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 Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936 – Was it a Disappointment for Japan?

In 1936, Germany and Japan created the Anti-Comintern Pact agreement. This was an alliance that promised that the two countries would commit themselves to contain the threat of communist expansion presented by the USSR, a country perceived by dictatorships and democracies alike as a major threat. The ensuing propaganda presented Germany and Japan in a flamboyant fashion as a “sword-wielding, winged champion” ready to take on this challenge and step up to the task. It looked formidable, and for Britain and France in particular, at least someone else was providing that bulwark against the USSR rather than themselves.

However, this Pact proved to be all fanfare and nothing more than an empty statement. This fact would become all too apparent by August 1939 when, within three short years, Japan distanced herself from Germany and had agreed to a separate non-aggression alliance with the Soviet Union in April 1941.

What was the story behind this pact to have caused this reversal from these two Axis partners? To explain this from the Japanese perspective, it is necessary to start at the beginning of the twentieth century and consider the events that took place between the Soviet Union and Japan.

Steve Prout explains.

Germany’s Joachim von Ribbentrop signing the Anti-Comintern Pact in November,ber 1936.

The Japanese–Soviet Relations 1900–1939

The Russo-Japanese War

Japan and the USSR shared a troubled relationship ever since the beginning of the 1900s. They both were competing for their own spheres of influence in East Asia. Japan sought Russian recognition for control over the Korean Peninsula, and in return, Japan would recognise Russian influence in Manchuria. The Russians refused Japan’s request, and therefore the two sides could not reach any agreement. The result led to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–5. The Japanese emerged victorious, leaving Russia decisively beaten and humiliated, thus affecting the balance of power in the Far East. This outcome had ramifications in Europe as well for Russia’s prestige. The imperial powers now viewed Russia’s strength in a weaker light due to her defeat by what the Great Powers viewed as an inferior Asian nation.

Japan fought on the Allied side during the First World War. Her participation in the war was limited to East Asia and not the European theatre, where she swiftly annexed the German overseas territories in the region, such as the Marshall Islands. Comparatively, this was a sideshow compared to the main fighting in Europe and had an insignificant effect on the German war effort. It did, however, give an early indication of Japanese plans to expand their empire into East Asia, but few noticed or cared from the Allied camp at the time as their priority was to defeat Germany and her allies.

After the end of the First World War, whilst Russia was in the grip of revolution, the Japanese then contributed heavily to the Allied intervention forces. They saw this intervention as a chance, and Russia’s vulnerability as an opportunity to permanently occupy and add Siberia to their growing empire.

The Russian War of Intervention 1919–1922

In 1918, Russia arranged a separate peace with the Central Powers at Brest-Litovsk, which meant that her part in the war was over. Peace, however, eluded her troubled nation because she now faced civil war fuelled by the emergence of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Communism now was the new enemy, now that Germany and her allies were defeated. The Allies swiftly deployed military detachments into Russia to counter and suppress the Bolshevik threat.

At first, Japan sent just a small marine battalion in the spring of 1918 to Vladivostok. The pretext was retaliation for the death of three Japanese civilians caught up in the civil war violence. It was the perfect opportunity to begin control of the area, and they already had additional troops ready for action in neighbouring Korea. The Japanese commitment would increase; at its highest, they provided over seventy thousand soldiers. These troops supported the Russian White Armies under the command of Kerensky, who were also fighting the Bolsheviks. Other troops also aided the Czech Legion led by Kolchak by helping them escape Siberian captivity. The Japanese would then enlist their assistance around Vladivostok to augment their own dominance in the region. Within Allied circles, US Ambassador Roland Morris suspected Japan’s true intentions, but Japan was not making their intentions hard to notice.

Morris noted that “the Japanese presence in the area was excessive compared to other nations”; however, the British alone had over fifty thousand personnel deployed in Russia, so it did not spark widespread concern. The British, on the other hand, unlike Japan, had no other interest than removing communism. Morris also noted that the Japanese “seemed generally to be pursuing a policy to prevent the establishment of any kind of united orderly government in Siberia.” The USA appeared to express the most concern within the Allied alliance. Britain and Japan still had a formal alliance between them, and for Britain and France, Japanese strength was a bonus in the region because it selfishly and indirectly served imperial interests by containing communist influence locally and indirectly serving their own imperial interests in Asia.

US Colonel William B. Donovan in December 1919 also commented that the Japanese had “dreams of militaristic authority” and were “erecting economic barriers in Manchuria and Siberia.” The Japanese did not make any attempt to conceal these ambitions. They declared openly in their own Vladivostok-based newspaper Vladvivo-Nippo that in extending their military involvement further east to the Urals, it would not only help bring the civil war to an end, but in doing so they would “secure their exceptional rights in Siberia and the Far East.” The phrase “exceptional rights” caused concern not just to the Americans but also the Chinese and, of course, the Russians. The latter could not accept the prospect of a long occupation or potential loss of Siberia to Japan. Russia had previously suffered huge territorial losses to her western territories at Brest-Litovsk in 1918 to the former Central Powers and shortly after in the war against Poland.

A certain Captain Yamamoto in 1919 said during the Russian War of Intervention that “the world would be speaking Japanese within ten or fifteen years.” At the time, this was more than likely seen by the Great Powers as an empty boast and was not taken seriously. The Japanese were deadly serious, maybe not about world domination but certainly about domination of East Asia and the Pacific theatre. After the victory of the 1904–5 war, their part in the Great War, and their sizeable participation in the Russian War of Intervention, Japan had without a doubt been left with the impression that she was now a great world power on an equal footing with Great Britain, France, and the USA. They were becoming not only a force to be reckoned with internationally but also a worry for Russia.

In 1922, after a four-year occupation, Japan withdrew from Siberia. The uneasy co-existence between the two powers continued and escalated in the following decade. The Japanese had not given up their intentions of expanding into the East Asian mainland because it was essential to their nation’s survival. It had few natural resources and an expanding population; much like Germany, she sought her own version of lebensraum, or living space. This is supported by a quote recorded early in 1919 where the Japanese openly stated in the Yamato Shimbum newspaper that “Japan has no way out, save that of sending her surplus population to Manchuria and Siberia.” The opportunity that Siberia presented to Japan was now lost, and so they turned their attention to China. However, the Soviet Union also would soon be expressing interest and establishing herself in that region, and the two sides would clash.

The 1930s – Manchuria, the League and fighting in East Asia

Between 1931 and 1939, the Japanese and Soviet forces frequently clashed along the Mongolian border. The tensions were not helped because the remote frontier with Manchuria was uncharted and ambiguous to both sides. The USSR and Japan had their own commercial and political agendas in China. They both intended to exploit the raw materials that were plentiful in the region, and the USSR were acting as advisors to the Chinese Army with their own control over the Chinese Eastern Railway.

Trouble in the region began in 1931 during the Mukden Incident. The Japanese claimed that Chinese nationalists were committing acts of sabotage on the South Manchurian Railway, which Japan controlled. It was discovered to be a spurious claim perpetrated by the Japanese to exert further control of the area as they moved more troops inland and seized further territory to secure their rights.

An investigation was ordered by the League of Nations into the matter in 1932, and the publication of the Lytton Report followed. The report concluded that the Japanese orchestrated the entire affair themselves. It damningly exposed the Japanese motives and the deceitful attempts to frame the Chinese nationalists as the aggressors. It did not make any difference to the Japanese, who were now entrenched in Manchuria and had no plans to leave, but it also placed Japanese forces closer to Soviet forces on the Mongolian border. This is when the instability in the region intensified.

Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in protest after a failed attempt to deflect the truthful findings of the Lytton Report. This action had numerous ramifications, not least for world peace, when Italy and Germany realised that the League was powerless against the more powerful states like themselves. They realised that they could further their own ambitions with relative impunity as they watched the Japanese, now unchecked by the other great powers, pursue an expansionist policy in China. However, in doing so, these actions would soon bring her into conflict with the Soviet Union and further instability to the region arose.

At first, the Soviet Union was eager to avoid war with Japan. In 1929, they did not possess the military capability to conduct any form of protracted war. When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and occupied the Soviet sphere of influence, the Soviet Union was still not strong enough in the East to oppose the Japanese. In order to avoid war, Stalin went so far as to adopt a policy of neutrality as far as Japanese actions in the region were concerned. In addition, the Soviet Union sold its rights to the Chinese Eastern Railway to the Manchukuo government on 23 March 1935, removing any interests they possessed in China. It would all be in vain; meanwhile, Japanese forces were now moving closer to the Mongolian border.

The first reported incident between the Soviet and Japanese forces occurred during January and February 1935. It was, by comparison, a small affair called the Halhamiao Incident, which broke out on the Manchurian-Mongolian border. This would not be the last, as similar events of varying severity erupted on a regular basis. The situation was not helped by the geographical problems, where ownership of frontier boundaries was ambiguous. Consequently, with no resolution or sensible dialogue, the two sides engaged in over one hundred intentional and unintentional territorial clashes.

This first incident was small and involved a small group comprising eleven Manchukuoan soldiers led by a Japanese officer clashing with a similarly sized Mongolian cavalry force. The Manchukuo Army suffered six casualties and two dead, including the Japanese officer, but the Mongolian opposing side incurred no casualties. Although this affray started on a small scale, it quickly escalated, and in retaliation, the Japanese sent a larger force. This comprised two motorized companies supported by a machine gun company that quickly overran the area and occupied it for three weeks.

The Halhamiao Incident would be the start of many confrontations and skirmishes of varying size. According to Japanese claims, from 1935 to 1939, when the last encounter with the USSR ended, there were over one hundred and fifty border engagements that took place fighting the Soviet Union on the Manchurian-Mongolian border. While it is not possible to discuss all of them, two later incidents at Gol Khashan and Khalkin Gol were particularly significant and stand out. More importantly, they are key events in evaluating the effectiveness of Japan’s future alliance with Germany.

The Anti-Comintern Pact – Germany and Japan Align

Hostilities with the Soviet Union became more frequent; being internationally isolated made Japan recognize that she needed an ally. There was, however, an absence of potential suitors. Her relations with Britain and the USA were already strained, not helped by the way Britain and the USA treated Japan as an inferior and unequal Asian power. The USA and Great Britain had previously placed restrictions on the size of the Japanese Navy. One example that irked the Japanese was the fact that they were restricted in how they were allowed to operate in the Pacific by the Washington Conference in 1922. This gave the USA and Great Britain naval dominance on “Japan’s very doorstep.” This was seen as disrespectful when considering that Japan was still technically, at the time, an ally of these two powers. She had been on the Allied side in the First World War and had assisted heavily in a common cause, fighting in Russia during the War of Intervention. Of course, Japan sought to gain from these engagements, but no more so than any of her wartime allies like Britain and France, who ensured that they would receive their territorial gains from the likes of Turkey and Germany.

After leaving the League of Nations, Japan had become an international pariah. She had only one potential suitor for an ally, and that was the newly emerged Nazi Germany. These ties she sought from Germany were borne out of expediency and, to some extent, a common ground. Germany was also falling out of favour with the international community and therefore became the candidate for Japan’s ally. Furthermore, Germany, like Japan, also had no love for the Soviet Union; therefore, there was common ground on this matter too.

Statistics demonstrate that these battles with the USSR were by no means insignificant. By the time of the final engagement in 1939, these combined clashes between the Soviet Union and Japan amounted to over thirty-three thousand Soviet and Mongolian casualties, three hundred and fifty Soviet tanks, and over two hundred Soviet aircraft destroyed. The Japanese would also suffer casualties of over thirty thousand losses, but fewer in tanks and aircraft, numbering forty-three and one hundred and sixty-two, respectively. Japan’s need for an ally against the Soviets was becoming more urgent. An opportunity presented itself. A resurrected, militaristic, anti-communist Germany was the perfect partner—at least the Japanese thought at the time.

In November 1936 in Berlin, following a month of negotiations and discussions, the two countries announced the arrival of the Anti-Comintern Pact. Its rhetoric made no attempt to disguise the fact that this was aimed purposefully at containing the Soviet Union. The propaganda was presented in true grandiose totalitarian style. It represented the alliance as a solitary sword-wielding, winged champion that would save Europe from the ravages of Bolshevism. Examples of the scare-mongering tactics and justification the pact used included communist involvement in the Civil War in Spain and the political unrest attributed to left-wing destabilising tactics in France. There was, interestingly, no reference to the Soviet action against Japan in East Asia. In 1937, Italy joined; Spain in 1939 (more likely as revenge for Soviet involvement in the Spanish Civil War) followed, along with Hungary. Although membership grew, it would prove a disappointment to the Japanese. The pact was never properly put into practice (although some could convincingly argue Operation Barbarossa was that very act), and time would prove what little substance it contained.

Soviet Victory in East Asia and the Neutrality Pact with the Soviet Union

In the two years following the signing of the pact, the Japanese no doubt saw the alliance with Germany as a major disappointment. The Germans took no active part in coming to the aid of the Japanese during their altercations with the Soviet Union after 1936. In fact, within three years of the formal signing of the pact, the Germans forged the Nazi-Soviet Pact. The implications of that enabled the Soviets to expand westward into Poland in 1939 and the Baltic States in 1940—a clear contradiction of the pact’s intentions. The Japanese would endure two final and decisive defeats before making peace with the USSR again without any German support.

The Battle of Khasan in July 1938 was the first of these confrontations, where seven thousand Japanese troops clashed against over twenty thousand Soviet troops. The Japanese viewed the Soviet reinforcement of this area as an incursion into territory they perceived as demarcated to themselves, as agreed in the Treaty of Peking with the USSR. The fact that the area was unclearly charted and ambiguous made it difficult to ascertain which side controlled which area, thus exacerbating the situation and causing most of the border disputes and misunderstandings. The Soviets suffered four thousand killed and injured, and the Japanese fifteen hundred from their Kwantung Army from Manchukuo. Japanese forces were defeated, and the Soviet Union re-occupied the area. Germany looked on as her ally continued to engage Soviet forces.

In 1939, at Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese were defeated once again. The two sides were at war for two months, from July to August 1939. Interestingly, in those two months, a Soviet officer named Zhukov (who would later gain prominence) led numerically superior Soviet forces who overcame the Japanese after suffering initial losses themselves. The Japanese would suffer a combination of seventeen thousand dead and wounded compared to ten thousand dead Soviet soldiers. In September, an armistice was declared. This would be the last of the Japanese and Soviet engagements until 1945.

In August 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was announced to a surprised international community, aligning Germany and the Soviet Union. This invalidated the pact they shared with Japan by choosing to sign a deal with the USSR that enabled their expansion westwards, which began with their occupation of Poland and the Baltic states. Both Germany and the USSR (for now at least) had conveniently set aside their differences, forgotten the venomous invectives they had previously exchanged, and made no reference to the Anti-Comintern Pact. Japan, realizing that her ally’s position had changed, now began to distance herself from Germany and signed the Neutrality Pact of 1941 with the USSR. Both members of the pact had made peace, at separate times, with the very state they originally sought to contain. Germany and Japan would soon both set upon starting their own separate wars.

The pact was inoperable by Germany due to the geographical distance between Germany and Japan, exacerbated by her reduced naval capacity to support her ally. The Germans had no interest in East Asia other than the Japanese military being available to drain British, French, and later American forces during the war. Germany’s aims were clearly expressed early in Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, and that was Lebensraum, or living space, at the expense of the USSR.

Another Unlikely Potential Ally

There are other interesting, and little-known, aspects to this story. Hitler's first choice of an anti-Soviet ally was not Japan; it was Great Britain, who also had little love for communism. Earlier in 1935, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was the first attempt for the Germans to reach out to the British. The Japanese, at this point, viewed this with suspicion, as this would endorse British naval supremacy imposed by the Treaty of Washington, thus threatening her aspirations of dominance in the Pacific.

Conclusion

The pact revealed itself to be no more than a paper treaty as far as Japan was concerned. German resources were used to assist General Franco in battling communist forces backed by the USSR during the civil war in Spain. Japan no doubt was irked by this as she struggled alone in East Asia, but then equally, Japan did not intervene in Spain.

There appeared to be very little substance and only rhetoric, and if no other evidence were available to present, then this can be proved where both parties reversed their anti-Soviet attitudes (at least on the surface) to the Anti-Comintern Pact by arranging separate departures from the pact in 1939 by Germany and Japan in 1941. Japan was the only German ally not to participate in Operation Barbarossa.

What served the Germans also equally served the Japanese. As Germany was secretly using the Japanese in East Asia to distract and contain the USSR, Japan was doing likewise to Germany in Europe. That was not just a tactic used by the totalitarian powers either because their democratic rivals, Britain and France, were in turn also tacitly allowing Germany to serve as the bulwark against communist plans in Europe and, no doubt, in a similar fashion with Japan in East Asia.

As clouds of war approached, Germany and Japan took their own approaches in their relationship with the USSR, which were complete policy reversals. The Japanese Neutrality Pact and the Nazi-Soviet Pact allowed time to form a temporary alliance, which, in that time, enabled the USSR to not only expand her borders westward but also bring peace to the East Asian theatre. The Japanese could now turn to the Pacific and realize her ambitions. This had a devastating effect for the Allies, as the Japanese were now free to attack the European colonies and then challenge the USA. However, the pact would soon be put to deadly effect because, in June 1941, Operation Barbarossa commenced but without the support of Japan.

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

References

William Shirer - Rise and Fall of The Third Reich

AJP Taylor - Origins of the Second World War

Goldman, Stuart (2012). Nomonhan, 1939: The Red Army's Victory that Shaped World War II. Naval Institute Press

A Shared Enmity: Germany, Japan, and the Creation of the Tripartite Pact - Jason Dawsey, PhD

Frank, Richard B. Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War, July 1937-May 1942. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020

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

The First Qin Emperor Unifies China

In 221 BCE, Qin Shi Huang, the ruler of the state of Qin, completed a monumental achievement in Chinese history: the unification of China. His conquest marked the end of the Warring States period, a chaotic era of fragmentation and incessant warfare between rival states. Through military conquest, political strategy, and ruthless determination, Qin Shi Huang established the first centralized Chinese empire, laying the foundation for over two millennia of imperial rule. His reign saw groundbreaking standardization efforts, infrastructural development, and enduring cultural legacies, most notably, the construction of the Great Wall and the production of the Terracotta Army.

Terry Bailey explains.

A depiction of Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, in the 19th century.

The warring states period and Qin's Rise

The Warring States period (475–221 BCE) was a time of intense military conflicts among seven major states vying for dominance. Among these, the state of Qin, located in the western regions of China, gradually gained the upper hand due to its military innovations and administrative efficiency. Under the leadership of Qin Shi Huang, then known as King Zheng, Qin's armies employed superior iron weaponry, well-disciplined soldiers, and strategic alliances to systematically defeat rival states. By 221 BCE, Qin had conquered all opposition, and King Zheng declared himself Qin Shi Huang, meaning "First Emperor of Qin."

Standardization of laws, writing and economy

Qin Shi Huang's rule was characterized by sweeping reforms aimed at unifying and consolidating power. To eliminate regional disparities and foster a cohesive empire, he standardized laws, weights and measures, currency, and even the Chinese writing system. Before unification, different states used various scripts, leading to difficulties in administration and communication. The emperor mandated a uniform script based on the Qin style, ensuring that official decrees and records could be understood throughout the empire.

Economic reforms included the introduction of a standardized currency, replacing the diverse coinage systems of the Warring States. This facilitated trade and economic integration across the newly unified China. Additionally, Qin Shi Huang's legal system, heavily influenced by Legalist philosophy, imposed strict laws and severe punishments to maintain order, ensuring that the central government retained absolute control.

The construction of the Great Wall

One of Qin Shi Huang's most ambitious projects was the early construction of the Great Wall of China. While walls had been built by individual states before unification, Qin Shi Huang ordered the connection and expansion of these fortifications to protect the empire's northern frontier from nomadic invasions. Tens of thousands of laborers, including conscripted soldiers and prisoners, were tasked with the grueling work of constructing the wall. Though the original Qin wall has largely eroded over time, it set the precedent for later dynasties to further develop and fortify China's northern defenses.

The Emperor's quest for immortality

Obsessed with longevity, Qin Shi Huang devoted vast resources to finding an elixir of immortality. He dispatched envoys, including the famous alchemist Xu Fu, to distant lands in search of mythical potions. Despite these efforts, he remained mortal and ultimately succumbed to illness in 210 BCE. Ironically, some historians suggest that the mercury-laced elixirs he consumed in pursuit of eternal life may have contributed to his death.

The Terracotta Army and the Mausoleum

Qin Shi Huang's desire for control extended beyond his mortal existence, as reflected in his elaborate tomb complex near modern-day Xi'an. His mausoleum, guarded by the famous Terracotta Army, is one of the most astounding archaeological discoveries of the 20th century. This life-sized army of over 8,000 soldiers, chariots, and horses was meticulously crafted to protect the emperor in the afterlife. Each warrior, uniquely detailed, demonstrates the high level of artistry and craftsmanship achieved during his reign.

Legacy and influence

Despite his achievements, Qin Shi Huang's reign was marked by authoritarian rule, censorship, and brutal crackdowns on dissent. He famously ordered the burning of books that contradicted his Legalist ideology and persecuted scholars who opposed his policies. His centralized governance model, however, became the template for successive Chinese dynasties.

Following his death, the Qin Dynasty quickly collapsed due to internal revolts and power struggles, giving way to the Han Dynasty in 206 BCE. However, Qin Shi Huang's impact on Chinese civilization endured, influencing governance, infrastructure, language, and culture for centuries. Qin Shi Huang's unification of China was a turning point in history, shaping the nation into a cohesive empire and establishing a legacy that continues to be studied and admired today.

Qin Shi Huang's unification of China was a truly transformative moment in history, bringing an end to centuries of warfare and laying the foundation for a centralized imperial state. His standardization of laws, writing, currency, and administrative practices created a lasting framework for governance, while his ambitious construction projects, including the Great Wall and his elaborate mausoleum, reflected both his vision and his authoritarian rule.

Despite the harshness of his Legalist policies, Qin Shi Huang's reign set a precedent for the bureaucratic and political structures that shaped China for over two millennia. Though his dynasty was short-lived, his influence endured through the Han Dynasty and beyond, as later rulers refined and expanded upon the systems he put in place. His legacy remains complex, admired for his unifying achievements yet criticized for his ruthless methods.

Ultimately, Qin Shi Huang's reign represents both the power and peril of absolute rule. His ambition forged a unified China, but his authoritarianism sowed the seeds of his dynasty's downfall. Nevertheless, his contributions to Chinese civilization were profound, securing his place as one of history's most consequential and enigmatic rulers.

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 Terracotta Army

The discovery of the Terracotta Army on the 29th of March 1974 was a momentous archaeological find that shed light on ancient China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang (r. 221–210 BCE). Farmers digging a well in Lintong, near Xi'an, Shaanxi province, accidentally uncovered fragments of terracotta warriors. Chinese archaeologists, upon investigation, soon realized that they had stumbled upon an expansive underground army, intended to guard the emperor in the afterlife. Subsequent excavations revealed thousands of life-sized soldiers, each uniquely detailed with individual facial features, along with horses, chariots, and weapons. These figures were part of the vast Mausoleum of Qin Shi Huang, which had been described in historical texts but remained hidden for over two millennia.

Excavations and research into the Terracotta Army and the mausoleum complex have continued for decades, yielding a remarkable cultural understanding of the period. Archaeologists discovered that the warriors were once brightly painted, though exposure to air caused rapid fading. Advanced techniques in preservation and pigment restoration are now being developed to prevent further deterioration. Besides the warriors, additional pits revealed the presence of acrobats, musicians, court officials, and exotic animals, suggesting a sophisticated belief system regarding the afterlife. The mausoleum itself, a vast earthen pyramid, remains largely unexplored due to concerns over preservation and the rumored presence of mercury rivers, as described in the ancient historian Sima Qian's accounts.

Despite decades of study, much of the burial complex remains a mystery. Scientists employ non-invasive techniques such as ground-penetrating radar and remote sensing to analyze the tomb without disturbing its fragile contents. The continued excavation of the Terracotta Army and the broader Qin mausoleum complex remains one of the most significant ongoing archaeological projects, offering unparalleled insight into the power, artistry, and burial customs of China's first imperial dynasty.

The First Great Battle of the U.S. Civil War’s Western Theater: Shiloh Part 1

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.

General PGT Beauregard planned a surprise advance and attack at Pittsburg Landing, on the west bank of the Tennessee River. On the first day, the Confederate Army routed the Union Army and only tenacious defense saved the day. On the second day, Union reinforcements and Rebel confusion led to a complete reversal of the fortunes of day 1.

Lloyd W Klein explains in part 1 in this series.

Battle of Shiloh by Thure de Thulstrup.

Planning and Strategy

Maj Gen Don Carlos Buell and the Army of the Ohio had taken Nashville in February 1862. He was able to claim the city with minimal effort in February 1862, and was promoted to major general shortly thereafter. In March 1862 General Henry Halleck ordered Buell to move south to rendezvous with General Ulysses S. Grant and the Army of the Tennessee at Pittsburg Landing, TN. Union leadership realized that its troops were too spread out, so it was decided to concentrate the troops. Recognizing this impending combining of forces, the Confederates were compelled to act.

After the losses at Forts Henry and Donelson and the abandonment of Nashville, the various Rebel armies converged on Corinth, Mississippi. This was a malarial-infested river town and a poor location for a retreating army.  However, Corinth was the junction of 2 major railroads, the Memphis & Charleston RR and the Mobile & Ohio RR, and hence was a critical railroad crossroads, it was a convenient place to concentrate. Johnston’s command had only about 17,000 troops, so he joined his forces with those under General Polk. Because of Corinth’s centrality, he was able to gather 40-45,000 troops. This was probably sufficient to face Grant alone, who had about 48,000, but not combined with Buell., with an additional 18-20,000. Hence, a pre-emptive action to prevent their joining was a necessity.

Exactly how involved Albert Sidney Johnston was in planning the attack is controversial; it has been suggested that he was totally out of his depth and that Beauregard both planned and led the attack. The broad concept was to attack Grant before Buell joined him. Another error was that the rains had slowed travel from their base in Corinth.  Had they arrived a day sooner General Buell might not have gotten there in time for day 2.

General Charles Ferguson Smith was at the time commander of the Union Army, as Halleck tried to dump Grant behind the scenes. Sherman went upstream with his division to raid the Memphis & Charleston RR, but on the way noted Pittsburg Landing and sent a recommendation to Smith that he occupy it. Smith sent Hurlbut, who occupied the landing. Upon Sherman's return from his unsuccessful raid, he landed there, decided the ground was good, and took charge of the forces around the landing and occupied Shiloh Church, on the west bank. Grant probably made an error in setting up camp on the side of the river closest to the known position of the Confederate Army. Grant’s back was to the river, and he could have been destroyed.

Sherman had set up camp around the Shiloh Church. Grant probably made an error in setting up camp on the side of the river closest to the known position of the Confederate Army. Grant’s back was to the river, and he could have been entirely destroyed. Pittsburg Landing is nine miles upriver (south) of Savannah, and it had a road that led to Corinth, Mississippi. About three miles inland from the landing was a log church named Shiloh (a Hebrew word meaning "place of peace”.  It seemed like a good choice at the time because it was away from the river and on land that was well-drained and open. The area that would become the Shiloh battlefield was somewhat shaped like a triangle, with the sides formed by various creeks and the Tennessee River. The land was mostly wooded, with scattered cotton fields, peach orchards, and a few small structures.

The stealthiness of Beauregard's plan depended on speed. The march from Corinth is less than 20 miles and should have taken trained troops one day to approach and form for an assault. The rebel troops were untrained, to put it mildly, and the march took 3 days. Beauregard's biggest mistake in planning was the initial formation with each Corps spread across the front one behind the other. Commanding such a formation on a Corps level was impossible and not long after the jump off command responsibilities were separated in a more logical distribution of authority. Since the rebels were so untrained, Corps level identity wasn't strong. Beauregard underestimated the length of time to march from their camps to the area of Pittsburgh Landing.  This resulted in many of their troops not having enough rations and they then stopped their initially successful assault in order to feast at the Union campsites. Another error was that the rains had slowed travel from their base in Corinth.  Had they arrived a day sooner Buell might not have gotten there in time for day 2. In fact, the whole idea was to attack Grant before Buell joined him.

No one in the Union Army expected Beauregard to suddenly appear on their south flank. The divisions of Sherman and Prentiss were the least experienced, so when they bolted, it seemed to be a general retreat. Sherman had heard the reports of enemy soldiers in the area but he was concerned that if he entrenched, it would be viewed that his “insanity” regarding the war had returned so he ignored it. The lack of entrenchments was a distinct disadvantage for the Union troops and made the battle a "stand-up" fight for most of the day.

The camp alignment was designed for camping convenience and contributed to a more or less piecemeal resistance at first, but did help in a "defense-in-depth" resistance to the Confederate onslaught. Also having Sherman at the front right from the beginning turned out to be fortunate.

Every West Point trained officer (Halleck , Grant, Smith, Sherman, and McPherson) believed that Johnston and Beauregard would hold their troops behind the Corinth entrenchments and await the Union Army. Every day there were orders from Halleck in St Louis to Grant for him NOT to bring on a battle by any aggressive moves.

Order of Battle

Union Army

Major General Halleck served as the Commander of the Department of the West, with his headquarters located in St. Louis. A member of the Democratic Party, Halleck's intellectual approach contrasted sharply with that of his predecessor, Fremont. Although he was known for his cautious demeanor and did not fully endorse Grant's aggressive tactics, President Lincoln urged him to devise an offensive strategy. It is possible that Halleck harbored some distrust towards Grant, and perhaps even felt envious of the latter's achievements up to that point.

Major General Ulysses S. Grant held the position of commander for the District of West Tennessee and the XIII Corps, operating from the field. After being released from what could be described as house arrest at Fort Henry, he arrived in Savannah, Tennessee, on March 23, 1862. Grant assumed the role of Senior Officer Present (SOP) for the Tennessee River Expedition, which is often referred to as either the Army of the Tennessee or simply Grant's Army. He established his headquarters at the Cherry House, situated on a ridge overlooking Savannah. Following his victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, Grant was promoted to Major General. However, Halleck had recently removed him from field command of the expedition after Grant left his district to meet Buell in Nashville, failed to report on his troop strength, and allegedly did not promptly halt looting at the captured forts. It was later revealed that Halleck's inquiries regarding Grant's forces had not reached him.

Halleck also mentioned concerns about rumors of Grant's potential return to alcohol consumption but ultimately reinstated him to field command. This decision may have been influenced by pressure from Lincoln and the War Department. When Halleck communicated the reinstatement to Grant, he framed it as an effort to rectify an injustice, omitting the fact that the initial injustice had originated with him. In response to Grant's letter expressing concern about possible adversaries between them, Halleck assured him, "You are mistaken. There is no enemy between you and me."

Major General Don Carlos Buell served as the Commander of the Department of the Ohio and the Army of the Ohio, although he held a junior rank compared to General Grant based on their respective dates of appointment. Following the capture of Fort Donelson, Buell's command was placed under the authority of General Halleck, who subsequently ordered him to advance from Nashville to Savannah. By April 1, 1862, Buell's leading division, under the command of Brigadier General Nelson, was still a week away from reaching Savannah. Buell, who had recently transitioned from being Halleck's equal to a subordinate, was recognized for his exceptional organizational skills, making Halleck's decision to assign him to this task a prudent one. In November 1861, Buell was dispatched to the Western Theater of the war in Kentucky, where he took command of the Army of the Ohio. He received directives from President Abraham Lincoln and General George B. McClellan to launch an invasion into eastern Tennessee. However, citing insufficient transportation for his large force of over 50,000 troops, Buell opted to advance on Nashville instead, capturing the city with relative ease in February 1862, which led to his promotion to major general shortly thereafter.

The next in seniority, Major General John McClernand, served as the commander of the 1st Division but had been assigned the role of garrison commander at Savannah. Following him in the chain of command was Major General C.F. Smith, who, while serving as a division commander, took on the responsibilities of the Tennessee River Expedition Commander during a period when Grant was occupied at Fort Henry and McClernand was relegated to garrison duties. Unfortunately, Smith became incapacitated due to a leg injury sustained while attempting to board a rowboat, which prevented him from participating in the Battle of Shiloh. He ultimately succumbed to an infection and dysentery a few weeks later, leading to Brigadier General William H.L. Wallace taking over his position.

Brigadier General William T. Sherman commanded a newly formed division. He was positioned as the forward leader of the Expedition at the Pittsburgh Landing campsite. Previously, Sherman led the 5th Division, but his pessimistic outlook on the war resulted in a breakdown that necessitated a brief leave of absence. After recovering, he established a strong partnership with Grant that would ultimately change the course of the war. At this moment, he was commander of a division under Grant.

The next most senior officer, Major General Lew Wallace, serves as a division commander and is stationed at Crumps Landing, located just upstream from Savannah. The other division commander under Grant's command was Benjamin Prentiss, who led the 6th division.

Confederate Army

Albert Sidney Johnston was a respected officer in the antebellum army, and his decision to join the Confederacy was seen as a significant advantage for the South. A West Point graduate, he gained recognition as a hero during the Mexican War. He rose to the rank of colonel in the distinguished 2nd US Cavalry, where Robert E. Lee served as his lieutenant colonel, and notable figures such as William Hardee and George Thomas held the rank of major. At the onset of the Civil War, Johnston was in command of the Department of the Pacific, which led President Davis to appoint him as a full general, placing him second in seniority, just behind Samuel Cooper. Subsequently, he was assigned to lead the western theater of operations. Following Zollicoffer’s defeat at Mill Springs, Davis appointed PGT Beauregard to serve under Johnston. However, the setbacks at Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, and Nashville raised concerns regarding Johnston's effectiveness. His tenure was marked by a mix of successes and failures; he took command in Tennessee in September 1861 after Polk's breach of Kentucky's neutrality and occupation of Columbus, Kentucky. From his base in Bowling Green, Kentucky, he projected a strong front that unsettled both Major General Robert Anderson and Brigadier General Sherman, who were in charge of the Department of the Ohio, while the current commander, Major General Buell, adopted a notably cautious approach. Nevertheless, Johnston's oversight of the river forts along the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers was lacking, allowing Grant's Tennessee River Expedition to capture both forts and Nashville.

PGT Beauregard stepped down from his position as commandant at West Point to take charge of Charleston Harbor, where he oversaw the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the events at the First Battle of Manassas.

The organizational structure of the Confederate army included the First Corps under Leonidas Polk, the Second Corps led by Braxton Bragg, the Third Corps commanded by William Hardee, and the Reserve Corps under John C. Breckinridge. This assembly essentially represented a reunion of the US 2nd Cavalry, orchestrated by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, who was joined by the former Vice President of the United States. This alignment was likely intentional, as Davis had been preparing for the impending conflict long before it officially commenced.

The Battle – Day 1

Beauregard underestimated the time necessary to march from their camps outside of Corinth to the area of Pittsburgh Landing.  This resulted in many of their troops not having enough rations. One consequence was that after their initially successful assault, the Confederate forces halted to feast at the Union campsites.

Surprise Attack

Strategically, the rebel assault was definitely a surprise, but tactically it was most assuredly NOT a surprise. Like calling Gettysburg a meeting engagement, it depends on exactly what we mean by the word “surprise”. There was no prepared defensive line and no entrenchments, and no one expected an attack or a battle in that location. Only a few pickets were in place. So from a preparedness perspective, it was a surprise. But there had been a minor skirmish on April 4th. There were myriad reports of Confederates in the area.

At midnight April 5, Colonel Peabody ordered Major James E. Powell to take three companies of the 25th Missouri Infantry Regiment, and two companies of the 12th Michigan Infantry Regiment, on a reconnaissance to Seay Field. Around 5 am, Confederate pickets fired at Powell’s men. When Powell advanced into Fraley’s Field, he ran into Major Hardcastle’s 3rd Mississippi Battalion. When General Johnston heard the sounds of battle, he gave Beauregard a fateful order. Meanwhile, Powell sent back word that he had run into a Confederate force of several thousand. When Prentiss heard this report, he had an odd response. Sherman also had a weird response until an event occurred he could not ignore.

Colonel Everett Peabody had ordered a reconnaissance by 3 companies at midnight on April 5 and a sighting was made. That was when the battle began. Colonel Everett Peabody of the 25th Missouri was a new brigade commander in General Prentiss' new division and were the most southerly camped troops near the Shiloh branch Creek. Because of many days of encountering rebels in the woods and on the roads by pickets and cavalry, Colonel Peabody was very nervous and worried on the night of April 5 into the early morning of April 6. About 1:00 am Peabody sent out Major James Powell of the 25th with a small patrol that soon returned with word he had encountered Confederate pickets very close. Peabody organized a larger patrol and they went out at 3:00am. Powell found Hindman's Confederate division advancing and attacked. One of the ironies of Shiloh was that this large battle began with an attack by Union soldiers. Eventually Powell figured the rebels were too strong and began a fighting withdrawal back to the Union camps. Prentiss at first was outraged that Peabody had provoked an attack unordered, But then realized what it meant.  And Peabody basically saved the Union army by giving them time to prepare. Sherman didn’t believe it until he went forward to see for himself and was wounded slightly while an aide was killed.

At 5:30 am, Johnston ordered a general attack but it took at least 2 hours to organize and even then the alignment was off axis. Hardee and Bragg began the assault with a 3 mile wide line. At 7:30 am, the corps of Polk and Breckinridge moved forward on the flanks, extending the line and causing intermixing of commands. In essence the attack was one very long frontal attack. The idea was to drive the Union camps back to Owl Creek, away from the river (NOT into it, which is a common misconception), which should have meant an attack primarily on the Union left.

At dawn, Confederate forces under General Albert Sidney Johnston and General P.G.T. Beauregard launched a surprise attack on Union troops encamped near Pittsburg Landing in southwestern Tennessee. Johnston aimed to defeat the Union army before reinforcements under General Don Carlos Buell could arrive.

The firing became almost continuous and swelled so Peabody, Sherman, Prentiss, and their men knew something big was happening, but Prentiss and Sherman needed a little more persuading.

Grant maintained in his Memoirs that it was not a surprise attack.  The northern newspapers exaggerated the nature of the surprise at the time; indeed the Union did not entrench but Sherman had been forewarned and elements of the Union army found the southern lines quite soon. Halleck would help Grant cover for whatever surprise it was, in large part because it was a victory in the end. Of course, this view was beneficial to Grant, and also to Halleck at the time, to keep themselves from being embarrassed, or even relieved of command.  It is still controversial whether or not Union soldiers were really bayoneted in their tents and shot in their underwear as was reported in the papers, but most modern accounts say that was an exaggeration.

Grant was having breakfast in Savannah. When he heard the sounds of battle, he ordered General Nelson forward, took his steamboat to Crump’s Landing where he ordered Lew Wallace to prepare to move. then got to Pittsburg Landing at about 9am. He was on crutches, as he had fallen from his horse recently.

The Union forces were caught off guard, with many soldiers still in their tents or eating breakfast when the attack began. The Confederate assault overwhelmed the Union front lines, pushing them back toward the Tennessee River.

The Union army, spread across multiple camps, was unprepared for the intensity of the attack. Many units were quickly overrun, and disorganized Union troops retreated in panic.

The nature of the surprise was exaggerated by the northern newspapers at the time; the Union did not entrench, but General Sherman had been forewarned and elements of the Union army found the southern lines quite soon after their arrival. Despite being routed early, Sherman showed tenacity and skill despite adversity on the first day, proving to himself and to others that he had the emotional and cognitive skills necessary to lead an army.

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