principle of Occam’s Razor. Alternatively, Mark could have been the source for Matthew, and Matthew for Luke, which is a much simpler explanation than the Q hypothesis.

The lack of reference to the essentials of the gospel (the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ) makes Q an unlikely source for the origin of the gospels themselves, but it would qualify as a source for the sayings of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Mark.

Medieval Ethiopia produced one of the longest-reigning dynasties anywhere in the world. The Solomonic Dynasty lasted from 1270 CE to 1974 CE, with many Ethiopians claiming it went back further to 982 BCE when Menelek I became the first emperor of Ethiopia. In 700 years, Ethiopia witnessed a transformation in trade, territory, and culture that created the modern nation we know today. The dynasty united ethnic groups to form one state with the same values and traditions. Although historians still have yet to determine what happened to begin the Solomonic Dynasty, we can combine the sources we have to create an image of what might have occurred.

Opposition to the Zagwe Dynasty

The Zagwe Dynasty ruled from 900 CE to 1270 CE. It was a relatively stable lineage until the 13th century when opposition began to gain power against the king. Although much of its centuries-long reign is well-recorded, the end of the Zagwe Dynasty is still a mystery for historians. The dynasty’s last emperor is even called Za-Ilmaknun, which translates to “the unknown” or “the hidden one” because later royal recorders completely removed him from history. Many historians have theorized that this ruler was Yetbarak, the son of former King Lalibela.

During the 1260s, the ruler of one of Ethiopia’s regions, Shewe, slowly started to gain power against the final ruler of the Zagwe dynasty. This leader, Yekuno Amlak, was supported by many Ethiopian saints and certain ministers, who were related to him on his mother’s side. A later monastic genealogy recorded the following story:

“‘Come, let me ask [lit: tell] you something,’ said Abuna Takla Hâymãnot to Yekuno Amlâk. ‘Who taught you [the scriptures]?’ He said to Abuna Takla Hâymãnot, ‘I learned the scripture(s) while I was in the house of Arbogenā. Abuna Yohannes of the Hidden taught me; he also told me that I will be king of Ethiopia.’”

In these lines, the power of Amlak’s religious support is evident. Yekuno Amlak’s power as the established leader of Shewe and his role within influential religious circles made him the perfect figure to oppose the final Zagwe king.

The Battle of Ansata

The map above shows the Zagwe Kingdom and the Shewe Sultanate, which Amlak controlled. As Amlak gained power and influence, he gained control of enough troops and resources to conduct a full-on attack on the Zagwe Kingdom. Like many other successful usurpers, Amlka timed his strength to match the weakness of the existing king before striking.

By 1270 CE, Amlak had built enough support to oppose Yetbarek more forcefully. He gained the collaboration of the Gafat, an ethnic group in Medieval Ethiopia, and from the sultanate of Shewa. This support gave Amlak an upper hand against the last Zagwe king, whose power was already dwindling with Amlak’s rise.

The story of the Battle of Ansata claims that after defeating the Zagwe army, Amlak pursued Yetbarek into ​​the Church of Saint Qirqos at Ansata. Here, Amlak slayed Yetbarek, taking over the throne with violent force. Although some historians treat this event as fact, there is still debate about what happened that allowed Amlak to overthrow the Zagwe Dynasty. The Battle of Ansata may be one of the most epic battles we know barely anything about. The scrubbing of Yetbarek—or whoever the final Zagwe King was—from history has deliberately hidden the truth of what happened.

In other stories, the last King of Zagwe was Naakuto Laab, Yetbarek’s brother. He agreed to peacefully transfer power to Amlak after coming to terms with the fact that the usurpation of the Zagwe Dynasty was inevitable.

The Legends of Yekuno Amlak’s Ancestry

Although Yekuno Amlak succeeded in overthrowing the last Zagwe king, he needed to find a way to legitimize his claim to the throne, to not be overthrown himself. Enter the creation of an origin story that Ethiopians would continue to support for centuries.

Although Yekuno Amlak never personally claimed to have succeeded King Solomon, many records have promoted this claim as fact. The claim that Amlak was the direct male descendant of King Solomon pushed the idea that he was “restoring” the Solomonic Kingdom by overtaking the Zagwe Dynasty.

Amlak’s supposed ancestry became a legend and supported the long-lasting success of the Solomonic Dynasty, for over 700 years. Similar to how Arthurian legend affected Medieval England, the legends of Amlak’s lineage inspired an entire culture.

The Kebra Nagast

The Kebra Nagast is the first source to record the genealogy of the Solomonic rulers, and other stories have come out to support its claims. This story of lineage is an integral part of Ethiopian patriotism, with the 1955 Ethiopian Constitution even stating that the emperor “descends without interruption from the dynasty of Menelik I, son of Queen of Ethiopia, the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon of Jerusalem.”

The Kebra Nagast records Ethiopia’s national epic, a record that many Ethiopian Christians believe to be true. The book was written at least 700 years ago in Ge’ez, by Nebure Id Ishaq of Aksum. The text’s central story revolves around how the Queen of Sheba had a son with King Solomon — Menelek I. The story goes that in classical times, the Queen of Sheba visited Jerusalem during her reign, bearing many gifts for Solomon. During her visit, the pair conceived a child. On her return, the Queen of Sheba gave birth to their son, Menelek I, who grew up to be the first emperor of Ethiopia. Menelek I was the first Ethiopian ruler from the House of Solomon, which continued its lineage for thousands of years until the Zagwe Dynasty took over.

Chapter 95 of the Kebra Nagast explains the direct descent from King Solomon through the Kingdom of the Axumites to the Solomonic Dynasty. Within this story, the Zagwe Dynasty’s usurpers had a rightful claim to the throne. When Amlak overthrew the Zagwe Dynasty, he simply “restored” the throne to its rightful line.

The Kebra Nagast also documents the turn toward Christianity in Ethiopia. It is a source of pride for the people of Ethiopia, who have historically been dedicated to Christianity and its values throughout history, pinpointing the exact moment that the people turned towards the Christian god.

Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity

The Ethiopian Orthodox church supported Yekuno Amlak’s rise to power through his relationship with influential figures within the institution. During his reign, Almak’s loyalty to the church strained many foreign diplomatic relationships, especially with his Muslim neighbors. Amlak’s attempt to become an Abuna (bishop) for the church strained these friendships even more.

Amlak contributed significantly to the church during his reign. Historians credit him with the building of the Church of Gennete Maryam, where one can find the earliest datable wall paintings in Ethiopia. Moreover, his supposed descent from King Solomon created a story of Christian restoration, which supported the longevity of the Solomonic Dynasty.

The emperors who followed after Amlak also used Christianity to integrate the various ethnic peoples in Ethiopia into one nation, especially when they were acquiring new territories. The respect and importance that each emperor of the Solomonic Dynasty placed on the Ethiopian Orthodox church proved that it was one of the integral characteristics of Ethiopian society during this period.

Territorial Expansion

While Amalak attempted to create friendly relationships with his neighbors, Ethiopia was losing more and more territory and people to various Muslim sultanates by the 13th century.

By the 1310s, Amda Seyon I began to wage war in all directions, conquering borderlands and expanding Christian Ethiopian territory. His victory against Ethiopia’s Muslim neighbors established the power and stability of the new Solomonic Dynasty. Seyon’s success in military strategy within the North African region led to many later calling him the founder of the Ethiopian Empire. His integration of people into one community that shared a language, a religion, and economic successes, established a hegemony in the region that had not been seen before.

A little over 100 later, emperor Zara Yaqob continued this Solomonic tradition of territorial expansion. Yaqob consolidated the territorial acquisitions of previous rulers like Amda Seyon I into one state. He did this by constructing numerous churches and producing various laws on the specifics of Ethiopian Christian practice. Yaqob saw the strength the Solomonic Dynasty gained through its religious associations and used these to integrate territory under the same cultural values and, ultimately, under the same rule.

In the centuries that followed, Ethiopia gained and lost territory under the Solomonic Dynasty. The country transformed from the medieval region it was to the modern land it is now.

The Development of the Solomonic Dynasty

From ancient beginnings to recent history, the Solomonic Dynasty developed Ethiopia in many different ways. Under its various leaders, trade, religion, economy, and culture were all transformed, and multiple regions and people were integrated into one nation.

The Dynasty lasted over 700 years, ending when the Derg overthrew Haile Selassie during the 1970s, turning the country into a dictatorship. Although the Solomonic Dynasty’s history has ended, the legend of its emperors and their lineage remains an integral national story.

Thanks to the literary success of Philippa Gregory, and the popularity of the television series The White Queen, the Earl of Warwick, Richard Neville, has quickly become renowned in the world of historical fiction. But who exactly was he?

The Earl Of Warwick: On Paper and on Screen

Throughout the centuries since his death, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick has made several appearances in literature, television, and film. Harry Turtledove’s Opening Atlantis and Sharon Kay Penman’s The Sunne In Splendour are just a few examples of books that feature him as a protagonist.

Most notably, five centuries earlier, the character of Warwick took a lead role in two of William Shakespeare’s History plays; King Henry VI Part 1 and Part 2. Famously, King Edward IV’s character commends Warwick, calling him “the setter-up and plucker-down of Kings.”

Some of the most popular novels that center on the Earl of Warwick were written within the last 15 years, by Philippa Gregory, one of the best-known authors of historical fiction. Warwick features in three of Gregory’s works: The White Queen (written from the point of view of Elizabeth Woodville), The Red Queen (Margaret Beaufort), and most prominently in The Kingmaker’s Daughter (Anne Neville).

It was these three books that inspired the television series The White Queen, written by Emma Frost and directed by James Kent. This unique and exciting production packs five monarchs, multiple births, numerous battles, countless deaths, and 25 years’ worth of history into ten, hour-long episodes — 580 minutes of screentime. The first of these installments was broadcast on June, 16th, 2013.

The White Queen features a spectacular cast of actors and actresses, including Rebecca Ferguson (Elizabeth Woodville), Max Irons (King Edward IV), Eleanor Tomlinson (Lady Isabelle Neville), David Oakes (George, Duke of Clarence), and Aneurin Barnard (Richard III).

It was the actor James Frain, (who also portrayed the similarly fierce Thomas Cromwell in the television series The Tudors), who transformed himself into “The Kingmaker” for the benefit of The White Queen.

When asked about his experience of portraying Warwick, Frain gave a favorable description of the character: “The Kingmaker was a warrior in an age of warfare,” he stated, “the classic alpha male.” Frain noted that Warwick was “the most powerful man in the Kingdom and a father figure to King Edward IV.” He also explained the relationship between Warwick and the King: “ … in return for that gift of power, Warwick expected the gratitude and obedience of a son.”

Somewhat amusingly, when questioned about his most memorable scene, Frain revealed that it was undoubtedly “Warwick’s final battle scene because it meant getting down and dirty with swords, mud and blood.” 

James Frain is by no means the only man to have given a notable portrayal of Warwick. Richard Neville has also been played by James Oliver Wheatly, in 2015 (Britain’s Bloody Crown), and then by Stanley Townsend, in 2016 (The Hollow Crown).

The life of the Earl of Warwick has also inspired many works of non-fiction, such as Warwick the Kingmaker (by Paul Murray Kendall), Warwick: The Man Behind The Wars Of The Roses (by Tony Riches), and The Revolt Of The Earl Of Warwick Against King Edward IV (by John Allen Giles).

The Earl Of Warwick’s Character in The White Queen

In The White Queen, Warwick is presented from the very beginning of the series as the supreme power in England; as a man who could wield this power, at whim, without restraint, and without consequence.

It is immediately obvious that Warwick is allowed to address the King—Edward IV—in whatever manner he chooses. He can spend what he wants, he can say what he wants, and he can do whatever he wants. If displeased with Warwick, the most the King will do is engage in a shouting match; the least he will do is roll his eyes and laugh.

Warwick has done something truly wonderful; he has secured the throne for Edward. Now, it is clear that he thinks of himself as the man around which everything else revolves.

The viewer is left in no doubt about Warwick’s authority and position. He is a doer. A risk-taker. A friend of the Crown. A go-getter. A fighter. A skilled strategist. An able administrator. A power-mad politician. A military mastermind. A wannabe-hero. A fifteenth-century-celebrity. A do-or-die sort of man, if ever there was one.

He is both a loyalist and a turncoat; unshakably loyal when it suits him, but a dangerous liability when things aren’t going his way. When it comes down to it, he is out for himself and his family, with very little care for anyone or anything else. Throughout the series, his two girls and his wife appear to love him unconditionally, despite his increasingly reckless behavior, and they uncomplainingly do as they are bid in the hope of pleasing him.

Within a few hours of screentime, it may appear to the viewer that there are only two scenarios acceptable for Warwick; he will put one of his daughters on the throne, or he will die trying.

But, as with other performances of our time, the modern historian may wonder whether or not this portrayal is entirely accurate. When enjoying some light, historic entertainment, the majority of viewers willingly leave room for a little artistic license — but to what extent has the truth been fabricated in this case?

Who was Richard Neville, in reality rather than in fantasy? Let us take a moment to get to know the real Kingmaker, to discover why and how he became the most influential man of the 15th century and an integral figure in the Wars of the Roses.

Back to the Basics: Who Was Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick? 

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, 6th Earl of Salisbury — “The Kingmaker.” But who was he? Well, he was an English nobleman, an administrator, a Landowner, the holder of the fortune of the house of Neville, a military commander, and undoubtedly the wealthiest and most powerful peer of his age. He was also a politician — the offices he held, at varying points in his life, included Captain of Calais, Lord High Admiral of England, and Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Finally, he was a fighter. Just a few of his notable battles included the Battle of St Albans, the Battle of Ludford, the Battle of Northampton, the Battle of Ferrybridge, the Battle of Barnet, and the famously bloody Battle of Towton.

However, if any historian desired to neatly sum up Warwick’s life within a few words, they could do so in ten major events. In 1428, Richard Neville was born. In 1445, at the age of 17, he was knighted, probably at the coronation of Margaret of Anjou (the wife of King Henry VI). Four years later, in 1449, he inherited the Warwick estates, and naturally became known as the Earl of Warwick, therefore outranking any member of his own family.

It was also in the year 1449 that Warwick made his first official appearance in history. His name, for the first time, was listed in the records of those in the service of King Henry VI. Then, in 1453, Warwick became a member of the Council of King Henry VI. In 1459, the Battle of Blore Heath signified the beginning of the Wars of the Roses.

In 1460, in a shocking turn of events, Warwick took King Henry VI prisoner. In 1461, almost entirely thanks to Warwick, Edward IV was crowned King. Henry, the Lancastrian that Warwick had once believed to be the rightful King, was imprisoned.

In 1460, King Edward IV also married Elizabeth Woodville, against the advice of Warwick. Five years later, still enraged that the King no longer followed his advice, Warwick joined forces with Edward IV’s brother, the Duke of Clarence, and raised a rebellion.

In 1470, Edward was rescued by his brother Richard (the future Richard III), and Warwick was exiled. In 1471, Warwick died in vain at the Battle of Barnet.

The Early Life of Richard Neville, Future Earl of Warwick

Richard Neville was born on November 22, 1428. His parents were Ralph Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Alice Montagu. At the time of his birth, the Neville family was already a powerful one, and Richard was the most important child in their prestigious nursery. He was born as the eldest son of his parent’s eleven children.

Richard’s other notable siblings included Sir Thomas Neville (the younger brother who later died at the Battle of Wakefield), George Neville (who became Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor of England), and Alice Neville (the great-grandmother of King Henry VIII’s 6th wife, Catherine Parr).

Richard and his siblings were of royal descent. Richard’s father, (also Richard Neville), was the eldest son and heir of Ralph Neville,1st Earl of Westmorland, and his wife, Lady Joan Beaufort. Joan Beaufort had been the daughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. John of Gaunt was the third son of King Edward III.

At the age of just six, Richard was betrothed to a young girl named Anne Beauchamp. She was the daughter and heir of Richard de Beauchamp, the 13th Earl of Warwick, and Isabel Despenser.

Although it may not have been a love match initially, no doubt Richard would have been thankful for this arrangement later in life. It was thanks to this marriage that he inherited the title Earl of Warwick, which therefore naturally increased the status of the Neville family. Also as a result of his parent’s good planning, he came to possess a wealth of land and the fortune that had formerly belonged to the family of his wife.

With this wife, Warwick would have two children. They were Isabel (the future Duchess of Clarence), and Anne (future Queen of England). He would also father another daughter, by an unknown woman. This child was called Margaret (illegitimate and therefore largely irrelevant to history).

King Edward IV and the Earl of Warwick: Where Did It All Go Wrong? 

To say that the Earl of Warwick experienced some major changes of heart throughout his career would be a dramatic understatement. Initially, he was loyal to Lancaster, and then to York, before a shocking series of events inspired him to revert to Lancaster again. It had all started so well.

Edward IV had been crowned King of England in 1461, almost entirely thanks to the unfailing support of his cousin, Warwick. Together, Edward and Warwick had defeated the Lancastrians in a long series of battles, culminating in the Battle of Towton in 1461, where the crown had finally been claimed.

For the first three years of the new King Edward’s reign, Warwick enjoyed no end of influence over the new King. Edward, perhaps in gratitude for what his cousin had done for him, happily shared his power.

So, what happened? As far as Warwick was concerned, where did it all go wrong for him and King Edward? Essentially, Warwick succumbed to a vice many a historical figure had succumbed to before him: jealousy.

The trouble began in 1464 when King Edward IV went against the advice of Warwick by marrying Elizabeth Woodville, the widow of John Grey of Groby. Warwick absolutely did not approve of this match. He was obsessed with the idea of securing a strong alliance with France and therefore favored a bride who was firstly French, and secondly royal.

Warwick was further angered by the fact that King Edward began distributing titles and positions among her male family members and granted the hands of England’s noblemen to her sisters, of whom there were many.

For a long time, Warwick had harbored plans to marry his eldest daughter, Isabel, to King Edward’s brother, George Duke of Clarence. To make matters worse for Warwick, King Edward suddenly began stalling these arrangements, perhaps on the advice of his wife. Naturally, the new Queen Elizabeth was intent on setting her family in high positions, ensuring no rival family overreached themselves.

As if that weren’t enough to upset Warwick, three years later, King Edward provided the final straw. In May of 1467, Warwick went at royal command to conclude a treaty with France. When he returned, he learned that in his absence, King Edward had fully committed himself to an alliance with Burgundy instead, almost certainly having bowed to pressure from his wife. It was shortly after this that Warwick retired to his private estates to enjoy some time to himself — and began plotting his revenge.

By the summer of 1469, Warwick was ready. With a single stroke of genius, he lured the King’s brother (George of Clarence) to the opposing side, took both George and his daughter Isabel to Calais, and arranged for them to be married without the King’s knowledge. In the meantime, he had successfully stirred up what would become known as the rebellion of Robin of Redesdale in Yorkshire. Naturally, King Edward was drawn north to respond to the rebellion; at the same time, Warwick invaded Southern England.

King Edward, who was outmatched and outnumbered, was captured by George and yielded himself as a prisoner. As far as Warwick was concerned, everything had gone to plan. He was extremely pleased with himself for the overthrow of the Woodville family and truly believed that he had secured Edward’s submission.

Less than a year later, in March 1470, a rebellion in Lincolnshire provided Edward with a good opportunity to gather his own army. Warwick, taken by surprise, fled once again to France with his family, his wife, two daughters, and son-in-law. Having lost any remaining power over the royal family in England, Warwick was forced to devise a new plan, and as usual, he was not lacking in ideas.

After a significant amount of persuasion on his part, Warwick managed to reconcile himself with the wife of the imprisoned King Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou. In the wake of this new friendship, he agreed to marry his youngest daughter, Anne Neville, to her son Edward, the supposed Prince of Wales.

In September of that same year, both Warwick and Clarence landed back at home, this time at Dartmouth. Margaret of Anjou promised that she would follow shortly with her own French army. King Edward took the opportunity to flee overseas, and power was consequently returned to King Henry VI. For six months, Warwick enjoyed total power and was regent in all but name.

George, Duke of Clarence, had been under the impression that it was he who would become King as a result of this invasion. Having already had his nose put severely out of joint over this change of plan, Clarence decided that his life had been altogether happier as the brother of a King than as the son-in-law of a regent. He secretly switched his loyalties once again, went groveling to his brother, and began conniving with Edward once again.

When in March of 1471, Edward landed at Ravenspur with the intention of reclaiming his throne, Clarence found an opportunity to join him. All of a sudden, Warwick was caught off guard, completely out of his depth. For the first time in his life, the Kingmaker had been totally outmaneuvered.

Warwick’s Fall: A Heroic Death? 

Warwick’s struggle for power came to an untimely end on April 14, 1471, when he was killed by King Edward’s troops while fighting at the Battle of Barnet.

In The White Queen, Warwick is portrayed as a courageous military hero. To prove his loyalty to his army, and to guarantee that he will not flee the battlefield, he murders his own horse.

This supposed act of bravery may seem familiar to us and it is an intriguing and somewhat believable tale. However, it was actually at the Battle of Towton, ten years earlier, that this event occurred. This had been a much easier battle for Warwick; 25,000 Lancastrian supporters had died on the field, and only 8,000 Yorkists.

At the Battle of Barnet, Warwick is known to have been pulled from his horse just moments before his death, having been pursued by King Edward’s men. Knowing that he had been defeated, Warwick had deserted his side and unsuccessfully attempted an escape.

The Real Kingmaker: A Lasting Legacy 

Warwick’s body, along with the body of his brother Montagu (who also fell at the Battle of Barnet), was displayed for a short time at Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London. This was a successful attempt to silence any murmur that the Kingmaker might still be alive.

Once satisfied that rumors had been quashed, King Edward IV allowed the bodies to be taken into the care of their younger brother, Archbishop Neville. It was he who chose to bury the bodies in the family vault at Bisham Priory, by the side of the River Thames in Berkshire.

The final resting place of these brothers can no longer be visited. No trace remains; neither of the tomb in which they lie nor of the Church in which they were housed.

Since Warwick had no sons, his property and fortune were divided between the two brothers of King Edward. Half went to George (who was already married to Isabel Neville), and half to Richard (who would soon elect to marry the younger sister, Anne).

It is unfortunate that Warwick did not live to see his only dream play out before his own eyes. One of his daughters did sit on the throne of England, if only for a brief spell. As the wife of King Richard III, Anne Neville, the Kingmaker’s daughter, was Queen from June 1483 until her death in March 1485. Her only son, Edward Prince of Wales, predeceased both her and her husband. Not that an heir would have mattered — King Richard III was killed just a few months later, and Tudor rule began a new era in Britain.

The series The White Queen ends promptly after the death of King Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, which took place in August of 1485. This is where the epic story of the Wars of the Roses truly comes to an end.

By this point, not many of his descendants remained. However, this was by no means where Warwick’s legacy ended. His only surviving family were his two grandchildren. The young son and daughter of Isabel Neville and George Duke of Clarence ensured the continuity of the family name, if only for a short while.

Edward Warwick, (affectionately known as Teddy), was executed by King Henry VII at the age of 24. Margaret Pole, Edward’s elder sister, lived well into the reign of King Henry VIII. Continuing family tradition, she was executed for treason in 1541. In 1886, Pope Leo XIII beatified her as a martyr for the Catholic Church.

We may draw this article to a close on a slightly lighter note: Not only has Warwick inspired works of film and literature but also a selection of hobbies and pastimes. Warwick the Kingmaker now gives his name to a board game that can be played by two to seven players.

Through war, diplomacy, and politics, the players must attempt to gain control over members of the House of Lancaster, or the House of York. The aim is to place one of them on the throne of England while eliminating pretenders. Amazingly, it is suggested by the designers that one should put aside between two to six hours in which to play.

Warwick “The Kingmaker”: Fantasy vs Reality

There is no doubt that the story of Warwick’s life has been embellished and enhanced through historical fiction. There is also no doubt that Warwick’s political genius and military ability have been exaggerated over time. To what extent the Earl of Warwick has been changed is left for the modern historian to decide.

The only thing we can safely assume is that, if he were here to view a modern interpretation of his character, he would approve of the courageous and powerful man he is now known as. Of all the characters in The White Queen, it is the brilliant, sword-wielding Warwick who is the most memorable.

There are very few contemporary issues that are as prominent in the Christian world today as the problem of divorce. These situations often contain a mire of complex details and can be very confusing and stressful for Christians. The issue is magnified by the fact that one-quarter of all American adults have been divorced. Given that all churches are likely affected by the issue of divorce in Christianity, the moral dilemma that this can impose on the faithful simply cannot be ignored.

Divorce in Christianity

The call for Christians to have answers in these situations is a demanding issue, one that requires much love and patience, as well as a keen sensitivity to complexity. Parishioners who are wrestling with struggles pertaining to marriage, divorce, and remarriage will expect their church leaders to shepherd them in making the decisions that they make.

Although leaders will not be able to prevent every instance of divorce, they can at least lead the parishioner toward making good spiritual decisions in whatever situation they find themselves in. If church leaders are to effectively address these difficult questions, they will need to be thoroughly engaged with the teachings of the Bible and their broader theological traditions. Different theological traditions have approached this question differently, most notably there are major differences among the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox denominations.

Divorce in Catholicism

The Roman Catholic Church could be seen as having the strictest policy regarding divorce in the Christian world. The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is a Holy Sacrament that by its very nature cannot be dissolved.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “the matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it: ‘what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder'” (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1997, para. 2382).  This doctrinal position is taken from Bible passages such as Matthew 19:8-9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Mt 19:8-9 [ESV]).

This is not to say that divorce does not occur within the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, divorce is quite common among Catholics and is deemed necessary sometimes. However, ecclesiastical courts do not typically recognize state divorce as valid in the eyes of the church.

It is perhaps more accurate to say that the Catholic church treats divorce more like permanent separation, as actual divorce is not possible in Catholic doctrine. This is tempered somewhat by the Catholic concept of annulment. Catholics who find themselves divorced in secular courts can apply for an annulment of their marriage — a declaration that the previous marriage was invalidly entered into. If this is granted by a court tribunal, the applicant will be free to remarry in most instances.

Divorce in Eastern Orthodoxy

The Orthodox Church also sees marriage as a sacrament — an indissoluble mystery bestowed upon the couple by the dispensation of the church. The Eastern Church, while recognizing that marriage is in essence indissoluble, nevertheless does recognize the tragic reality that divorce does sometimes occur in light of the human condition of living in a fallen world. This has led the Orthodox to the spiritual exercise of “oikonomia,” or pastoral leniency in some situations where a remarriage may be permitted if the presiding bishop can be convinced that the remarriage could be beneficial for the individual’s salvation.

Although Orthodox canon law can permit up to three marriages, they are not automatically granted. If it is granted the marriage is considered penitential in nature, meaning that it will not always contain the same joy and pomp as the first marriage ceremony. There is even a special rite that can be used in instances of a second or third marriage that differs from that of a first marriage. In this way, there are similarities with the Catholic position, but also some stark differences.

Divorce in Protestantism

Historically, Protestants have typically relied on the Bible as the basis for their doctrine on marriage. There are some stark differences between the way Protestants view marriage and the way other traditions view it. Unlike the Catholic and Orthodox position, it is typically asserted by Protestants that marriage is not a sacrament per se, but a holy order of creation that is expressed between a man and a woman.

The historical consensus for Protestants of most stripes is that there are essentially two grounds for biblical divorce: adultery and abandonment, and different protestant traditions have different nuances on these two positions, as well as differences in what constitutes both. Thus, in the case of a valid divorce, it is typically conceded that remarriage is permissible with appropriate pastoral care.

Divorce in the Bible

There has been much ink spilled among the various Christian traditions in an attempt to understand Jesus’s full teaching on divorce. If taken at face value, Jesus appears to be saying that if one divorces his wife in order to marry another he has committed adultery, with the only exception being for sexual immorality. The original Greek word used for his exception is pornea, a broad term which denotes many kinds of sexual indecency.

“And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.’

“The disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.’”

-Matthew 19:3-12

This passage has been one of hot debate and contention over the centuries, as it raises many interpretive and exegetical questions. Was Jesus telling us that remarriage is adultery because God does not recognize divorce? Was this a case of Jesus using hyperbole, as he often did in other areas of the New Testament? Does Jesus expect remarried couples to dissolve their union and return to their former spouse?

As demonstrated, there have been many different interpretations and applications of this teaching depending on one’s faith tradition. In the Hebraic context of the ancient Near East, two main rabbinic schools differed on the subject of divorce.

The first was the school of Hillel, which advocated for a very lenient translation of Deuteronomy 24 and interpreted the Hebrew phrase as “cause of indecency” as opposed to the grammatically more accurate “matter of indecency.” This school then ran with this interpretation, citing a “cause” as one ground for divorce and “indecency” as another, which opened the door for very dubious divorces. A man could even divorce his wife for over-cooking breakfast, for example.

On the other hand, the Shammai School saw things differently. This school took the Biblical mandate much more seriously and decided to stick strictly to the text, limiting the grounds for divorce.

Once the context is unpacked, the initial question asked by the Pharisees makes much more sense. Their question about divorce for “any cause” seemed to be a nod to the Hillel school on divorce. Jesus’s message was to point them back to scripture, to understand the gravity of marriage and divorce, and to suggest that it should not be treated carelessly.

Conclusion

We have seen how the three main Christian traditions have grappled with the Biblical teaching on divorce and the different ways each tradition attempts to apply these words in the plethora of different situations that life may conjure up. What all of these traditions have in common, however, is recognizing that divorce is all but inevitable in a world that deals with the messiness of the human condition.

The absence of meaning strips colors away from our lives. Everything fades to grey, moving in automated indifference towards an inconceivable destination. Like travelers without a compass, we may find ourselves living without a clear purpose, unsure if there is any meaning to our striving. If you have ever felt this way, you have experienced what philosophers call an existential crisis.

The Myth of Sisyphus: On the Absurdity of Life

The ancient Greek myth of Sisyphus is the most famous allegory of the meaninglessness of life. As the story goes, Sisyphus is condemned by the Gods to spend eternity arduously pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to watch it fall back to the ground as it neared the summit. Trapped in the loop of eternally performing a meaningless task, Sysiphus became a symbol of the human condition, as interpreted by Albert Camus.

Camus believed that the tragedy of man lies in his search for meaning in an inherently meaningless world. Human existence is essentially absurd, torn apart in the conflict between one’s futile search for rational understanding and resolution in the face of an irrational and indifferent universe. As he explains, “the Absurd is not in man nor in the world, but in their presence together” (Camus, 1942).

Is a Meaningless Life Worth Living?

Camus argued that the myth of Sisyphus is the story of all of us. As he remarked, “The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd, but it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious” (Camus, 1942). The principal question, whose answer he believed was the fundamental task of any serious philosophy, was whether or not life is worth living. He started his famous essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, saying that nobody considered taking their lives when confronted with the findings of ontology, metaphysics, or science, but many contemplated suicide in the face of the inherent meaninglessness of their lives.

The simple answer to this profound and painful question is that life, in all its absurdity, is worth living for its own sake. Camus rebuked the attempts of former existentialist philosophers to escape absurdity. We must not search for some higher purpose, but embrace the utter meaninglessness and absurdity of life. To live authentically, freely, and passionately, without succumbing to despair and nihilism, is what Camus considers to be the ultimate revolt against the absurd. “I rebel, therefore I exist” was his reformulation of the Cartesian cogito in his book, The Rebel. 

Can We Find Joy in a Meaningless World?

Life is beautiful in its nonsensical transience. If we can live authentically, harmonizing who we are with how we lead our lives, we can attain the joy whose key is authenticity. Happiness and meaninglessness, according to Camus, are not mutually exclusive principles. On the contrary, just like the adrenaline rush of dangerous experiences makes us feel more alive, life “will be lived all the better if it has no meaning” (Camus, 1942). Once we fully embrace the absurdity of our existence, we can live life to the fullest, in the present moment, unconcerned with the fulfillment of an elusive purpose in the future. As he famously concluded his essay on Sisyphus, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy”.

Life Is Not a Journey: On Changing Our Perspective

We are trained to be goal-oriented, chasing an ever-elusive point of ‘arrival’ where it would all make sense, where all our efforts and striving would finally pay off, and where we can attain a long-awaited inner resolution and fulfillment. Yet when we reach what we perceive as our destination, we often find ourselves underwhelmed and disappointed by the fleeting satisfaction of our ‘arrival’, urged to rush to the nearest road map and find the next goal worth seeking. Like Sysiphus, we are caught in a loop of perpetual striving towards an end that we never attain. “We simply cheated ourselves the whole way down the line”, argued Alan Watts.

Despite the vast difference between his philosophy and that of Camus, Watts is among the few thinkers who have expressed the necessity of living life for its own sake in the simplest of terms. The meaning of life, according to him, is simply to be alive. The physical universe does not have a purpose towards which it is heading, nor does our lives. Watts suggested that our existence is best perceived in the same way as we perceive art. A musician doesn’t play music to reach the end of his piece, nor does a dancer dance to reach a certain area of the dancefloor. The point of music is music. The purpose of dancing is the dance itself. Only in viewing life as such does our seeking unite with what is sought, which is the essence of fulfillment. As Watts concluded in The Tao of Philosophy (1960-1973):

“We’ve thought of life by analogy with a journey, which had a serious purpose at the end, and the point was to get to that end. But we missed the point the whole way along. It was a musical thing, and you were supposed to dance while the music was being played”.

The Midwest is much more than just endless plains and farmland. This region, known for its vibrant cities, Great Lakes, iconic national parks, and rolling prairies, is also steeped in a rich and impressive history. This history is brought to life through a wealth of landmarks, from monuments commemorating pivotal American events to sites honoring Indigenous heritage and the legacies of trailblazing leaders. When you find yourself in the Midwest, remember to visit these ten must-see historical landmarks.

1. Gateway Arch, St. Louis, Missouri

Designed by architect Eero Saarinen in 1948, this 630-foot stainless steel monument was completed in 1965. It commemorates the Louisiana Purchase and the pioneers who journeyed westward.

If you want to enjoy some panoramic views of up to 30 miles on clear days, we recommend you embark on a tram ride to the top of Gateway Arch. Beneath this historical landmark, the Museum at the Gateway Arch features six interactive galleries detailing over 200 years of history, including the construction of the Arch itself.

The surrounding Gateway Arch National Park provides you with some scenic walks along the Mississippi River. So there are plenty of reasons for both history enthusiasts and architecture admirers to visit.

2. Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Keystone, South Dakota

Located in the Black Hills of South Dakota, this iconic landmark features the 60-foot-tall granite faces of Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. Sculpted by Gutzon Borglum between 1927 and 1941, the monument symbolizes the nation’s founding, expansion, preservation, and development.

When visiting, make sure to explore the Lincoln Borglum Visitor Center to learn about the monument’s history and construction. The Presidential Trail offers close-up views of the carvings. As for the Sculptor’s Studio, it provides you with a glimpse into Borglum’s vision and techniques. There’s also a unique evening lighting ceremony that is held during the summer months. This one is also worth checking out.

Also, it will be interesting to explore the surrounding Black Hills of Mount Rushmore National Memorial. These offer hiking trails, wildlife viewing, and proximity to other attractions like Custer State Park and the Crazy Horse Memorial.

3. Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, Collinsville, Illinois

This historical landmark, nestled in Collinsville, Illinois, preserves the remnants of the largest pre-Columbian city north of Mexico. At its peak around 1100 CE, Cahokia spanned approximately 4,000 acres, encompassing about 120 earthen mounds and hosting a population of nearly 20,000 individuals, larger than London at that time.

You can explore the site’s 2,200 acres, which include 70 remaining mounds. Monks Mound, the largest structure, rises over 100 feet and offers panoramic views of the surrounding area. The Interpretive Center, currently closed for renovations, typically provides exhibits and insights into the Mississippian culture that thrived here.

If you’re intrigued to learn about ancient urban planning and the sophisticated society that once inhabited the region, then you must visit Cahokia Mounds, which has also been designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

4. Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument, Indianapolis, Indiana

The Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument, located in downtown Indianapolis, Indiana, stands as a tribute to Hoosier veterans of the Civil War and earlier conflicts. Designed by German architect Bruno Schmitz, construction began in 1888 and concluded in 1902. The monument reaches a height of 284 feet. It is just 15 feet shorter than New York’s Statue of Liberty.

The monument’s observation deck is accessible by climbing 331 steps. If leg day isn’t your favorite, there’s an elevator that takes you most of the way up, leaving just a few steps to conquer. The deck offers panoramic views of Indianapolis.

The monument also features intricate sculptures by Rudolf Schwarz, including groups titled “War” and “Peace,” as well as a 30-foot bronze statue of Victory atop the structure. The surrounding Monument Circle serves as a central gathering place for events and celebrations.

5. Effigy Mounds National Monument, Harpers Ferry, Iowa

Nestled in northeastern Iowa, this iconic landmark preserves over 200 prehistoric mounds constructed by Native American cultures between 500 BC and 1300 AD. These earthen structures, shaped like animals such as bears and birds, served as burial and ceremonial sites. They are a reflection of the spiritual beliefs of the mound builders.

You’ll have the chance to explore 14 miles of hiking trails that wind through forests and prairies and enjoy some mesmerizing views of the Mississippi River. One unique highlight of the monument is the Marching Bear Group, a collection of ten bear and three bird effigy mounds. And if you’re looking for exhibits detailing the cultural and natural history of the area, then the visitor center is the place to go.

Effigy Mounds is recognized as a sacred site by many Native American tribes. This is why, when visiting this iconic site, you’ll have the unique opportunity to connect with ancient traditions and appreciate the ingenuity of early inhabitants.

6. Mackinac Island State Park and Fort Mackinac, Mackinac Island, Michigan

Established in 1895, Mackinac Island State Park encompasses over 80% of Mackinac Island in Michigan. Originally designated as Mackinac National Park in 1875, the second national park in the United States, it transitioned to state control two decades later. The park is renowned for its pristine natural landscapes, including limestone formations like Arch Rock and Sugar Loaf, as well as dense forests and scenic trails.

Within the park lies Fort Mackinac, a military outpost constructed by the British between 1779 and 1781 during the American Revolutionary War.

Situated on a bluff with sweeping views over the Straits of Mackinac, the fort played pivotal roles in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Today, it stands as a well-preserved historical site, featuring 14 original buildings furnished with period settings and themed exhibits. Visitors can witness reenactments, cannon, and rifle firing demonstrations, and explore interactive displays that bring the fort’s history to life.

7. Black Hawk Statue, Oregon, Illinois

Officially known as “The Eternal Indian,” you can find this 48-foot-tall concrete sculpture in Lowden State Park near Oregon, Illinois. Designed by sculptor Lorado Taft and completed in 1911, the statue stands atop a 77-foot bluff overlooking the Rock River, honoring Native American heritage and symbolizing the unconquerable spirit of Indigenous peoples.

You can access the statue via park trails and take in some panoramic views of the river and surrounding landscape. Black Hawk Statue’s commanding presence and serene setting make it a popular spot for photography and reflection. The park also provides picnic areas and hiking paths, allowing for a full day of outdoor activities.

If you’re looking to explore a place that provides you with a unique blend of art, history, and nature, then add Black Hawk Statue to your bucket list.

8. Iron Mountain Road, South Dakota

Iron Mountain Road, officially known as US Route 16A, is a 17-mile scenic highway in South Dakota’s Black Hills, renowned for its engineering marvels and breathtaking vistas. Designed in the 1930s under the guidance of Governor Peter Norbeck, the road features 314 curves, 14 switchbacks, and three “pigtail” bridges. These are circular structures that loop over themselves to navigate the rugged terrain. Notably, the route includes three narrow tunnels that perfectly frame views of Mount Rushmore. They provide travelers with a unique perspective of the monument.

Driving Iron Mountain Road is an immersive experience, with its winding paths encouraging a leisurely pace to fully appreciate the surrounding natural beauty. The road connects Custer State Park to Mount Rushmore National Memorial, making it a popular route for visitors exploring the Black Hills region. Along the way, travelers can enjoy panoramic overlooks, wildlife sightings, and the distinctive engineering features that make this road a destination in itself.

9. Fort Snelling, St Paul, Minnesota

You can see this historic military fort at the meeting point of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers in St. Paul, Minnesota. Constructed between 1820 and 1825, Fort Snelling was initially established to protect US interests in the fur trade and to deter British influence in the region. Over the years, the fort played pivotal roles in various conflicts, including the US–Dakota War of 1862 and both World Wars. During World War II, it served as a training and recruitment center, processing over 300,000 soldiers.

Today, visitors to Historic Fort Snelling can explore restored buildings, interactive exhibits, and reenactments that bring its multifaceted history to life. The site offers insights into the lives of soldiers, fur traders, and the Dakota people, whose homeland includes this area known as Bdote. The recently renovated Plank Museum & Visitor Center provides additional context and educational resources.

10. Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial, Put-in-Bay, Ohio

South Bass Island, located in Lake Erie, Ohio, is home to this iconic memorial, which honors the heroes who fought in the Battle of Lake Erie, which took place in the War of 1812. Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial also commemorates the enduring peace among the United States, Great Britain, and Canada. A 352-foot Doric column completed in 1915, it is one of the tallest monuments in the nation.

When visiting Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial, the first thing you should consider doing is ascending to the observation deck via an elevator. This will allow you to enjoy panoramic views of the Lake Erie Islands and the surrounding waters. The memorial also features a visitor center with exhibits detailing the history of the battle and the significance of the peace that followed.

Self-styled inventor of jazz, pianist, bandleader, composer, hustler, vaudeville show entertainer, rumored pimp. Ferdinand “Jelly Roll” Morton published the first recognized jazz music, “The Jelly Roll Blues,” in 1915, and with his band Red Hot Peppers, recorded some of the most distinguished music in the history of jazz. In his later years, he ran a nightclub in Washington DC and was stabbed in the neck. In 1938 he recorded his life story—and his history of jazz—for the Library of Congress. The story of Jelly Roll Morton is a tall tale of musical genius, the spirit of New Orleans, and the invention of jazz.

Jelly Roll Morton: From Storyville to Vaudeville

Ferdinand Joseph Lemott (LaMothe, or LaMenthe) was born between 1885 and 1890 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Both his parents were among the free people of color, Creoles, whose ancestors arrived in Louisiana after the Haitian Revolution. His father left when he was three. After his mother remarried, he took his stepfather’s name, anglicized it to “Morton,” and shortened his forename to “Ferd.” He began learning the piano at ten years old.

Before long he was gracing the red light district of New Orleans—Storyville—with his music. He played piano in the district’s brothels all times of the day, learned from old-time New Orleans players, and experimented with musical styles and techniques until he rose to become the leading piano player in the district.

Above all, Ferd Morton was a musician, yet he rubbed shoulders with the “tough babies and sweet mamas,”—the gangsters, gamblers, and sharks of Storyville—and moved freely among them.

Between 1907 and 1917 he left New Orleans to work in vaudeville (a form of light entertainment akin to cabaret) as a pianist and singer. He joined Will Benbow’s traveling vaudeville show as a pianist, and on the side played the locals at pool. Morton’s strategy was clear: after playing dumb for a while “until the bets rolled up high” he proceeded to “clean them out” (Lomax, 1950, p.113).

It was around this time, during a performance with Benbow’s show that he acquired the nickname “Jelly Roll.” Morton fancied himself as a comedian as well as a pianist and would sometimes “black up” and perform a routine. During an exchange with another comedian on the show who introduced himself as “Sweet Papa Cream Puff,” Morton retorted that he was “Sweet Papa Jelly Roll” — black slang for female genitalia, but also a common nickname at the time for smooth, flashy types such as Morton.

The Birth of New Orleans Jazz

Jelly Roll Morton’s claim to have “invented” jazz has often been largely removed from the context in which he said it. For now, it will suffice to say that he was one of the most important figures in the history of early jazz — and a pivotal figure in the emergence of the New Orleans Style.

The roots of jazz date to approximately 1900 and can be traced to various regions across the United States: the ragtime piano of Scott Joplin in St Louis Missouri, and the stride piano of James P. Johnson in Harlem, New York. In the southeast United States, a local piano style based on ragtime and Appalachian gospel music also emerged around the same time.

Thus jazz was not simply the preserve of New Orleans. While the likes of Jelly Roll Morton, Buddy Bolden, and Louis Armstrong were jamming jazz in Storyville, African and European musical ideas were also coming together in other parts of the United States. New Orleans was nonetheless of particular significance in the history of the music.

Thanks to its Catholic-Mediterranean culture of parades, festivals, and fraternities, New Orleans became a cradle of jazz experimentation. The New Orleans jazz style grew out of diverse elements: the Voodoo drum dances of Congo Square, Afro-Spanish rhythms of the tango and habañera, Protestant gospels and spirituals, European classical music, and the Mississippi country blues.

After the Civil War, the traditional slave culture of the city broke down and a much less inhibited mix of European, Creole, and black musical idioms began to merge in the streets, parades, and brass bands of the city. In Storyville, above all, New Orleans jazz was born.

Library of Congress Recordings

Morton’s journey through the world of show business began when he was a child. But he also worked various blue-collar jobs, he was a tailor, a cosmetics salesman, and a boxing promoter. Nonetheless, from an early age, he crafted his persona meticulously. Jelly Roll Morton dressed to impress, talked the talk, and walked the walk.

In the summer of 1938, flat broke and almost finished, Morton was recorded by Alan Lomax at the Library of Congress. According to Lomax, “he came to the library with some friends of his who know him, and said that he wanted to correct the history of jazz.” Dressed in a pristine suit, with a matching shirt and printed silk tie, a watch fob, and gold rings, the self-styled “originator of jazz, stomps, and swing” proceeded to deliver the story of his life and his history of the birth pangs of jazz.

Sat at the grand piano in the chamber music auditorium in the Library of Congress, Morton held court, with Lomax sat at his feet with a pair of Presto disk recording machines. He accompanied himself as he laid down his definitive musical history of New Orleans jazz, shifting to minor keys when his stories demanded it, and flashing the half-carat diamond set in gold in his front tooth when he smiled.

The results were remarkable. In just over eight hours of recordings, Morton recounts the stories of Storyville, the institutions, festivals, funerals, and rituals of New Orleans, underworld characters, the players that were never recorded, and the different types of music that he heard played in the city. Taken together, Morton’s interviews are one of the finest oral history documents about the history of music and culture of a city ever made.

Jelly Roll’s Jazz 

Jelly Roll Morton didn’t “invent” jazz. However, his innovative combination of ragtime, blues, European classical, and African-rooted New Orleans street music, with a “tinge” of the Spanish Caribbean, marks him out as one of the defining figures of this early revolution.

In 1915, Morton achieved a significant milestone as the first officially published jazz composer with his seminal “Jelly Roll Blues.” Yet it is important to note that he never exactly claimed that he invented jazz, he contended that he was the first one to transform exceptional music into jazz (Szwed, 2005). He described jazz as a “style that can be applied to any type of music.”

Morton criticized the “stiffness” of the ragtime players and dismissed the blues pianists as “one tune players” —  yet his own “hot” jazz expertly combined the formal precision of ragtime piano with a deep respect for the blues. He was one of the first jazz pianists to “season” the rich harmonic textures of the blues with Afro-Spanish rhythms such as the tango and the habañera.

Beyond music styles, jazz, for Morton, was a fine art — and he was a pianist and composer of the highest order. Jazz, Jelly claimed, was at heart a style inspired by “ideas drawn from operas, symphonies, and overtures.”  For him, there was “nothing finer than jazz music, because it comes from everything of the finest class music” (Szwed, 2005).

Of all his recordings, his early sessions in Chicago with the Red Hot Peppers (1926-27), and the likes of his King Porter Stomp, Wolverine Blues, Grandpa’s Spells, and Jelly Roll Blues are generally considered his greatest achievements. In 1998, Jelly Roll Morton was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and his Library of Congress interviews, released in 2005 as a box set, won the award for Best Historical Album and Best Liner Notes (2006). That same year, he was posthumously honored with the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award.

Highs and Lows

The greatest period of Jelly Roll Morton’s career was as pianist and bandleader of the Red Hot Peppers, between 1926 and 1930. Featuring some of the best New Orleans-style musicians around, such as Johnny Dodds (clarinet) and Johnny St Cyr (Banjo/Guitar), the Red Hot Peppers set the standard for small jazz bands. The band signed to the Victor Company and proceeded to record some of the finest recordings in the “hot” New Orleans style ever made.

Though he would never admit it, the 1929 Wall Street Crash and its aftermath dented Jelly’s prospects. As the Great Depression tightened its grip, in 1930 Morton and his wife Mabel Bertrand arrived in New York and soon ran into trouble. The Red Hot Peppers disbanded and Morton struggled to find musicians who wanted to play his “old fashioned” music — as the young Harlem jazz musicians called it.

His fortunes continued to plummet. Struggling to make a living, in 1935 Morton deserted his wife and left New York for Washington to try his luck as a boxing promoter. It didn’t work out, and instead, he wound up running a small nightclub called The Music Box.

A glimmer of hope came as a revival of interest in New Orleans jazz led a stream of predominantly white jazz critics and fans to The Music Box to witness the famous Jelly Roll Morton in action. However, tragedy struck in 1938 when he was viciously stabbed in the head and chest while seated at the piano by a disgruntled customer he had gotten into an argument with moments earlier.

He survived and for a time, made efforts to mount a musical comeback, but he was not a well man. In the aftermath of the attack, Jelly Roll developed serious breathing and heart problems that eventually, in 1941, claimed his life.

The Enduring Legacy of Jelly Roll Morton

While the origins of Ferd “Jelly Roll” Morton are shrouded in mystery (his actual last name is unknown, and his date of birth is unclear) he is without doubt considered among the all-time greatest jazz musicians and most influential musicians and composers of the New Orleans style.

Morton didn’t “invent” jazz but he was a master of jazz. Central to Jelly Roll Morton’s legacy are the groundbreaking recordings made with the Red Hot Peppers between 1926 and 1930. Yet, despite their significance, Morton enjoyed very little commercial success in his lifetime. He failed to copyright his original music, claim rightful royalties, and most importantly, attain due recognition for his seminal contributions to jazz.

He was left embittered and largely overlooked in his lifetime. Ironically, just as a revival of New Orleans Jazz was taking off in the early 1940s—and Jelly himself was being rediscovered—he died of respiratory problems stemming from the wounds he sustained in 1938. His premature death at 50(?) was tragic.

As a composer, Morton was an early architect of the jazz form. He was the first to codify the improvisatory nature of jazz into a published form, featuring distinct sections, solos, and breaks that became standard elements of later jazz arrangements. His invaluable testimony at the Library of Congress stands as the cornerstone oral history document of the history of New Orleans Jazz, a significant cultural artifact in the cultural history of the United States.

Jelly Roll Morton was a true innovator of jazz and directly influenced some of the greatest of the later generations of jazz pianists, such as Earl Hines and Art Tatum. His imprint is undeniable. Above all, Jelly Roll Morton’s remarkable music endures, offering future generations the opportunity to savor, appreciate, and enjoy.

Several finds from biblical archeology support the Bible’s narrative on the people, places, and events it details. The most notable discoveries of the last two centuries are Hezekiah’s Tunnel, the Pool of Siloam, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Tel Dan Inscription, the Cyrus Cylinder, Shishak’s Invasion, and the Moabite Stone.

1. Hezekiah’s Tunnel and Sluice

The Hezekiah Tunnel, also known as the Siloam Tunnel, situated in Jerusalem, is a remarkable feat of ancient engineering. Constructed during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah, the tunnel serves as a vital water channel, redirecting water from the Gihon Spring outside the city walls to the Pool of Siloam within the city.

The biblical narrative describes the measures King Hezekiah took to fortify Jerusalem against the Assyrian threat, including efforts to secure the city’s water supply. 2 Kings 20:20 mentions that the king engaged in projects to bring water to Jerusalem, and claims that the now-lost Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah supplied more information. 2 Chronicles 32:2–4 provides more detail on the context, stating that King Hezekiah stopped the water from the spring from being used by Sennacherib who was to lead the armies of the Assyrians against Jerusalem.

In 1867, explorer Charles Warren discovered the Hezekiah Tunnel. The tunnel’s existence and construction techniques align with the descriptions found in the Bible. The tunnel redirected water from the Gihon Spring into Jerusalem and ensured a reliable water supply for the inhabitants of Jerusalem during times of siege, as described in 2 Chronicles 32:30.

Some scholars claimed that the tunnel predated the time of Hezekiah. However, the discovery of the Siloam Inscription, found near the southern end of the tunnel in 1880, aligns with the description of King Hezekiah constructing a conduit and a pool to supply Jerusalem with water. Archeological findings published in 2023 further demonstrated the engineering features of the water management system that included sluices to regulate the water flow through the tunnel to prevent flooding in the city.

2. The Pool of Siloam

In the Bible, 2 King 20:20 refers to King Hezekiah constructing a pool, not just a tunnel. In John 9:1-11, Jesus heals a blind man by instructing him to wash in the Pool of Siloam after applying mud to his eyes.

Hezekiah’s Tunnel is also called the Siloam Tunnel, hence the Siloam Inscription. The tunnel exits into the Pool of Siloam, discovered in Jerusalem in 2004. The discovery of the actual pool reinforces the authenticity of the biblical account in the Old and New Testaments. Additionally, it verifies the accuracy of the geographical details and the vital role the Pool of Siloam played in Jerusalem society.

3. The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls is one of the most significant discoveries that support the Bible. This discovery relates more to the authenticity and accuracy of the versions of Biblical manuscripts than it does to any individual, place, or event in the Bible.

The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran in 1947 contain fragments of every book in the Old Testament except for the Book of Esther. Some of these manuscripts date to the third century BCE. What is significant about this discovery is that it proves how little manuscripts have changed since the time of Christ. The narrative that changes, omissions, and additions over time had a corrupting effect on the Bible manuscripts, was proven incorrect.

4. The Tel Dan Inscription

The lack of reference to King David in the historical record once gave rise to the idea that no such king existed, or that he was merely a local, tribal chieftain of no real significance. The Tel Dan Inscription, discovered in 1993–94 during excavations at Tel Dan in northern Israel, proved the contrary. The inscription consists of several fragments of an Aramaic victory stele erected by an Aramean king, most likely Hazael or his son Bar-Hadad II.

The inscription references the “House of David,” which scholars believe refers to the dynasty of King David from the Bible. This inscription is the first extra-biblical mention of King David. The term “House of David” indicates that he was the first of a line of kings, which confirms the biblical account of the reign of David, his son, grandson, and so forth.

The Tel Dan Inscription dates to the 9th century BCE and aligns with biblical accounts of geopolitical conflicts and Israel’s interactions with neighboring nations during the same period. The inscription also refers to the House of Israel, further supporting the Bible narrative.

5. The Cyrus Cylinder

The Cyrus Cylinder is an ancient clay artifact, dated to the 6th century BCE, housed at the British Museum in London. The cylinder features an inscription with a declaration attributed to King Cyrus II of Persia, also known as Cyrus the Great.

The Cylinder does not mention events or individuals from the Bible, but its content and historical context indirectly support the Bible. It aligns with Biblical prophecy and reflects the biblical account of the Persians toward the exiled people, including the Israelites.

The policy of religious tolerance described on the cylinder supports the biblical account that the kings of the Medes and Persians allowed the Israelites to return to their native land to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. The Bible mentions the Cyrus decree that allowed the Jews to return and rebuild their capital and house of worship in Ezra and 2 Chronicles.

6. Shishak’s Invasion

The Bible mentions the Egyptian king Shishak invading Judah and plundering the Temple in 1 Kings 14:25-26 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9. Some inscriptions and reliefs in Egypt, particularly at Karnak Temple in Thebes (Luxor), provide corroborating evidence of the military campaign by Shishak into Judah and neighboring areas. The place names correlate with Biblical names and places, confirming the narrative.

The list of the spoils of war brought back to Karnak Temple corroborates the biblical account of the seizure of wealth from the Temple by Shishak. This archeological evidence validates the historical accuracy of the biblical description of Shishak’s actions during his campaign against Judah.

7. The Moabite Stone

The Moabite Stone, also known as the Mesha Stele, is a significant archeological discovery made in Dibon (modern-day Jordan) in 1868. The Mesha Stele is a black basalt stone monument inscribed with an account of victories and accomplishments by King Mesha of Moab. It dates to the 9th century BCE, making it one of the oldest known examples of writing from that region.

The stone mentions King Omri, the father of King Ahab (1 Kings 16:21-28), and the Kingdom of Israel.  The stele reflects the power struggles between the kingdoms of Moab and Israel and aligns with biblical accounts of those conflicts. One such conflict involved King Jehoram (2 Kings 3) of Israel.

The stele mentions Mesha’s capture of several cities mentioned in the Bible, such as Ataroth and Nebo (Numbers 32:3, Deuteronomy 32:49). These conquests are consistent with the biblical depiction of military conflicts between Moab and Israel.

8. Ruins in the City of Jericho

Archeological discoveries in Jericho support the Bible’s story about the destruction and burning of the city. Excavations at Jericho have revealed evidence of a fortified city with massive walls dating to the Late Bronze Age (around 1550–1200 BCE). These dates correspond to the biblical time frame of the Israelite conquest. Archeologists have identified layers of destruction within the city’s ruins, indicating that Jericho experienced violent destruction around the time traditionally associated with Joshua’s conquest.

Archeological findings suggest that the city’s walls did collapse outward, matching the description in Joshua 6:20: “The wall collapsed, so that every man charged straight in, and they took the city.” This collapse aligns with the biblical account of the Israelites’ marching around the city, sounding trumpets and shouting. In addition, evidence of extensive burning within the city is consistent with the biblical narrative that the Israelites burned Jericho after its conquest (Joshua 6:24).

Following its destruction, Jericho remained uninhabited for several centuries, as evidenced by the absence of significant occupation layers in the archeological record. This matches the biblical account, which describes Jericho as being placed under a curse, with Joshua declaring, “Cursed before the Lord be the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho” (Joshua 6:26).

Conclusion

Many of the discoveries mentioned above do not provide direct evidence of the details of the Bible narrative but provide circumstantial evidence. They verify that places, people, or events mentioned in the Bible existed or occurred during the period the narrative describes. This verification increases the likelihood that these narratives reflect actual historical events.

Many of these discoveries have silenced skeptics who believed the Bible consists of fables and myths. Because many of these discoveries provide a perspective from outside of the Israelite context, it is that much more believable.

Pop Art is known for taking an ambivalent stance towards consumerism since one can detect both affirmation and critique of the consumer-driven culture in the artworks of the leading Pop artists. Artists drew inspiration from everyday products, celebrities, and advertisements. In that way, they certainly embraced and accepted consumerist imagery. A critical dimension of Pop Art’s engagement with consumerism is also evident in the manner Pop artists approached rapidly developing materialism in both social and cultural dimensions.

What Is Pop Art?

Pop Art is an art movement that began in the United Kingdom in the mid-1950s. It reached its peak in the 1960s on American soil and it ended in the late 1970s when minimalism took over the art world. Some of the leading American Pop artists include Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, James Rosenquist, Claes Oldenburg, and Tom Wesselmann. Even though each one of these artists had their own artistic approach and style, what they had in common was drawing inspiration from everyday experience and popular culture.

By appropriating imagery and visual language from advertisements, celebrity culture, mass-produced goods, television, film, comic books, and posters, Pop artists blurred the line between high and low art. Therefore, they democratized art, making it accessible to the general public. Pop artists’ interest in consumer culture also led to the rephrasing of the notion of art. In a way, art was subjected to a process of commodification. Pop artists incorporated consumerist imagery into their works and their works were then transformed into commodities themselves within the art market. Therefore, art became a product that could be bought, sold, and consumed like any other object.

The 1964 exhibition The American Supermarket at the Bianchini Gallery in New York serves as a telling example. The space of the gallery was altered, so it resembled a supermarket with its essentials such as shelves, refrigerators, and shopping carts. Only the exhibited goods were the actual artwork of prominent Pop artists like Robert Watts, Tom Wesselmann, Claes Oldenburg, Jasper Johns, Richard Artschwager, and Andy Warhol. They exhibited and sold fake goods such as chrome and wax eggs, velour-covered fruit and vegetables, as well as Campbell’s Soup tins. Artists also signed their work which just further contributed to their investigation of the intersection between trading, branding, and art.

Consumerism and the American Dream

The development of consumerism was significantly boosted by the Industrial Revolution, which occurred in the 18th and 19th Century. The mass production of consumer goods and their increased availability in booming department stores contributed to the making of a consumer-driven society, especially in the United States. During the second half of the 20th century, people began to consume at a much higher rate than before, since the acquisition of an astounding variety of products was interpreted as the equivalent of living a fulfilled and happy life. The essential idea underlying consumerism is that one always needs more and, therefore, should always buy more.

In mid-20th century America, consumerism adopted a form of a lifestyle where consumption was perceived as a desirable leisure activity. The notion of the American dream became increasingly important during the Great Depression. Writer and historian James Truslow Adams Popularized the term in his 1931 book The Epic of America in which he described it as a “dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.” He continued: “It is not a dream of motorcars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable.”

Nevertheless, as the U.S. economy began to recover after World War II, the American dream became associated with the acts of consumption, which were perceived as the benefits of capitalism. Therefore, the concept of the American dream relied on consumerism as the ideal modus vivendi of the American people. Not surprisingly, the zeitgeist of the 1960s, when the ideas of materialism and consumerism were promoted via mass media, inevitably affected and influenced Pop artists and their work.

Andy Warhol and Mass Consumerism

Andy Warhol is known for his fascination with the consumer and celebrity culture. By multiplying images of products such as Coca-Cola bottles and Campbell’s Soup cans, as well as images of public figures like Marilyn Monroe, Warhol alluded to the mass production process. The repetitiveness of his motifs actually refers to the industrial processes, since Warhol was captivated by the mechanical nature of production. Famous for his frequent quotes about wanting to become a machine himself, Warhol celebrated the abundance and variety of available consumer goods on the market.

Warhol was aware of the fact that mass media played a considerable part in the dehumanization and depersonalization of celebrities. By constantly prying and reporting about the personal lives of public figures, the media equated a person with a commodity. Marilyn Monroe’s persona was just another product waiting to be consumed. In a way, there was no difference between her and a bottle of Coca-Cola.

Warhol also produced a well-timed reaction to the capitalist mindset that began to penetrate the art field. He understood that financial gain was the goal when creating artwork. He famously said that being good in business was the most fascinating kind of art. This summarizes Warhol’s business-like approach to art. In order to make a profit, the artist had to acquire the position of a merchant. For that reason, Warhol created an eccentric persona with a trademark look featuring blond hair and large eyewear. Warhol also anticipated the importance of publicizing one’s private life (which nowadays takes form in social media platforms). He documented his everyday life through a camera. In that way, he transformed his own public image into a designer brand present in the mass media, ready to be consumed.

James Rosenquist and the American Dream

James Rosenquist gained experience while working in the advertising industry, an influence that is reflected in his career as an artist. Bold and vibrant color palette, appropriation of consumerist imagery, and large-scale canvases are the predominant characteristics of Rosenquist’s art. A prime example is his monumental painting F-111, which was originally exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York in 1965. The work consists of 23 sections and it occupies four walls of the gallery, thus overwhelmingly engulfing the viewer.

In this artwork, Rosenquist juxtaposed the symbols of the American dream with the reality of the American sociopolitical environment. He portrayed the glossy aspect of consumerism and the ampleness of capitalism. Firstly, Rosenquist depicted a fighter-bomber warplane F-111, which was the newest technologically advanced weapon used in the Vietnam War. Secondly, objects such as spaghetti, cake, light bulbs, and beach umbrellas emphasized the opulence of American society where consumer goods were bountiful and easily accessible thanks to technological, economic, and industrial progress. Finally, an image of a smiling little girl, placed amid a political and consumerist context, conveys a message that happiness stems from material possessions, consumerism, and success in war.

Nonetheless, James Rosenquist expressed his critical view of the sociopolitical situation present in the United States. By amplifying the bright consumer imagery, Rosenquist succeeded in highlighting the complicit role of American society in the military-industrial complex. Rosenquist said that he did not like the idea of paying taxes for obsolete war weapons and that this was on his mind when he started to think about F-111. This illustrates his stance towards the U.S. military operation in Vietnam. Therefore, in his work F-111 he directly confronted the public with its own responsibility regarding the funding of the war.

Claes Oldenburg’s Store

The Store is Claes Oldenburg’s 1961 art installation. The artist filled The Store with plaster-covered muslin sculptures painted in strong colors. The surfaces were smoothed by the glossy paint, while the form was to some degree misshapen, flaccid, and melted. His store consisted of items that one could normally see in regular stores, only his products were neither edible nor usable.

Oldenburg intentionally commercialized his store by creating business cards and posters in order to further promote and advertise his shop. In that way, he boldly and directly questioned the correlation between art and commodity, galleries and shops, and artists and brands. Oldenburg chose to depict a store (the focal point of consumerism) since he acknowledged it as one of the most recognizable capitalist symbols. The free market mindset also began to infiltrate art, so artists found themselves in new roles. They were expected not only to advertise their work but also to invest in their self-promotion. Therefore, Oldenburg’s Store can be interpreted as a criticism of the commodification of art.

His critical tone is evident in the way he sculpted his work. Unlike Pop artist Wayne Thiebaud’s depictions of food that are quite literally mouthwatering, Oldenburg offers us comestibles that do not look as appetizing. His pies seem stale, his ice creams lack freshness, and his candied apples are dried out and hardened. The fact that nothing is tempting about his pastries provokes an ambivalent reaction. Usually, when confronted with delicacies, a person has a positive reaction, but Oldenburg’s food creates the opposite effect. Therefore, The Store comes as a result of Claes Oldenburg’s critique of the consumer-driven Western world where the philosophy of consumption invaded each pore of society.

Pop Art and Consumerism: Is There a Simple Conclusion?

Pop artists developed a complex relationship with consumerism, capitalism, and consumption, often oscillating between celebration and critique. They embraced the imagery and aesthetics of consumer culture by incorporating mass-produced objects and advertising iconography into their works. Artists of course gladly welcomed the economic growth after World War II, especially after the Great Depression took such a heavy toll on American society. Focusing on the imagery of this economic growth, Warhol famously elevated everyday items such as soup cans into art. He investigated the allure of consumer goods, the impact of brands, and the influence of mass media.

However, alongside this celebration, Pop artists have also offered incisive critiques of the excessive consumption and dehumanization that came with consumerism and capitalism. James Rosenquist expressed his condemnation of the American economy that financed the Vietnam War, while Claes Oldenburg protested against the commodification of art.

Therefore, it becomes clear that Pop artists did not have an unequivocal approach towards consumerism. In a way, they succeeded in balancing between fascination and disillusionment when it comes to consumption and capitalism.

Ultimately, there is no one singular answer to whether or not Pop artists celebrated consumer culture. It would be better to say that they took up the role of commentators on social, cultural, and political reality. By portraying what they observed in society, Pop artists reflected the multi-sided nature of consumerism and its relationship with the public. Sometimes those observations were affirmative, while at other times they were negative and critical, highlighting the downsides of consumerism.

An interesting geographical fact is that Finland and North Korea are separated by only one country. That country is Russia.

It is no secret that the Russian Federation still holds the title of being the world’s biggest country. Stretching from the Baltics across eleven time zones to the western shores of Alaska, Russia is indeed a vast land full of complex peoples, nations, resources, and incredible beauty.

How exactly it got to be so big is a history of expansion, war, conquest, and politics that range across many generations of rulers and centuries of turmoil.

Medieval Beginnings

During the medieval era, many states evolved to form the foundation of what would later become Russia.

A group of Vikings known as the Varangians established a power base in the middle of the 9th century in what became the city of Novgorod. Looking to expand their trade potential, they then moved south and started operating from their newly founded city of Kyiv. These Varangians became known as the Kievan Rus’.

From this point, a loose collection of principalities formed in present-day western Russia. These principalities jostled for power, and their leaders vied for the title of Grand Prince of Kyiv.

These principalities were subjugated under the Mongols in the 13th century as they became part of the Mongol Empire. During this time, the Principality of Moscow emerged as a powerful state, although still a vassal to the Mongols and Tatars of the Golden Horde.

In 1380, this vassalage ended when the principalities rose up and defeated the Golden Horde at the Battle of Kulikovo, thus ending the period of Mongol rule. The Mongols returned, however, and took power once again.

The yoke of the Mongols was finally thrown off by Ivan III, also known as Ivan the Great, Grand Prince of Moscow,  who refused to pay tribute to his overlords. The insubordination led to the armies of the Golden Horde and Muscovy facing off on either side of the Ugra River.

After several weeks, the Khan decided to go home and left the Muscovites to their own devices. With the Mongols’ exodus, Ivan III pressed his advantage and vassalized the Khanate of Kazan, which ran from the south to the east of the Principality of Moscow.

The Dominance of the Principality of Moscow

Following the expulsion of the Mongols from the lands of the principalities of the Rus’, Moscow became the center from which Russian expansion would take shape. Under the leadership of Ivan III, the Principality of Muscovy would become the dominant power in the region, overtaking that of Novgorod and setting in motion the events that would lead to the formation of the Russian Empire centuries later.

Ivan III then turned his military attention to the powerful state of Novgorod. He defeated Novgorod at the Battle of Shelon in 1471 and forced Novgorod to pledge allegiance to Moscow. Seven years later, Ivan III took his armies to Novgorod again and formally annexed it into the lands of Moscow.

Moscow now controlled all the lands in the north from Finland all the way to the Ural Mountains.

After the death of Ivan III, his son Vasily took over and consolidated his father’s expansion. Vasily III also expanded Moscow’s lands by conquering the small autonomous states that still existed on the borders. Pskov was annexed in 1510, Volokolamsk in 1513, Ryazan in 1521, and finally Novgorod-Seversky in 1522.

Under Vasily III’s rule, the title of tsar was officially adopted, along with the double-headed eagle that became a symbol of the Russian monarchy and the Russian state.

Further Expansion

The rule of Vasily III was followed by that of Ivan IV, also known as Ivan the Terrible. Under the rule of Vasily III, the Khanate of Kazan had broken free of Russian vassalage to become an independent state that allied with the Astrakhan Khanate, the Crimean Khanate, and the Nogay Horde and came into conflict with Muscovy/Russia.

In 1552, Ivan IV laid siege to the capital of Kazan and put its defenders to the sword. After defeating this Tatar khanate, several other smaller states joined Russia to avoid the same wrath. By 1556, the last of the resistance was crushed, and Moscow could claim complete control over its former enemy. The Khanate of Astrakhan was also added to Russia’s territories, giving Russia full access to the Volga River basin.

Ivan IV took military action further and pressed conflict with the Tatars and other groups of people to the south. In 1571, a massive Crimean army of 120,000 soldiers marched on Moscow. With an army of only 6,000 troops, the Russians stood no chance and retreated. Moscow was burned, and the lands pillaged. Moscow, built almost completely of wood, was reduced to ashes in just three hours. Only the Kremlin was left standing.

Ivan’s brutal rule went from bad to worse as conflicts with the Swedes and the Poles also went awry, and Ivan was forced to cede lands to these enemies in the West.

At the time of his death in 1584, the country was in shambles.

The years that followed were miserable for the Russian people. Power struggles for the throne left the country virtually leaderless, while a famine claimed the lives of about a third of all the Russian people.

Seeking to capitalize on the disasters unfolding in Russia, Sweden and Poland attempted to establish control over Russian lands. The Poles invaded and captured Moscow, occupying it for three years before the Russian people managed to unite and cobble together a peasant army that defeated the Poles and drove them out.

Nevertheless, during this time, Russian lands were extended east of the Urals, setting the stage for huge annexations that would happen in the decades to come. Russian Cossacks came into conflict with Tatars living in the area and managed to stamp control over the region after a bitter conflict.

The Golden Age

The end of the Rurik Dynasty and the beginning of the Romanov Dynasty ushered in an era of success and prosperity for the Russian state.

The year 1613 saw the accession of Mikhail Romanov to the throne. Although chosen for the fact that he seemed weak and easy to control, his rule was surprisingly effective. He began by attaining truces with the Swedes and the Poles, guaranteeing an end to those countries’ designs on Russian territory.

During this time, the conquest of Siberia continued. Explorers set up outposts, met with local tribes, and claimed land in the name of the Russian Empire.

Famous explorers from this era pushed even further eastwards, expanding Russian territory throughout Siberia. Pyotr Beketov founded the fortified settlements of Yakutsk, Chita, and Nerchinsk, which evolved into cities.

A Cossack explorer, Kurbat Ivanov, led expeditions to the area around the Lena River and was the first Russian to discover Lake Baikal. Ivan Moskvitin was the first Russian to reach the Sea of Okhotsk, thus becoming the first Russian to reach the Pacific Ocean via Siberia.

Vassili Poyarkov was the first Russian to explore the Amur region in the Far East, through which the Amur River runs and today forms a natural border between Russia and China. The region was later colonized by explorer Yerofey Khabarov-Svyatitsky.

Of course, the lands of Siberia were not empty. They were inhabited by local tribes that were incorporated into the Russian Empire, either by negotiation or force of arms. Depending on the situation, some tribes, such as the Yakuts, were pressured to assimilate into Russian culture, while other tribes, mostly those living in the far north, were allowed to continue their traditional ways of life. Some of these tribes continue to do so to the present day.

In the west of the country, expansion was brought about by conflict, as Russia had many enemies that resided on its western borders. Long-standing rivalries with Sweden, Poland, (and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) proved to be a constant threat, and Russia had to be permanently militarized.

Under Mikhail Romanov, Russia expanded its control by defeating the Cossacks between the Volga and the Ural Rivers. Mikhail, who died in 1645, was succeeded by Tsar Alexis, who would conquer lands along the Dnipro.

In 1648, the Cossacks in this region rebelled against Polish rule and asked Alexis to accept sovereignty over the area. Alexis accepted and was drawn into a long conflict with Poland over the Dnipro. The treaty that followed gave Russia sovereignty over everything east of the Dnipro, including Kyiv and Smolensk.

Following the reign of Alexis, Peter the Great (1682–1725) expanded Russian lands into the Baltics, conquering the territories of Estonia and Livonia (present-day northeastern Latvia and southern Estonia).

Meanwhile, in the east, Vladimir Atlasov explored the far northeast and discovered the extent of the Kamchatka Peninsula, which juts into the Pacific Ocean. This part of Russia would prove a costly conquest, as the Indigenous people presented spirited resistance to Russian expansion despite being wracked by diseases such as smallpox brought by the Russian invaders.

The Furthest Reaches of Siberia

At the southern end of the Kamchatka Peninsula, the Itelmans launched several rebellions throughout the first half of the 18th century, but the Russian occupiers easily put down these uprisings.

To the north of the Kamchatka Peninsula, the Koryaks provided stiff resistance to Russian expansion, and from 1744, the Russians engaged in bitter fighting with these Indigenous people.

Even further north, decades of struggle ensued with the Chukchi people. Tsarina Elizabeth was angered by the conquest’s slow progress and, in 1742, ordered the Chukchi to be “eradicated completely.”

After several decades and seven campaigns against the Chukchi, the final lands of Siberia were under Russian control.

Catherine the Great

Catherine the Great is known as one of Russia’s greatest leaders, and the Russian Empire experienced considerable expansion during her time on the throne. One of the things foremost in her mind was expansion in the south, as Russia had no access to the Black Sea.

Catherine also strengthened control over Poland and installed a monarch, Stanisław August Poniatowski, who was loyal to her but also had to struggle with uplifting a failing state. The weakness of Poland would lead to the country losing much of its territory to surrounding powers.

Conflicts on the border with the Ottomans played into her hands when the Ottomans declared war. The Ottomans were completely defeated, and fearing Austrian intervention, a plan was put forward to give away Polish land. In what became known as the First Partition of Poland, one-third of Polish lands were given away to Austria, Prussia, and Russia.

The defeat of the Ottomans also brought about a treaty allowing Russia to occupy Crimea and surrounding territory. In 1783, Catherine violated the treaty and completely annexed Crimea. The Russians would take the port of Odesa in another conflict with the Ottomans.

Subsequent Additions 

In 1795, the rest of Poland was partitioned between Prussia, Austria, and Russia. After defeating Napoleon, Russia received even more lands westward. As a result of redrawing the map of Europe, most of the Duchy of Warsaw would be under Russian rule.

Further war with the Ottoman Empire also resulted in territorial gains. Russian troops came dangerously close to taking Constantinople, and in 1828, the French and British brokered a peace deal whereby the Russians were given more land on the northeast coast of the Black Sea.

In the east, Alexander II took advantage of a weakened China during the Second Opium War and pushed Russia’s borders to the Amur River at the expense of Chinese territory. In addition, more territory was taken along the coast all the way down to where the Korean Peninsula started.

In 1864, Alexander II pressed conflict in Central Asia and expanded Russia’s borders further into what was called Turkestan. Today, this area comprises Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.

Alaska

As far east as Siberia went, it wasn’t the furthest that the Russian Empire would stretch. In the 18th century, fur traders set up outposts on the Aleutian islands and moved further east, settling on the coast of Alaska. In 1799, the Russian-American Company was established to oversee the expansion and colonization of American land.

Their focus wasn’t just on Alaska. The Russians set up trading posts—Fort Ross on the California coast and Fort Elizabeth in Hawaii.

However, supplying Alaska so far from the Russian capital was a logistical nightmare, and with mismanagement from the Russian-American Company, the colony was a significant drain on the imperial coffers.

Furthermore, with deteriorating relations with Britain (which controlled Canada), Tsar Alexander II decided to sell the colony of Alaska to the Americans in 1867 to create a buffer between Russian and British territory and offset British power on the North American continent.

Modern Russia

During the time of the Soviet Union, administrative borders were drawn. There was little reason to expect this to result in a later reduction of Russian territory. When the Soviet Union was dissolved, many of these administrative borders were used to create new independent states, such as Belarus and Ukraine.

At its height in 1895, Russia accounted for 8.8 million square miles, which is 16.92 percent of the world’s landmass. It was the third biggest empire in history after the British Empire and the Mongol Empire. Although reduced, the country today is almost twice the size of Canada.

It is a land filled with diversity in people and in its landscape, a legacy that reflects its imperial past.

Warfare, literature, education, and politics were long the purview of men before these five notable Latin American women made their voices heard. Many of them defied societal gender norms, facing discrimination and harsh treatment, sometimes even exile. Nevertheless, these determined women exhibited exceptional strength and courage, leading them to greatness while opening spaces for women in Latin America.

1. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz

During the 17th century in New Spain, knowledge and education were exclusively reserved for the male world. Women belonged to other spheres of everyday life: they were expected to take care of the family and the home. Education provided to the privileged few was limited to basic literacy, as girls were primarily taught domestic labor and to exercise Christian virtues. Submissive, honest, and domestic women were desired.

Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz was born into an affluent family around 1650. From a young age, she was believed to be a prodigy due to her aptitude for learning. After serving as a lady-in-waiting to the viceroy’s wife, highly esteemed for her erudition, intelligence, and poetry, she entered a convent of the Order of Saint Jerome, where she took perpetual vows to be confined for life.

In her writings, she details how she became a nun in order to dedicate herself to study and scholarship. During this time, high-class women could take only one of two paths: dedicating themselves to family and home or entering religious life. As Octavio Paz astutely observes, she became a nun to be able to think. She became a self-taught scholar who challenged male privileges in order to enjoy and cultivate her intellectual pursuits.

She wrote numerous poems about life, love, and heartbreak but was a master of all genres, writing plays as well. She expressed her ideas and emotions through satire, metaphor, and philosophical reflection, driven by the pursuit of truth and the struggle for freedom.

Her style was considered inappropriate by the Christian standards of 17th-century New Spain, doubly so for a woman. Her writings were deemed “worldly”; a bishop advised her to focus on religion and leave such profane matters to men. In response, she penned a manifesto, far ahead of her time, defending women’s right to education. Her work reflects her intelligence, sensitivity, and commitment to society.

2. Eva Perón 

From humble origins, Eva Perón arrived in Buenos Aires at the age of 15 with the dream of pursuing acting. She gained some fame in cinema, radio, and theater before meeting her husband and future president of Argentina, Juan Perón, when she was 25.

Eva Perón managed to carve out a path in politics despite having everything against her. She was a woman and an actress, working at a time when it was not viewed favorably by society and was particularly challenging in the political sphere. Yet she continued despite the criticism. She managed to open the doors for women to participate in politics and defended the rights of those most in need. Along with her husband, she consolidated Peronism as a political and social movement. They became charismatic figures, leaders who supported the masses and gave workers a voice in changing the course of power.

Eva was either loved or hated, there was no middle ground. Confident and charismatic, she navigated criticism with grace. Her sensitivity to connecting with people and passion for her causes transcended the limits imposed by society on a first lady.

She died at the very young age of 33 from cancer, after which her embalmed body was desecrated and stolen. However, her brief years in the spotlight were enough for her to become a prominent figure in Argentina and beyond. Posthumously, she was granted the title “Spiritual Leader of Argentina.” After her death, appreciation for her grew, creating a mythology around her figure that persists today.

3. Rigoberta Menchú 

Rigoberta Menchú was born in 1959 into a Mayan peasant family in Guatemala. In her childhood, she suffered poverty, racial discrimination, and violence. At the tender age of five, she began working with her parents on farms, and in her adolescence, she was employed as a domestic worker in the capital.

During this time, Guatemala was experiencing an armed conflict between the government and a guerrilla group fighting for social justice. The government sought to suppress the movement, choosing the path of violence and extermination of the Mayan population. Rigoberta experienced firsthand the ravages of this conflict: her mother and brother were tortured and killed by soldiers, while her father was burned alive during a protest.

From a very young age, she became involved in social movements protesting violence and seeking better living conditions. Her participation earned her exile, and at the age of 21, she was forced to seek refuge in Mexico. She has continued to participate in international forums, advocating for the rights of indigenous populations and educating on the impacts of violence. As a UN ambassador and mediator in the peace process with the guerrillas, she sought to promote dialogue and social justice in Guatemala, highlighting the importance of indigenous peoples being permitted to make decisions about their own needs and rights. In 1992, she won the Nobel Peace Prize, becoming the first indigenous woman to receive the award.

4. Manuela Sáenz 

Manuela Sáenz was born in Ecuador in 1797, the illegitimate daughter of a wealthy Spanish merchant and a lower-class Creole woman. From a young age, she was influenced by the movement for independence in the Americas, which rejected the privileges that peninsular Spaniards had over the Creoles, such as access to political positions. As a bastard daughter, she knew well what it felt like and had a rebellious spirit in her blood.

Manuela wanted to fight for freedom and not only financed the revolutionary cause but also participated in the fight herself, mounted on horseback with sword and pistol in hand. She was a great strategist and politician. She fought in the Battle of Pichincha, which won freedom for Ecuador in 1822, and the liberator José de San Martín granted her the title of Knightess of the Order of the Sun of Peru.

She met Simón Bolívar, and they quickly fell in love, becoming companions in the fight, political advisers, and lovers. Manuela firmly believed in his ideals of liberty and equality for America, so she became a key ally for Bolívar. She saved his life in the Bógota assassination attempt in 1828.

Her relationship with Bolívar should not overshadow her personal merits as a defender of the independence of South American countries and women’s rights—particularly because, in her time, such actions were not acceptable for women. Yet she was able to voice her opinion and operate at the same level as men in political intrigues. She scandalized many with her rebellious, provocative, and outgoing behavior, but above all, her influence and political power frightened the male rulers, resulting in her exile from Ecuador.

5. Gabriela Mistral

Born Lucila Godoy in 1889 in the small community of Vicuña in northeastern Chile, Gabriela Mistral’s childhood was spent surrounded by women. She was almost entirely self-taught, dropping out of school at the age of 11 but continuing to read any book that came her way. She began her path in teaching as a teacher’s assistant.

At 17, she published a column in a local newspaper titled “The Education of Women,” in which she argued that women have potential beyond homemaking and advocated for their intellectual instruction. She wrote that educating women “es hacerla digna y levantarla”—dignifies and uplifts them.

While continuing her training as a teacher, she wrote poems in her spare time until her first major literary success, which made her known throughout Latin America: “Sonnets of Death.” She wrote this work after experiencing her first disappointments in love. From then on, she began to use the pseudonym “Gabriela Mistral” for fear of affecting her job as a teacher.

In 1922, already famous, she traveled to Mexico in order to contribute to education crusades, participating in the design of a new educational program and teaching in rural and indigenous areas, primarily focused on instilling the value of reading. She put her whole soul into this task. She lived her life between indigenous peoples and high intellectual and elite groups. Later, she dedicated herself to diplomacy and held important positions as consul in Madrid and New York.

She was the first Latin American to win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1945 “for her lyric poetry which, inspired by powerful emotions, has made her name a symbol of the idealistic aspirations of the entire Latin American world.” She gained prominence for her sensitivity and beautiful poems, as well as for her commitment to society, particularly to children.

The Council of Chalcedon was the fourth ecumenical council held by the early Christian Church, held in Chalcedon, Bithynia (now part of Istanbul, Turkey) in 451 CE.  The Council dealt with matters which were discussed at previous councils, mostly related to the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ.

What Happened Before the Council of Chalcedon?

The three councils preceding Chalcedon dealt with various heresies regarding theologies surrounding the nature of Jesus Christ.  The Council of Nicea in 325 CE dealt with the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was a created being, rather than eternal with God. The First Council of Constantinople in 381 dealt with an almost opposite view called Apollinarianism that held that Jesus was more divine than human, lacking a human soul. The Council of Ephesus in 431 fought against Nestorianism, the idea that there was a great difference between God the Father and God the Son, so much that Mary, the mother of Jesus, could not be described as theotokos, or “God-bearer.”

While these theological issues found little controversy in the western church, both political and theological problems with the councils arose with some of the eastern churches over both the content of the council’s decisions as well as how some of those decisions were made. Also, several of the beliefs condemned within the councils held some influence with the Eastern churches, particularly Nestorianism.

The particular problem to which the Council of Chalcedon addressed was an issue raised at the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 CE.  At Ephesus, a miaphysite position of Christ was upheld, which holds that Jesus has a single incarnate nature which is a union of God and man. This position, which was promoted by the monk Eutyches, is different from the position which many western Christians held, which was that Jesus has two natures, God and Man, within Himself.  Eutyches as attempting to push back against Nestorianism, and, in the view of Pope Leo I, had gone too far in the other direction and had problems with communication.  The Second Ephesus council, not accepted by Western Christianity, was named the “Robber Synod” by Pope Leo I who explicitly condemned it.

What Were the Problems with Eutyches?

Two main problems arose with Eutyches’ arguments. The first was a significant difference in terminology between Greek and Latin. The Latin word persona and the Greek word physis have similar meanings, but they are distinct enough that, while the Latin translates to “person,” the Greek translates to “nature.”  Eutyches seemed to get too stuck on the usage of physis as “person” and believed Jesus Christ had one physis and those who spoke Latin saw him as saying that Jesus had one “nature” – which would put his position outside that of orthodoxy. Eutyches also had a problem with communicating his ideas, which would result in later troubles for him.

What Happened at the Council of Chalcedon?

In 451, Roman Emperor Marcian I called for a new council, hoping to resolve the religious problems in the Empire, particularly with Attila the Hun causing problems within the Western Empire.  At least 520 bishops attended, resulting in Chalcedon being the largest of the seven ecumenical councils of the early church. The council included some political wrangling, but it resulted in some long-lasting theological decisions.

The decisions made at the first Council of Ephesus were upheld, as was the authority of the Nicene Creed. The Tome of Leo and some of Cyril of Alexandria’s letters were recognized as properly defining and communicating the Christological issues at hand. Probably the greatest result was the formulation of the “Chalcedonian definition” of the nature of Jesus Christ, which addresses all of the heretical positions of Arianism, Apollinarianism, and Nestorianism, and defines physis as “nature,” of which Christ has two – human and divine.

Who Accepts the Council of Chalcedon?

The Council of Chalcedon is generally accepted by most of Christianity, including Protestant denominations. Some Eastern churches (though not Eastern Orthodox) reject the Council of Chalcedon either through a political difference in how it was handled, or a disagreement with some of the definitions or terminology usage. The Council of Chalcedon is also the last of the seven ecumenical councils held as authoritative by Protestant churches as a whole, as later councils may have issues which conflict with the concept of sola scriptura.

Pirate lore often stirs up visions of remote forts and hidden coastal strongholds steeped in battles for treasure and territorial control. These places, some crafted by empires to fend off pirates, now stand as testaments to an era when corsairs ruled the seas and fortified coastal defenses were essential.

Across the globe, remnants of these defenses tell tales of sieges, trade wars, and the relentless pursuit of dominion over the world’s busiest shipping lanes. Below, you will learn about ten must-see pirate fortresses and coastal strongholds, where you can learn the real history of coastal protection and the stories of those who built and defended them.

1. Castillo San Felipe del Morro, Puerto Rico

This historic fortress, commonly known as El Morro, is located in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Its construction began under Spanish rule in 1539, with the fort evolving over 250 years into a six-level stronghold designed to protect the island from sea-based attacks.  The British, Dutch, and pirates all tried to invade Puerto Rico, but Castillo San Felipe del Morro ensured all of their efforts failed.

El Morro is today part of the San Juan National Historic Site, managed by the US National Park Service. When visiting, you’ll have the chance to explore its historical barracks, dungeons, and original cannons facing the Atlantic Ocean. One interesting thing is that the fort is also home to Puerto Rico’s oldest lighthouse, which was built in 1846.

The site is open daily from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and it closes only on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s Day. An entrance fee grants access to both El Morro and the nearby Castillo San Cristóbal. Make sure to book a guided tour so that you can learn the most about the rich history of the fort.

2. Gramvousa Island, Crete, Greece

Off the northwest coast of Crete, Greece, is located a charming island, renowned for its Venetian fortress and historical significance. Yes, it’s Gramvousa Island, whose fortress was built between 1579 and 1584 during Venetian rule. This fortress was strategically positioned to defend Crete from Ottoman incursions and pirate attacks. Its elevated location provided a commanding view of the surrounding sea routes, which made it a pivotal defensive structure.

In the early 19th century, during the Greek War of Independence, Gramvousa became a refuge for revolutionaries and pirates. The fortress served as a base for insurgents, and the island’s inhabitants engaged in piracy to survive, hence its nickname, “Pirate Island.”

At present, Gramvousa Island is a popular tourist destination. We encourage you to explore the well-preserved fortress, which offers panoramic views of the Cretan coastline and the turquoise waters of the Balos Lagoon.

Access to Gramvousa is typically via boat tours departing from the port of Kissamos. These excursions often include a visit to the nearby Balos Lagoon. This means you can enjoy both interesting deep history and also impressive natural attractions.

3. Fortress of St. Nicholas, Croatia

Located at the entrance of the St. Anthony Channel near Šibenik, Croatia, this fortress is a remarkable example of Renaissance fortification architecture. It was constructed in the mid-16th century by the Venetians. The Fortress of St. Nicholas was designed to protect the city and its port from sea-based threats, particularly from the Ottoman Empire. The impressive and very unique triangular shape of the fortress, as well as its robust construction, made it a formidable defensive structure.

In 2017, the iconic site was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List as part of the “Venetian Works of Defence between the 16th and 17th Centuries.” This designation in itself shows you how important and significant the architecture and history of this fortress really are.

Today, you can explore the fortress through organized boat tours departing from the Šibenik waterfront. These tours will provide you with a glimpse into the history of the Fortress of St. Nicholas and will offer stunning views of the surrounding seascape. The interior features well-preserved gunpowder storage rooms, barracks, and defensive walls. They allow you to step back in time and experience the strategic importance of this maritime stronghold.

4. Port Royal, Jamaica

This was once dubbed the “wickedest city on earth” because of its notorious reputation as a haven for pirates and privateers in the 17th century. Located at the southeastern tip of Jamaica, it was established by the English in 1655 and quickly became a bustling hub of commerce and vice. This led Port Royal to attract figures like the infamous pirate Henry Morgan. The city’s prosperity was abruptly halted on June 7, 1692, when a devastating earthquake submerged much of it into the sea. This led to significant loss of life and infrastructure.

Today, you can still see attractions in Port Royal, such as the remnants of Fort Charles, the only fort to survive the 1692 earthquake. You can see here historical artifacts and learn about the maritime history of the city. The Giddy House, a tilted building resulting from a 1907 earthquake, provides an intriguing experience of disorientation. As for the Port Royal Archaeological Museum, it showcases artifacts recovered from the sunken city.

5. Fuerte de San Diego, Mexico

Constructed in 1617 by the Spanish Empire to protect the vital port from pirate attacks, Fuerte de San Diego was designed by Dutch engineer Adrián Boot and features a distinctive five-pointed star shape, a strategic design for defense. In 1776, a significant earthquake damaged the original structure, leading to its reconstruction between 1778 and 1783 under engineer Ramón Panón. The rebuilt fort played a crucial role during the Mexican War of Independence, notably falling to insurgent forces led by José María Morelos in 1813.

Today, Fuerte de San Diego houses the Museo Histórico de Acapulco. The museum’s 12 exhibition halls showcase artifacts from the pre-Hispanic era, colonial times, and the Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade. These show the significance of Acapulco, the city where the fortress is located, in global commerce. In this museum, you can explore the fort’s original architecture, including its bastions, moat, and panoramic views of Acapulco Bay.

6. Fort King George, Tobago

You can find this well-preserved 18th-century fortification atop Scarborough Hill in Tobago. It offers visitors a glimpse into the island’s colonial past. Constructed by the British between 1777 and 1779, the fort was designed to protect the island from potential invaders and played a significant role in Tobago’s military history. Over the years, it changed hands between the British and French, reflecting the turbulent colonial era.

Today, Fort King George serves as a historical site open to the public. Visitors can explore several restored structures, including the officers’ barracks, gunpowder magazines, prison cells, and a bell tank. The original cannons remain positioned along the fort’s walls, offering panoramic views of Scarborough and the Atlantic Ocean.

The fort also houses the Tobago Museum, located within the former barrack guardhouse. The museum features artifacts from Tobago’s early history, including Amerindian relics, military memorabilia, and colonial-era documents.

7. Fortress of Suomenlinna, Finland

This UNESCO World Heritage Site, which you can find on a cluster of islands off Helsinki’s coast, is renowned for its historical significance and architectural grandeur. It was in 1748, under Swedish rule, when its construction began, aiming to fortify the eastern territories against Russian expansion. Originally named Sveaborg (Castle of Sweden), the fortress played a pivotal role in regional defense strategies.

Over the centuries, Suomenlinna transitioned through various sovereignties. In 1808, during the Finnish War, it fell to Russian forces and remained under Russian control until Finland’s independence in 1917. Post-independence, the fortress was renamed Suomenlinna (Castle of Finland) and continued to serve military purposes until the mid-20th century.

Today, Suomenlinna is a vibrant district of Helsinki, home to approximately 800 residents. Visitors can explore its extensive fortifications, historic buildings, and museums that chronicle its storied past. The King’s Gate, a prominent symbol of the fortress, and the Great Courtyard are among the notable landmarks. The island also offers scenic walking routes, cafes, and art galleries.

8. Fort James, Antigua

This historic fortification was constructed by the British in the early 18th century. Located at the entrance of St. John’s Harbour in Antigua, it’s named after King James II of England and was built to protect the island from potential French invasions and pirate attacks. Construction began in 1706, with significant expansions completed by 1739. At its peak, Fort James was armed with 36 cannons and housed a barracks accommodating 75 men.

Today, visitors to Fort James can explore its remnants, including several cannons, a powder magazine, and the foundations of the fort’s walls. The site offers panoramic views of St. John’s Harbour and the Caribbean Sea. While the fort is in a state of ruin, its historical significance and scenic location make it a noteworthy destination.

9. Portobelo, Panama

This historic town is famous for its colonial-era fortifications and rich cultural heritage. Established by the Spanish on Panama’s Caribbean coast in 1597, it served as a crucial port for the transshipment of gold and silver from the Americas to Spain. To protect these valuable shipments from pirates and privateers, the Spanish constructed several forts, including San Jerónimo and Santiago de la Gloria, whose ruins still stand today.

In 1980, UNESCO recognized the historical significance of these structures by designating the “Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo” as a World Heritage Site.

Visitors to Portobelo can explore these well-preserved fortifications that offer insights into colonial military architecture and panoramic views of the bay. The town also hosts the Church of San Felipe, home to the revered statue of the Black Christ, which attracts thousands of pilgrims annually during the Festival of the Black Christ on October 21.

10. Charles Fort, Ireland

This fort is a prime example of a late 17th-century star-shaped fortification. Found in Kinsale, County Cork, Ireland, Charles Fort was constructed between 1678 and 1682 during the reign of King Charles II and was designed by William Robinson, the architect of the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham, Dublin. The strategic position of the fort overlooking Kinsale Harbour was intended to protect against naval attacks, particularly from the French and Spanish.

Charles Fort actually played a major role during the Williamite War in 1690, where it endured a 13-day siege before capitulating to Williamite forces. It remained a British garrison until 1922. During all this time, it witnessed various historical events, including the Irish Civil War, during which it was partially destroyed.

Today, Charles Fort is managed by the Office of Public Works and is open to the public year-round. When there, you can explore the well-preserved bastions, barracks, and ramparts of the fort. And you’ll also enjoy the panoramic views of Kinsale Harbour and the surrounding coastline. The on-site visitor center provides historical exhibits and guided tours.

For most of America’s history, the process of electing political representatives may be considered undemocratic by modern standards. US senators, for example, were chosen by state legislatures rather than voters, and many elections did not have a secret ballot, subjecting voters to peer pressure. The 20th century saw populist reforms that empowered ordinary citizens. These included the adoption of open primaries, or elections conducted by major political parties where registered voters could choose their preferred candidate as the party’s nominee. Which US states today have open primaries?

Setting the Stage: Conventions Over Primaries

Prior to World War II, much of the power to pick party nominees for elected offices rested with party conventions, or meetings of party leaders. Voters would vote in November and discover which candidate their respective parties had chosen as the nominees. Many citizens felt that this system was relatively undemocratic, as several candidates often wished to be the party’s nominee for a single elected position, but voters had no say. Some complained that the party leaders at the conventions made poor choices, saddling the party with unpopular nominees who would go on to lose the general election.

A classic example occurred in 1912, when the Republican Party leadership chose to retain incumbent president William Howard Taft as the party’s presidential nominee rather than the more popular former president Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt formed his own political party and split the Republican vote in the November election, allowing Democratic nominee Woodrow Wilson to win the White House in a landslide. Progressive reformers argued that competitive primaries would reveal the most popular candidates, encouraging party leaders to choose the victors as the nominees to avoid splitting the vote. During the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, party conventions began to be seen as elitist and out-of-touch.

Setting the Stage: Caucuses Over Elections

While many viewed party conventions as staid affairs of elite men in smoke-filled back rooms, some gatherings of political party members to pick nominees for office were more lively and democratic. The first caucuses, or meetings of party members to select presidential and vice presidential candidates, were held in 1804. These were replaced by conventions within a few decades, giving more power to wealthy, unelected men who could influence candidates from behind the scenes. However, at the state and local level, caucuses remained a way for voters and activists to promote candidates for the party nomination.

Caucuses were popular because they were active and engaging. Unlike elections, caucuses allowed supporters of candidates to speak on their behalf and attempt to persuade voters to shift their allegiances. These meetings were organized by the political parties and only open to party members, thus violating today’s norms like secret ballots and no politicking or electioneering (campaigning) near a polling place. Over time, caucuses have become less popular because they are often seen as confusing and potentially undemocratic: they allow louder groups to intimidate others, and voters who cannot stand for long periods may struggle to participate. Voters must physically line or group up in support of candidates and be counted by party officials, which can exclude voters with limited mobility.

Open Primaries Defined

Most states have adopted primary elections instead of caucuses. These look similar to general elections held in November: voters arrive and cast a secret ballot while following contemporary election rules. Open primaries are open to all registered voters, allowing them to decide which party to vote for. States with open primaries do not require voters to pick a political party affiliation when they register to vote. Thus, independent voters may participate in open primaries but not caucuses or closed primaries. When voters arrive at an open primary, they must pick a major party ballot to complete.

Growing in popularity, however, are multi-party primaries, which are even more open: voters receive a single ballot with candidate choices for both major parties. Some of these states allow multiple candidates from each party to advance to the general election, whereas traditional open primaries, closed primaries, and caucuses only allow a single candidate to contest the general election. This degree of openness, however, is typically only seen in localized elections rather than statewide (governor) or federal (US representative, US senator, president/vice president) elections.

The History of Open Primaries

Primaries became increasingly popular during the Progressive Era, with voters wanting to strip power from political machines that allowed wealthy business moguls to control government services through the spoils system. By 1917, four years after the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution required direct election by voters for US senators, almost all states required primary elections for statewide offices. Most primaries were initially closed, including by race—minorities were often excluded from voting in primary elections in the South (as they were in all elections). During the 1920s and 1930s, however, states began to open their primaries and allow open primaries where independent voters could cast ballots.

As early as the 1930s, some states were trying to move past open primaries to blanket primaries, where voters could vote for all potential nominees of all parties. These faced legal challenges, with the US Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that blanket primaries violated political parties’ freedom of association. Since political parties were private entities and not government entities, they could choose to exclude non-members. However, states were able to later utilize top-two primaries, where voters participate in a nonpartisan (no political party listed) primary, with the top two candidates from each major party being placed on the general election ballot.

Which States Have Open Primaries Today?

Today, most states in the South and West have open primaries, with California, Washington, Alaska, and Louisiana the most open as multi-party primaries. Several other states in the Midwest and South have semi-open primaries where independents can pick which party ballot to vote. Oregon and Idaho are not fully open, but give the major political parties the option during each election cycle to allow independent voters to vote. Only 12 states and Washington, DC have closed primaries, where only registered party members can participate in that party’s primary process.

In some open primary states, 17-year-olds are allowed to vote if they will be 18 by the date of the general election in November. The eligibility of 17-year-olds can vary considerably because, unlike the general election, statewide primary elections are held from early spring to late summer. Twenty states and Washington, DC allow 17-year-old primary voting, which affects several thousand young people who turn 18 between the primary and general elections. However, and perhaps ironically, whether a state has open or closed primaries does not seem to affect the likelihood of allowing 17-year-olds to vote in them; some open and multi-party primary states require voters to be 18.

Semi-Open and Semi-Closed Primaries Explained

When the term “open primary” is used in general terms, it refers to allowing independent voters to pick a party’s ballot in the primary election. In reality, there are different types of “open” primaries. A semi-open primary allows independent voters to pick either party’s ballot, but voters who have registered as party members may only receive that party’s ballot. Basically, once a voter picks a political party, he or she cannot cross vote in the other political party’s primaries. Only in multi-party primaries can voters cross vote for Democrats for some offices and Republicans for other offices.

Sometimes, semi-open primaries are called semi-closed primaries. Semi-closed primaries may also refer to the handful of states that give political parties the option to pick whether they will allow independent voters or members of opposing parties to vote in their primaries. It may also refer to states that require party affiliation to vote in that primary but allow on-site party registration. This would technically allow independent voters to participate in the primary, but those voters might have to disaffiliate before the next primary to avoid being “locked in” to that party’s ballot.

Strategy: How Candidates Handle Open Primaries

It is important for candidates to strategize based on the type of primary to appeal to the most possible voters, particularly during a close race. Open primaries, which allow all registered voters to pick one party’s ballot, usually encourage candidates to campaign more as moderates than as partisans (strict adherents to one political party). A Democratic candidate may campaign towards the center to appeal to moderate, independent, and even Republican voters. Similarly, a Republican candidate may moderate their views to appeal to moderate, independent, and even Democratic voters.

Perhaps controversially, candidates may also encourage their party’s voters to cross vote in the other party’s primary. This strategy is more common when one party has a dominant candidate who is assured of winning the nomination and can afford to redirect voters to influence the opposing party’s primary process. The goal in this scenario is to support the least competitive candidate of the rival party, hoping to saddle that party with a nominee who cannot win the general election. This is difficult to do in closed primaries: in 2022, Democrats in Wyoming had to change their party affiliation to vote in the Republican primary for incumbent US Representative Liz Cheney, who was under attack by supporters of former US president Donald Trump.

Benefits of Open Primaries

Open primaries are more democratic than closed primaries because they allow independents to vote. This also increases voter turnout, which makes those states more democratic. Allowing independents to participate in primaries is also important because many independents are highly partisan (support a political party) but have not chosen or been able to register with the party. These partisan independents, often called left-leaning or right-leaning in political science, are a major component of the electorate (voters). Open primaries allow their voices to be heard.

For parties and candidates, open primaries are beneficial because they are more realistic to the conditions faced during the general election in November. Closed primaries and caucuses, which only allow registered party members to participate, may result in a highly partisan nominee who is unpopular with moderate and independent voters and liable to lose the general election. Open primaries are considered more competitive and result in stronger party nominees who are more likely to win in November. Finally, in safe states where one party dominates all statewide elections, the primary essentially is the general election, meaning those who cannot vote in the primary have virtually no voice at all in the democratic process.

Drawbacks of Open Primaries

Critics of open primaries argue that the process could be sabotaged by the opposing party through cross-voting. Democrats and left-leaning independents may intentionally choose a Republican ballot to select the least-competitive candidates, hoping to saddle the Republican Party with unpopular nominees. Similarly, Republicans and right-leaning independents may choose a Democratic ballot to try to burden that party with uncompetitive nominees as well. It is difficult to determine the incidence of cross-voting, as independents may not admit to the practice.

Closed primaries limit cross-voting and thus allow parties to better select nominees favored by their members. Many may also prefer closed primaries because they reserve primary voting for party members, limiting the free rider problem. In closed primaries, only party members who are invested in the result are voting. Independent voters may be less informed about the candidates, less invested in the political process, and less likely to vote again in the general election compared to registered party members. Therefore, parties in closed primary states may feel little obligation to provide a voice to voters who are unwilling to pick a party preference.

The Future of Open Primaries

Open primaries are popular with voters, and more states have made their statewide primaries open over time. This is heavily influenced by the fact that a plurality of voters are independent—about 40 percent—with only about 30 percent each being either Democrat or Republican. However, some swing states worry about cross-voting and want to maintain closed primaries, as the two political parties are roughly equally matched and are more susceptible to sabotage by cross-voting.

Some states that are becoming more competitive, such as Texas, are looking at closing their primaries to prevent cross-voting. The dominant political party in these states may fear the growing power of the opposing party, or independents who lean toward that party, and move to protect its primary elections from possible sabotage. Recently, Wyoming, Louisiana, and Tennessee made moves to close their primaries. However, Nevada and Colorado have moved to open theirs further. Overall, it appears that open primaries are likely to continue in most states due to the greater voting power of independents.

From 1939 to 1945, Europe was embroiled in a conflict that cost, by some estimates, as many as 80 million lives. It left the continent in ruins and introduced a trauma that is still with us today.

In May 1945, the Soviets rolled over Berlin. Hitler shot himself, and the Germans surrendered, bringing an end to the deadliest war in human history. Another threat, however, lurked on the horizon. As the industrial might of the United States and the Soviet Union reached unprecedented heights, even before the end of the war, it became clear that a new, even deadlier conflict was possible.

Thus, the Joint Planning Staff Committee was ordered to research military operations that would start a new war as a preemptive action to limit the Soviet Union’s power and westward advance.

This was known as Operation Unthinkable.

The End of the Second World War

At the end of the First World War, Russia, and, by extent, the Soviet Union, was in complete shambles. Communist revolution had ousted the Tsar, and the country was in the grip of a bloody civil war.

Less than three decades later, it emerged from the fires of the Second World War as a superpower with an incredibly large military capability. It occupied the territories of its former enemies as well as the countries liberated from German control.

The whole of Eastern Europe fell under the influence of Moscow. Winston Churchill was well aware that Stalin would keep hold of these territories and set up communist puppet governments, effectively making the Soviet Union even more powerful.

The Fate of Eastern Europe

Concerned for the future of Europe, Churchill had plans to “impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire,” even if it meant sparking a third world war. It was a brazen plan, to be sure, but it was one born out of desperation and fear of what the Soviet Union could achieve.

The Allies, seeing the incredible achievements of the Soviet Union in the final months of the war, acknowledged that underestimating Stalin and his forces was foolhardy. It was widely believed that Stalin would not stop at Berlin and that after defeating Germany, he would order Soviet forces to continue westwards.

At the forefront of Churchill’s mind was the fate of Poland. He was extremely unhappy with Poland falling under Soviet control, and his plans focused on liberating the country in a surprise attack. He commanded the plan to be drawn up in complete secrecy. In doing so, he wished to understand the feasibility of using force to stop the Soviet Union’s encroachment on the rest of Europe.

Churchill’s Fears

As the war drew to a close with major Soviet advances, Churchill received reports that led him to conclude that many matters had to be settled with the Soviets to prevent a third world war.

Churchill was further alarmed by the decision to allow the Soviets to take Berlin. He viewed the massive buildup of millions of troops there as a potential threat, believing that the Soviets may not stop their advance and keep driving into the western half of Germany and possibly beyond.

He sent a telegram to Roosevelt informing the American president of his concerns, but Roosevelt was not interested in Churchill’s fears. Roosevelt thought that at this stage, the war against Japan would drag on into 1946, and he was hoping Stalin would declare war on the Empire of Japan and help defeat America’s enemy in the East.

He flatly refused to entertain Churchill’s notions and told the British prime minister that while they may be allies, the United States would never help Britain “hold on to its archaic, medieval empire.”

In April, Roosevelt died and was succeeded by Harry S. Truman. As Churchill discovered, Truman took a harder line with Stalin, and the British prime minister was delighted that the United States commander-in-chief now shared a similar vision. Truman’s stance, however, would be reined in by the State Department, which thought it better to avoid stoking the fires of conflict with the Soviet Union at this point.

As the war came to a close, there were fears on the front lines as well. In the north of Germany, the Allies received unconfirmed reports of Soviet paratrooper landings in Denmark. Naturally, these reports were relayed back to Churchill.

In addition, Churchill was, at this point, receiving many reports of widespread rape and destruction caused by Soviet troops in Berlin as well as in other territories occupied by the Soviets.

Another factor influencing Churchill to investigate further action was the stripping of factories in Germany and Eastern Europe of parts that were taken back to the Soviet Union. These actions were especially widespread in Poland, and it proved to Churchill that Stalin was not upholding his end of the deal struck in Yalta earlier that year.

It became plainly obvious that Stalin had no intention of allowing Poland to return to democracy, as the Western Allies had wished.

Military Considerations

It was clear that if the plan went ahead, the Western Allies would be outnumbered in virtually all military areas. By June 1, it was estimated that the Allies would have only 80 infantry divisions to oppose the Soviet’s 228. In terms of armored divisions, the Allies had 20 and the Soviet’s 36.

The Allies would also be outnumbered in the air. The Soviets had an estimated 13,000 aircraft of all types, while the Allies had just under 9,000.

In addition to these numbers, it was clear that while the Soviets had lost millions of troops in the first stages of the war, by the end of the war, they had achieved parity with the German capabilities. The Soviet army had gone from strength to strength and was highly motivated, well-trained, and extremely effective.

Required Circumstances

Of course, launching a war directly after the end of the most devastating war in history was not an issue that was approached with any degree of nonchalance. The Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up a list of circumstances that had to be met before any casus belli could be declared.

It was assumed that since the Soviet Union had not declared war on Japan yet, Stalin would ally the Soviet Union with Japan instead. The likelihood of this was a real consideration that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to consider, and thus, it became a prerequisite for opening Western Allied hostilities against the Soviet Union.

It was also necessary to ensure the reliability of the alliances. The United Kingdom and the United States were expected to provide the bulk of the fighting force, which would be augmented by Canadian and German divisions. It was also necessary to attain assurances from the Poles that they would rise up against the Soviets.

Military considerations aside, it was also necessary to gain the full support of the British and American public. This requirement was highly unlikely to be met. Although aware of the danger the Soviets posed, it is unlikely that the majority of the populations would have supported a continuation of hostilities, especially in the United Kingdom, where the war had taken a terrible toll.

The Proposed Attack