Phalaris of Acragas: Tyrant, Innovator, and the Legend of the Brazen Bull

In the sun-scorched landscape of ancient Sicily, where Greek city-states flourished along the coastlines, one ruler's name echoed through time with a mix of awe and horror: Phalaris of Acragas (c. 570–554 BCE). Remembered by posterity as a brutal tyrant and the alleged sponsor of the inventor of one of antiquity's most diabolical execution devices, the Brazen Bull, Phalaris remains a figure of historical fascination and moral caution.

However, beyond the terrifying legends lies a ruler whose story is more nuanced than mere cruelty. A statesman, city-builder, and patron of the arts, Phalaris embodied the complex duality of many early tyrants: ruthless in power, yet vital to the progress of the cities they ruled.

Terry Bailey explains.

Phalaris condemning the sculptor Perillus to the Bronze Bull. By Pierre Woeiriot.

Rise to power

Phalaris rose to prominence in Acragas (modern-day Agrigento), one of the most powerful and prosperous cities in ancient Sicily. Originally from Astypalaia, an island in the Aegean Sea, Phalaris settled in Acragas and quickly ascended the ranks of civic life. According to later tradition, he was entrusted with building a temple to Zeus Atabyrios, but instead used the opportunity to take control of the city's military and seize power for himself.

In doing so, he became part of a broader Sicilian phenomenon, the rise of Greek tyrants. Unlike the modern sense of the word, a tyrannos in archaic Greece was often a populist strongman who seized power outside traditional aristocratic channels. Some, like Phalaris, were known for oppressive rule, while others gained support by curbing elite privilege.

Architect of a New Acragas

Despite his fearsome reputation, Phalaris was also a capable administrator. He fortified the city's defenses, improved its infrastructure, and helped elevate Acragas into a regional power. According to later writers, he was especially focused on agricultural reform and encouraged the cultivation of the rich Sicilian soil. His rule brought both political stability and economic growth.

Some ancient sources even suggest he was a patron of the arts and letters. A curious collection of epistolary forgeries, letters once attributed to Phalaris presents him as a philosophical and moral thinker. Though these letters are almost certainly fabricated, later (notably debunked by Richard Bentley in the 17th century), they testify to Phalaris's long-lasting reputation and the effort by some to recast him in a more flattering light.

The Brazen Bull

What truly cemented Phalaris in historical infamy, however, was the terrifying story of the Brazen Bull, a hollow bronze sculpture in the shape of a bull, into which victims were locked and roasted alive over a fire. Ingeniously cruel, the bull's design reportedly converted the screams of the victim into the sound of a bellowing beast through an intricate system of pipes.

According to legend, the device was invented by a sculptor named Perillos of Athens, who offered it to Phalaris as a tool of punishment. In a gruesome twist of poetic justice, Phalaris allegedly ordered Perillos to be the bull's first occupant, testing the invention on its designer.

Was the Brazen Bull real? While vivid in the writings of ancient historians like Diodorus Siculus and Pindar, many modern scholars believe the tale is likely exaggerated, or even fabricated entirely, to demonize Phalaris. Stories of tyrants from antiquity were often shaped by moral agendas and political biases, with later democratic writers eager to portray tyranny in the blackest terms.

Downfall and death

Phalaris's reign came to a violent end after about sixteen years. Around 554 BCE, he was overthrown in a popular uprising, led by the people of Acragas and supported by Telemachus, a descendant of the city's founder. In a final twist of irony befitting his legend, Phalaris himself is said to have perished inside the Brazen Bull, consumed by the very instrument of terror he wielded against others. This story, too, may be apocryphal, but it perfectly encapsulates the moral, tale and nature of his myth: live by cruelty, die by cruelty.

Phalaris occupies an ambiguous space in history. To ancient moralists, he was the quintessential tyrant, proof of what happens when absolute power corrupts absolutely. To others, he was a cunning statesman who laid the foundations for Acragas's later prosperity. Interestingly, in the second century CE, the satirist Lucian of Samosata revisited the story of Phalaris and the Brazen Bull in his dialogue Phalaris, inviting readers to question the veracity of the gruesome tales and explore the complexities of tyranny and justice.

Phalaris's life may remain obscured by legend, but his name endures, a potent reminder of how power, when unchecked by ethics, can lead to both monumental achievement and monstrous cruelty.

Was Phalaris a brutal tyrant or a misunderstood ruler tarnished by propaganda? Perhaps he was both. In the end, his story serves not only as a reflection on the ancient world's fascination with cruelty and spectacle but also as a timeless meditation on leadership, justice, and the shadow side of human ambition. Whatever the truth behind the Brazen Bull, Phalaris of Acragas has secured his place in the eternal forge of history, where myth, morality, and memory melt together into legend.

In conclusion, Phalaris of Acragas stands at the crossroads of myth and history, his legacy forged as much by the imaginations of ancient writers as by the realities of his rule. Whether he truly commissioned the gruesome Brazen Bull or not, his name became synonymous with tyranny and cruelty, yet this image, sharpened by centuries of moral storytelling, obscures a more intricate portrait. Here was a man who, despite, or perhaps because of his ruthless ascent, ushered in a period of growth and stability for Acragas, leaving behind not only chilling legends but also civic advancements that would shape the city's future.

In many ways, Phalaris embodies the paradox of power in the ancient world: a figure both feared and respected, condemned and celebrated. His life invites a questioning of where the line lies between historical truth and narrative convenience, between leadership and despotism. That his story continues to provoke reflection nearly two and a half millennia later speaks to its enduring relevance.

Phalaris's legacy, then, is not merely a tale of horror, but a mirror held up to humanity's eternal struggle with authority, ambition, and the morality of rule. In the flickering heat of Sicily's past, his legend still burns, a bronze echo of the enduring tension between greatness and cruelty.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes

Brazen Bull, real or false

Arguments for the Brazen Bull being real:

Multiple ancient sources:

Ancient writers Diodorus Siculus, Lucian, and Pindar mention the Brazen Bull. While the stories differ in details, the consistent appearance of this legend across sources suggests a kernel of truth or a long-standing oral tradition.

Consistency in ancient descriptions: The way the device is described, complete with acoustic pipes and a smoke vent through the nostrils, suggests a relatively advanced understanding of sound manipulation and metallurgy. That kind of detail implies some grounding in real craftsmanship.

Historical context of cruelty: The ancient world was no stranger to brutality, crucifixion, impalement, and flaying are well-documented. Phalaris was historically portrayed as a cruel despot, and tyrants often used symbolic executions to instill fear. A bronze bull may have served as both torture and terrifying propaganda.

Execution as spectacle: Public executions often had performative elements. A metal bull that turned screams into animalistic bellows could have been designed for theatrical effect to intimidate enemies and subdue dissent.

Arguments for the Brazen Bull being false or exaggerated

Lack of archaeological evidence

No physical remains of a Brazen Bull have ever been found at Akragas or elsewhere. If such an elaborate device were real and widely used, one might expect some physical trace or copy, especially in regions known for elaborate executions.

Mythical tone and moral storytelling: The story of Perillos being tricked into entering the device he invented is suspiciously allegorical, it fits the mold of poetic justice tales in Greek literature. The narrative may have been invented to criticize hubris or tyranny rather than to recount an actual historical event.

Propaganda against Phalaris: Much of what we know about Phalaris comes from his enemies and later authors. Tyrants were often vilified after their deaths with exaggerated tales. The Brazen Bull may be part of a literary character assassination campaign to make Phalaris appear monstrously inhuman.

Unrealistic engineering: While possible in theory, creating a device that transforms screams into convincing bull-like sounds is not trivial. The idea that acoustics could be fine-tuned to this degree with ancient metallurgy might be more fantasy than fact.

Roman and later embellishments: Writers like Lucian and later Christian authors retold and amplified the Brazen Bull story to emphasize the cruelty of pagans. Some tales link it to Christian martyrdom, further suggesting that the story evolved with dramatic additions over time.

Verdict: A real device or a literary monster?

There's no definitive answer. The Brazen Bull could have existed, as a one-off device, a terrifying symbol of Phalaris's rule. However, it's also quite likely that the story was exaggerated or fabricated by moralists, poets, or political enemies to make a tyrant's cruelty seem grotesque.

If real, it shows the dark ingenuity of ancient execution methods.

If false, it demonstrates how myth and propaganda shaped reputations across history.

Needless to say, without physical evidence, the answer will probably never be known, what is more likely, is that the truth falls somewhere between the two diametrically opposed points of view.

Tyrant

The word "tyrant, (týrannos, (ancient Greek, τύραννος)), was originally defined as an absolute ruler, not necessarily a cruel one. Only later did the word take on the negative meaning of a harsh or oppressive ruler.

The Wartime SAS Legend in the Postwar Period: David Stirling

The story of David Stirling is well known. He was one of the founders of the SAS, and he owned a wartime reputation as the Phantom Major which has been written about at length. To this day this legendary status persists although some writers now doubt the authenticity of some of those wartime claims. Stirling’s wartime experience was cut short when he was captured by the Germans in 1943 and endured an extended period of incarceration in Navi Prison Camp and in the infamous Colditz Castle. After the war he left the Army in 1947 but retrained to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the reserves until 1965. This article is primarily about Stirling’s life and career after the Second World War.

Steve Prout explains.

David Stirling during World War 2.

Liberation and return to England

Following liberation from his wartime captivity, Striling returned to England. He played no further part in the SAS or indeed any other active service. His tried numerous attempts to rejoin his regiment but he was unsuccessful, meeting subtle rejection from senor military command. He tried unsuccessfully to use some of his more influential contacts such as Randolph and Winston Churchill to argue his case, but again this was without success. His political connections had lost their value because Churchill had now lost the 1945 election to Clement Atlee and now no longer held power.

None of this prevented Stirling from trying to get back into his old fold but times had moved on. Whilst the war with Japan was continuing he presented plans to create a new branch of the SAS trained specifically to fight in Asia where the war with Japan continued. Without doubt he viewed that theatre of war as his last chance of action and to prove himself.

The proposal was to create and train a specific unit comprising of US personnel to operate inside China using tactics he adopted during his time on SAS operations. This plan however was not enthusiastically received by his superiors. Mountbatten, the Supreme Allied Commander, of British forces in East Asia did not see the value in Stirling’s proposal and his opinions held the most weight. Although there was some marginal support from a Major General Richard Gale of the US 1st Airbourne Corps, the idea never progressed. Stirling’s military career and his part in the war was now finished. It was time to redefine himself.

Creating a Legend

David Stirling was to become more widely known as the Phantom Major. It was not until the late 1950s that the legend of David Stirling, The Phantom Major was created and firmly established in the public’s eye and imagination. Up until now his wartime exploits were limited to a scattering of wartime newspaper articles and little more but he would now recycle those stories and with the help of an author create that legend. After the death of fellow SAS member and legend Paddy Mayne, there was an opportune moment to create this new image without any serious challenge to the authenticity of those accounts.

It was American writer and journalist Virginia Cowles, an American who published the book “The Phantom Major” in May 1958, who created Stirling’s reinvention. Several critics were not convinced about Stirling’s claims, which some would later point out contained various deliberate omissions in his accounts and elaborations. Many close to Stirling, like his brother Bill and his mother, chose to remain silent on the topic. The controversies of David Stirling’s SAS career are covered in some depth in “The Phoney Major” and is not the focus here.

Although the book received some criticism by eminent military historians such as Liddell-Hart, none of this mattered as the book captured the imagination and approval of its intended audience, the British public. Either way a legend was created and Stirling’s career in the following decades then took some quite different twists and turns, none stranger that Capricorn Africa and GB75.

Capricorn Africa

Stirling first went into business by establishing two fish and chip shops that allegedly employed former service men, and both ventures were short lived and unsuccessful. Stirling then emigrated to Rhodesia where he chased a variety of business opportunities. He also needed to find his own success story and make a name for himself because he always felt overshadowed by his brother Bill Stirling. To exacerbate matters he initially needed the financial support of his more successful brother. This need for support would persist quietly.

Once he arrived in Africa 1949 Stirling co-founded the Capricorn Africa Society. Its aim was to fight racial discrimination in Africa. This goal and the organizations other goals were overly ambitious. The organization did not get any support from the government at the time and Britain was still clinging to its last colonial possessions and an empire that which was fast becoming untenable. External matters would continually challenge the organization. However, there were internal issues too.

The mission of Capricorn Africa was too grandiose to ever expect success. The organization’s manifesto in 1952 stated that the prime objective was to abolish racial discrimination on all levels. Secondly, to preserve what is best in the culture of all races. Thirdly, establish common patriotism for all races. Fourthly, secure the adoption of a written constitution. These nebulous goals were backed by a claim that “all men whatever race are born equal in dignity.”  These were all commendable, but the organization had no plan or support to achieve this.

There were also doubts on Stirling’s ability to carry this scheme through. Furthermore, there existed a general suspicion by Africans that this was an elaborate plan for the British to maintain its colonial hold in Africa. By 1954 Stirling, once a media wartime favorite, was faced with numerous unfavorable criticisms that his “head was in the clouds” and he was “not the right man for freedom in Africa”. Various newspapers such as The Times published the opinion that the aims of this society were simply a veneer for an “Empire Building Project” which “did not have the best of intentions for Africa.” The plan was big in so much as it wanted to incorporate twenty-five million Africans of Rhodesia, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika into one national state. It was incredulous. It was grandiose. It was unwelcome by the Africans, and it was too overly complex. It was above all impossible.

Within the organization the members had different ideas on what defined equality and what qualified the ordinary African for enfranchisement. Some in the organization declared quite arrogantly that the African had to be “deemed civilized” before any semblance of equality or the entitlement to vote could even be considered or granted. Obviously, this offensive statement evoked old imperial condescension and immediately derailed any genuine attempts to change Africa’s future not least win any support, if indeed the plans had any genuine buy in from the onset. Whether Stirling truly was on board with the concept, or it was to serve his own vanity we will never know but the whole project quickly failed with Stirling’s resignation as Chairman in 1959. The Organization soon disbanded to no surprise. Stirling would later admit to journalist Gavin Young that his decade that he spent in Rhodesia achieved nothing. In his own words “Capricorn was Utopia. Almost Walter Mitty.” He concluded by admitting, “We were a total failure.” Stirling turned his attention to something else with which he was familiar.

Military Contracting (PMC) and Watchguard International Ltd

Stirling next entered the world of private military contracting or to be more precise he developed the concept itself. He was credited by Christian Baghai as the founder of Private Military Contracting, an industry that that has grown in recent years and is now a billion-dollar business used by all military organizations and governments alike. Ukraine’s current war gives us a recent example with the questionable use of the Russian Wagner Group and the USA has Acadami (formerly Blackwater). Currently this industry is worth now $224 billion with expansion set to double. This industry all started with David Stirling.

Stirling formed other organizations such as KAS International and KAS Enterprises, all of which took advantage and profited from the political upheaval of the post-colonial situation in Africa and the knock-on effect of the Cold War. Military services were now about to become privatized. Africa and the Middle East would be Stirling’s primary focus for his organizations.

His most renowned creation was the company called Watchguard International Ltd. This was formed in 1965 along with fellow director John Woodhouse (also an SAS veteran) and was based out of Sloane Square, London. Watchguard lasted until 1972 when Woodhouse resigned following a disagreement with Stirling. The companies first assignment was in Yemen. At the time Yemen was in the throes of civil war. The task for Watchguard was not so much combative but to observe, report and advise on the condition of the Yemen’s Royalist forces. John Woodhouse was sent by Stirling to tend to this task. Simultaneously, Stirling was also secretly networking with Iranian officials for assignments, as the country was also in a state of turmoil. However, such is the secrecy of this industry the exact details are not known but the salient point is the genus of a new industry that grew far beyond no doubt even David Stirling’s expectations.

Over time Stirling would become involved in all kinds of activities such as brokering arms deals in the Gulf states and training forces in Zambia and Sierra Leone. The specific details behind these operations will never be known with any certainty. Of course, PMC activity attracts various opinions concerning ethical matters and Stirling did not escape that as we will see later.

At one point Stirling’s activities in Yemen 1966 irked members of the British Royal family and earned him the disdain of the SAS who did not welcome the publicity from his activities. This incident took place during a flight from Yemen where Stirling created a furor over the Sultan receiving a second-class seat on a flight to Britain whilst on the same flight Princess Maragaret was present in first class. He termed it a snub without properly establishing the facts and caused an embarrassment in high social circles. It was one of many faux pas he would be notorious for.

.

The Libyan Affair

In 1970 Stirling became involved with a plot to destabilize and remove Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (1942-2011) who had just taken power. At the time, the West was not certain if Libya’s leader remaining in power would serve the interests of the Western world. According to later sources, the CIA and MI6 had requested that a group of mercenaries set about the task of removing the Libyan dictator. By using mercenaries, the CIA and MI6 could typically deny all culpability and involvement, at least at a certain level.

According to an account by a Peter McAleese who served in the SAS in the 1960s, twenty mercenaries gathered in a Knightsbridge flat in summer 1970. The plans were presented by Stirling to his chosen men. They were to land on Libyan shores by boat from Italy and make their way to Tripoli. They were then then to carry out an assault on a specific location which was at a prison called “the Hilton.” The objective was the liberation of one hundred and fifty imprisoned political prisoners who, once liberated, would set in motion a chain of events to oust the new leader.

The US subsequently changed its mind after they realized that Gaddafi was just as hostile to the USSR as he was the West, at least that was the “lie of the land” in 1970 - the situation would dramatically change in the 1980s. Rather than risk further instability and potential Soviet influence the USA decided the Libyan dictator should be left alone and the regime should be left to its own devices and ordered the mission be abandoned. The British and MI6 decided otherwise and proceeded with developing the plan with the French. The whole matter was kept quietly concealed.

Stirling allegedly was not so discreet and at Whites gentlemen’s club in London was openly sharing the details of this operation. In December 1970, the British, following Stirling’s indiscretions, were forced to call off the operation, but Stirling proceeded nonetheless. The whole affair was halted by Italian authorities in January 1971. The boat was seized and the men detained. By now Stirling had irked the combined patience of MI6, the CIA and Mossad. Three years later, in May 1973, this debacle was exposed in the Observer newspaper. Stirling did not cover himself in glory, but worse reputational damage was still to come.

His activities in his Private Military enterprises did not attract the approval of the very organization he founded, the SAS. In the 1970s the reputation of that organization reached a low point. Incidents in Northern Ireland had given certain newspapers and the left wing of British politics ample material to accuse the SAS of being government assassins and accusing them of being above accountability, an accusation that was naturally denied. However, Stirling’s preference for hiring ex-SAS personnel and in some cases and sometimes serving officers for his PMC assignments did not help. It merely put his own coveted regiment on a par with hired mercenaries in the public mind much to the chagrin of his former regiment. The regiment was tarnished with a mockery of its own motto “Who Pays, Wins.”

GB75

GB75 was another proposal of David Stirling devised in the summer of 1974. It was a proposal to counter suspected left wing insurrectionist organizations or at least certain sections who genuinely believed that they existed. Britain was becoming subjected to regular trade union strikes and the disruption that ensued was causing alarm. Those with political right-wing tendencies believed that the country was on the brink of insurrection and the Labour Government under Wilson had lost all control. Trade Unions, it seemed, had the country in a vulnerable position.

Stirling was one those who believed that this was the case and GB75 was his response. It caused a stir. Stirling’s plan was simple, the organization was to recruit handpicked likeminded individuals that would be ready to stand by to ensure the continuation of essential services by seizing (in an unspecified manner) and maintain sections of the country’s infrastructure such as the power stations. In some minds the country was on the brink of a form of anarchy. It was truly a bizarre time in British modern history. Of course, nothing of the sort transpired.

The public perception of this organization blew out of all proportion. It was inaccurately reported that the aim of Stirling’s GB75 was to remove the Labour government, which was viewed as a destabilizing presence to the status quo, replace it with a provisional ruling body (unspecified) and undermine the growing power of the Trade Unions. This view, which was leaked to the British newspapers, was a combination of fear and overactive imaginations. Striling was forced to go the press and clarify his position. This can still be found and listened to today. The interview went as follows (word for word):

"Our plan is limited....and this has always been stated to provide Government, to make available to government, whatever type of Government it is... Socialist, or Liberal, or Conservative, or coalition.... with volunteers, trained and capable of running the minimum power required out of the generating stations to keep certain essential basic services going. They would, of course, act under police escort. And we would not, or course, make a move...and some of the papers have deliberately ignored this... until we had been invited to do so by the Government of the day. Now what we propose to do, as I say, is to have enough trained volunteers to cope with sewage disposal...nobody wants that on the streets while they are negotiating with the trade unions…to keep the water supply going...being pumped. And we would hope to help maintain the refrigeration at the major food depots in the country. I do not expect to be able to cope effectively until toward the end of December. I believe that the crunch is expected to come some time in February or March."

This emergency never happened and so GB75 never came to be nor had it any chance of becoming mobilized. The British Conservative Party did not welcome Stirling’s proposals, and this was simply another example of his established track record of embarrassing the British Government. Only a small minority of Conservatives, who happened to be friends of Stirling’s, supported him. Fearing political isolation and further fading of his albeit diminished political currency, Stirling resigned. The organization continued without him until the following year in 1975.

Stirling would involve himself further in other organizations along a similar theme such as TRUEMID (Movement for True Industrial Democracy) and the Better Britain Society that promoted ambitious but nebulous aims such as Trade Union Control and Constitutional changes. All of this was above Stirling’s head and his competency. None of these originations gained any momentum or traction. This cemented Gavin Young’s opinion that Stirling’s ideas “seem a bit dotty” echoing Field Marshall Montgomery’s wartime assessment of Stirling being “mad, quite mad.” Nevertheless, his legend in the common man’s eye still lay intact.

Into retirement

In the final decade before his death in the 1980s David Stirling penned a few forewords in various publications. It was a last effort to keep his legend alive on the back of the successes his former regiment earned in the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 and the Falklands War two years later. His authority on the subjects began to be questioned and doubted but his legendary status was now fully entrenched and solid in the public eye. Such books included Parachute Padre and Rogue Warrior: The Blair Mayne Legend (to which Stirling’s wording was restrained for fear of diminishing his own precariously shining light).

There were further failed operations with one of his other enterprises, KAS Enterprises. He was tasked in 1987 by Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, also president of the World Wildlife Fund, to investigate and tackle the illegal hunting of rhinoceros horns. It required the skills of such experienced SAS men. After being funded half a million pounds the whole operation failed dismally, leaving various questions on missing funds, equipment and of course the fate of the rhino horns. In 1989 after its sponsor, Prince Bernhard, withdrew support the company folded with a report citing these dubious circumstances. Allegedly Stirling himself lost significant amounts of his own money, closing off yet again another unsuccessful adventure to his career.

Conclusion

The post war era did little to David Stirling’s career or reputation. His failures clearly hurt his ego, and his one compensation was to create himself as a legend. The authenticity of this legendary status has since been challenged, especially in the publication of the book “The Phantom Major.”

He was a complex man. He has been labelled as a hero, legend, narcissist, failure, success, dangerous, mad, and dotty. Anyone can and everyone does have a perspective. Certainly, he was not shy to publicity in conflict with the values of the SAS, his very organization. This clearly irked them as it does today, when former serving soldiers make public revelations.

Success eluded Stirling as the post war decades rolled on. His attempts to re-enter his regiment failed and subsequent socio-political ventures were unsuccessful such as Capricorn Africa. His greatest success in the post war world was the establishment of Watchguard International Ltd. It marked the beginning of Private Military Contracting. Despite the ethical and moral criticisms, he once again pioneered a new way of miliary thinking – The Private Military Contractor Industry. That industry would proceed to grow beyond all expectations long after Stirling’s death and participate in modern warfare. Stirling only witnesses his failures - he did not live long enough to see this industry grow.

Stirling was awarded the Knights Bachelor in 1990 that he could add to his OBE from 1946. He was a complex man whom history holds a bloated version and his achievements. Some hold negative views of him and question the veracity of his accomplishments. None the less his contribution to SAS history prevails.

In the 1980s he struggled to maintain his relevancy by relying on his well-worn self-created legend, a legend that either some doubt or temper according to new revelations. No matter the view or how much or little the role he played, he was part of the genesis of the SAS. Shortly after he was awarded the Knights Bachelor, he sadly passed away with his place in history be it controversial, questionable, or otherwise assured. His life after the war was an interesting one.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

The Phantom Major

David Stirling and the Genesis of Private Military Companies – Christian Baghai May 2023 _ Medium Website Blog

Terry Aspinall Remembers – www.mercenary wars.co.uk

The Black Market for Force - War History Website

Endangered Archives Programme – Capricorn Africa (1952-57) – eap.bl.uk

Capricorn-David Stirling’s Second African Campaign – Richard Hughes – Radcliffe Pres 2003

Major General James Wilson – An Indispensable Man in the U.S. Civil War

Major General James Harrison Wilson served as a Union officer whose impact was felt in various capacities, particularly as an engineer, staff officer, and later as a skilled cavalry leader during the latter stages of the Civil War. His contributions often go unnoticed, despite his involvement in several pivotal roles that exemplify the capabilities of high-ranking Union officers.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Major General James Wilson.

Born on September 2, 1837, in Illinois, Wilson graduated sixth in his class from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1860. He began his military career as a second lieutenant in the Topographical Engineers, receiving his initial assignment in the Department of Oregon.

Corps of Topographical Engineers

To fully appreciate Wilson's career shifts and achievements across seemingly unrelated positions, it is crucial to understand the role of topographical engineers. Upon graduating from West Point, he joined a prestigious and select army service. Being chosen for this Corps indicated a high level of skill and promise. Topographical engineers were tasked with producing intricate maps of battlefields and terrain, providing vital information for troop movements and strategic planning. Their responsibilities included surveying land to pinpoint advantageous locations for artillery and defensive structures, as well as overseeing the construction of fortifications and military roads. The maps they generated were essential for organizing supply routes and transportation, significantly influencing the strategies and outcomes of numerous battles by guiding commanders' decisions.

In times of peace, this specialized group was engaged in various critical infrastructure projects, such as building bridges, supervising lighthouse construction, maintaining harbors, and managing fortifications. With the onset of the Civil War, many members transitioned into combat roles, focusing on the development of entrenchments and fortifications while also creating essential maps. Their extensive experience in construction provided them with a solid foundation for making strategic decisions in the heat of battle. Notable Army Engineers from this era included figures such as George Meade, George McClellan, Andrew Humphreys, Robert E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard, and Gouverneur Warren.

The expertise of topographical engineers was not only vital during peacetime but became even more pronounced during wartime, as their skills directly contributed to military effectiveness. Their ability to assess and manipulate the landscape for military advantage played a crucial role in shaping the outcomes of engagements. As they adapted to the demands of combat, their contributions to both engineering and military strategy underscored the importance of their work in the broader context of the war. This unique blend of skills and experiences allowed individuals like Wilson to navigate diverse roles throughout their careers successfully.

Civil War 1861-Early 1864

As the Civil War began, he advanced to the rank of first lieutenant and took on the role of topographical engineer for the Port Royal Expeditionary Force. His involvement in the Battle of Fort Pulaski led to his promotion to major. Subsequently, he was assigned to the Army of the Potomac, where he served as aide de camp to Major General George McClellan while also fulfilling engineering duties. In this capacity, he participated in significant battles, including South Mountain and Antietam.

 Following McClellan's dismissal, he was reassigned to the Western Theater, joining Grant's Army of the Tennessee as a lieutenant colonel and engineer. During the Vicksburg Campaign, he held the crucial position of inspector general, overseeing the army's inventory and supplies. Given Grant's limited logistical expertise, he relied heavily on officers like Wilson to ensure that the campaign was well-supplied with food, ammunition, and equipment. The extensive supply line stretching from Jackson across the Mississippi River to St. Louis underscored the significant responsibilities entrusted to Wilson.

After the successful siege of Vicksburg, he was elevated to the rank of brigadier general of volunteers and continued to serve in staff roles during the Battle of Chattanooga. He was later appointed as the chief engineer for the forces dispatched to support Knoxville under Major General William T. Sherman. Throughout these various non-combat roles, it is evident that he was entrusted with substantial administrative responsibilities that were vital to military command and strategic planning. In 1864, he became the chief of the Cavalry Bureau, demonstrating his exceptional skills as an administrator.

In mid-January 1864, Wilson was appointed as the head of the newly established Cavalry Bureau, following a recommendation from Grant. He took on the challenge of transforming this previously ineffective and disorganized administrative office, which had been burdened by bureaucratic inefficiencies and outdated practices, into a well-functioning, resourceful, and reputable agency. Wilson dedicated himself fully to this role, maintaining a rigorous schedule from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. daily, and often utilized his free time to ride along the capital’s defensive lines, engaging in discussions about enhancing cavalry administration with Assistant Secretary Dana, who was residing in the same boarding house.

Promotion to Combat Duty

Perhaps unexpectedly, General Grant elevated Wilson to command a cavalry division under Sheridan. This promotion was particularly remarkable given that Wilson had no prior experience in combat or in leading troops. However, Grant's decision proved to be astute, as it allowed Wilson to apply his administrative skills in a new and challenging context.

He played a significant role in both the Overland Campaign and the Valley Campaign of 1864.  Although Wilson encountered significant challenges in his early combat assignments, such as at the Wilderness and Third Winchester, his enthusiasm, determination, and innovative ideas shone through. Despite making notable mistakes, his energetic approach and confidence played a crucial role in his development as a leader in the field.

The Chickahominy River Crossing

His cavalry division did not accompany Sheridan during the raid on Trevilian Station. Instead, he took the lead in crossing the Chickahominy River as part of the march towards the James River, aiming to create a diversion within the broader Union strategy. This maneuver was designed to facilitate a crossing of the James River and allow Union forces to position themselves south of Lee’s army. By coordinating with the V Corps, he launched an offensive towards Richmond, targeting areas north of the James River near McClellan's previous battlefields. This tactic misled Lee into believing that Grant's primary assault would occur there, ultimately granting Grant additional time to finalize the crossing and initiate the offensive on Petersburg.

Wilson’s cavalry division was assigned the critical role of probing the Confederate defenses, collecting intelligence, and disrupting their supply chains. This mission involved securing vital crossings along the Chickahominy River and providing support for Union infantry movements. Wilson’s troops played a significant role in securing essential fords and river crossings, which was crucial for the Union's ability to navigate the difficult terrain. The Chickahominy was notorious for its flooding and marshy surroundings, presenting unique challenges for cavalry operations.

The Wilson-Kautz Raid

The Wilson-Kautz Raid was a Union cavalry operation conducted during the Civil War from June 22 to July 1, 1864, as part of the Petersburg Campaign. The raid was led by Brigadier General James H. Wilson and Brigadier General August V. Kautz. Its primary goal was to disrupt Confederate supply lines by targeting key railroads supplying Petersburg and Richmond.

The Union army, under General Ulysses S. Grant, was besieging Petersburg, Virginia. The railroads supplying Confederate forces in Petersburg and Richmond were vital for their survival. The raid aimed to destroy sections of these railroads to sever supply routes and weaken Confederate resistance. The primary targets were the:

·      South Side Railroad

·      Richmond and Danville Railroad

·      Weldon Railroad

.These raids were integral to the overarching Union strategy, designed to undermine the logistical capabilities of the Confederacy. By disrupting these supply lines, Wilson's actions contributed to the Union's efforts to weaken the Confederate war effort significantly. Initially the raid was successful: They successfully destroyed large sections of the South Side Railroad and Richmond and Danville Railroad, burning bridges, tearing up tracks, and destroying supplies.:

The chief action in this raid was a pivotal confrontation near the Staunton River. This engagement was marked by strategic maneuvers and the involvement of various forces, highlighting the intensity of the conflict during that period. On June 22, 1864, Wilson initiated a cavalry raid aimed at crippling the South Side and Richmond & Danville railroads, with a particular focus on destroying the vital railroad bridge spanning the Staunton River. Over the course of the first three days, his cavalry successfully dismantled 60 miles of track, set fire to two trains, and destroyed several railroad stations. Despite the efforts of Confederate General W. H. F. "Rooney" Lee to pursue the Union forces, he was unable to effectively counter their actions.

The battle saw Captain Benjamin Farinholt rallying nearly 1,000 local volunteers, including older men and boys, to confront Wilson's 5,000 well-equipped troops. Although Wilson's cavalry engaged in the fight dismounted, they ultimately faced defeat as "Rooney" Lee's cavalry arrived towards the end of the skirmish, forcing Wilson's troops to retreat.

On their return, Wilson and Kautz’s forces were intercepted by Confederate forces at the Battle of Sappony Church (June 28) and the Battle of Ream’s Station (June 29). At Ream’s Station, the Union cavalry suffered heavy losses as they were cut off and forced to abandon many of their men, horses, and artillery.

The outcome of the raid overall must be considered a tactical loss. While the raid inflicted significant damage on Confederate railroads, much of it was quickly repaired. The Union cavalry suffered heavy casualties, with over 1,500 men killed, wounded, or captured. The raid temporarily disrupted Confederate supply lines and forced them to divert troops to defend railroads. However, it did not achieve its ultimate goal of crippling Confederate logistics.

Transfer to the Western Theater

Sherman had no good choices when it came time to select a cavalry leader for the campaign that would go into legend as the March to the Sea. He had decided on a top-to-bottom reorganization of the various mounted corps reporting to him and, characteristically, brought in an outsider, Major General James H. Wilson, for the job. He needed to keep Wilson in Tennessee accomplishing that task, so to command the mounted force that would accompany his foot soldiers, Sherman had to choose from the roster of officers who had already failed him one or more times. He settled on a candidate that most observers would have rated a long shot at best: Brigadier General H. Judson Kilpatrick.

Battle of Franklin

At the Battle of Franklin (November 30, 1864), Wilson commanded the Union cavalry, playing a key role in protecting the Union army’s flanks and contributing to the Union victory during this pivotal engagement of the Civil War. Securing the Union flanks during the battle was critical in preventing Confederate cavalry under Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest from outflanking or cutting off the Union forces.

Wilson’s cavalry actively skirmished with Forrest’s forces, keeping them occupied and preventing them from effectively supporting the Confederate infantry assault. Although Forrest was a formidable opponent, Wilson’s well-equipped and disciplined cavalry successfully countered his maneuvers, limiting Confederate mobility. After the Union forces repelled the Confederate frontal assault, Wilson’s cavalry played a crucial role in covering the Union army’s retreat to Nashville, ensuring an orderly withdrawal without significant Confederate interference.

Wilson’s effective cavalry operations helped secure the Union position and contributed to the overall Confederate failure. By neutralizing Forrest’s cavalry, Wilson ensured that the Union army could focus on repelling Hood’s infantry assault without the added threat of encirclement or disruption of supply lines. Wilson’s leadership and the performance of his cavalry at Franklin showcased the increasing effectiveness of Union cavalry forces late in the war, particularly in countering Confederate cavalry operations. Wilson is one of the few Union officers to beat Forrest in battle, and he would do so again near the end of the war.

A Different Conception of Cavalry

Brigadier General Emory Upton was elevated to the position of division commander under General Sheridan and tasked with leading the Valley Campaign against General Early. During the course of battle, he sustained a severe injury that nearly resulted in the loss of his leg. Although he received another promotion, he ultimately had to relinquish command of his division. Subsequently, he was reassigned to Nashville, where he collaborated with Major General James Wilson to create a fundamentally different type of military unit. Both Upton and Wilson were innovative and ambitious officers who significantly contributed to the evolution of the Union cavalry into a more formidable fighting force, each recognized for their progressive strategies in warfare. 2. The concept they developed centered around a mobile strike force, consisting of 12,000 infantry equipped with Spencer breech-loading rifles. The strategy involved mounting the infantry on horses to advance into battle, then dismounting to engage in combat as traditional infantry. Upton's approach was to extend his idea of rapid assaults on fortified positions to broader military operations, while Wilson possessed the tactical expertise to implement these strategies effectively. This innovative thinking marked a pivotal transformation in cavalry operations.

Wilson's forces were equipped with breech-loading repeating rifles and employed combined arms tactics effectively. They expanded from a brigade-sized cavalry unit, as utilized by Sheridan at the Battle of Booneville, to a full cavalry corps. This strategy involved a significant number of troops dismounting to engage the enemy while mounted forces executed flanking maneuvers or direct assaults. Sheridan had previously implemented similar tactics, combining infantry and cavalry, at key battles such as the 3rd Winchester, Fisher's Hill, and Five Forks. The essence of this approach lay in the integration of horse-mounted soldiers with repeating rifles or carbines, creating an unprecedented combination of mobility and firepower.

In conflicts where cavalry units were often underutilized, combined with infantry, or assigned to logistical roles, Wilson's tactics represented a significant departure from the norm.

Wilson believed that the seven-shot repeater would transform mounted combat, and he anticipated achieving remarkable success in the field with his thousands of Spencer-equipped troopers.

It's worth noting that Thomas' cavalry commander James Wilson started the war as a Grant protégé but after working under Thomas during those last few months of the war became a big advocate for Thomas.

Wilson’s Raid

Wilson mobilized his 13,480 cavalrymen independently, launching rapid raids against the economic hubs of the Deep South. Notably, regions from central Mississippi to central Georgia remained largely untouched even as the Civil War progressed. As a result, cities such as Selma and Montgomery in Alabama, along with Columbus in Georgia, continued to function as crucial shipping centers and significant sources of Confederate supplies.

Wilson's strategic objectives were twofold: to dismantle this essential supply chain and to thwart any potential Confederate efforts to establish a final stronghold in the region. He bolstered the Cavalry Corps with a substantial influx of remounts—35,000 since early March—alongside necessary equipment, ammunition, and hundreds of Spencer carbines. Wilson believed that the seven-shot repeater would transform mounted combat, and he anticipated achieving remarkable success in the field with his thousands of Spencer-equipped troopers.

He significantly enhanced the Cavalry Corps by introducing a considerable number of remounts—35,000 since early March—along with essential equipment, ammunition, and hundreds of Spencer carbines. On March 22, 1865, Wilson's forces departed from Tennessee and swiftly advanced through Alabama, systematically dismantling railroads, bridges, and factories along their path. By April 2, they had successfully captured Selma, a crucial industrial hub for the Confederacy, after overcoming Forrest’s troops in a fierce confrontation. This victory against Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the Confederacy's most adept cavalry leaders, effectively diminished Confederate cavalry strength in the area.

The destruction of Selma's foundries, arsenals, and military supplies marked a significant blow to the Confederate war effort. On April 12, Wilson's troops entered Montgomery, Alabama, the former Confederate capital, encountering little resistance. Following this, on April 16, they launched an assault on Columbus, Georgia, seizing the city and obliterating the naval shipyard along with other war-related industries. They also took control of West Point, Georgia, another vital supply center for the Confederacy. Wilson's forces maintained their aggressive campaign until the Confederate surrender in April 1865, capturing Macon, Georgia, on April 20, shortly after the war's official conclusion.

Wilson's Raid emerged as a crucial military initiative towards the end of the Civil War, designed to undermine Confederate resources significantly. This strategic operation dealt a severe blow to the South's remaining military capabilities by targeting and destroying key factories, railroads, and supplies essential to the Confederate effort. The raid hastened the collapse of the Confederacy in the Western Theater and was instrumental in achieving an overall Union victory. It is recognized as one of the most successful cavalry operations executed by Union forces during the war, highlighting their ability to penetrate deep into enemy territory and demonstrating the effectiveness of well-equipped, mobile cavalry units in dismantling Confederate infrastructure and resistance.

Wilson’s relentless cavalry pursuit was by far the longest pursuit of a defeated enemy of a defeated adversary during the Civil War, both in duration and distance. For twelve days, his forces engaged the Confederate rear guard, including encounters with Forrest's cavalry, as they advanced into Alabama. The pursuit was marked by continuous rear guard skirmishes, often occurring in challenging weather conditions and difficult terrain. It was only when the pursuit became untenable that Wilson's cavalry made the decision to return to Nashville.

By the conclusion of the war, the cavalry units under Wilson's command successfully apprehended key figures, including President Davis during his escape attempt and Captain Henry Wirz, the commandant of Andersonville prison. Additionally, Upton played a significant role in capturing Alexander Stephens, further highlighting the effectiveness of their operations. These actions underscored the strategic importance of cavalry in the final stages of the conflict.

Implications

Wilson's Corps emerged as a precursor to the highly mobile armored warfare tactics that would define the Twentieth Century. Troops utilized their horses for mobility but typically engaged in combat dismounted, leveraging the advantages of their repeating carbines to enhance their combat effectiveness. Both Wilson and Upton enjoyed distinguished careers after the war, with Upton becoming a military reformer and theorist, while Wilson transitioned into a general, diplomat, and historian. Their innovative concepts laid the groundwork for modern military strategies, influencing the use of combined arms and mobile strike forces that would be pivotal in future conflicts, including those in Europe, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.

After the war, Wilson returned to a career in engineering and railroads. His later career as a division and Corps Commander in the Spanish-American War and the Peking expedition during the Boxer rebellion adds to his very remarkable career.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Polycrates of Samos: The Tyrant who Courted Fortune and Tempted Fate

In the swirling mists of early 6th century BCE Greek history, few figures shine brightly and fall as dramatically as Polycrates of Samos. His life reads like a tragic play, a meteoric rise to power, an era of unprecedented maritime dominance, cultural patronage that rivalled Athens, and ultimately, betrayal and death. Charismatic and cunning, ruthless yet visionary, Polycrates embodied the paradoxes of tyranny in ancient Greece. His story not only reveals the ambitions and anxieties of a Hellenic tyrant but also the fragile balance between power and hubris in the ancient world.

Terry Bailey explains.

Polycrates' Crucifixion by Salvator Rosa, circa 1664.

The Maritime Tyrant

Born around 538 BCE into the ruling elite of Samos, an island in the eastern Aegean Sea, Polycrates seized power during a time of political unrest. By 538 BCE, he had taken control of the island alongside his two brothers, Pantagnotus and Syloson, however, Polycrates was never one to share. Within a few years, he had orchestrated the exile and death of his siblings and became the sole ruler, a classic tyrant in the mold of his contemporaries, but more daring than most.

What set Polycrates apart was his bold vision of turning Samos from a minor island power into a dominant naval and commercial force in the Aegean. In a world where most tyrannies were land-based, Polycrates built his power upon the sea.

Naval Supremacy

Polycrates is best known for assembling one of the most powerful navies in the Greek world. According to Herodotus, he commanded 100 pentekonters (50-oared ships), a formidable force that allowed him to dominate the eastern Mediterranean. His fleet brought Samos wealth through trade and piracy, extending his influence beyond the island's shores.

This wealth allowed Polycrates to pour resources into cultural and architectural projects. The most famous is the Heraion, a grand sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Hera. The temple, with its massive columns and intricate sculptures, was considered a marvel of the ancient Greek world. It symbolized not only devotion to the gods but the reach and sophistication of Samian society under his reign.

Additionally, it was one most important ancient sanctuaries dedicated to the goddess Hera, the queen of the Olympian gods in Greek mythology. It was located near the ancient mouth of the Imbrasos River, where legend claimed Hera was born under a lygos tree. The sanctuary became a major center of worship from the early Iron Age, growing in prestige and architectural grandeur throughout the Archaic and Classical periods.

The centerpiece of the sanctuary was the great Temple of Hera, an ambitious structure that went through multiple phases of construction. The most famous version, built around 570 BCE by the architects Rhoikos and Theodoros was among the first of the colossal Ionic temples in the Greek world. This temple featured 155 columns, some of which stood over 20 meters tall, making it one of the earliest and largest dipteral temples, (with two rows of columns surrounding the cella). Although it was destroyed by an earthquake and fire before completion, its scale and technical innovation demonstrated the wealth and ambition of Samos at the time.

Excavations at the Heraion have revealed rich offerings made to the goddess, including jeweler, statues, weapons, and even imported artefacts from Egypt and the Near East. These finds reflect not only religious devotion but also Samos's status as a significant player in Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean trade networks. The sanctuary's importance continued through the Classical and Hellenistic periods, although its influence waned under Roman rule. Today, the site is recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, offering insight into ancient Greek religion, architecture, and the cultural connections of early Greece.

In addition to, the marvel of Heraion, Polycrates was instrumental in ordering the construction of the aqueduct known as the Tunnel of Eupalinos an engineering marvel of the ancient world, a tunnel over 1,000 meters long which was dug through Mount Kastro to supply water to the city. Designed by the engineer Eupalinos of Megara, the tunnel was dug from both ends simultaneously and met in the middle with astonishing accuracy. It remains one of the most extraordinary feats of pre-modern engineering and is considered one of the most remarkable engineering feats of the ancient world. Its primary purpose was to serve as an aqueduct, bringing fresh water from a spring on Mount Kastro to the city of Samos, which faced threats of siege and needed a secure and hidden water supply. As indicated what made this engineering feat especially noteworthy is that it was excavated simultaneously from both ends, an extraordinary achievement in ancient engineering.

The engineer Eupalinos of Megara, had workers carve through solid limestone using basic hand tools such as hammers and chisels under his supervision. Eupalinos employed a clever geometric approach and advanced surveying techniques to ensure that the two teams of workers starting from opposite sides of the mountain would meet successfully in the middle. While they did not align perfectly in height or direction, the final connection was close enough to allow the project to succeed, with only a minor correction needed near the meeting point.

The tunnel functioned for centuries and stands today as proof of the ingenuity of ancient Greek engineering and mathematics. It is considered one of the earliest examples of applied geometry in large-scale civil construction and was described by Herodotus, who called it a marvel of its time. Today, the Tunnel of Eupalinos is not only a significant archaeological site but also a symbol of how ancient civilizations overcame complex technical challenges with creativity and precision.

Polycrates was also known as a patron of poets and intellectuals. His court hosted Anacreon, the lyric poet famed for his verses on love, wine and revelry, with the tradition of Anacreontic poetry endured in later Greek literature and beyond. Although the original corpus attributed to Anacreon was relatively small, his influence was significant, giving rise to a distinct poetic style characterized by light-hearted themes, charming simplicity, and musical cadence.

This style was imitated by many poets in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, reflecting a cultural appreciation for the refined pleasures of life and the human experience of love and aging.

In the post-Anacreontic period of Ancient Greece, poets increasingly turned toward the personal and the intimate, a shift that continued into the Hellenistic age. One notable development was the emergence of the so-called Anacreontea, a collection of short poems written in Anacreontic style by later, anonymous authors.

These were not written by Anacreon himself but maintained the tone, meter, and themes associated with his work. They often dealt with themes of erotic longing, the fleeting nature of youth, and indulgence in the joys of wine and song. These poems became popular in both the Greek and Roman worlds, and later even saw revival in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe.

Poets such as Callimachus and Theocritus, though more refined and intellectual in tone, drew upon the lyrical tradition that Anacreon had helped to shape. They contributed to a broader cultural movement that emphasized polished, crafted poetry over epic grandeur.

In this context, Anacreon's legacy lived on as part of a broader aesthetic turn toward the personal, the playful, and the urbane. His spirit found a new voice in subsequent generations. In this sense, Polycrates by fostering a vibrant cultural atmosphere of poets including Anacreon's work can indirectly be attributed to the love of poetry not only across the Greek world but also to the continued inspiration that the poetry of Anacreon had through time.

Needless to say, the patronage of the arts by Polycrates elevated Samos to an intellectual and artistic center, rivalling other great Greek cities.

Vision, charisma and maritime strategy

Polycrates' strengths lay in his strategic acumen, boldness, and persuasive charisma. His control of the sea allowed him to maintain dominance not just militarily but economically. By turning piracy into a state enterprise, he filled the Samian coffers and extended his influence over key Aegean trade routes. His magnetism attracted allies, scholars, and artists to his court. Politically, he was a master manipulator, able to eliminate rivals and maintain internal control despite the inherently unstable nature of Greek tyranny.

However, like many Greek tales, Polycrates' story turned with the wheel of fortune. His downfall began with a pattern of arrogance that alarmed even his allies.

The Ring of Fate

In a tale recounted by Herodotus, Polycrates' friend and ally, Pharaoh Amasis II of Egypt, warned him of his unbroken streak of good fortune. Fearing the jealousy of the gods, Amasis urged him to sacrifice his most prized possession to avoid divine retribution. Polycrates threw a bejeweled ring into the sea, only for it to be returned days later inside a fish. Amasis, interpreting this as a sign of impending doom, severed ties with him. The story symbolized the Greek belief in nemesis, the inevitable divine punishment for hubris.

Diplomatic isolation and Persian tensions

Additionally, Polycrates had made powerful enemies. His dominance angered neighboring Greek city-states and drew the attention of the Persian Empire. Around 522 BCE, he aligned himself briefly with Cambyses II of Persia during the invasion of Egypt, further eroding trust among his Greek peers and former allies.

His end came at the hands of Oroetes, the Persian satrap of Sardis. Pretending to offer sanctuary and riches, Oroetes lured Polycrates to Asia Minor under false pretenses. When he arrived, Polycrates was captured, tortured, and crucified a humiliating death for a man who had defied fate for so long. His mutilated body was displayed as a warning, a final punishment for his unchecked ambition.

Polycrates' failures were not merely strategic but moral and political. His rule, while culturally rich, was deeply autocratic. He ruled through fear, eliminated rivals, and sustained his state with piracy and extortion. His aggressive expansion and volatile diplomacy left Samos politically isolated after his death. The infrastructure he created endured, but the geopolitical power of Samos crumbled swiftly in the wake of his absence.

His greatest misstep, perhaps, was failing to recognize the limits of fortune. In a culture that revered moderation and feared hubris, Polycrates stood too tall for too long.

Despite his fall, Polycrates' legacy endured for centuries. He was both admired and feared. Ancient writers used his life as a cautionary tale about the dangers of overreaching success and the wrath of the gods. Yet, he was also seen as a man of vision who brought prosperity and grandeur to Samos, turning it into a center of culture and innovation.

His reign is emblematic of early Greek tyranny, capable of great things when guided by ambition and vision, but always at risk of collapsing under its weight. Polycrates may have died alone and betrayed, but he remains one of antiquity's most fascinating and complex rulers, a man who grasped greatness with both hands and paid the price for holding on too tightly.

Needless to say, the story of Polycrates of Samos is a study of both brilliance and tragedy, a vivid encapsulation of the highs and lows that defined the ancient Greek world. At his zenith, he turned a modest island into a naval powerhouse, a cultural beacon, and a symbol of daring ambition. His patronage of the arts in Samos rivalled Athens in artistic output; the engineering projects he supported astonished the ancient world; and through his control of the seas, he commanded fear and respect.

Yet the same traits that propelled him to greatness, his audacity, his confidence, and his relentless pursuit of dominance, also laid the seeds of his undoing. His legacy, preserved by poets, chroniclers, and ruins alike, is one of stark contrasts, a tyrant who fostered beauty, a ruler whose vision reached beyond his time, but whose ambition knew no boundaries.

Polycrates' life reminds us that power in the ancient world was a fleeting and fragile thing, often balanced precariously on the whims of fortune and the caprice of the gods. He lived as a man blessed with extraordinary success, only to fall victim to the very forces he once seemed to command, a warning for the future.

In the end, Polycrates remains a timeless figure, an enduring paradox of ancient history. He is remembered not only for the tyranny he wielded but also for the cultural and technological brilliance he inspired. His life and death stretch across the centuries, offering a poignant reflection on the nature of power, the allure of greatness, and the inexorable price of hubris.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

The legend of Polycrates' ring

The legend of Polycrates' ring, as preserved by Herodotus, became a foundational tale about the peril of excessive fortune and the inescapable designs of fate. In the story, the tyrant of Samos is warned by Pharaoh Amasis that such uninterrupted success is unnatural and will provoke divine retribution. To avert misfortune, Polycrates casts his most prized possession a richly jeweled ring into the sea. When the ring is miraculously returned to him inside a fish, it is taken as a sign not of protection, but of doom, confirming that even his attempts at humility cannot escape the orbit of fate. This tale resonated far beyond its Greek origins and found new life in later traditions.

In Christian parables and early medieval Christian teaching, this motif of divine will asserting itself despite human intervention became a central theme. The ring-in-the-fish narrative bears a striking resemblance to the biblical story of the coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:27), where Jesus instructs Peter to find a coin for the temple tax inside a fish, symbolizing God's mysterious provision. Both tales involve an object of value retrieved from the sea within a fish, highlighting the divine's subtle but powerful role in controlling worldly fortunes. Unlike Polycrates' story, however, the Christian version is affirming rather than ominous, suggesting divine benevolence over divine punishment.

Medieval literature further transformed the motif of the returned treasure as a symbol of inescapable destiny. Writers like Boethius, in The Consolation of Philosophy, grappled with fortune's fickle nature and the limits of human control, echoing the cautionary tale of Polycrates. The legend was refracted into courtly romances and moralistic tales, where characters often attempted to defy fate, only to be swept back into its course.

The ring thus became more than a jewel, it symbolized the tension between earthly power and perceived higher judgment. Thus by the High Middle Ages, the idea that relentless good fortune could signal imminent doom was deeply ingrained in the European moral imagination, and Polycrates' tale remained a prototype for storytelling about hubris, divine justice, and the wheel of fortune. Therefore, showing that tales from the ancient have made the long journey transcending from ancient times to the modern world where under various makeovers the tales continue to resonate with the populous and are used by governing authorities.

Pentekonter

The pentekonter (πεντηκόντορος) was an ancient Greek galley, a long and narrow warship propelled primarily by oars and used during the Archaic and early Classical periods of Greek history. The name "pentekonter" comes from the Greek pentēkonta meaning "fifty," referring to the ship's fifty oarsmen, twenty-five on each side.

These vessels were among the earliest organized warships used by the Greeks and played a key role in the development of naval warfare in the Mediterranean.

Pentekonters were characterized by their speed, maneuverability, and relatively light construction. Their narrow beam and shallow draft made them ideal for coastal raids, reconnaissance, and quick troop transport. Although primarily driven by rowers, they often carried a single square sail mounted on a central mast to take advantage of favorable winds during longer voyages.

Despite their agility, they had limited cargo capacity and offered little protection to the crew, which made them less suitable for extended naval engagements or stormy open-sea travel.

The design of the pentekonter laid the foundation for the development of more advanced Greek warships, such as the trireme, which featured multiple rows of oars and greater offensive capabilities.

Nevertheless, pentekonters were instrumental in early Greek colonization, trade expansion, and the projection of naval power. They were versatile and could be used in battle and for exploration or communication between city-states. Over time, their military role diminished in favor of more complex vessels, but their influence on ancient naval engineering remained significant.

Trireme

The Greek word for trireme is τριήρης (triērēs), which is derived from: τρι- (tri-), meaning three, and-ήρης (-ērēs), which comes from ἐρέσσω (eréssō), meaning to row.

So, τριήρης means "three-rower" or "three-banked", referring to the ship's three tiers of oars on each side, manned by oarsmen.

This design was a hallmark of ancient Greek naval engineering, especially during the 5th century BCE when Athens used fleets of triremes in naval battles like Salamis, these vessels found their pedigree in the earlier pentekonter.

It’s Not the Flag that Matters. Betsy Ross However, Does

Michael Leibrandt has studied Philadelphia history nearly all of my life. Like many historians — some of the most intriguing storylines to research are the ones that we know the least about. When it comes to the very beginnings of America - much of that history is lost to us now  and  replaced only by educated speculation.

A depiction of Betsy Ross presenting the flag to George Washington.

Can we prove definitively that General George Washington didn’t walk down the streets of Philadelphia and ask some the city’s finest seamstresses — of which Betsy was one — to make a flag for our nation in 1776? Of course we can’t. And should we say others that were equally as qualified to produce a banner for our new nation like Francis Hopkinson? Only educated speculation remains.

Here is why it simply doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because the overwhelming likelihood is that right up until the Continental Congress Resolution of 1777 — the citizens under those thirteen colonies lived, worked, and fought under a number of different banners. And it doesn’t matter because no matter what standard they fought under — Americans did the unthinkable. They forced the British Empire into frustration, defeat, and finally surrender when Lord Cornwallis was pushed to the sea near a place called Yorktown.

What we do know is that with no federal government for the United States governing these 13 colonies during the Revolution — it’s almost certain that Americans lived, worked, and fought under a variety of banners. Dr. Benjamin Franklin had even suggested at one point during an oration that the East India Company Flag should be America’s banner. It was December of 1775 when John Paul Jones famously raised a variant of the “Stars and Stripes” in the Delaware River aboard the ship Alfred.

On January 1st, 1776 near General George Washington’s headquarters on Prospect Hill — the Continental Army had a flag raising ceremony. The controversy is over what flag was actually raised. And then we have the “Appeal to Heaven” flag that made headlines last summer. Designed by a member of General George Washington’s Staff — Colonel Joseph Reed in 1775 — and flown after the capture of a British ship by Commodore Samuel Tucker and was also utilized by the Massachusetts State Navy. Reed’s six schooner’s where America’s first Navy.

And when the resolution was finally adopted by the Continental Congress in June of 1777 — does it really matter who was the creator of the flag that they designated for our nation? Or whether the story of Ross being asked by Washington to sew America’s first official standard — told by her grandson starting around 1870 — is actually fact? No, it does not. 

As the decades rolled on and a bridge was named in her honor and her house became a tourist attraction — it didn’t matter so much how historians waffled on the accuracy of the Betsy Ross story. But her importance as a fine colonial woman — at the height of her craft — willing to do all that she could for America in the midst of it’s Revolutionary period is all that matters. This March — do yourself a favor. Suppress the need for definitive evidence that has been almost certainly lost to the ages. 

Honor Betsy Ross anyway.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington Township, PA.

The Last Days of King Louis XVI and the French Revolution

The sun had barely risen over Paris on August 10, 1792, when the bells of revolution tolled once again. The Tuileries Palace, once a regal symbol of monarchical presence, was transformed into a battleground. Armed revolutionaries from the National Guard and radical fédérés stormed the palace, driven by rumors of betrayal, foreign plots, and the king's perceived duplicity.

Here, Preston Knowles looks at the final days of King Louis XVI of France during the French Revolution.

A portrait of King Louis XVI by Joseph-Siffred Duplessis.

Louis XVI, clad in plain attire, made a fateful decision: rather than resist the mob, he sought refuge with the Legislative Assembly. "I come to place myself under the protection of your laws," he declared, standing before a shocked assembly with Queen Marie Antoinette and their children in tow. But the gesture was too little, too late. The crowd's rage would not be placated. That same day, the monarchy was effectively suspended, and Louis and his family were taken into custody. Their new home? The ancient medieval fortress known as the temple, originally built by the Knights Templar. now repurposed as a prison for the king. The revolutionary press on September 21st, 1792 declared "The monarchy is abolished", The first French Republic had been declared.

By late 1792, the Temple had become the final royal residence, a prison stripped of comfort and ceremony. Surveillance was constant, and guards recorded even the most mundane details of the royal family's life. The man who once ruled by divine right now found himself counting his days, not in royal chambers but in cold stone walls lit by a single lamp.

The Temple prison was not built for royalty. Its stone walls were cold, its corridors narrow, and its air thick with the silence of humiliation. Here, the last King of France would live not as Louis XVI, but as Louis Capet, a dethroned monarch turned prisoner of the people he once served.

The royal family: Louis, Marie Antoinette, their children Louis-Charles and Marie-Thérèse, and the king's sister Madame Élisabeth were initially lodged together in cramped quarters. The first few weeks held onto a faint echo of domestic life. They dined together, read, prayed, and even tried to maintain lessons for the young dauphin. But as revolutionary suspicion deepened, their freedoms shrank. "He bore the deprivation with gentleness," one guard reportedly wrote, "and never once did he rage or complain."

 

A King's Routine, Reduced

Louis rose early, often before dawn. He read religious texts and from the few history books permitted to him. When allowed, he took brief walks in the small enclosed courtyard, pacing in silence or whispering lessons to his son. The king had long valued knowledge and order and in prison, this became his anchor. He taught geography and Latin to the young Louis-Charles, while Marie Antoinette helped with arithmetic. They created makeshift lessons using scraps of paper and whispered exercises.

Breakfast was modest: coffee, milk, and bread. Dinners, while still multiple courses at first, slowly became more austere. Champagne was replaced with table wine. Meat became scarce. And the guard's initially deferential grew colder. Marie-Thérèse later recalled in her memoir: "We were watched night and day. Every word, every sigh was noted down."

Over time, the measures imposed became increasingly petty and cruel. Louis was denied razors, allegedly for fear of suicide or assassination attempts by others. His once-meticulous grooming gave way to a growing beard and unkempt hair, physical symbols of his eroding dignity.

The family's contact with the outside world was severed. Even embroidery, once permitted as a quiet pastime, was forbidden when officials feared they might stitch hidden messages. The king, who once addressed ministers and monarchs, now whispered bedtime stories to his son through a wooden wall.

One particularly painful moment came in December 1792, during his trial, when Louis was forcibly separated from his family. Marie-Thérèse turned 14 that month and instead of a celebration she received only a silent token: a calendar for 1793 from her father, smuggled in with trembling hands.

The longer Louis remained in the Temple, the more time seemed to lose its meaning. The world outside raged on.  Mobs, pamphlets, speeches in the National Convention  but inside, the days blurred into quiet suffering. The walls were thick, but not enough to keep out the muffled sound of distant chants: "La République ou la mort!"

Louis spent his time clinging to ritual and religion. When allowed, he heard Mass and prayed from the breviary. His confessor was not always permitted to visit, so he turned inward, journaling his thoughts and quietly preparing his soul. One jailer observed, "He read the Psalms more than anything. Often he would rest his hand on the page, eyes closed, lips moving." Despite the growing surveillance, he made an effort to be a father and teacher. He called the dauphin "my son" and tried to preserve the boy's innocence. But behind closed doors, even a father's strength began to crack. Marie Antoinette confided that Louis would sometimes sit in silence for hours, gazing at nothing.

By late November 1792, the question of the king's fate reached a boiling point. The monarchy had been abolished. Now, Louis wasn't just a prisoner. He was a defendant in the eyes of the Republic. The National Convention summoned him on December 11, 1792, to answer for a long list of charges: colluding with foreign enemies, conspiring against the liberty of the French people, and betraying the Constitution he had sworn to uphold.

In a chilling moment during the trial, a deputy asked Louis:

 "You knew of the massacres and the bloodshed. Why did you not denounce them?"

Louis, composed, replied:

 "I did not think it proper to interfere in the decisions of the Assembly."

Innocence

He maintained his innocence, calm, polite, and deliberate.  But the verdict was already sealed in the hearts of many. His fate became a moral test for the Revolution itself.

Back in the Temple, after each session, he returned not to applause or royal favor, but to a narrow cot in a room guarded by men with muskets. His son asked what it all meant. Louis simply said, "There are men who believe I have done wrong. I must answer them."

The verdict was delivered on January 20, 1793: Louis Capet was to be executed by guillotine the following morning. He received the news with remarkable calm. His only request? To see his family one last time. After hours of negotiation, the Convention relented.

That evening, the door to the king's chamber creaked open, and in stepped Marie Antoinette, Madame Élisabeth, Marie-Thérèse, and the young dauphin. The guards recorded the time: 8:15 p.m. What followed was nearly two hours of raw, unfiltered sorrow. A private agony unfolding in the dim light of a prison room.

Marie-Thérèse would later write: "My father took each of us in his arms… he held my brother a long time, pressing his face to the child's hair. He said little. He wept. We all did."

Louis tried to maintain composure, speaking softly to each of them. He encouraged Marie Antoinette to be strong, to protect the children. He kissed Élisabeth's hands and whispered prayers to her. To his daughter, he gave a few final words of love and courage  and to the dauphin, perhaps the most devastating of all, he gave instruction.

"Never seek revenge for my death, my son," he told the child. They talked quietly of faith, of forgiveness, of the life to come. He assured them he would die a Christian, faithful to the end. And then, the moment arrived. A knock on the door. Time was up.

The family clung to each other, unwilling to let go. Marie Antoinette, once queen of France, was described by one guard as "bent and pale, with no voice left to cry." The dauphin sobbed uncontrollably. Marie-Thérèse fainted. And Louis stood quietly, having already absorbed the pain of each goodbye.

A witness later wrote: "It was not the dignity of a king, but the strength of a father, that filled the room that night."

Never again

His family would never see him again.

It was still dark when the knock came. Louis Capet, once Louis XVI, rose from his prison bed for the last time. Paris was hushed, cloaked in winter's gray breath and revolutionary tension. Snow had fallen the night before. His valet, Jean-Baptiste Cléry, lit the fire and helped dress him. Louis wore a plain white vest, gray breeches, and a black coat. No finery, no royal insignia. The quiet was broken only by the murmur of prayers and the soft rustle of fabric. When offered a pair of scissors to trim his hair, he simply nodded. It would be easier for the blade.

He heard Mass in a whisper, assisted by Abbé Edgeworth, the Irish priest who had come to offer last rites. As he took communion, Louis bowed his head and whispered "May this sacrifice be pleasing to God". By 8 a.m., the sound of drums loudly filled the streets. Thousands of National Guards lined the path from the former Place Louis XV, now known as the Temple to the Place de la Révolution,  the square that now awaited his execution.

The ride in the carriage was long and silent. Soldiers flanked the wheels. The streets were packed with a hushed crowd. Louis, holding a prayer book, gazed steadily ahead. Some said he mouthed psalms. Others noticed that he appeared calm. "more like a man going to face judgment than to death," one witness remarked.

The carriage reached the scaffold. Louis stepped down without assistance. The crowd watched, frozen. The executioner moved to bind his hands. Louis recoiled slightly, then, after a brief struggle,  He relented and turned to the people calling out, with a strong voice:  "I die innocent of all the crimes laid to my charge. I forgive those who have caused my death and pray to God that the blood you are about to shed may never fall upon France!" The drums began to roll. He knelt, placing his neck in the guillotine. Abbé Edgeworth stood nearby and cried out: "Son of Saint Louis, ascend to Heaven!"

The blade fell. A single thud. Then silence. Then a roar.

The executioner held the severed head aloft for the crowd to see. Some cheered. Others stood in stunned silence. Blood pooled on the planks. Spectators in the crowd raced forward and dipped their handkerchiefs in the blood to keep as souvenirs. The former king had become a symbol to some as a martyr and to others a tyrant but undeniably his death would shake Europe for centuries to come.

 

Echoes of the Guillotine

The execution of Louis XVI sent tremors through every royal court in Europe. Monarchs recoiled in horror; revolutionaries doubled down with fervor. In France, the king's death did not bring peace. It marked the beginning of something far bloodier: the Reign of Terror.

Yet in the quiet corners of history, beyond the proclamations and pamphlets, one truth endures: Louis was not just a monarch undone by revolution, but a man who met death with surprising grace. a father, a husband, a flawed human being who walked steadily to the scaffold and vanished into the turning tide of a new age.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The Battle of the Allia and the Sacking of Rome

The Battle of the Allia and the subsequent sacking of Rome in 390 BCE (or 387 BCE, according to some sources) remain among the most traumatic events in early Roman history. Rome's humiliating defeat at the hands of the Gallic Senones, led by Brennus, exposed its military weaknesses and left a lasting psychological and strategic imprint on the Republic. The aftermath forced Rome to reassess its military doctrines and city defenses, setting in motion changes that would ultimately contribute to its rise as a dominant power in the Mediterranean world.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of the Allia by Gustave Surand.

The road to battle

In the early 4th century BCE, Rome was a rising power in central Italy, exerting influence over neighboring Latin and Etruscan states. However, the peninsula was not isolated from broader European movements. Around this time, waves of Celtic tribes, collectively referred to as Gauls, began moving southward, seeking fertile lands and opportunities for plunder.

The Senones, a Gallic tribe from modern-day France, moved into northern Italy and established themselves in the Po Valley. Their leader, Brennus, led them further south, eventually arriving at Clusium, an Etruscan city that sought Roman assistance against the invaders. Rome's intervention, however, escalated the situation. Roman envoys, instead of merely negotiating, participated in a skirmish against the Gauls, violating diplomatic protocols. Enraged, Brennus redirected his forces toward Rome itself, seeing it as a direct challenge.

The Battle of the Allia

The Romans, alarmed by the swift approach of the Gauls, hastily assembled a force to meet them at the River Allia, approximately 18 kilometers north of Rome. Though the exact size of the Roman force is unclear, contemporary accounts suggest it was poorly organized and inadequately prepared for the encounter. The Gallic army, on the other hand, was highly mobile, aggressive, and battle-hardened from their campaigns in northern regions.

The battle was a disaster for Rome. The Roman army, composed largely of levied citizen-soldiers, was unfamiliar with the Gauls' style of warfare. When the Gallic warriors charged, their sheer ferocity overwhelmed the Roman lines. The Roman left flank, where inexperienced troops were positioned, collapsed almost immediately. Panic spread through the ranks, leading to a chaotic retreat. Some Romans fled to Veii, while others scattered across the countryside. Those who sought refuge in Rome had little time to organize a meaningful defense before Brennus and his warriors arrived at the city's gates.

The sacking of Rome

With no standing army to oppose them, the Gauls entered Rome unchallenged. Most of the population had already fled, while the Senate and a small garrison took refuge atop the Capitoline Hill. The Gauls looted the city, slaughtering those who remained. Fire and destruction followed as buildings were razed and sacred sites desecrated.

For months, the defenders on the Capitoline resisted the siege. According to legend, the sacred geese of Juno warned them of a surprise Gaulic attack, allowing them to repel an attempted night assault. However, the Romans were in dire straits, suffering from starvation and dwindling morale. Eventually, a ransom was negotiated: Rome would be spared in exchange for 1,000 pounds of gold. When Romans protested the unfair weight of the scales used in the transaction, Brennus is said to have thrown his sword onto the scales, uttering the infamous words, "Vae victis"—"Woe to the vanquished."

The aftermath and long-term consequences

Though Rome survived the catastrophe, the scars of the sack lingered for generations, the event left several enduring impacts. The vulnerability of Rome during the Gallic invasion underscored the need for better defenses. This led to the construction of the Servian Wall, a massive fortification that protected the city from future incursions.

Rome learned hard lessons from the battle. The traditional levy-based military system proved inadequate against highly mobile and aggressive foes. Over time, Rome restructured its legions, improving discipline, training, and organization, changes that would eventually make it one of the most formidable military powers in history.

Roman psychology and national identity

The humiliation of the sacking became ingrained in Roman consciousness. It fostered a deep-seated fear and hatred of the Gauls, influencing Rome's later military campaigns against Celtic tribes. This trauma also strengthened Roman unity and determination, reinforcing the idea that Rome must never again allow itself to be so vulnerable.

Expansionist policies

Some historians argue that the sack of Rome instilled a more aggressive expansionist mindset in Roman leadership. Over the following centuries, Rome sought to secure its borders and assert dominance over the region and beyond, ensuring that it would never again be subjected to foreign invasion.

The aggressive expansionist policy transformed Rome into a dominant power and eventually into the undisputed master of the Mediterranean world. This period saw Rome engage in a series of wars that systematically dismantled its rivals and expanded its territorial control across Europe, North Africa, and the Near East. The expansion was driven by a combination of strategic necessity, economic interests, military ambition, and the Roman Republic's political structure, which incentivized conquest through personal and national prestige, especially as Rome began to recover from the sacking of Rome.

One of the key aspects of this expansionist period was the series of wars against major Hellenistic kingdoms. The Second Macedonian War (200–197 BCE) marked Rome's direct intervention in Greek affairs, ending with the defeat of Philip V of Macedon at the Battle of Cynoscephalae.

Rome then positioned itself as the liberator of Greece, but this claim was soon undermined when it fought and defeated the Seleucid Empire in the Roman–Seleucid War (192–188 BCE), forcing King Antiochus III to withdraw from Asia Minor. Further wars followed, culminating in the destruction of Macedonian independence after the Third (171–168 BCE) and Fourth Macedonian Wars (150–148 BCE), and the eventual annexation of Greece following the sack of Corinth in 146 BCE.

Simultaneously, Rome expanded westward through its conflicts with Carthage. The Third Punic War (149–146 BCE) ended with the destruction of Carthage, securing Roman dominance in North Africa. In Spain, Rome waged prolonged campaigns against the Celtiberians, culminating in the conquest of Numantia in 133 BCE.

This relentless push for expansion continued in the late Republic with the annexation of Gaul under Julius Caesar (58–50 BCE) and further incursions into the eastern Mediterranean, including the absorption of Ptolemaic Egypt following Cleopatra's defeat in 31 BCE. By the time Augustus established the Principate, Rome had transformed from a republic controlling what is now Italy into a vast empire stretching from Britain to Mesopotamia, an expansion largely fueled by military prowess and a relentless pursuit of hegemony, in addition to fear of the defeat at the battle of Allia

A cautionary tale for the Ancient World

The sack of Rome was not just a Roman tragedy; it sent ripples throughout the known world. Other states and city-states took note of Rome's recovery, and as Rome grew stronger, it eventually turned the tables on those who had once threatened it. When Julius Caesar later campaigned against the Gauls in the 1st century BCE, he did so with an understanding of Rome's historical grievances.

In conclusion, the Battle of the Allia and the subsequent sack of Rome were among the darkest moments in early Roman history, yet they played a crucial role in shaping the Republic's destiny. Rather than breaking Rome, the trauma reinforced its resilience, prompting military, political, and psychological transformations that laid the foundation for its future supremacy. The lessons Rome learned from this defeat would ultimately propel it toward becoming one of the ancient world's greatest empires, ensuring that never again would the phrase "Vae victis" apply to the Eternal City.

The Battle of the Allia and the subsequent sack of Rome marked a profound turning point in the city's early history. What initially appeared to be a devastating and humiliating defeat ultimately became a catalyst for Rome's transformation into a formidable power. The shock of the Gallic invasion instilled in Rome a lasting fear of foreign incursions, driving fundamental changes in military organization, urban defense, and political strategy. The construction of the Servian Wall, the restructuring of Rome's military, and the psychological scars left by the sacking all contributed to a more disciplined and expansionist Republic.

Far from being a fatal blow, the Gallic sack reinforced the Roman ethos of perseverance and adaptability. The Republic's relentless drive to secure its borders and extend its influence stemmed in part from the trauma of 390 BCE, ensuring that Rome would never again be so vulnerable. Over the next centuries, this expansionist policy led Rome to dominate first the peninsula and then much of the Mediterranean world, systematically eliminating rival powers.

In retrospect, the sack of Rome was not just a crisis but a defining moment that shaped the Republic's destiny. It forged a national memory that inspired future generations of Romans, fueling their ambitions for conquest and solidifying their belief in Rome's manifest destiny. The phrase "Vae victis" may have once been a bitter reminder of defeat, but Rome's ultimate triumph ensured that it would never again be uttered at its expense. Instead, Rome would rise from the ashes of its sacking to build an empire that would stand as one of history's most enduring civilizations.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

The Senones

The Senones were one of the prominent Celtic tribes in ancient Gaul, inhabiting the region that roughly corresponds to modern-day northeastern France, particularly around the area of the Champagne and Burgundy regions. Their name, Senones, was used by the Romans, who encountered them during their expansion into Gaul. The Senones were part of a larger group of tribes known as the Gallic Senones and were renowned for their participation in major historical events, most notably their invasion of what is now known as Italy in the 4th century BCE.

In the early stages of their history, the Senones were a powerful and well-organized tribe, known for their martial prowess and distinct cultural practices. They were a part of the broader Celtic tradition, sharing similar customs and beliefs with other Gallic tribes. Their society was structured around a warrior elite, with chieftains and leaders who commanded respect through both martial skill and tribal allegiance. The Senones also maintained strong relationships with other Gallic tribes, particularly those in central Gaul, and participated in various alliances and conflicts.

The Senones' most notable historical moment came in 390 BCE, when they, along with other Gaulish tribes, famously sacked the city of Rome, as indicated in the main text. This event is often referred to as the Gallic Sack of Rome, during which the Senones, led by their chieftain Brennus, invaded the Peninsula and laid siege to Rome. The event marked a significant moment in Roman history, and while it did not result in long-term Gaulish dominance over Rome, it left an indelible mark on the Roman psyche, which would influence their later military strategies.

In terms of material culture, the Senones were skilled metalworkers, known for their intricately crafted weapons, armor, and jewelry. Archaeological evidence suggests that they lived in fortified hilltop settlements, known as oppida, which were typical of many Celtic tribes of the time. These settlements offered defense against both external enemies and internal conflicts. The Senones' religious practices involved a pantheon of Celtic gods and a strong reverence for the natural world, with sacred groves and ritual sites playing a central role in their spiritual life. Despite the eventual conquest of Gaul by the Romans, the cultural imprint of the Senones and their role in Gallic history remain an important part of ancient Celtic heritage.

The Modern Greek State: 1975–1996 – Three Elephants, Two Tigers and a Lioness

On March 25, 2021, the Modern Greek State celebrated the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence, which ultimately led to its establishment. It is thus an excellent opportunity to reconsider some of the main events of Greek history over these 200 years and how they shaped the character of modern Greece.

This series of articles on the history of modern Greece started when the country was celebrating the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence. This article starts by looking at what happened after the end of dictatorship, and takes us through the changing 1980s and 1990s. Thomas P. Papageorgiou explains.

You can read part 1 on ‘a bad start’ 1827-1862 here, part 2 on ‘bankruptcy and defeat’ 1863-1897 here, part 3 on ‘glory days’ 1898-1913 here, part 4 on ‘Greeks divided’ 1914-22 here, part 5 on the issues of clientelism here, part 6 on World War2 and a new divide here, and part 7 on the road to dictatorship and retreat here.

Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou with United States President Bill Clinton in April 1994.

The fall of the dictatorship in Greece in 1974 (Papageorgiou, 2024) coincided with the restoration of democracy in the whole of the European south. Salazar’s dictatorship in Portugal, established in 1932-1933, and Franko’s dictatorship in Spain, established in 1939, came to an end with a counter coup in 1974 that led to free elections in 1976, in the first case, and Franco’s death in 1975 in the second. In all three countries the armed forces would now submit to the political establishment, ending a long tradition of involvement in politics. The Church would also lose much of its prestige because of its identification with the military regimes. Their people were influenced from the success of the European west and north that combined financial prosperity with parliamentarism, which was also consolidated in Greece, Portugal and Spain with their entry in the European Economic Community in the 1980s. (Close, 2006, pp. 219-221)    

I Part of the European Economic Community

The first free elections after the coup d’etat of 1967 took place in November 1974. Konstantinos Karamanlis, leader of the national unity government formed after the fall of the junta a few months earlier, had meanwhile transformed the former National Radical Union into a new party under the name New Democracy (ND) (Close, 2006, p. 236) representing the biggest part of the conservatives to this day. He won the elections and a few days later he called for a referendum on whether the junta’s decision to abolish constitutional monarchy would be retained or the king would be allowed to return to Greece. 69.2% of the voters decided for a Presidential Republic that also remains to this day. (Wikipedia, 2023)

Apart from parting with the king, Karamanlis found himself in a rather peculiar position also in the economy. The private interests establishment that for many years benefited from state subsidies and protectionism proved inadequate to cope with the consequences of the oils crises of 1973 and 1978. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 29) Thus, in spite of its conservative nature, Karamanlis’ government had to step in and started nationalizing private companies. It also had to renegotiate or even cancel deals signed by junta officials with terms highly unfavourable for the state. (Eleftheratos, 2015, pp. 313-314) (Rizas, 2008, pp. 493-494) (Close, 2006, pp. 248-249) In fact, the demand for more freedom and representation, after the fall of the junta, indicated that renegotiation and, where needed, cancelation of established norms in the public life was also needed at that time, much to the dislike of a conservative government. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 30)

A possible way out of all these seemed to be the assumption of full membership in the European Economic Community (EEC). Karamanlis was pursuing it already from the 1960s (Papageorgiou, 2024) and in 1979 he made it happen. Thus, soon after the fall of the junta, of the four power pillars that defined the post-civil war period, (Papageorgiou, 2024) the army and the palace were completely removed from the political scenery of the country, the role of the Americans had to be redefined after accession to the EEC and only that of parliamentarism remained untouched and in fact reinforced. (Close, 2006, p. 226)

In the following, we will see how the political parties managed the sweeping demand for change from the beginning of 1980s. At that time, Karamanlis assumed the rather ceremonial role of the President of the Republic, (Close, 2006, p. 225) but real power was now in the hands of Andreas Papandreou. His Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PAnelinio SOsialistiko Kinima – PASOK) won the national elections in autumn 1981.  

II Change

The beginning

So, the political change came. And it brought with it an increase of 35% to salaries, that were further to be automatically adjusted according to the price index. Pension increases and tax exemptions were also established. Karamanlis had already made the Communist Party legal again, (Close, 2006, p. 223) but in the PASOK era political refugees were allowed to return and pensions were handed out to members of the (also Left) resistance during WWII. (Close, 2006, p. 224) A national healthcare system was set up. (Close, 2006, pp. 250, 251-252) Nationalization of private companies continued and more than a 100 once dominant enterprises active, among others, in mining metallurgy, shipbuilding and petrochemicals came under the Business Restructuring Organization. These and the public sector were utilized so that thousands of people could find a job. Indeed, large sections of the population literally switched their status in those early years of PASOK, rapidly climbing the ladder of social stratification and gaining income, power, and authority. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 32 - 35)

Too much, too quickly and with no real plan. The spirit of clientelism, ever present in the political and social life of modern Greece, made sure that hiring was based on personal or political relations without evaluation. (Close, 2006, p. 242) This immobilized the Administration, destroyed any concept of hierarchy, eroded values such as those of duty and productivity, made the state apparatus synonymous to that of the political party and  favoured to the maximum degree tendencies of graft and corruption. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 35) (Close, 2006, p. 250)

Furthermore, all the above policies were based on borrowed money and EEC resources. (Close, 2006, pp. 260, 269)They contributed to the deindustrialization of the country (Close, 2006, pp. 264, 265, 273-275) and as the agricultural subsidies also, instead of being used for the modernization of agriculture, were turned into apartments in the urban centres and luxury vehicles, (Close, 2006, p. 266) Brussels had already started to feel uncomfortable and characterize Greece as a bad example of a new member state. The Americans were also prejudiced against Papandreou because of his opening to the Arab world, his participation in the Non-Aligned Movement and his anti-American rhetoric with references to the removal of the American bases from Greece, which he never implemented, but with which he constantly exercised pressure to the superpower. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 44)

For the Americans another issue was terrorism. During the early years after the fall of the junta, the discussions of armed struggle were revived mainly among members of left-wing organizations and groups. The infamous terrorist organization ‘17th of November’ (17N) was formed during this time and intensified its activity in the mid-1980s hitting American and western targets, businessmen, right-wing politicians, judges, policemen and publishers of traditional conservative newspapers that were now intensifying the criticism against PASOK. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 44) (Close, 2006, pp. 234-235)

The Security Services and the Americans were thus prone to investigate conspiracy theories that linked terrorism with PASOK as well as the official and extra-parliamentary Left. For those who spent time at the University those years, however, there was the certainty that the faces of terrorism, those who carried out the bloody acts, could only have come out of the student movement. There was the certainty that these were common, ordinary people. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 24) This partly explains also the longevity of groups like 17N. Another reason was that after the fall of the junta governments relied less to the police and the security forces and more to material benefits for their longevity. (Close, 2006, p. 229) The Greek police after 1974 were paralyzed by a lack of resources, an absence of professionalism and a low level of competence. In the prevailing anti-authoritarian atmosphere, it did not even have the public support that it needed. (Close, 2006, p. 235)

The turn 

For the common people though, what mattered most were the benefits they enjoyed under Papandreou’s government. Thus, the latter won triumphally the elections of June 1985. Nevertheless, during that summer the country’s foreign exchange reserves had already fallen unbelievably low, deficits and public debt had ballooned, inflation was high and persistent, the loss of competitiveness great and the inadequacy of productive investments evident. EEC officials were also expressing their displeasure for the course of the Greek economy.  The time for major revisions had come. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 52-53)

The turn was to be carried out by Costas Simitis (Wikipedia, 2024), who assumed the position of Minister of National Economy. Along with a group of technocratic advisors, Simitis presented a three-year stabilization program, which included a devaluation of the drachma, a wage freeze in the public and private sectors, hiring, borrowing, spending and price controls, restructuring of public enterprises, and, most importantly, initiatives and measures to free the economy and markets from government intervention, combined with the liberalization of the financial sector and the capital market. The implementation of the program was bound by a European emergency loan, which designated the European Commission as an auditor of the Greek economic course. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 55-57) (Close, 2006, p. 244)

The program shocked PASOK supporters and brought great turmoil within it, as it meant a complete revision of the until then physiognomy of the populist movement. (Close, 2006, p. 245) It run with difficulties for a couple of years starting the opening to the market economy, (Karakousis, 2006, p. 63) laying the foundations for the rebirth of the stock market and promoting plans to restructure the whole public sector (Karakousis, 2006, p. 65), but Andreas Papandreou eventually denounced it from the parliament floor on 25 November 1987. Simitis resigned the next day. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 74)   

Lifestyle, shadow economy and scandals

Indeed, the formerly unprivileged who in the early years of PASOK gained space and incomes were not willing to return to their previous situation. They were getting used to a new way of life, influenced also by lifestyle magazines, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 59-60)    based on a pattern, which required owning a house, a country house, cars, travel, vacations and a lot of expenses for the children. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 104) As money in the public sector, where as described above the clientelist state accommodated many of its supporters, were not enough, they turned to multiple employment to support it. The bank clerk and the tax official were employed in the afternoon as accountants in the private sector, the schoolteacher gave private lessons and so on. This did not only have implications on the integrity of the public servants regarding the balance of interests between their dual occupations. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 106) The extra salaries were not declared anywhere.   

Thus, the new way of life was not supported by borrowed state money only. The private sector followed suit and calculations during the implementation of the Value Added Tax (VAT) in 1987 recorded that the shadow (black) economy amounted to 40% of GDP. A rate extremely large and able to distort any economic policy effort, as a large part of economic activities remained out of control, operated by their own rules and formed their own levels of profitability and incomes, which, to a certain extent, explain the inexhaustible endurance of the citizens of the country, despite the continuous pressure with economic measures and regulations to this day. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 70) (Close, 2006, p. 259)

PASOK also sought to continue the tradition of intertwining business interests with state power. (Papageorgiou, 2024)Micro-entrepreneurs, like the Kouris brothers, offered services and support already from the early years of PASOK in power through publications such as the populist newspaper Avriani, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 36-37) but the most famous case was that of George Koskotas. With many university degrees, later proven to be fake, he started his carrier as accountant at the Bank of Crete. He will progress, become a chief accountant, and one morning he will appear to the owner of the bank with a takeover proposal. The trick was that he used the bank’s own money for the takeover, without anyone noticing. Koskotas moved energetically after that and wanted to play the role of PASOK’s banker. As phenomena of arrogance and corruption had already made their appearance from the first years of the government (see above), Koskotas found fertile ground for his activities. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 60-61)  

Nevertheless, Koskotas’ aggressive policies, including attempts to expand in the banking and media sectors as well as in football, where he bought the country’s probably most popular team, Olympiakos Piraeus, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 79-80)eventually attracted the attention of The Bank of Greece’s legal counsel regarding the origin of the money and the overall management of the Bank of Crete. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 83) It was finally revealed in February 1989 that the government’s vice president Menios Koutsogiorgas attempted to hinder the investigation by law, after a bribe of 2 million dollars. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 100) (Close, 2006, p. 245)       

The situation for PASOK continued to worsen as during this period the press published evidence for additional scandals in the procurement of military equipment as well as for the surveillance of the telephones of Leftist officials as well as that of Konstantinos Karamanlis, (Karakousis, 2006, p. 81) (Close, 2006, pp. 245-246) who in the meantime Papandreou had ensured that he was replaced in the Presidency of the Republic by judge Christos Sargetakis. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 52)The newspaper reports caused the intervention of the judiciary while the opposition also hardened its stance. Significant strongholds of the opposition action at that time were the three largest municipalities of the country, Athens, Piraeus, and Thessaloniki, that New Democracy had won in the municipal elections of October 1986. A basic instrument was the free radio that the three conservative mayors, M. Evert, A. Andrianopoulos and S.Kouvelas launched in May 1987 against the state monopoly until then. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 71-72)

The fall

Papandreou was at a very tough spot. Physically, he was ill and was rushed to London in August 1988 where he remained for almost two months and underwent heart surgery. Personally, he found himself in a turmoil as his affair with a former stewardess of Olympic Airways, Dimitra Liani, became publicly known. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 84) Politically, the scandals led many PASOK officials to resign or distance themselves from the party and triggered scenarios of succession in its leadership. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 92-96) (Close, 2006, p. 246) Furthermore, during the judicial investigations into the scandals, 17N escalated its action against judges, which rekindled the rumours about PASOK’s ties to terrorism. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 98-99)

Despite all this, Papandreou fought hard to turn the tide against him. Before the elections of June 1989 he used the standard trick, we have often seen in this series, of changing the electoral law to make it difficult for the Right to come to power. Moreover, in an outburst of populism during a pre-election rally in Athens, he will openly urge Finance Minister D. Tsovolas to ‘give everything’, meaning benefits to the electorate to vote for PASOK. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 107) (Close, 2006, p. 246) And he succeeded. New Democracy won, but its 44,25% of the votes was not enough to give its leader Konstantinos Mitsotakis the absolute majority in the parliament, but only 145 of the 300 seats. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 113)

III Co-government of Right and Left

It was obvious that Mitsotakis had to deal harder blows against PASOK to seize power. At the same time the leadership of the Left saw in PASOK’s destruction the opportunity to expand its electorate audience. Thus, the memories of the civil war and the junta were put aside and the unthinkable happened: a co-government supported by the Right and the Left. (Close, 2006, p. 247) Mitsotakis’ son-in-law, Pavlos Bakoyiannis, played a catalytic role as mediator, using the connections he developed with many Leftist officials during the junta years in Germany, where all had taken refuge. At the head of the government, formed in July 1989, was Tzanis Tzanetakis, o former officer of the Navy, and its goal was ‘Katharsis’. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 115-116)

Indeed, by September, Andreas Papandreou and other PASOK officials, including the former ministers Koutsogiorgas and Tsovolas, were refereed by the Parliament to the Special Court for the Koskotas scandal and the wiretapping (see above). Another former minister, Nikos Athanasopoulos, was send to court for the ‘Corn Scandal’, accused of misleading EEC officials by presenting Yugoslavian corn as Greek to collect higher subsidies. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 120-121, 130)(Close, 2006, p. 246)

Nevertheless, the ordinary voters of the Left were once again not reconciled to the games of their leadership (Karakousis, 2006, p. 116) In fact, the youth of the Communist Party openly expressed its disagreement with the Tzanetakis’ government. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 128) To make things worse, Papandreou’s new admission to the hospital with respiratory problems at the beginning of the summer had created a wave of sympathy that reinforced the dilemmas of the Left. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 114) Thus, New Democracy’s proposal for yet another commission of inquiry to look into possible scandals in the procurement of weapons systems was not accepted by the coalition of Left parties. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 131) At the same time though, 17N reappeared and murdered Pavlos Bakoyiannis on the way to his office the day before the Parliament decided to send Papandreou to the Special Court for the Koskotas scandal. This reignited the conspiracy theories regarding PASOK’s connection to terrorism. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 128, 130)

Coexistence of Right and Left in the Tzanetakis’ government was thus becoming uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the latter seemed to have achieved its main political objective, ‘Katharsis’, by sending PASOK officials to court. It did not do much else, except for allowing the establishment of private television stations breaking another state monopoly, after that of radio broadcast (see above). The new development brought with it kitsch, subculture, the keyhole screen, a spectacle of second-rate, intellectual poverty and degradation of everything. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 122-127) Furthermore, the different perspectives of Right and Left combined with benefits generously handed out by the Finance Minister Antonis Samaras (Right) and the Minister of the Interior Nikos Konstantopoulos (Left), to the delight of the electorate, worsened public finances and brought the country to the brink of yet another fiscal crisis. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 118-119) It was time for another round of elections.

IV The Right Comes to Power

The elections took place on the 5th of November 1989 and New Democracy increased its percentage of the votes to 46.2%. Nevertheless, this was again not enough to bring Mitsotakis to power. New Democracy elected only 148 out of 300 parliament members. PASOK was once again proved very resilient increasing its power to 40,7% of the votes, while the Left coalition lost 2% receiving 11% of the votes. Obviously, its plan to substitute PASOK through the participation to Tzanetakis’ government did not work well. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 136) (Close, 2006, pp. 247-248)

In view of the critical condition of the economy the solution of an ecumenical government finally prevailed under the leadership of the then 90 years old former Governor of the Bank of Greece Xenophon Zolotas. The period of indifference was over, and the political establishment, at that juncture, understood that it could not play with the economy. It was convinced that the crisis conditions had to be controlled at any cost. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 140) It was also centrally agreed that the only way forward for Greece was Europe: Greece should claim its inclusion in the new system of the single currency, which was then being planned, but it was clear that it would be the European answer to the new form that the world would take after the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 144) (Close, 2006, pp. 287-288)

Nevertheless, Mitsotakis was becoming impatient. After all, his party found itself in an ecumenical government together with PASOK, whose leaders were prosecuted from Right and Left just a few days before. Indeed, Papandreou was recovering quickly politically, also with interventions like that of France’s president François Mitterrand, who invited him to Paris already before the November elections and thus took him out of the Greek isolation showing that he maintained an international base and was not finished as many would like him to be. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 133) As Zolotas’ freedom for action was limited by the need to reconcile the Right, Center and Left elements of the ecumenical government and he had to resort to desperate measures, like borrowing with an interest rate greater than 27%, in order to meet the cash needs of the state, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 139-140) Mitsotakis stressed the need for absolute majority in the Parliament and a one party government to meet the country’s needs. Another international intervention helped him to this end. It was a letter from the President of the European Commission Jacques Delors that was publicized by Mitsotakis and conveyed to the Greek society the need to obtain a decisive government, capable of handling the economic affairs in a clear manner. Thus, another round of elections was scheduled for the 9th of April 1990. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 157-158)(Close, 2006, p. 361)

New Democracy’s 46.88% of the votes gave 150 seats in the parliament, again one less of the minimum needed for it to rule. The missing vote came with the defection to New Democracy of the only representative elected with Democratic Renewal (Dimokratiki Ananeosi – DIANA). The latter was a party founded by Konstantinos Stefanopoulos, a former New Democracy member and then internal party rival of Mitsotakis. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 161)

New Democracy’s accent to power at the beginning of the 1990s coincided with the long retreat of the interventionist state from the commanding heights of the economy accelerated in the previous decade with a conservative counterattack spearheaded by Ronald Reagan in the US and Margaret Thatcher in the UK. (Allawi, 2024, p. 131) The collapse of the Soviet Union was considered the most striking verification of this process. Thus, privatizations were at the core of the Right’s liberal agenda. Nevertheless, the clientelist state was ever present (Karakousis, 2006, p. 173) and privatizations were not viewed by the government as a development tool for the economy, but as a mechanism of wealth and state assets distribution to friends and acquaintances. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 182-183)

Furthermore, privatizations were faced with strong opposition from the employees of the enterprises involved. The same was true for the pension, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 167-168) tax (Karakousis, 2006, p. 166) and education reforms (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 175-177) that the government tried to introduce. By 1992 the treaty of Maastricht with the Euro convergence criteria (Wikipedia, 2024), following Greece’s decision to be part of the European Union and the common currency zone (see above), hardened the position of the government (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 212-215). This brought it into conflict with the society (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 219-221) that was not going to easily give up the privileges obtained during the PASOK years described previously. In fact, the overall climate was very tense and involved extreme incidents like the murder of the high school teacher Nikos Temponeras during clashes at a school in Patras (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 176-177) and the death of former minister Koutsogiorgas that suffered a stroke during the trial for the Koskotas scandal. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 185-187) 17N also reappeared attempting unsuccessfully to kill the businessman Vardis Vardinogiannis (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 177-178) and the finance minister Giannis Palaiokrassas. In the second case though, a civilian, the young Thanos Axarlian, who happened to be passing by the area of the attack was killed. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 221-222) (Close, 2006, pp. 362-363)

As if these were not enough, ‘Katharsis’ was also turning into a fiasco for Mitsotakis. Although some former PASOK ministers, like the above-mentioned Athanasopoulos, served prison sentences, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 183-185) its leader Andreas Papandreou was declared not guilty (with 6 votes against 5). (Karakousis, 2006, p. 197) The old Konstantinos Karamanlis, who was again elected President of the Republic, after Mitsotakis’ ascend to power, (Karakousis, 2006, p. 163) had warned that one ‘does not send a prime minister to court, but simply home’. Mitsotakis ignored him and the court verdict came to reinforce Papandreou’s (and PASOK’s) feeling that he could dominate again. (Close, 2006, p. 350)

New Democracy’s fall came from the field of foreign affairs though. Although, after the fall of the Soviet Union the major international incident of the time was the first Iraq war – in the coverage of which the dominance of television over all other media became obvious for the first time- (Karakousis, 2006, p. 172) Germany’s recognition of the independence of  Croatia and Slovenia in late 1991 triggered the process of Yugoslavia’s disintegration. One of the emerging states in former Yugoslavia’s south, bordering to Greece, then claimed for itself the name ‘Macedonia’ touching upon the national feelings of the Greek people, who were not willing to give up the heritage of Alexander the Great, ruler of ancient Macedonia, to the Slavs without a fight. Mitsotakis’ government was literally caught sleeping. It had made no preparation to deal with the possibility of recognition of a Macedonian state on Greece’s northern borders and the disturbance that such a thing would cause inside the country. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 190 - 191) (Close, 2006, pp. 405-406)     

Indeed, demonstrations, mostly in Thessaloniki with more than one million participants, hampered efforts to find a compromise solution by using a composite name prepared by the European Union (Karakousis, 2006, p. 196) (Close, 2006, p. 406) while there were internal party reactions as well that led to the dismissal of the at that time Minister of Foreign Affairs Antonis Samaras from the government. The reason was his differentiation from the views of Mitsotakis and Karamanlis at a meeting of the political parties’ leaders under the President, in April 1992, to discuss national policy on the name issue. By autumn 1993 Samaras had formed his own party (Political Spring – Politiki Anixi) and several of new Democracy’s members of Parliament followed him bringing down Mitsotakis’ government. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 237) (Close, 2006, p. 408)

V Andreas Papandreou Returns to Power

Parliamentary elections were held on 10th of October 1993 and PASOK took 46% of the votes corresponding to 170 seats in the parliament. But Papandreou now knew that he could not continue the policy of benefits to the people he exercised in the past. The economy had to meet the Maastricht convergence criteria, if Greece was to remain part of the European Union including the adoption of the common currency (Euro). (Close, 2006, p. 363) This was not easy at all with inflation at 15%, double digit interest rates, public deficits reaching 15% of the GDP, the widespread shadow economy and the corresponding tax evasion. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 263)   

Thus, brave policies were necessary and, in view of the intense pressure from the society for financial aid of any type, conflicts with numerous groups of citizens. Nevertheless, the latter were at the same time convinced that PASOK would do the job at the lowest possible cost, without the atrocities of Mitsotakis and the heavy feeling of social analgesia the accompanied him. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 248) (Close, 2006, p. 364) Furthermore, the element of external imposition made things easier politically as it allowed the government officials to invoke Brussels and through this invocation to legitimize measures and policies that were in conflict with society. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 263) (Close, 2006, p. 364) At the same time though, Andreas Papandreou knew that the acceptance of the convergence process with Europe would be accompanied by a significant package of European Union funds. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 247) The idea was simple. The European funds would be directed to large scale public works and through them any development and income deficit caused be the fiscal adjustment would be covered. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 249) (Close, 2006, p. 283)

Thus, as prescribed in the treaty of Maastricht, at the beginning of 1994 already, the Greek state had to give up the so called ‘monetary financing’ and come out competitively to the market to raise financial resources. Indeed, before 1994, several mechanisms constituted this so called ‘monetary financing’ that allowed the state to raise funds with small or at least controllable cost. For example, at the beginning of each year, the Bank of Greece provided an advance payment of 10% on the increase of the state budget expenditure with a symbolic interest rate of 1.5%. Furthermore, it obliged banks to place 40% of their deposits on interest-bearing Treasury bills, whereas in times of crisis the central bank bought government securities, often to a large extent. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 254-255)

If this was not enough, the government could always turn to the so-called bondholder class offering two to three-year government bonds with high interest rates exceeding 20% per year (see also the previous section). This way, a mood of laziness and idleness was transmitted to society, as an available savings capital was sufficient to offer high profits and large incomes. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 245)   

In the three years 1994-96 all this will change. The state will acquire a reliable Treasury service and gradually be freed from its dependence on the bondholder class. Interest rates will fall, and the banking system will find itself with freed up resources and new opportunities to grow and develop new financial tools. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 256)

In 1994, a new law also attempted to limit the political parties’ power for appointments in the public sector. It introduced the rule of one recruitment for every five departures and mandated both the establishment of the Supreme Personnel Selection Board as an independent body responsible for recruitment and the establishment of rules and procedures so that these are invariable. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 269)

In 1995, a new tax law tried to address the issue of tax evasion. The so called ‘objective criteria’ for the taxation of small and medium enterprises and freelancers were established. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 267) (Close, 2006, p. 354) Parameters like the kind of activity, area of operation, operational costs and others were used to define a minimum level of tax for the legal or physical entity in question. When the entity declared an income corresponding to a tax level lower than this minimum, then either the minimum had to be paid, or the entity would be subject to extensive tax scrutiny. In fact, measures to enhance tax revenues were put in place from the very first days of this new term of PASOK increasing indirect taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, taking measures to crack down on smuggling and putting pressure on traders to return the value added tax, incorporated by PASOK already back in 1987 following directives of the EEC. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 70, 246)

Nevertheless, these attempts do not mean that clientelism was suddenly over and that the political parties were over their fear of the political cost. For example, construction and the public works mentioned earlier as expression of hope, as a mechanism of development and progress will become hotbeds of corruption, scandals and money waste, dragging politics with them. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 254)

In fact, Papandreou’s government acrobated between the old habits and the need for modernization. Things got worse as the latter’s health deteriorated once more in the summer of 1995 leaving plenty of space for a group of people close to his former mistress and by this time wife and secretary, Dimitra Liani, to run the game. A typical example of this period is the former Olympic Airways stewardess’ resistance to the consolidation of the company, which had accumulated debts of 600 billion drachmas, because of the political cost. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 265) Other of Liani’s doings included the purchase of a villa in Ekali, the most prestigious neighbourhood of Athens, under economically uncertain conditions and an entourage of astrologists and priests, who brought miraculous talismans with them in the hope that the patient Papandreou would regain his health. This was a third world government structure that infuriated PASOK’s executives that were now discussing openly Papandreou’s succession. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 259, 261)

This eventually came in January 1996, when Papandreou resigned from office. The inter party elections named Costas Simitis as the new president of PASOK and prime minister, who will make Modernization his flag. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 277) Papandreou died in June.

VI Conclusions

In this series of articles on the history of modern Greece reference has been made to the work of Acemoglu and Robinson (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013) and it has been pointed out that the country is suffering from non-inclusive political and economic institutions. Within this framework, some additional characteristics, obvious in the present part of the series, should not go unnoticed: 1) An over-sized public sector and bureaucracy, as seen in the clientelism approach of serving the political parties’ clients/voters with jobs. 2) Economic statism, as seen in the handling of nationalized/state owned companies and attempts to boost the economy through public works. 3) Corruption, as seen in the political/economic scandals described above.

Special reference should also be made to: 4) tax evasion, as seen in the size of the shadow economy, resulting in 5) over taxation, as seen in the establishment of the ‘objective criteria’.  

And finally, 6) populism, as seen in Papandreou’s ‘give everything’ cry, before the elections of June 1989.     

Dimitrios Lakasas proposes that the Greek economy today in undermined by three elephants (bureaucracy, statism and corruption), five tigers (tax evasion, over taxation, high insurance contributions for employees and businesses, high cost of money and unserviced loans) and a lioness (populism) . (Lakasas, 2021, p. 289) The three elephants, two of the tigers and the lioness are clearly seen already in the period studied in this article.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2013). Why Nations Fail. London: Profile Books ltd.

Allawi, A. A. (2024). Rich World, Poor World: The Strugle to Escape Poverty. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Close, D. (2006). Greece since 1945: Politics, Economy and Society. Thessaloniki: Thyrathen (in Greek, available also in English by Routledge).

Eleftheratos, D. (2015). Diddlers in Khaki, Economic 'miracles' and victims of the junta. Athens: Topos Eds. (in Greek).

Karakousis, A. (2006). Hovering Country. From the society of need to the society of desire (1975 - 2005). Athens: Hestia Bookstore (in Greek).

Lakasas, D. (2021). Human 4.0. For a Wise Management of the 4th Industrial Revolution . Athens: Klidarithmos.

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2024, April 20). History is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2024/4/20/the-modern-greek-state-19501974-the-road-to-dictatorship-and-retreat

Rizas, S. (2008). Greek Politics after the Civil War. Parliamentaryism and Dictatorship. Athens: Kastaniotis (in Greek).

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Greek_republic_referendum

Wikipedia. (2024). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costas_Simitis

Wikipedia. (2024). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria

Seven Wonders of the Ancient World

The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World are often cloaked in the haze of legend and antiquity, but a strong argument can be made that these structures were indeed real and not mere myths.

Terry Bailey explains.

A 16th-century depiction of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. By Dutch artist Maarten van Heemskerck.

First, several of the wonders, such as the Great Pyramid of Giza, still exist and can be seen today, offering undeniable, physical proof of their historical reality. The Great Pyramid, constructed around 2560 BCE, is a marvel of engineering that continues to impress modern architects and archaeologists. Its continued existence proves that at least part of the list is firmly grounded in historical fact rather than myth or exaggeration.

In addition, ancient historical sources from a variety of cultures describe the other wonders in surprisingly consistent detail. For instance, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the Statue of Zeus at Olympia were both described by ancient writers such as Philo of Byzantium, Strabo, and Pliny the Elder. Their writings, based on first-hand accounts or reports from credible travelers, suggest these were real places seen and admired by ancient audiences. Archaeological evidence supports their accounts: for example, the ruins of the Temple of Artemis were unearthed in the 19th century, revealing the temple's grand scale and artistic richness, aligning with historical descriptions.

Furthermore, the construction of such wonders was entirely within the technological capabilities of the civilizations that built them. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, often the most disputed of the seven, have been the subject of scholarly debate, but even here there is plausible evidence, such as references in cuneiform texts and possible confusion with gardens built in Nineveh by the Assyrian king Sennacherib. Historians suggest that rather than being mythical, the Gardens may have been misattributed in location or form, rather than fabricated altogether.

Needless to say, the Seven Wonders were likely real, tangible structures that inspired awe in ancient times. While embellishments and inaccuracies may have crept into their stories over centuries, the core reality of their existence is supported by physical evidence, credible ancient testimony, and the engineering capabilities of the societies that built them. Rather than myths, they should be regarded as historical milestones in humanity's architectural and artistic achievements.

The Great Pyramid of Giza (Egypt)

Location: Giza Plateau, near Cairo, Egypt. Constructed: c. 2560 BCE. Builder: Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops). Status: The only surviving wonder.

The Great Pyramid of Giza, located on the Giza Plateau near Cairo, Egypt, is the oldest and only surviving intact structure of the original Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Built during the Fourth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom around 2580–2560 BCE, it served as the tomb of Pharaoh Khufu (also known by the Greek name Cheops). Originally rising to a height of approximately 146.6 meters (481 feet), it remained the tallest man-made structure in the world for over 3,800 years. Today, due to the loss of the outer casing stones and erosion, the pyramid stands at about 138.8 meters (455 feet) tall.

The Great Pyramid was constructed using an estimated 2.3 million limestone and granite blocks, some weighing up to 80 tons. Despite extensive studies, the exact techniques used to build the pyramid remain a subject of debate and fascination. Ancient records suggest that tens of thousands of skilled workers, rather than slaves as once believed, toiled for decades to complete the colossal monument. Its alignment with the cardinal points and precise proportions demonstrate a high level of mathematical and architectural sophistication for its time.

Inside the pyramid, the most famous internal structures include the King's Chamber, the Queen's Chamber, and the Grand Gallery, all part of a complex network of tunnels and passageways. The pyramid was originally covered in polished white Tura limestone, which would have made it shine brilliantly under the Sun. Although many of these casing stones have since been removed or eroded, the Great Pyramid still evokes awe and wonder. It remains a symbol of ancient Egyptian ingenuity, and religious devotion, and a lasting testament to humanity's ability to achieve monumental feats.

Historical references

Herodotus (5th century BCE) described the pyramid in Histories, attributing a 20-year construction period and noting slave labor, though as indicated modern scholars now believe skilled workers were used.

Ancient graffiti found within the pyramid's chambers mentions the "Friends of Khufu" work crew, lending credence to organized labor groups.

Archaeological evidence

Excavations at Giza have revealed worker villages, bakeries, and tools, confirming a highly organized and well-fed workforce, likely composed of seasonal laborers rather than slaves.

The Hanging Gardens of Babylon (Iraq)

Location: Babylon, near present-day Hillah, Iraq. Constructed: c. 6th century BCE (disputed)Builder: Traditionally attributed to King Nebuchadnezzar II. Status: Destroyed; location and existence debated.

The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, often regarded as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, evoke images of a lush, terraced paradise rising amidst the arid landscape of Mesopotamia. Said to have been located in the ancient city of Babylon, near present-day Hillah in Iraq, the gardens were described by ancient Greek writers as a marvel of engineering and beauty.

Towering terraces were allegedly filled with exotic trees, flowering plants, and cascading waterfalls, creating the illusion of a verdant mountain built in the heart of the desert. The most popular legend attributes the gardens' construction to King Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 BCE), who supposedly built them to please his Median wife, Amytis, who longed for the green hills of her homeland.

Despite the gardens' fame, there is significant debate among historians and archaeologists about whether they existed. There are no definitive Babylonian records describing the gardens, and they are conspicuously absent from the extensive inscriptions left behind by Nebuchadnezzar himself, who otherwise documented many of his building projects in Babylon.

The most detailed descriptions of the Hanging Gardens come from later Greek and Roman writers, such as Strabo and Philo of Byzantium, who never saw them firsthand and would have relied on secondhand accounts that may have confused them with other sites. Some scholars have proposed an alternative theory that the gardens may have existed, but not in Babylon. The Assyrian capital of Nineveh, under King Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BCE), is now considered a possible candidate for the true location of the Hanging Gardens. Archaeological excavations in Nineveh have uncovered evidence of elaborate palace gardens and an advanced irrigation system, including aqueducts and a water-raising screw, which could match the technological feats described in ancient texts.

Whether myth or reality, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon continue to capture the imagination as a symbol of opulence, innovation, and the timeless human desire to bring nature into the heart of civilization.

Historical references

Strabo and Philo of Byzantium provided detailed descriptions of the gardens.

As indicated Babylonian texts, including Nebuchadnezzar's inscriptions, never mention the gardens.

Archaeological evidence

Excavations by Robert Koldewey in the early 20th century uncovered a large vaulted structure in Babylon, possibly used for irrigation. However, evidence suggests alternative theories that place the gardens in Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, as described by Sennacherib's inscriptions, which boast of similar engineering marvels which may be more accurate.

The Statue of Zeus at Olympia (Greece)

Location: Olympia, Greece. Constructed: c. 435 BCE. Builder: Sculptor Phidias. Status: Destroyed (possibly by fire in the 5th century CE).

The Statue of Zeus at Olympia, ( (Ζεύς ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ), a monumental sculpture that stood as a testament to the grandeur and artistic achievement of ancient Greece. Created around 435 BCE by the renowned sculptor Phidias, the statue was housed in the Temple of Zeus in Olympia, the site of the ancient Olympic Games. This majestic statue depicted Zeus, the king of the Greek gods, seated on a magnificent throne, radiating both authority and benevolence.

Made primarily of ivory and gold over a wooden framework (a technique known as chryselephantine), the statue reached an estimated height of 12 meters (approximately 40 feet), making it so large that its head nearly brushed the temple's ceiling. Zeus held a figure of Nike, the goddess of victory, in his right hand and a scepter topped with an eagle in his left. The intricate detailing on his robes, the throne's decorations with mythical creatures, and the overall scale of the piece left ancient visitors in awe, with some ancient writers claiming that it gave the impression Zeus himself had descended from Olympus.

The statue stood for over 800 years, but its fate remains somewhat mysterious. It was likely moved to Constantinople in the 4th century CE, where it was eventually destroyed, possibly in a fire. Although the statue no longer survives, descriptions from ancient texts and depictions on coins give us a glimpse of its grandeur. The Statue of Zeus was not only a religious icon but also a symbol of Greek artistic excellence and devotion to their deities. Its legacy continues to capture the imagination of historians, artists, and enthusiasts of classical antiquity.

Historical references

Pausanias, the Greek traveler, offers a detailed 2nd-century CE account of the statue's grandeur, in addition to, the description by Philo of Byzantium.

Coins and ancient illustrations depict Zeus holding a scepter and a statue of Nike (Victory) in his outstretched hands.

Archaeological evidence

Excavations at Olympia have revealed the workshop of Phidias, complete with tools, terracotta molds, and a cup inscribed with "I belong to Phidias", confirming the statue's place and construction.

The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (Turkey)

Location: Ephesus, near modern Selçuk, Turkey. Constructed: Multiple phases, most notably c. 550 BCE. Builder: Croesus of Lydia (funded the grandest version). Status: Destroyed (arson, plunder, and natural disaster)

The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, (Ἀρτεμίσιον ἐν Ἐφέσῳ), located near the modern town of Selçuk in Turkey, stood as a masterpiece of architecture and religious devotion. Dedicated to Artemis, the Greek goddess of the hunt, wilderness, and fertility, the temple was originally constructed around 550 BCE by the Cretan architect Chersiphron and his son Metagenes, under the patronage of the wealthy Lydian king Croesus.

Built entirely of marble and adorned with sculptural decorations by some of the most skilled artists of the time, the temple was considered the largest of its kind in the ancient Greek world, far surpassing the size of the Parthenon in Athens. The grandeur of the temple was not merely in its scale but also in its cultural and religious significance. It served as a major center for worship, pilgrimage, and commerce, attracting visitors from across the Mediterranean.

Artemis of Ephesus was worshipped in a form distinct from the classical Greek goddess, often depicted with multiple breast-shaped orbs considered symbols of fertility, reflecting a blend of Anatolian and Hellenic traditions.

The temple complex also functioned as a bank and refuge during times of conflict, further underscoring its importance in the ancient world. Tragically, the original temple was destroyed by arson in 356 BCE, reportedly by a man named Herostratus who sought fame through infamy. A new temple, even more magnificent, was later rebuilt on the same site, but it too fell into ruin after successive invasions and centuries of neglect.

Today, only a few remnants of the great structure remain, including scattered columns and foundations, yet the legacy of the Temple of Artemis endures as a symbol of ancient architectural brilliance and the rich cultural history of Ephesus.

Historical references

Pliny the Elder described its dimensions and details in Natural History.

Antipater of Sidon called it more marvelous than any other wonder.

Archaeological evidence

Excavations by British archaeologist John Turtle Wood in the 1860s uncovered foundations and column fragments. Some sculpted column drums and decorative elements are now housed in the British Museum.

The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (Turkey)

Location: Bodrum, Turkey (ancient Halicarnassus). Constructed: c. 350 BCE. Builder: Queen Artemisia II of Caria for her husband Mausolus. Status: Destroyed (earthquakes, 12th-15th centuries CE).

The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, located in present-day Bodrum, Turkey, was built around 350 BCE as a monumental tomb for Mausolus, a satrap (governor) of the Persian Empire, and his sister-wife Artemisia II. The structure not only served as a tomb but also as a lasting tribute to Mausolus' legacy. So grand and unique was this structure that his name, Mausolus, became the root of the modern word "mausoleum."

The Mausoleum stood approximately 45 meters (148 feet) high and was an extraordinary blend of Greek, Egyptian, and Lycian architectural elements. It featured a large rectangular base, a colonnaded midsection with Ionic columns, and a stepped pyramid roof topped by a grand statue of a chariot pulled by four horses. The sculptural decorations, created by some of the most celebrated sculptors of the time, Scopas, Leochares, Bryaxis, and Timotheus, depicted scenes from myth and history, showcasing the artistic richness of the era.

Though the Mausoleum survived for many centuries, it was eventually brought down by a series of earthquakes during the medieval period. By the 15th century, the remaining ruins were dismantled by the Knights of St. John, who used the stones to build the nearby Bodrum Castle.

Despite its destruction, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus remains a symbol of architectural innovation and cultural fusion. Its artistic and structural legacy continues to influence funerary architecture even today.

Historical references

Pliny the Elder and Vitruvius gave accounts of its structure and significance.

Antipater of Sidon praised its symmetry and ornamentation.

Archaeological evidence

Excavations in the 19th century revealed foundation stones, frieze reliefs, and statues, some of which are displayed at the British Museum, including fragments of the quadriga (four-horse chariot).

The Colossus of Rhodes (Greece)

Location: Rhodes, Greece. Constructed: c. 292–280 BCE. Builder: Sculptor Chares of Lindos. Status: Destroyed by an earthquake (226 BCE).

The Colossus of Rhodes, (Κολοσσὸς Ῥόδου), was a massive bronze statue that once stood proudly at the entrance to the harbor of the island city of Rhodes, Greece. Built around 292–280 BCE, the statue was erected to honor the Sun god Helios, the patron deity of the Rhodians, following their successful defense against a siege by Demetrius I of Macedon. It was intended not just as a symbol of divine protection, but also as a celebration of the city's resilience and unity. The statue stood approximately 33 meters, (108 feet) high, making it one of the tallest statues of the ancient world.

Constructed by the sculptor Chares of Lindos, a native of Rhodes and a student of the great sculptor Lysippos, the Colossus was created using bronze plates over an iron framework, a technique similar to that used centuries later for the Statue of Liberty. It is believed that the statue stood on a pedestal near the harbor entrance, although the popular image of it straddling the harbor with ships passing beneath its legs is considered a later myth. The project reportedly took 12 years to complete and was funded by selling the abandoned equipment left behind by the defeated Macedonian army.

Tragically, the Colossus stood for only about 54 years before it was toppled by a massive earthquake in 226 BCE. Though it lay in ruins, its remains still inspired awe for centuries. The broken statue lay on the ground for over 800 years before Arab conquerors sold the scrap metal during their invasion of Rhodes in 654 CE.

Despite its relatively short existence, the Colossus of Rhodes remains one of the most iconic symbols of ancient Greek engineering and artistic ambition, a testament to the ingenuity and pride of a city that once stood at the crossroads of ancient maritime power.

Historical references

Pliny the Elder provides measurements and notes the broken statue's remains were visible for centuries.

The Suda, a Byzantine encyclopedia, mentions the statue's grandeur and eventual destruction.

Archaeological evidence

No physical remains have been definitively identified. However, ancient foundations consistent with monumental statuary have been found near the harbor, and Rhodes minted coins featuring Helios with a radiant crown, indicating the cultural significance of the statue.

The Pharos (Lighthouse) of Alexandria (Egypt)

Location: Pharos Island, Alexandria, Egypt. Constructed: c. 280 BCE. Builder: Commissioned by Ptolemy I, completed under Ptolemy II. Status: Destroyed by earthquakes (between 956–1323 CE).

The Pharos of Alexandria, also known as the Lighthouse of Alexandria, stood as a marvel of engineering and architecture for centuries. Built on the small island of Pharos just off the coast of Alexandria, Egypt, it was commissioned by Ptolemy I Soter and completed during the reign of his son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, around 280 BCE. Designed by the Greek architect Sostratus of Cnidus, the lighthouse was constructed to guide sailors safely into the busy harbor of Alexandria, one of the most important trading centers of the ancient world.

Estimates of the lighthouse's height vary, but ancient sources suggest it stood between 100 and 130 meters, (roughly 330 to 430 feet) tall, making it one of the tallest man-made structures of antiquity. Its design was tiered, comprising a square base, a cylindrical middle section, and a smaller circular beacon at the top, possibly topped with a statue, some accounts say of Zeus or Poseidon. During the day, the Sun reflected off polished bronze mirrors that helped guide ships, while at night, a fire was maintained, magnified by reflective surfaces to create a beam visible for miles. The Pharos was both a functional aid to navigation and a symbol of Alexandria's grandeur and Hellenistic sophistication.

The lighthouse endured for many centuries, but it was severely damaged by a series of earthquakes between the 10th and 14th centuries CE. Eventually, it collapsed and was no longer functional, though its legacy endured. In the 15th century, the Sultan of Egypt used some of its fallen stones to build the Citadel of Qaitbay on the same site.

Today, underwater archaeological explorations have uncovered remnants of the lighthouse in the harbor, providing insight into its structure and significance.

Side note:- Pharos (Latin: Pharus) was the name of the island where the lighthouse was built. The Lighthouse of Pharos became so iconic that the name Pharos became synonymous with any lighthouse. The original root of the word is derived from the Greek word for the island: Φάρος (Pháros).

Historical references

Strabo and Pliny the Elder praised its design and function.

The Arab traveler Ibn Battuta witnessed its ruined form in the 14th century.

Archaeological evidence

In 1994, underwater archaeologists discovered large stone blocks, statues, and sphinxes submerged near Alexandria's Eastern Harbor, likely remnants of the lighthouse. Some artefacts are now visible in underwater tours and museum exhibits

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World represent far more than a nostalgic list of lost marvels, they are enduring testaments to humanity's early pursuit of architectural mastery, artistic brilliance, and cultural identity. While only the Great Pyramid of Giza still stands today, the other wonders, though destroyed or lost to time, are far from mythical.

Through a combination of ancient historical writings, surviving ruins, and archaeological discoveries, a compelling case emerges that these wonders were real, physical structures that once inspired awe in those who beheld them.

Each wonder reflects the values and capabilities of the civilization that created it: the Pyramid demonstrates the precision and ambition of ancient Egypt; the Hanging Gardens, whether in Babylon or Nineveh, embody the ingenuity of Mesopotamian irrigation and design; the Statue of Zeus reveals the grandeur of Greek artistry and religious devotion; and the Temple of Artemis shows the cultural richness and architectural sophistication of ancient Anatolia.

Together, these wonders speak not only to the glory of the ancient world but also to our enduring desire to commemorate the extraordinary. Rather than being dismissed as legend, the Seven Wonders should be embraced as real expressions of ancient human achievement.

Their stories blend fact, tradition, and some inevitable exaggeration, offering a valuable understanding into the civilizations that shaped the foundation of our modern world. They continue to inspire curiosity, scholarship, and admiration, reminding us that even across millennia, humanity's drive to build, create, and remember is a wonder in itself.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Philo of Byzantium

Philo of Byzantium (Greek: Φίλων ὁ Βυζάντιος), also known as Philo Mechanicus, was a Greek engineer and writer who lived during the 3rd century BCE. He was born in Byzantium but spent a significant part of his life in Alexandria, one of the great centers of learning in the Hellenistic world. Philo is best known for his contributions to mechanics and engineering, particularly in pneumatics, siegecraft, and automation. His work reflects the blending of practical engineering with theoretical science, a hallmark of Hellenistic intellectual achievement.

One of Philo's most notable achievements is his treatise Mechanike Syntaxis ("Compendium of Mechanics"), a large work that originally consisted of nine books. Only parts of it survive today, including sections on pneumatics and military engineering. In his Pneumatica, Philo described various devices that operated using air, steam, or water pressure, some of which may be considered early forms of automation. These included water fountains, force pumps, and even a primitive form of the steam engine.

Philo is also one of the earliest known writers to mention the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. In a lost work titled Peri tōn hepta theamatōn (Greek: Περὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ θεαμάτων, "On the Seven Wonders"), he compiled a list of what were considered the most magnificent man-made structures of his time.

Although the original text is lost, later sources preserve parts of it and refer to his descriptions, which helped shape the canonical list known today. Philo's writings emphasized not only the grandeur and aesthetics of the wonders but also their architectural and engineering ingenuity, aligning with his interests in mechanical and structural excellence.

Through his surviving works and his lost but influential writings on the wonders of the world, Philo of Byzantium remains a key figure in understanding both ancient engineering and how classical civilizations valued technological and artistic marvels.

Linking the goddess Nike to the modern Olympics

The statue of Zeus at Olympia, (Ζεύς ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ), held in his outstretched right hand a smaller figure of the goddess Nike, (Νίκη), the personification of victory. This symbolic gesture captured the heart of the Olympic spirit: the pursuit of excellence, triumph, and divine favor. The ancient Olympic Games were held in Zeus's honor and were as much about pleasing the gods as they were about celebrating human achievement. Nike, literally "Victory," embodied the glory bestowed upon those who emerged triumphant in athletic competition, linking sport with the divine.

That association between athletic excellence and military prowess became even more poignant after the Battle of Marathon in 490 BCE. In that iconic clash, the vastly outnumbered Athenians defeated the invading Persian forces, a moment seen not just as a military victory, but as a triumph of democratic courage and physical endurance. According to legend, a runner named Pheidippides, (Φειδιππίδης), ran from the battlefield to Athens, over 26 miles, in armor across rough mountain trails after the battle to announce "Νενικήκαμεν!" (Nenikēkamen) — meaning "We have won!" or "We are victorious!" before collapsing and dying.

This legendary feat of endurance is the mythic origin of the modern marathon event. In the aftermath, Nike was more than just the goddess of victory, she became a national symbol of survival, resilience, and the favor of the gods.

When the modern Olympic Games were revived in 1896, the legacy of Nike and the ideals represented by the statue of Zeus lived on. The inclusion of the marathon race honored the Athenian spirit at Marathon, tying the Games directly to that moment of historical heroism.

Nike remains a potent symbol today: her winged figure graces medals and trophies, embodying the timeless quest for greatness. Through Zeus's hand and the battlefield of Marathon, the thread of victory stretches across millennia, binding the ancient and modern Olympics in a celebration of strength, perseverance, and the enduring power of human ambition.

The Breasts of Artemis

Artemis, the ancient Greek goddess of the hunt, wild animals, wilderness, childbirth, and the Moon, was one of the most widely venerated deities in the Greek world. As a virgin goddess and the twin sister of Apollo, Artemis represents an archetype of fierce independence, often depicted with a bow and accompanied by a deer or hunting dogs. While many temples were dedicated to her across the Greek world, the most iconic and enigmatic representation of Artemis comes from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, (Main text), one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

The Ephesian Artemis, however, departs dramatically from the typical youthful huntress image. Her statues display a rigid, frontal pose and an unusual adornment on her chest that has sparked scholarly debate for centuries: the presence of multiple rounded protuberances, often interpreted as multiple breasts.

The traditional interpretation of these rounded shapes suggests that they represent multiple breasts, symbolizing Artemis as a universal mother and fertility goddess. This view aligns more closely with Anatolian mother goddess figures like Cybele and reflects the syncretism between Greek and earlier local deities in Asia Minor.

The Ephesian Artemis may therefore represent a convergence of identities, combining the Greek Artemis with pre-Greek fertility goddesses. Her cult at Ephesus was deeply rooted in the notion of life-giving power, suggesting that the many breasts symbolized abundant nourishment and fertility.

However, more recent hypotheses challenge the breast interpretation. Some scholars propose that the objects are not anatomical at all but represent offerings or ritual items, such as gourds, often used in ancient fertility rites. Others suggest they could be amber or acorn-like pendants, possibly meant to invoke protective powers or symbolize abundance and bounty.

One compelling theory, supported by archaeological analysis of earlier statues, is that the "breasts" might be rows of bull scrotums, commemorating animal sacrifices made in her honor. This theory finds some grounding in ancient practices, where votive offerings included preserved animal parts.

Another hypothesis posits that the shapes were symbolic, meant to indicate celestial or astrological concepts rather than biological fertility. Artemis, as a lunar goddess, may have been associated with the heavens and the cyclical nature of the moon. In this reading, the strange protuberances could symbolize stars, moons, or other astral forms rather than reproductive organs, shifting Artemis from a mother goddess to a cosmic force of nature.

A more recent hypothesis suggests that the rounded protuberances on the Ephesian Artemis may be stylized representations of beehives. This theory draws on the deep symbolic relationship between bees, feminine power, and divine wisdom in the ancient Mediterranean world.

In several cultures, bees were associated with goddesses and priestesses, most notably the Melissae, or "bee priestesses," who served various deities including Artemis, Demeter, and even the Delphic Oracle of Apollo. Artemis herself was occasionally linked to bees through inscriptions and myths that emphasized her role as a guardian of nature and a nurturer of hidden wisdom.

The beehive theory adds a fascinating new layer to the understanding of Artemis's cult at Ephesus. Bees, and by extension hives, symbolize fertility, community, regeneration, and sacred knowledge, concepts that align well with Artemis's multifaceted nature as both a protector of virginity and a goddess of childbirth. The idea that her chest might display stylized hives rather than anatomical features or votive offerings challenges earlier fertility-only interpretations, suggesting instead that Artemis presided over a sacred ecology, where every element of nature was connected through divine order and maternal stewardship.

This symbolic interpretation also repositions the Ephesian Artemis as a cosmic queen bee, overseeing the structured, mystical order of nature and life itself. Such a reading would explain her unearthly, rigid posture and the heavily adorned, almost architectural, stylization of her statues, not as depictions of the natural human form, but as sacred icons encoded with layers of meaning for the initiated. The beehive theory thus resonates with broader ancient themes of sacred geometry, female divinity, and the microcosmic order of nature within the divine feminine.

The true meaning remains elusive, largely because the cult of the Ephesian Artemis was highly localized and her rituals closely guarded. What is clear, however, is that Artemis of Ephesus embodies a richly layered fusion of religious symbolism, blending themes of fertility, sacrifice, protection, and cosmic order into one of antiquity's most mysterious and enduring images.

The First Great Battle of the U.S. Civil War’s Western Theater: Shiloh Part 2

The Battle of Shiloh (April 6–7, 1862) almost ended Generals Grant and Sherman's careers. Instead, it is considered their first great victory, a testament to their tenacity and determination.

During the chaotic first day, several Union generals played critical roles in holding defensive positions or delaying the Confederate advance. These efforts helped prevent a total collapse of the Union army and bought time for General Ulysses S. Grant to establish a stronger defensive line near Pittsburg Landing.

Lloyd W Klein here looks at how the battle ended in the final part of the series. Part 1 is here.

Ulysses S. Grant.

Important Union Contributions:

·       Brigadier General Benjamin Prentiss who commanded the 6th Division in the Union center. He was a critical first responder given that his was the most forward division. He would then move to the Hornet’s Nest.

·       Major General John A. McClernand who commanded the 1st Division on the Union right flank. McClernand’s division faced some of the heaviest fighting early in the day as the Confederates launched their surprise attack. Despite being pushed back, McClernand’s forces fought stubbornly, slowing the Confederate advance and preventing an early collapse of the Union right flank.

·       Brigadier General Stephen A. Hurlbut, who commanded the 4th Division.

Hurlbut’s division held a defensive position near the Union left flank, covering the approach to Pittsburg Landing.. His troops absorbed significant Confederate pressure and played a key role in protecting the Union army’s retreat and regrouping efforts.

Important Confederate Contributions:

·       Major General Braxton Bragg, commander of a Confederate corps, whose aggressive leadership helped drive the Confederate advance early in the battle. He coordinated several assaults on key Union positions, including the Hornet’s Nest, which was crucial in breaking Union resistance in the center. Bragg’s relentless pressure contributed to the Union army’s retreat toward Pittsburg Landing.

·       Major General William J. Hardee, who commanded the lead Confederate corps.

Hardee’s corps spearheaded the initial Confederate assault at dawn, achieving significant success in surprising and overwhelming the Union front lines. His leadership was instrumental in the early Confederate momentum, driving Union forces back several miles.

·       Major General Leonidas Polk who commanded of a Confederate corps. Polk’s corps provided critical support during the Confederate attacks on the Union right flank. While his contributions were solid, Polk’s performance was less decisive compared to Bragg and Hardee. who were instrumental in executing the Confederate attacks, particularly in the early phases of the battle, and their actions shaped the battlefield dynamics.

Hornet’s Nest

A key defensive stand occurred at an area later known as the Hornet’s Nest, where Union forces under Prentiss and Brigadier General W.H.L. Wallace held off repeated Confederate assaults for several hours. This resistance bought critical time for Grant to organize a defensive line near Pittsburg Landing. The Hornet’s Nest was a name given to the area of the Shiloh battlefield where Confederate troops made repeated attacks against Union positions along a small, little-used farm road.. Southern soldiers said the zipping bullets sounded like angry hornets; according to tradition, one man said, "It’s a hornet’s nest in there."

The narrow farm road ambles generally southeast from its junction with the Eastern Corinth Road (Corinth-Pittsburgh Road). Fairly level toward its northwest end, it makes a rather sharp climb up a hill near its center, descending again near the William Manse George cabin and the Peach Orchard. That hill, where Brigadier General Benjamin Prentiss commanded an ad hoc group of regiments, comprises the area of the Hornet’s Nest. To Wallace’s right was a division of Federals under Brig. Gen. W.H. L. Wallace, and to his left was another division under Brig. Gen. Stephen Hurlbut. Wallace held a position stretching along the farm road from the Eastern Cornith Road and up the slope to where Prentiss’s line began. Wallace’s men were in a deep ravine on the east side of the farm road; that area is now known as the Sunken Road. Often, but erroneously, the positions of Wallace and Prentiss are lumped together as the Hornet’s Nest. Confusing matters further is the fact that as the farm road passes over the hill where Prentiss had his command, it is sunken for a portion of its 600-yard length there.

Brigadier General W.H.L. Wallace commanded the 2nd Division. An Illinois volunteer soldier who was a lawyer in his civilian life, I believe a law partner at one time of Abraham Lincoln (they were friends, at least). Coolness under fire leading a brigade as a colonel at Fort Donelson had earned him a promotion to Brigadier General Wallace’s division also played a central role in defending the Hornet’s Nest, fighting alongside Prentiss’s men. Wallace was mortally wounded during the battle, but his leadership and the determination of his troops were crucial in holding the line for much of the day. Charles Ferguson Smith had been the division commander but developed a leg infection just prior to the battle. In fact, he died of it a couple of weeks later. General William HL Wallace took command, and ended up defending the Hornet’s Nest for 6 hours, eventually being killed there.

Wallace commanded the 2nd Division of the Army of the Tennessee. His division formed a critical part of the Union line, holding off repeated Confederate assaults. During the intense fighting in the late afternoon, Wallace was mortally wounded. A bullet struck him in the head as his troops were withdrawing from the Hornet’s Nest. He was left on the battlefield during the Union retreat but was later found alive by Union forces. Wallace was taken to a field hospital, but his injuries were too severe. He died on April 10, 1862, four days after the battle. His death was a significant loss to the Union army, as he was a respected and capable commander.

Benjamin Prentiss commanded the 6th Division of the Army of the Tennessee. Early on Day 1, his division bore the brunt of the Confederate surprise attack. Despite being initially driven back, Prentiss regrouped his forces and established a strong defensive position in the Hornet’s Nest, a dense thicket that became a focal point of the battle. Alongside W.H.L. Wallace, Prentiss held this position for hours, slowing the Confederate advance and buying time for Union forces to reorganize near Pittsburg Landing. Prentiss took full command of the position after Wallace was fatally wounded.  Late in the afternoon, after being surrounded and running low on ammunition, Prentiss and his remaining troops were forced to surrender. Prentiss was taken prisoner along with about 2,200 Union soldiers. Prentiss was held as a prisoner of war until he was exchanged in October 1862. His leadership at the Hornet’s Nest earned him recognition for his bravery, despite his capture.

The defense of the Hornet’s Nest by Prentiss and Wallace delayed the Confederate advance, preventing them from reaching Pittsburg Landing and potentially destroying the Union army on Day 1. While both men suffered tragic outcomes—Prentiss as a prisoner and Wallace from mortal wounds—their actions contributed significantly to the Union’s ability to regroup and ultimately win the battle on Day 2. The Confederate forces launched repeated attacks on this strong Union defensive position, but it took hours and significant effort to overcome it.  General Beauregard has been criticized for his conduct of this aspect of the battle because of the time delay it caused. He could have bypassed the Hornet’s Nest entirely and gone straight for Pittsburg Landing.

After the battle he was considered a hero, having held off the Confederate States Army long enough to allow General Grant to organize a counterattack and win the battle. Grant later played down Prentiss's role in the victory, possibly because of mutual dislike between the two generals. He was exchanged in October 1862.  Prentiss was promoted to major general and served on the court-martial board that convicted Fitz John Porter. His dissenting voice in the final vote damaged his political clout in the Army, and he resigned in 1863.

Colonel Randall L. Gibson commanded a brigade under Bragg. Gibson’s brigade launched multiple assaults on the Hornet’s Nest but was repelled repeatedly with heavy losses. His inability to break the Union line underscored the strength of the Union position and the difficulty of the Confederate task. While Gibson would go on to become a long-serving brigade commander with a solid service record, Braxton Bragg (the man who ordered the repeated charges) would fault him and bring him up on charges after the battle. He had graduated Yale as valedictorian, a member of Skull and Crossbones, and the son of a wealthy plantation owner.  An interesting factoid about Gibson is that his great-great-grandfather was a free man of color whose descendants were able to integrate into Louisiana's white society. He would go on to be the US Senator from Louisiana who was instrumental in ending Reconstruction.

An artillery barrage organized by the Ruggles Brigade ultimately caused the Union line to break and the Union line was broken with units heading to the rear. Ruggles' Battery, not an actual unit but a Napoleonic style Grand Battery collecting numerous artillery units under the direction of Confederate division commander Daniel Ruggles. Brigadier General Daniel Ruggles lined up eleven batteries of cannon (62 in all according to Ruggles, 53 according to other sources) and bombed the hell out of the Union troops for nearly an hour beginning at 4:30 PM on April 6th. At the time, this was the greatest concentration of artillery pieces on a North American battlefield.

An uncoordinated double envelopment was in progress. The Confederates eventually surrounded and overwhelmed the Hornet’s Nest, capturing Prentiss and many of his men. However, the delay proved crucial for the Union. Although Prentiss and most of his men were eventually surrounded and captured, their stubborn defense significantly delayed the Confederate advance, allowing Grant to organize a stronger line closer to Pittsburg Landing.

The Death of Albert Sidney Johnston

Johnston  personally led a critical charge during the afternoon, inspiring his troops and helping to push Union forces back. A bullet to the back of his knee killed Johnston, where the popliteal artery is located. This wound should not have resulted in death; a simple tourniquet would have been lifesaving. Unfortunately, the wound went unnoticed until too late.

The death of Albert Sidney Johnston of course was a major event in the war; the Confederate western theater never really found its general. Johnston was shot while leading a charge. Why the commanding general was doing this has been speculated about ever since. His losses at Fort Donelson and Henry, and the criticism following his abandoning Nashville certainly occupied his mind. Johnston was killed by a bullet to the back of his knee, where the popliteal artery is located. Unfortunately, the wound went unnoticed until too late because Johnston had received a wound to that leg in the Mexican War, decreasing his sensation. Meanwhile, the bleeding became severe and filled his boot with blood. Essentially he exsanguinated on the field from what ought to have been a non-fatal wound. This wound should not have resulted in death; a simple tourniquet would have been lifesaving.

Lew Wallace

A casualty of a different kind was the Union general Lew Wallace. Wallace took a road that was correct if the lines were where they had been at the start of the day but by the time he arrived, those lines were pushed back and so Wallace was behind enemy lines. Thus, he had to countermarch. He never did arrive on day 1 but he was very effective on day 2. Grant never really forgave him; only in his autobiography, after Wallace died, did Grant recognize that he had misinterpreted the situation. Wallace spent years trying to make up for the supposed error, a theme he used in his famous novel Ben Hur.

Lew Wallace is one of the most interesting men who came out of the war, and we have done extensive challenges on almost every aspect of his life. The nature of the misunderstanding that would change his life forever occurred in a flash: at Crump’s Landing, Grant verbally ordered Wallace to the battlefield but didn’t clearly specify what road to take. Wallace ended up on the wrong one (see map). He never did arrive on day 1 (until 7 pm) and Grant never really forgave him. I have read Wallace’s autobiography, and Grant’s Battles and Leaders article and of course his Memoirs.  It all seems like a mix-up of the kind the fog of war will inevitably produce, and way too complicated to review here. Unquestionably, Grant tried to blame Wallace for his day 1 mishaps for many years. Only in his autobiography, after Wallace died, after the wife of the other General Wallace, Mrs. WHL Wallace, sent Grant information that bore out Lew Wallace’s explanation, did Grant recognize that he had misinterpreted the situation. Wallace spent years trying to make up for the supposed error, which was not really his fault, a theme he used in his famous novel Ben Hur. In the interim, Wallace saved Washington DC at the Battle of Monocacy, served as governor of New Mexico territory, and diplomat to the Ottoman Empire. Ben Hur became one of the best sellers of the century, making Wallace a wealthy man, so he did quite well for himself despite it all. He is one of my favorite Civil War characters. And we are not done with him here either.

Evening

Grant’s back was to the river; he could have been entirely destroyed. His defense at Pittsburg Landing in the afternoon of day 1 saved his army. By evening, Grant had established a strong defensive line near Pittsburg Landing, supported by artillery and the Tennessee River. The presence of Union gunboats added firepower, repelling further Confederate advances.  Generals Hurlbut and McClernand contributed to this final defensive stand, ensuring the Union army survived the first day of battle.

General Beauregard, confident in the day’s success, decided to halt the attack for the night, believing the Union army was on the verge of collapse. However, this decision allowed Grant to regroup and prepare for a counterattack.

The first day of Shiloh was chaotic and bloody, with heavy casualties on both sides.

The Confederates had pushed the Union forces back significantly but failed to achieve total victory.  The ferocity of the fighting on Day 1 shocked both sides and marked Shiloh as one of the war’s most brutal battles.

That night, reinforcements from Buell’s Army of the Ohio began arriving, giving Grant the strength to launch a counteroffensive on April 7.

Sherman commanded 5th Division, which was stationed at Shiloh Church on the Union right flank. His division was among the first to face the Confederate onslaught.  Despite being surprised and initially overwhelmed, Sherman quickly rallied his troops and organized a defense to slow the Confederate advance. His division absorbed significant pressure, buying time for other Union units to organize and retreat toward Pittsburg Landing.

Shiloh was quite possibly Sherman's best day of combat command during the war.  After being wounded in Rea Field, he galloped back to his camps and got his brigades in line (some were already up and forming) along a ridge overlooking a creek (variously know as Shiloh Branch, Rhea Creek, or Rea Creek).  He was able to hang on here (joined by one brigade from McClernand on his left) from 7 a.m. until 9:30 or so, repelling a series of uncoordinated single-brigade attacks from four Confederate brigades.  Eventually the position was flanked on the left, and Sherman and McClernand fell back to the Hamburg-Purdy Road.  Between 10:30 and 11:30, this position was attacked by a force that one source characterized as "two-thirds of the Confederate army" and driven back to Jones Field.  Sherman and McClernand then carried out the only Federal counterattack of the day, driving the enemy back before losing steam and retiring back to Jones Field in the early afternoon.  In the middle of the afternoon they retired further, across Tilghman Branch..

Sherman demonstrated remarkable composure under fire, personally leading counterattacks and encouraging his men despite being wounded in the hand and shoulder. His ability to maintain discipline and inspire confidence among his troops helped prevent a total rout of the Union right flank. Sherman worked closely with McClernand, whose division was positioned near his own, to establish a series of defensive lines as they fell back under Confederate pressure. Their combined efforts helped slow the Confederate advance and delayed a complete Union collapse.

As the Union forces were pushed back toward Pittsburg Landing, Sherman played a key role in organizing the final defensive line. His leadership ensured that his battered division held its position, contributing to the Union army’s survival at the end of the first day.

Sherman’s ability to rally his troops under chaotic and dire circumstances demonstrated his leadership skills and earned him forever the trust of General Grant. His actions at Shiloh marked a turning point in his career, proving his capability as a battlefield commander. Grant later praised Sherman’s performance, calling him one of the key figures in preventing the Union army from being destroyed on the first day of the battle.

When Sherman arrived at Grant’s headquarters later that evening, he found the general chewing on a soggy cigar in the rain, which had begun soaking the battlefield. ‘Well, Grant, we’ve had the devil’s own day, haven’t we?’ ‘Yes,’ replied Grant, ‘lick ’em tomorrow, though.’

After making a brief attempt to assail Grant's line behind Dill Creek Branch they retired to the Federal camps for the night.  Polk took his Corps back to their own camps of the previous night; which did not help the Confederate effort on the 7th. They slept on their arms. All of the brigades were entangled and exhausted. Command and control had become weak during the afternoon for this reason. Beauregard had thrown in all of his men, there were no reserve units now. He expected the next morning to be a mop-up operation. He did not anticipate Don Carlos Buell’s Army of the Ohio arrival, nor Lew Wallace’s division., which was now on the field. The Confederate lines had become confused and now they were outnumbered. A dispatch from Colonel Benjamin Hardin Helm led Beauregard to believe that Buell was en route to Decatur, Ala., away from Grant’s army. The report was entirely inaccurate, but Beauregard believed it. Cavalry Colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest had observed Buell’s men crossing the river by ferry. He frantically tried to warn Beauregard, but was unable to locate the Confederate commander.

Lew Wallace arrived on the right between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.  On the left, Nelson's Division of Buell's Army was just beginning to cross as the Confederates made their final effort, and finished by 9:00 p.m.  Crittenden was in place by 1:00 a.m., and McCook followed after that. Buell arrived that same evening with nearly 20,000 men. Wallace’s division, consisting of about 5,800 men, was well-rested and unscathed from the previous day’s fighting. These reinforcements completely changed the balance of forces, but Beauregard didn’t know it was happening.

The Battle – Day 2

The fortunes of Day 2 went the opposite way. Beauregard’s men were entangled and exhausted. Don Carlos Buell’s Army of the Ohio arrived. But so did Lew Wallace’s division.

General P.G.T. Beauregard had effectively managed the Confederate forces after Johnston’s death, but his decision to halt the attack on the evening of April 6 had significant consequences. He believed the Union army was defeated and delayed further attacks until the next day, giving Grant time to regroup and receive reinforcements.

Overnight, Union reinforcements under General Don Carlos Buell and Lew Wallace arrived, significantly bolstering Union forces. Early on April 7, Union forces launched a coordinated counterattack against the Confederate army, which had been exhausted from the previous day’s fighting. Confederate troops, under General P.G.T. Beauregard (put up stiff resistance but were gradually pushed back.

After failing to reach the battlefield in time on Day 1 due to miscommunication and delays, Wallace’s troops arrived fully intact and ready for action, making a significant contribution to the Union counteroffensive.  His troops were positioned on the Union right flank, where they attacked the Confederate left, putting additional pressure on the exhausted Southern forces. Wallace’s division executed a coordinated attack with other Union forces, pushing the Confederate left flank back. This disrupted the Confederate defensive lines and contributed to their eventual retreat. His troops were instrumental in recapturing ground lost on Day 1, helping secure Union control of the battlefield. Wallace’s arrival helped General Ulysses S. Grant execute a unified counteroffensive across the entire front. Wallace’s division worked in conjunction with Buell’s reinforcements and other Union divisions to overwhelm the Confederates.

The Union counterattacked the morning of day 2. Sherman’s division participated in the Union counteroffensive, helping to drive the Confederate forces back. His troops, though exhausted and bloodied from the previous day’s fighting, played a significant role in regaining lost ground and securing a Union victory. The Union army recaptured lost ground, including areas around Pittsburg Landing. .By afternoon, the Confederate forces, realizing they were outnumbered and outmaneuvered, began retreating toward Corinth, Mississippi.

The Confederate lines had become confused the day before and now they were outnumbered. The Union now had the advantage and pushed the lines back completely beyond where the battle lines had been before the fighting began.

Buell met with Sherman at sunset, and learned that Grant planned to attack at sunrise. An understanding was made that Grant would have the west side of the line, while Buell would plan his own attack on the east side. General Don Carlos Buell’s troops made a critical contribution, no doubt. His added reinforcements helped ensure a Union victory on the battle’s second day when a massive Union counterattack routed Confederate forces. Buell’s soldiers played a key role in the Union counterattack. They attacked the Confederate right flank, forcing the Confederates to stretch their already exhausted lines. This pressure, combined with attacks from other Union forces, gradually drove the Confederates back. Buell’s troops helped stabilize the Union’s left flank, which had been vulnerable on Day 1.Their presence allowed Grant to organize a coordinated assault across the entire line, rather than focusing solely on defense. The fresh energy and discipline of Buell’s troops were instrumental in breaking the Confederate resistance. By mid-afternoon, their efforts contributed to forcing the Confederates into a full retreat, ensuring a Union victory. Buell’s timely arrival and the effectiveness of his troops underscored the importance of reinforcements in Civil War battles, where exhaustion and attrition often determined the outcome. General Buell would later insist that he deserved credit for turning the tide at Shiloh, while others—in particular Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman—argued that his troops ultimately had little effect on the outcome. In summary, both Grant’s and Buell’s armies made important contributions on day 2.

Could Beauregard have won day 2 if he had prepared differently? For many years, this was the conclusion of many historians. Modern historians, such as Cunningham and Daniel, disagree with that assessment. Cunningham wrote that Beauregard's critics ignore "the existing situation on the Shiloh battlefield"—including Confederate disorganization, time before sunset, and Grant's strong position augmented by gunboats. Daniel wrote that the thought that "the Confederates could have permanently breached or pulverized the Federal line in an additional hour or so of piecemeal night assaults simply lacks plausibility." He mentions that it took the Confederates six hours to conquer the Hornet's Nest, and Grant's Last Line was a stronger position. He also cites exhaustion, and low ammunition. Dill Creek Branch would have been a formidable position to capture by tired troops. On April 7, Beauregard attempted to continue offensive operations, but his troops were outnumbered, exhausted, and lacked reinforcements. Recognizing the arrival of Union reinforcements, Beauregard could have shifted to a defensive posture, fortifying positions and conserving his forces for a controlled retreat. This might have minimized casualties and preserved his army for future campaigns. On day 2, the Confederates were outnumbered but had they entrenched and set up a defensive perimeter, they might well have held off the Union counterattack. Beauregard could have ordered a relentless night attack to exploit the disarray in the Union lines. While risky due to exhaustion and poor visibility, this might have prevented Union reinforcements (Buell’s and Wallace’s troops) from stabilizing the Union position overnight. Confederate cavalry under Nathan Bedford Forrest was underutilized during the battle, particularly for reconnaissance and disrupting Union reinforcements. Beauregard could have deployed cavalry more aggressively to harass Buell’s approaching forces or cut off the Union supply lines to Pittsburg Landing. This could have delayed or weakened the Union counteroffensive on Day 2. He could have anticipated Buell’s arrival and adjusted his strategy accordingly, perhaps by retreating under cover of darkness on April 6 to avoid being outflanked and overwhelmed. Finally, his single road route from Corinth was problematic logistically, as ammunition would become depleted.

The Aftermath

Beauregard retreated from the field in the late afternoon and returned to Corinth. The Union Army had recovered all of the ground it had lost on day 1 and swept the field on day 2. Grant did not pursue, in part because his own army was in disarray but also because General Halleck would not allow it. Both sides suffered significant losses, with over 23,000 combined casualties, making Shiloh one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War up to that point. The Union army claimed victory, though at a heavy cost.

The Union had 63,000 men engaged, with 13,000 casualties (1754 killed, 8400 wounded, 2900 captured vs. the Confederates with 40-45,000 men with 10,700 casualties (1728 killed, 8000 wounded, 1000 captured). The Union therefore had more casualties, but on a percentage basis, a slightly lower rate of casualties. The battle demonstrated the brutality of the war and marked a turning point in the Western Theater, giving the Union control of key regions in Tennessee. “Scareder than I was at Shiloh” The battle remains famous for the brutal fighting, the high casualties on both sides, and the evidence that the war was going to be a long one. At that time, this battle had more American casualties than every prior war combined! Yet by the end of the war, this battle barely made the top ten list.

General Grant initially was the recipient of an outpouring of public support at first, hailed as a hero of a great battle. The perception of Grant as a drunkard was utilized to explain the horrific losses suffered at the Battle of Shiloh by officers jealous of Grant’s rapid rise. Newspaper reports critical of Grant’s command were intended to increase sales, if not influence the political debate, after the shocking casualties of that bloody battle. Shocked by the casualties of what, up to that point, was the war’s bloodiest battle, newspaper reporters wrote articles critical of Grant’s command. These criticisms fed the rumors that Grant, who many believed had been forced out of the pre-war Army because of alcohol consumption, had been caught drunk and off guard by Confederate General Albert Sydney Johnston’s surprise attack. The losses suffered by both sides at Shiloh had more to do with the nature of nineteenth-century warfare than the nature of Grant’s relationship with liquor, but rumors of his affection for spirits now became generally accepted.

Whitelaw Reid, Cincinnati Gazette, reported the events of the battle incorrectly, stating that Grant had been taken by surprise at Shiloh and that soldiers had been bayonetted in their tents. This myth persists to this day.  The high casualty rate at Shiloh was related to the intensity of the battle, not the nature of Grant’s problems with liquor, but rumors of his drinking increased.

Halleck arrived at Pittsburg Landing on April 11 and took personal command—as he had planned earlier. On April 30, he named Grant as his second-in-command. This was a meaningless position, but Halleck's solution to the Grant criticism was a de facto suspension that satisfied the critics. Some of the more "savage denunciations" of Grant came from politicians representing Ohio and Iowa. One politician complained to Lincoln, saying Grant was an incompetent drunk that was a political liability. Lincoln's response was "I can't spare this man; he fights."

On April 8, Confederate President Jefferson Davis reported to the Confederate congress that Johnston had gained a complete victory. A last-minute addition to his speech mentioned Johnston's death. Before the battle, the public had wanted Johnston removed because of the loss of most of Tennessee. Now he was a hero. Over the next few days, more information about the battle became available. The initial perception was that only "untoward events" had saved the Union army from destruction, and the withdrawal to Corinth was part of a strategic plan. Eventually, critics began to blame Beauregard for the defeat, citing the lack of a twilight attack on the first day of the battle.

The perception of Grant as a drunkard was utilized to explain the horrific losses suffered at the Battle of Shiloh by officers jealous of Grant’s rapid rise. Newspaper reports  critical of Grant’s command were intended to increase sales, if not influence the political debate, after the shocking casualties of that bloody battle. Shocked by the casualties of what up to that point was the war’s bloodiest battle, newspaper reporters wrote articles critical of Grant’s command. These criticisms fed the rumors that Grant, who many believed had been forced out of the pre-war Army because of alcohol consumption, had been caught drunk and off guard by Confederate General Albert Sydney Johnston’s surprise attack. The losses suffered by both sides at Shiloh had more to do with the nature of nineteenth-century warfare than the nature of Grant’s relationship with liquor, but rumors of his affection for spirits now became generally accepted.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Further Reading

·       Daniel, Larry J. (1997). Shiloh: The Battle That Changed the Civil War. New York City: Simon & Schuster.

·       James M McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom. Oxford University Press, 1988.

·       Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative. Volumes 1-3. Random House, 1963.

·       Ulysses S Grant, The Autobiography of General Ulysses S Grant: Memoirs of the Civil War. Accessed at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-h/4367-h.htm

·       William T Sherman, Memoirs of General William T Sherman. Accessed at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4361/4361-h/4361-h.htm

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/shiloh

·       http://www.npshistory.com/publications/civil_war_series/22/sec11.htm

·       https://www.historynet.com/battle-of-shiloh-the-devils-own-day/

·       https://www.historynet.com/battle-of-shiloh/

·       https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/was-general-grant-surprised-by-the-confederate-attack-at-shiloh.htm

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/battle-shiloh-shattering-myths