Jackie Robinson and Kent Washington: Fascinating Sportsmen, Different Challenges

With the banning of books that detail important historical facts and the silencing of various cultural stories which show the diversity of our once ‘Proud’ nation. It seems even more essential to relay the journeys of American to Americans for context and understanding. Knowing our past history, clearly enables and guides us into the future, ‘for better or worse.’ That is why I chose to discuss the journeys of two athletes and the challenges they endured as ‘firsts.’ Hopefully, readers will either want to learn more about them or relay the details of their stories to others. Erasing or altering historical facts is detrimental in understanding ourselves. 

Here, we look at Jackie Robinson and Kent Washington’s stories.

Kent Washington and his translator and coach during a game timeout.

Challenges of Robinson and Washington

In attempting to justly compare these two pioneers’ paths and the situations they endured, it would be irresponsible to favor either person’s journey. The difficulty is to lay out the evidence  without allowing bias to influence the reader. Undeniably, both Jackie Robinson and Kent Washington are worthy of our praise for their distinction in history. These gentlemen have endured challenges that we cannot even imagine and only by reading about their achievements are we able to grasp and relive their journey. While most Americans know the story of Jackie Robinson, not as many have even heard of Kent Washington. Thus making the comparison that more interesting and hopefully still attaining a “spirited” discussion. 

Jackie’s Journey

Jackie Robinson was one of the most heralded athletes of our time. Known for being the first African American to play in Baseball’s Major League (modern era). Not only did he integrate baseball, but he was really good at it! Coming from the ‘Negro (Baseball) League’ he was already very competitive and talented, that wasn’t in question. His abilities were worthy of him playing professionally in the Major League. The dilemma was whether he could withstand the challenges of the times when African Americans were not accepted in professional sports. Could Jackie endure “Racism” and/or “Racist Behavior” by the fans, opponents and teammates? He clearly understood that he was integrating baseball and that there would be challenges he would have to endure. Special accommodations had to be made on road trips, since he could not stay in certain hotels and eat in certain restaurants (Jim Crow Laws). Some of his teammates were against him playing and refused to play with him. They were upset with the “Press” coverage that it brought as they were looked upon as being compliant in the decision for him to play. As well as how they travelled and where they stayed on road trips. Opponents driven by racism were enraged at the mere thought that a African American could compete in their league. Pitchers often threw at him purposely and other players used unsavory tactics to injure and dissuade him from continuing. Fans were incensed that a African American was even allowed to play on the same field as white players. Taunting and hateful screams from the stands were commonplace during games. Taking all of this into consideration Jackie agreed to “break the color barrier” and play.

Kent’s Journey

Kent Washington, is the first American to play professional basketball behind the “Iron Curtain.” He played in Communist Poland from 1979-83 during a tumultuous social and political time. The challenge of being discriminated against (he was the only Black person many Poles had ever seen) was complicated by a lifestyle that was far below the standard he was used to. The locker room in the practice facility was underwhelming. Plumbing, refrigeration, electricity and nutrition were problematic, however endurable if he was to stay and play. Basketball rules were vastly different from rules in the USA. Polish, a very difficult language to speak and understand, was a greater challenge. Television and radio were incomprehensible which led to feelings of isolation. Not being able to communicate with family in America because of a lack of international telephone lines was concerning. Living in a single-room in a house, where a Polish grandma took care of him, resulted in miscommunication about washing clothes, food choices, and other daily routines. Another problem for Kent was when “Marshall Law” was implemented, the stores were left bare of all daily items needed to survive. He was given a “rationing card” that served as coupons to buy such things as butter, flour, soap, toilet paper, detergent, meat and other basic needs. Standing in long lines for items was a daily routine in Poland during this time. But, if he wanted to play basketball this would be his “new” life! 

Jackie Robinson and his son during the 1963 March on Washington.

Character Matters

As one can clearly see, both athletes had to endure burdensome challenges to pioneer their way into history. Jackie had to experience more “racially” motivated encounters. While Kent had to tolerate the daily cultural differences in a Communist society. Both admit that they may not have been the best player representing Blacks, but they were the “right” player for that time!” They had the mindset to understand that their passion and drive were needed to conquer those challenging situations put before them. Jackie had personal support from his family and the backing of thousands of Black people behind the scenes and at the games cheering him on. Kent lacked family support because he was alone in a foreign country. So he used his passion and obsession for basketball to guide him. Regardless of the surrounding environment, these two pioneers had something in their character that separates them from you and I. In Jackie’s case, most would have thrown the bat aside and yelled, “I’ve had enough of this sh…!” and walked away. In Kent’s shoes, many would have gotten on the “first flight home” after they saw the locker room in the practice facility. However, both of them dug down deep to a place that only they knew and met the challenges head on!

Hopefully, the two athletes were justly compared as they were both instrumental in breaking barriers and pioneering a path that others have taken advantage of. Jackie is a national hero and most know the story that follows him. Kent not as much, however hopefully now a comparison can be made. Which athlete endured more? Both have books that show you their respective journeys in case you need more evidence.

Jackie Robinson’s “I Never Had It Made” is his autobiography and Kentomania: A Black Basketball Virtuoso in Communist Poland, is Kent’s memoir.

Major General Lewis “Lew” Wallace

Lew Wallace was the youngest Major General in the Union Army at the time of his appointment early in the Civil War, which is especially interesting since he never went to West Point. His father was a lawyer and served as Governor of Indiana, while his grandfather was a Circuit Court judge and congressman. Born in Indiana in 1827, Wallace possessed natural talents in writing and drawing. Although he studied law and briefly served as a second lieutenant during the Mexican War, he did not see any action. Subsequently, he ventured into various pursuits such as publishing a newspaper, practicing law, organizing a Zouave unit militia, and being elected as a state attorney. However, his book did not achieve success.

Lew Wallace wrote Ben Hur, the best-selling American novel of the 19th century, and its success made him a wealthy and internationally famous man. Years earlier, he had been an acclaimed war hero and the youngest major general in the Union Army, before losing his command when blamed for the near disaster at the Battle of Shiloh. Wallace would devote much of his life to trying to clear his name of that charge.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Lewis Wallace.

Civil War

The outbreak of the Civil War brought about significant changes in Wallace's life. As a staunch supporter of the Union, he switched his party allegiance and demonstrated exceptional skills in recruitment. Lew Wallace commanded the Indiana Zouaves, 11th Indiana Regiment Infantry. The 11th Indiana Infantry Regiment was organized at Indianapolis on April 25, 1861, for a three-month term of service, then reorganized and mustered in for the three-year service on August 31, 1861, with Col. Lewis Wallace as its commander. He served as Indiana's adjutant general and eventually assumed command of a regiment, despite lacking formal military education. In June 1861, he led a successful skirmish, resulting in his promotion to brigadier general and the command of a brigade.

Although he did not participate in the battle, he was entrusted with the command of Fort Henry by General Henry Halleck as the Union advanced towards Fort Donelson. Despite Grant's orders to remain on defense, Wallace took the initiative to launch a counterattack, preventing the enemy from escaping and reclaiming lost ground. His actions during the Battle of Fort Donelson earned him a promotion to major general at the age of 34.

Wallace commanded a brigade of volunteers at the Battle of Fort Donelson in Tennessee in February 1862. After his initiative and boldness had help secured the Federal victory and the capture of the entire Confederate army there, he was promoted to major general, making him the youngest major general in the Federal army.

Shiloh

Shiloh (April 6–7, 1862) was the place where Grant and Sherman came into their own, but it was almost the end of their careers. PGT Beauregard planned a surprise advance and attack at Pittsburg Landing, on the west bank of the Tennessee River. Exactly how involved Albert Sidney Johnston's role in the planning of the battle has been a subject of controversy. Larry J Daniel argues that Johnston was ill-equipped for the task and lacked the necessary skills.  The northern newspapers exaggerated the nature of the surprise at the time. Although there was no entrenchment, Sherman had received prior warning and some elements of the army quickly discovered the southern lines. Despite facing early setbacks, Sherman displayed remarkable tenacity and skill, proving to himself and others that he possessed the emotional and cognitive abilities required to lead an army.

At the time of the battle, Brigadier General Lew Wallace commanded a division under Major General Grant. On April 6, 1862, Confederate forces under Albert Sidney Johnston launched a surprise attack against Grant’s army near Pittsburg Landing, Tennessee. Wallace’s division was stationed several miles away at Crump’s Landing, north of the battlefield. When the Confederate attack began, Wallace received orders to move his division to support the Union line.

Grant claimed he ordered Wallace to take a specific route that would bring him directly into the Union right flank. Wallace, however, had already set off on a different route—one that made more sense based on the situation earlier that morning and where Union forces had been positioned. Wallace’s division was at Crump's Landing, five miles north of the Union line at the start of the battle. When the battle opened, Grant took his steamboat, Tigress, south to Crump's Landing, where he ordered Wallace to prepare his division to move, but did not specify the route to be taken.

Wallace did not initiate the movement of his division until noon. He then marched his forces towards Sherman's location, utilizing a road near the river. At 2:00 pm, a messenger informed Wallace that he had taken the wrong road. Wallace believed that he was supposed to reinforce Sherman and McClernand at their original camps, unaware that these divisions had been pushed back towards Pittsburg Landing. Consequently, Wallace found himself behind enemy lines and had to retrace his steps. As a result, he did not arrive on the first day of the battle.

He was eventually ordered to turn back and take another route, which cost several hours. His division did not arrive in time to participate in the fighting on the first day of the battle.

Much of the responsibility for the near disaster at Shiloh was pinned on Wallace. As the battle unfolded, commanding general U.S. Grant ordered Wallace to bring his men to the front. Unaware that the Federals had been driven back from their original position, Wallace took the road leading to where they had been before the battle began. Once he learned that the road he was on was taking him away from the army he was supposed to reinforce, rather than toward it, he countermarched his command and took a different road. The delay prevented Wallace from reaching the battlefield until the first day’s fighting had ended. Grant was furious, insisting that his orders specifically directed Wallace to take the other road. Wallace denied the claim, saying the orders had given no directions as to which road to take, and that he had taken the one that he believed would bring him to the action quickest.

In the confusion of the battle the written order was lost, so that what it actually said will never be known. But the blame nonetheless fell on Wallace and he was relieved of command. After the battle, Grant was unsure why Lew Wallace’s division did not arrive when and where he expected it.

Wallace’s men finally arrived late in the day and participated in the Union counterattack on April 7, helping turn the tide in the North’s favor. However, the damage to Wallace’s reputation had been done. Had he arrived earlier, his command of 5000 men might have assisted at the Hornet’s Nest, perhaps saving some of those from surrendering.

On the second day of the battle, the Army of the Ohio, led by Don Carlos Buell, arrived, along with Lew Wallace's division. The Union forces launched a successful counterattack, taking advantage of the Confederate lines, which had become disorganized and outnumbered. The fortunes of the battle shifted in favor of the Union, as Beauregard's men became entangled and exhausted. The Union forces pushed the Confederate lines back entirely, securing a significant victory.

The Controversy

Wallace, deeply wounded by the long-standing criticism, defended himself publicly and privately for decades. He claimed that Grant’s original orders were vague and that he acted in good faith. Wallace wrote letters, articles, and memoirs attempting to clear his name. In one pointed comment, he said: “I have been held responsible for a disaster I did not cause, and prevented from earning honors I might otherwise have won.” He also believed that politics and Grant’s rising prominence after the war made it unlikely that Grant would ever admit error or to clear him.

Grant in Battles and Leaders (1885) was sharp and critical of Wallace. He portrayed Wallace as having misinterpreted orders and delayed his movement to the battlefield, suggesting that Wallace’s failure to arrive on April 6 was a significant lapse that could have cost the Union the battle. This account echoed the prevailing narrative at the time—that Wallace was slow, took the wrong road, and failed to support his commander in a crisis.

In his Personal Memoirs (1885–1886) written while dying of cancer and racing against time, Grant’s tone softened. He still repeated the version of events that Wallace took the “wrong road” and had to be redirected, but he avoided assigning overt blame. He did not accuse Wallace of incompetence, nor did he suggest malice or dereliction of duty. Grant showed greater understanding of the confusion and fog of war. He acknowledged that Wallace believed he was following the correct route based on earlier assumptions about Union positions. Though Grant didn’t retract his earlier criticism, he presented the episode in a more even-handed, factual way, without the sting of his previous judgment. In a footnote, Grant acknowledged learning from Ann Wallace, the wife of General William H.L. Wallace (not related to Lew, who had been killed at Shiloh), that Lew Wallace’s division had taken a different route—presumably the one that made sense earlier in the day when Union lines were thought to be farther forward. This new information shaped Grant’s perception of the event, and he included it in his memoirs. Grant's memoirs, specifically on page 286, contain his admission that Lew Wallace's actions were understandable.

Modern historians tend to side more with Wallace, attributing the delay to ambiguous orders, a rapidly changing battlefield, and the primitive state of Civil War communications and maps In hindsight, both men were partly right: Wallace did what he thought was correct based on initial orders, and Grant had reason to be frustrated when desperately needing reinforcements. But Grant never formally or publicly admitted Wallace had done nothing wrong, and Wallace never felt vindicated in his lifetime.

After Shiloh

Following the battle, Halleck relieved Wallace of his command, although it is usually suggested that this was done at the behest of Grant, although there is no documentary evidence of that. Wallace then took charge of organizing the defenses of Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. However, in March 1864, he returned to command as the leader of the VIII Corps, with headquarters in Baltimore.

In July 1864, a small force under his command was able to sufficiently delay Confederate General Jubal Early at the Battle of Monocacy in Maryland that he may have saved Washington D.C. from capture. Nevertheless, the cloud of the Shiloh controversy still hung over him and would for the rest of his life.

Battle of Monocacy

Early's advance into the Shenandoah Valley and subsequent movement into Western Maryland in 1864 encountered a significant obstacle in the form of Lew Wallace's defense at Monocacy, just outside Frederick, Maryland. At this time, General Robert E. Lee had established his forces in entrenched positions at Petersburg and Richmond, while a Confederate army contingent approached Washington DC. However, the only opposition in their path was a smaller force of inexperienced Union infantry, led by the disgraced General Wallace. This outfit had no battle experience, and all of the resources were going to Grant.  His 2300 men were mostly 100-day men: a true backwater command.

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, General Ulysses S. Grant dispatched 3,500 men under General Ricketts to support Wallace. Nevertheless, there were virtually no other Union army units positioned between Frederick and Washington DC. Wallace understood the need to delay Early's advance until a more substantial defense could be organized.

Without receiving any specific orders from his superiors, Wallace made the strategic decision to position his forces along the Monocacy River, a few miles south of Frederick. This defensive stance aimed to protect the routes to both Baltimore and Washington DC. Following several skirmishes, a full-scale battle took place on July 9. Despite being heavily outnumbered, with Early's forces totaling 16,000 compared to Wallace's 4,500, the Union army held its ground. Even a cavalry attack failed to dislodge them, despite the Confederates attempting to outflank the Union forces. Eventually, the Confederate infantry executed a double envelopment maneuver, forcing the Union army to retreat across a stone bridge. Remarkably, the Union army survived five attacks from one of the most skilled division commanders in the Confederate army at that time. After 24 hours of intense fighting, the Union forces were compelled to fall back. Early's losses amounted to approximately 800 men out of the 14,000 engaged, while Wallace's forces suffered 1,300 casualties out of their 5,800. Wallace subsequently retreated to Baltimore. However, Early's delay in breaching this defensive line provided crucial time for the fortification of Fort Stevens. In his memoirs, Early himself acknowledged the critical impact that the Battle of Monocacy had on his ability to launch an attack on Washington DC.

The disgraced general, despite his valiant stand, initially faced blame from General Grant for yet another error. Consequently, following the Union's defeat, he experienced a brief demotion. Grant promptly relieved Wallace of his command, appointing Edward Ord as the new commander of the troops. However, once Federal officials recognized Wallace's accomplishments, he was reinstated to his position. Grant, in his memoirs, generously acknowledges Wallace's contribution. It was only later realized that, despite facing overwhelming odds, Wallace had bought crucial time that ultimately saved Washington DC. Although the battle at Monocacy was relatively small, its impact was significant. The engagement effectively halted General Early, providing Washington with a day's worth of time to secure reinforcements. This delay cost Early the initiative, from which he could never fully recover. The subsequent battle near Washington DC at Fort Fisher proved unsuccessful. Sheridan pursued Early back into the Shenandoah Valley and defeated him in multiple battles, most notably at Cedar Creek. Furthermore, the preservation of Washington influenced the course of the War and played a role in Lincoln's re-election. Wallace's actions at Monocacy should have been sufficient for Grant to recognize and revive his career.

Instead, Grant entrusted Wallace with non-command responsibilities. He sent Wallace to Texas in 1865 to negotiate a surrender with Kirby Smith. Wallace also served on the Lincoln Conspiracy Commission and headed the Wirz Commission. Later, he assumed the role of governor of the New Mexico territory, served as a minister to the Ottoman Empire, and, of course, became an esteemed author of a significant piece of American literature.

Post Bellum Activities

After the war, Wallace briefly accepted an appointment as general in the Mexican army before returning home to Indiana to resume his law practice and politics. He was defeated in two runs for Congress, but his loyal service to the Republican party (and to candidate James Garfield) earned him an appointment as Territorial Governor of New Mexico. Afterwards, he was appointed U.S. Minister to the Ottoman Empire (succeeding his former Confederate adversary James Longstreet).

Governor Of New Mexico Territory

Billy the Kid, also known as Henry McCarty, adopted the alias William H Bonney, which was not his true name. Despite his young age of 21, he had already taken the lives of 21 men before his own demise. Although his connection to Lew Wallace and the Civil War was not direct, it provides an intriguing insight into the historical context of that era.

At the tender age of 15, McCarty found himself orphaned. His first brush with the law occurred at 16 when he was arrested for stealing food in 1875. Merely ten days later, he committed another offense by robbing a Chinese laundry. Although he was apprehended, he managed to escape shortly after. Fleeing from the New Mexico Territory to the neighboring Arizona Territory, McCarty effectively transformed himself into an outlaw and a federal fugitive. It was during this time, in 1877, that he began using the name "William H. Bonney".

Following an altercation in August 1877, Bonney took the life of a blacksmith, making him a wanted man in Arizona. He subsequently returned to New Mexico and joined a group of cattle rustlers. Bonney gained notoriety in the region when he became a member of the Regulators and participated in the Lincoln County War of 1878. Alongside two other Regulators, he was later accused of killing three individuals, including Lincoln County Sheriff William J. Brady and one of his deputies.

Bonney's notoriety reached new heights in December 1880 when his crimes were reported by the Las Vegas Gazette and The Sun in New York City. Sheriff Pat Garrett successfully apprehended Bonney later that month. In April 1881, Bonney stood trial and was convicted for the murder of Brady. He was sentenced to be hanged in May of the same year. However, on April 28, Bonney managed to escape from jail, killing two sheriff's deputies in the process. He remained on the run for over two months before Garrett eventually caught up with him. On July 14, 1881, at the age of 21, Bonney was shot and killed by Garrett in Fort Sumner. It is worth noting that rumors circulated suggesting that Garrett did not actually kill Bonney, but rather orchestrated his escape.

Lew Wallace around 1903.

Billy the Kid

Wallace's arrival in Santa Fe on September 29, 1878, marked the beginning of his tenure as governor of the New Mexico Territory. This period was characterized by rampant lawlessness and political corruption, posing significant challenges for Wallace. One of his primary objectives was to address the Lincoln County War, a violent and contentious conflict among the county's residents. Additionally, Wallace sought to put an end to the series of Apache raids on territorial settlers.

In his efforts to restore order in Lincoln County, Wallace took decisive action on March 1, 1879. Recognizing that previous attempts had failed, he issued orders for the arrest of those responsible for the local killings. Notably, one of the outlaws apprehended was Billy the Kid. while governor of New Mexico, Wallace issued the “Wanted Dead or Alive” order for Billy the Kid. Subsequently, on March 17, 1879, Wallace held a clandestine meeting with Bonney, who had witnessed the murder of a prominent Lincoln County lawyer named Huston Chapman. Wallace's objective was to secure Bonney's testimony in the trial of Chapman's accused murderers. However, Bonney had his own demands, seeking protection from his enemies and amnesty for his past crimes. During their meeting, an agreement was reached, with Bonney becoming an informant in exchange for a full pardon. To ensure Bonney's safety, Wallace orchestrated a "fake" arrest and confined him in a local jail on March 20. As agreed, Bonney testified in court on April 14, providing crucial information against those involved in Chapman's murder. However, the local district attorney reneged on the agreement, refusing to release the outlaw. Faced with this betrayal, Bonney managed to escape and resumed his violent activities. In response, Garrett, a friend of Wallace, offered a $500 reward for Bonney's capture. This turn of events raises questions about whether Wallace genuinely intended to grant Bonney the promised pardon or if it was merely a ploy to gain his cooperation.  The controversy remains whether or not he offered the bargain cited above. 

Ben Hur

Just before leaving for Constantinople, Wallace published a novel he had written during his tenure in New Mexico. That book, Ben Hur, would become the best-selling American novel of the 19th century.

Wallace's literary career was born out of his boredom with studying law, as he openly admitted. Among his various works, his most renowned novel is the historical tale titled "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ" (1880). This book achieved remarkable success, becoming the best-selling American novel of the 19th century and maintaining that distinction until Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind" surpassed it. Interestingly, Wallace completed this masterpiece while serving as the territorial governor of New Mexico in Santa Fe. "Ben-Hur" narrates the gripping story of Judah Ben-Hur, a Jewish nobleman who endures false accusations and subsequent enslavement by the Romans after being wrongly convicted of attempting to assassinate the Roman governor of Judaea. The novel not only explores themes of revenge and redemption but also intertwines the hero's journey with that of Jesus Christ.

Wallace had dedicated a significant portion of his life attempting to make amends for his perceived mistake at Shiloh, a theme that he also incorporated into his novel "Ben-Hur.". The novel drew heavily on Wallace’s life experience and the Shiloh controversy, particularly the sting of misunderstanding, unjust blame, and the long quest for redemption, which deeply influenced the emotional and moral fabric of the novel. The themes of Injustice and vindication, and the journey toward forgiveness, are the underpinnings of the novel. Wallace felt he had been wronged at Shiloh, unfairly blamed for failing to support Grant in time, and branded with a stain on his military career that haunted him for decades. The emotional core of Ben-Hur is the story of a man undone by injustice, who fights for redemption and meaning, and is a deeply personal reflection of Lew Wallace’s own life journey, including his painful legacy from Shiloh.

In Ben-Hur, the central character, Judah Ben-Hur, is a man falsely accused of attempted murder and condemned to slavery. Like Wallace, Ben-Hur spends much of his life struggling to restore his honor and find his place in a world that had cast him aside. Wallace was a deeply reflective man, especially later in life, and came to see personal injustice in a larger moral and even spiritual context. In Ben-Hur, Judah ultimately finds peace not through vengeance but through an encounter with Christ, which reshapes his understanding of justice, mercy, and purpose. This reflects Wallace’s philosophical reconciliation with the past—though he never fully forgave Grant, he found a higher peace through faith and writing. The famous chariot race, where Ben-Hur defeats his rival Messala (a stand-in for betrayal and empire), is often read as a metaphor for triumph over false judgment and humiliation. While not a literal retelling of Shiloh, it’s a narrative inversion: where Wallace had lost public esteem, Ben-Hur regains it, spectacularly and righteously.

Later in life, Wallace acknowledged that his religious searching and his internal struggles—including those tied to Shiloh—helped shape Ben-Hur. He once said: “The consciousness of having been wronged… became a sort of spur. It made me want to show that I was capable of something more.”

Ben Hur made Wallace a wealthy man, enabling him to spend the last years of his life pursuing his interests in writing, architecture, engineering, and in trying to clear his name from the Shiloh accusation. When the Spanish-American War broke out, Wallace, who was 71 years old, offered to raise a volunteer regiment. When the offer was declined, he attempted to enlist as a private. He died at his home in Crawfordsville, Indiana, in 1905, at age 77.

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.

An Ancient Circumnavigation of Africa – What do we know?

In the late seventh century BCE, Egypt's Saite renaissance under Pharaoh Necho II looked seaward as few rulers of the Nile ever had. Necho reorganized Egypt's defenses and began the digging of a canal to connect the Nile with the Red Sea, and, if we trust a tantalizing report, he commissioned a Phoenician fleet to sail out of the Red Sea, round the southern tip of Africa, and return to Egypt by way of the Mediterranean.

The story comes to us through Herodotus, who records the sailors' most curious claim: at one stretch of the voyage, that the Sun stood on their right. Later generations seized upon this detail as an accidental proof that they had indeed crossed into the southern hemisphere.

Terry Bailey explains.

A Nile crocodile allowing the trochilus bird to eat leeches in its mouth. By Henry Scherren, 1906.

Herodotus in Histories (Book 4.42) writes that Necho sent Phoenician mariners from the "Erythraean Sea" (the Greek term for the Red Sea) with orders to sail westward around Libya, what the Greeks called Africa, and return through the Pillars of Heracles at Gibraltar. The expedition, he claims, took three years, with crews putting ashore each autumn to sow grain and waiting for the harvest before continuing. On their return, they reported, to Herodotus' own skepticism, that they had seen the Sun on their right while sailing, which is precisely what one would observe when travelling west along Africa's southern coast in the southern hemisphere.

That single aside has become the strongest internal argument for the authenticity of the account, for it is an observation unlikely to have been invented by a fifth-century BCE Greek listener yet matches astronomical reality.

Necho II (r. 610–595 BCE) faced Assyrian collapse and Babylonian expansion to the northeast and saw value in sea power and connectivity across east and west. He began the construction of the so-called "Canal of the Pharaohs," a Nile–Red Sea link through the Wadi Tumilat, a project supported by archaeological evidence and later refurbished by the Persians under Darius I. If any sailors were capable of executing such a reconnaissance mission at the very edge of the known world, it was the Phoenicians, cosmopolitan merchants of the Levant who maintained outposts across the Mediterranean and, crucially, beyond the Straits of Gibraltar.

A plausible reconstruction of the voyage follows Herodotus' outline. In the first year, the fleet likely departed the Red Sea and rode the northeast monsoon down the East African coast, halting seasonally to grow provisions as Herodotus describes. In the second year, they would have crossed below the Tropic of Capricorn, skirted a stormy southern coastline, and made the observation of the Sun standing to their right. From there they would have turned northward into the South Atlantic, assisted by the Benguela Current. The third year would have brought them up the West African coast along the Canary Current, through the Pillars of Heracles, and back into the Mediterranean for the return to Egypt. The three-year rhythm of sailing, overwintering, and planting grain makes logistical sense for a flotilla dependent on seasonal winds and local provisioning.

Although we lack any archaeological direct evidence of the expedition itself, sixth- and fifth-century BCE Phoenician merchant ships were more than capable of such a voyage. These deep-bellied, long-range carriers were designed for coast-hugging navigation and could sustain themselves over great distances. Archaeological finds from a sixth-century BCE Phoenician wreck off Cartagena in Spain included goods traced to Morocco and even amber from the Baltic. Such evidence demonstrates that Phoenician traders routinely linked Atlantic and Mediterranean circuits, the very expertise required for Necho's plan.

There is no direct archaeological proof of the circumnavigation, no anchor inscribed with Necho's cartouche found on a South African beach, however, indirect evidence shows that by around 600 BCE, the constituent legs of the voyage were within Phoenician reach. Excavations at Mogador Island off the Moroccan coast reveal Phoenician presence between the seventh and fifth centuries BCE, with purple-dye production and Atlantic trade firmly established. Later Carthaginian explorations, most famously Hanno's Periplus, describe voyages down the West African coast, confirming that Punic sailors had knowledge of and interest in those waters. Meanwhile, archaeological remains of the Nile–Red Sea canal attest to Egyptian efforts to maintain seafaring access, infrastructure without which the expedition would not have been possible.

Greek awareness of Egyptian maritime projects should not be overlooked. By the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, the Nile Delta settlement of Naukratis functioned as a Greek emporion, cementing Greek–Egyptian exchange networks. Even if Greeks did not sail with Necho's fleet, information about the venture could easily have reached Greek audiences and, in time, Herodotus himself.

Skepticism about the account remains. Egyptologist Alan B. Lloyd, among others, has argued that the expedition sits awkwardly with Egyptian priorities and that Herodotus or his sources may have misunderstood or embellished elements of the tale. The absence of direct archaeological finds is also a sobering reminder of the fragility of the evidence. Even Herodotus himself confesses doubt about the Phoenicians' "Sun on the right" claim ironically, the very point modern scholars find most persuasive.

Yet three considerations keep many in the "plausible to likely" camp. First is technical feasibility: Phoenician ships and seamanship were fully capable of long coastal voyages, as the Cartagena wreck and Atlantic trade goods demonstrate. Second is the astronomical "tell": the report of the Sun standing on the right is a striking observational detail difficult to forge anachronistically. Third is continuity of Atlantic activity: sites such as Mogador confirm Phoenicians operating along the Atlantic facade during this very period, and Hanno's later voyage proves that long-distance Punic exploration was a reality, not a fantasy.

If the Phoenicians indeed rounded Africa, they must have passed its southern tip, whether Cape Agulhas or the Cape of Good Hope, navigating the notorious currents and seasonal winds that would challenge even later mariners. Herodotus' three-year cadence of planting and waiting accords well with the rhythm of ancient voyaging dictated by monsoon and trade wind cycles.

Needless to say, Herodotus 4.42 remains the lone ancient source, and while no direct proof of the circumnavigation has been found, a network of indirect evidence supports its plausibility. The canal works linking the Nile and Red Sea, Phoenician presence in Atlantic Morocco, long-range Phoenician wrecks, and Punic traditions of African exploration together suggest that such an expedition was well within reach. The circumnavigation under Necho II remains unproven but credible. If it occurred as reported, it would mark the first recorded rounding of Africa, an extraordinary feat of Saite ambition executed by the Phoenicians, the finest mariners of their age. It would also represent a one-off achievement not repeated, at least in the historical record, until the great oceanic voyages of the Age of Discovery two millennia later.

Conclusion

In conclusion, weighing the evidence, Necho II's alleged Phoenician circumnavigation of Africa occupies a fascinating space between history and legend. Herodotus' testimony is tantalizing, at once doubtful and yet unwittingly corroborative in its mention of the Sun on the right. The absence of direct archaeological proof prevents certainty, however, even without archaeological evidence it does not mean the voyage did not take place. Needless to say, the convergence of circumstantial factors, the existence of the Nile–Red Sea canal, the demonstrated reach of Phoenician seafaring, the archaeological traces of Atlantic presence, and later Punic voyages down the African coast, all lend weight to the claim.

Even if we cannot confirm the expedition, its plausibility is a reminder of the extraordinary maritime capabilities of the ancient Mediterranean world. If true, the voyage would stand not only as a triumph of Egyptian and perhaps Greek initiative but also Phoenician seamanship, in addition to, a landmark moment in the global history of exploration. If false, the story still reveals how ancient peoples imagined the limits of their world and the daring ventures that might transcend them. Either way, the account survives as one of the most compelling intersections of myth, history, and geography in antiquity, an enduring tale of human ambition pushing against the edges of the known world.

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:

Herodotus

Herodotus, often called the "Father of History," was a fifth-century BCE Greek writer whose monumental work, The Histories, laid the foundations for the Western tradition of historical inquiry. Born in Halicarnassus, a city in Asia Minor under Persian rule, Herodotus grew up amidst diverse cultures, which likely shaped his curiosity about peoples, places, and events far beyond his homeland. His great work is a sprawling account of the Greco-Persian Wars, but it is also much more than a military chronicle. It explores geography, anthropology, customs, myths, and legends, offering readers not only an account of battles and kings but also a tapestry of the ancient world as Herodotus understood it.

What distinguishes Herodotus is not only his attempt to gather information from various sources but also the way he wove those stories together. He travelled widely, collecting oral traditions and eyewitness accounts, which he then presented in a narrative that aimed to explain not only what happened, but why it happened. Yet, his reliance on hearsay and storytelling meant that he did not always distinguish clearly between fact and embellishment. Herodotus admitted as much, often inserting phrases such as "so the Egyptians say" or "this is what I have heard," leaving the judgment to the reader.

Herodotus' writing was also deeply colored by artistic license. He was not a dispassionate recorder of events, but a storyteller who sought to engage and entertain as much as to inform. His descriptions of far-off lands, strange customs, and miraculous events often blur the line between history and folklore. For instance, his accounts of gold-digging ants in India or the fabulous size of Persian armies are regarded today as exaggerations or imaginative flourishes. At the same time, these elements reveal his skill as a narrator, capable of bringing history to life with drama and color.

Though later historians such as Thucydides criticized Herodotus for his tendency toward embellishment, modern scholarship recognize that his artistic approach helped preserve cultural memory and human experience in ways that bare facts might not have. Herodotus offered more than a record of past events; he provided a lens through which to view the values, fears, and wonders of his age. His Histories stand as both a pioneering work of history and a masterpiece of storytelling, where fact and fable intertwine to shape the understanding of the ancient world.

When Spitfire Met Lightning: The RAF’s Most Unlikely Dogfight

During the summer of 1963, the air over Lincolnshire witnessed a contest no one would have predicted. Climbing into the sky was the English Electric Lightning, the RAF’s newest interceptor, capable of outpacing almost anything that flew. Facing it was a veteran from another world entirely—the Supermarine Spitfire, a design first sketched out in the 1930s and celebrated for its role in the Battle of Britain.

At first glance the match-up seemed almost laughable: a supersonic jet lining up against a propeller-driven veteran. But the RAF wasn’t indulging in nostalgia. The Cold War often threw together mismatched opponents, and in Southeast Asia the skies were still patrolled by aircraft that had first seen combat two decades earlier.

Richard Clements explains.

The Lightning F3 "XP702" of 11 Squadron Royal Air Force. Here landing at RAF Finningley, Yorkshire in September 1980. Source: MilborneOne, available here.

A Forgotten Conflict

The trials were born of the Indonesian Confrontation (1963–66), a low-level conflict that rarely makes it into Western history books. After the creation of Malaysia from Britain’s former colonies, President Sukarno of Indonesia launched a campaign of armed opposition. His forces probed borders, infiltrated guerrillas, and threatened regional stability.

Indonesia’s air arm in the early ’60s was a patchwork of old and new. Alongside Soviet-supplied jets were American surplus fighters, including the rugged P-51 Mustang. Outdated perhaps, but still a dangerous machine when flown well. British commanders in Singapore could not ignore the possibility that their sleek Lightnings might one day find themselves tangling at close quarters with Mustangs left over from World War II.

That prospect raised a difficult question. Could Britain’s most advanced jet actually fight a propeller-driven fighter if forced into a dogfight?

Why Use a Spitfire?

The RAF had no Mustangs available for testing. Instead, it turned to another thoroughbred—the Spitfire PR Mk XIX. This late-war variant, designed for photo reconnaissance, could reach nearly 450 miles per hour at altitude. It was among the fastest piston-engine aircraft ever built and, in many respects, a fair substitute for the Mustang.

The chosen machine was PS853, a sleek, Griffon-powered Spitfire that had served quietly in postwar duties. It was still flying operationally and would later become a prized aircraft in the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. In 1963, though, it found itself pressed into a very different role: standing in as a sparring partner for the RAF’s cutting-edge interceptor.

Binbrook, 1963: A Strange Matchup

The tests were flown out of RAF Binbrook in Lincolnshire, home to Lightning squadrons. The Lightning F.3 was a striking sight: twin engines stacked vertically, razor-thin swept wings, and a performance envelope unlike anything else Britain had built. Its mission was to streak toward intruders, launch its Firestreak infrared missiles, and return to base before fuel ran out.

Facing it was the Spitfire, flown by Wing Commander John Nicholls, a veteran with combat experience in Malaya. The contest was not meant as a mock dogfight for sport. It was a serious tactical trial to determine how Lightnings could handle piston fighters if war in Southeast Asia escalated.

Picture the scene: the Lightning roaring into a vertical climb, leaving a thunderous trail, while the Spitfire, engine humming, arced gracefully through tighter turns. The contrast was almost poetic—the future of airpower meeting the hero of Britain’s wartime past.

Lessons in the Sky

The results were not what most people would expect.

Overshooting: The Lightning was simply too fast. When it attempted to line up behind the Spitfire, it blasted past before the pilot could get off a shot. Trying to throttle back and stay behind a slow target was far harder than engineers or tacticians had imagined.

Turning Circle: The Spitfire could carve inside the Lightning’s turns with ease. The jet’s enormous speed and wide turning radius meant the piston fighter could cut across its path, bringing the Lightning into its own imaginary gunsight. It was a humbling demonstration: the older plane could, in theory, outmaneuver its futuristic rival.

Missile Failure: The Lightning’s prized Firestreak missiles turned out to be useless against the Spitfire. The weapon’s infrared seeker relied on heat from jet exhausts, and the Griffon piston engine produced too little for it to detect. Worse still, the Spitfire flew too slowly to generate enough friction heat for a lock. In a real combat scenario, the Lightning would have been forced to close to gun range.

Back to Cannons: The Lightning carried two 30mm Aden cannons—potent weapons but difficult to use effectively at such high speeds. To score a hit on a maneuvering Spitfire or Mustang, Lightning pilots would have needed perfect positioning and steady nerves.

The Human Factor

The Lightning had been built to rush head-on at high-flying bombers, not to chase a twisting, darting propeller plane. For John Nicholls, at the controls of the Spitfire, the outcome was hardly a surprise. His earlier combat tours had already taught him that raw speed was not the only currency in the air—sometimes the ability to turn tighter than your opponent decided who lived and who didn’t.

The Spitfire, by then nearly two decades old, was never designed for repeated high-stress maneuvering against a jet. After several sorties, PS853 began to suffer mechanical issues, including engine problems that forced an early landing. The Lightning pilots, too, found the experience frustrating. Their interceptor, brilliant at its intended role, felt clumsy when pitted against a slow-moving fighter weaving through the sky.

Broader Reflections

The early 1960s were often described as the age of the missile, with pundits insisting the dogfight was finished. The Binbrook trials told a different story. When radar and heat seekers failed, victory still came down to a pilot steadying his sights and firing a cannon. Technology could only go so far—the rest was down to human judgment and the instincts honed in the cockpit.

These obscure tests also showed that so-called “obsolete” aircraft could still pose a threat under certain conditions. A Mustang or Spitfire flown by a skilled pilot could exploit a modern jet’s weaknesses at close range.

Conclusion: Old Meets New

Watching a Spitfire and a Lightning circle one another in mock combat was more than a curiosity for the record books. It was a rare moment when two very different generations of British airpower met face to face. The Lightning came away with its weaknesses exposed; the Spitfire, long past its prime, proved it still had a few lessons to teach.

History is full of such collisions between old and new, but few are as striking as that day in 1963 when past and future shared the same patch of English sky.

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.

References

·       Mason, Francis K. The English Electric Lightning. London: Macdonald, 1986.

·       Price, Alfred. The Spitfire Story. London: Arms & Armour Press, 1982.

·       Wynn, Humphrey. RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces. London: HMSO, 1994.

·       Caygill, Peter. Lightning from the Cockpit: Flying Britain’s Fastest Jet. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2007.

·       “Lightning vs Spitfire: Why the Iconic Mach 2 Interceptor Struggled.” The Aviation Geek Club.

·       “Operation Firedog and the RAF in Malaya.” War History Online.

The Many Faces of Anne Boleyn – King Henry VIII’s Second Wife

Divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced, behead, survived. Six women reduced to a simple sentence. Yet those few words oversimplify Anne Boleyn. Anne a woman who spent her entire life defying labels and social expectations that were forced upon her, first as a woman and later as Queen of England.

Anne’s story has often been simplified as a one of love, loss, and betrayal. However, this version fails to mention the woman who dared to defy the patriarchy — a woman whose ambition and passion once turned the head of King Henry VIII — a relationship that would end with her being tried, imprisoned, and later executed by the axe. Does labelling Anne as a traitor, temptress or tragic Queen limit our understanding of who she was?

Sophie Riley explains.

A painting of Anne Boleyn.

The Temptress: How Anne Boleyn captivated a King

Anne Boleyn was unlike any woman that the English court and Henry VIII had ever seen — her wit, charm and intelligence made her irresistible and dangerous. Far from the delicate obedient ladies in court, Anne was the least likely contender to be Queen due to her family’s unconventional rise to power.

When she first stepped into the court at 21 Anne was hard to ignore, not one to rely on Tudor softness and submission, her musicality, intelligence, and fashion set her worlds apart from the traditional English court.

Anne’s unconventional behaviour came from a decade spent in France, during her early years she served as a lady in waiting to Mary Tudor who was briefly married to King Louis XII of France. After that she remained in France serving as a maid of honour to Queen Claude. Her exposure to French culture, language and belief systems would later influence both her rise and inevitable downfall in her later life.

Upon her return to the English court Anne was transformed into a sophisticated and cultured woman who would attract the attention of Henry Percy (Earl of Northumberland), Sir Thomas Wyatt, and later King Henry VIII.

Her power lay not just in her intelligence, but in her refusal to be Henry’s mistress —a decision that gave her unprecedented influence over the King and the court. Unlike her sister Mary who was Henry’s mistress, Anne set her standards higher and in doing so she became the unattainable prize — a challenge that fuelled Henry’s obsession.

Anne’s reputation as a temptress has continued long after her death, her ambition, confidence and passion were reduced to a sexist stigma.  As her influence over the King and the Court grew, so did the danger she posed to the men in power such as Thomas Cromwell. The very qualities that once made her irresistible to the men around her, now marked her as a threat, a vixen that was destined to fall from grace. The other Boleyn girl who captivated the King with her wisdom and beauty would be soon cast into the shadows as a traitor to the King.

The Traitor

The very foundation of Anne Boleyn’s rise and inevitable fall from grace entwines with Henry VIII's desperation for a male heir. Prior to their marriage Anne Boleyn promised him the son he desperately wanted that his previous marriage could not give him. Yet despite her dedication and will power she failed to secure the future of the Tudor dynasty which in turn would solidify her position as Queen of England. The pressure to produce a male heir mixed with Henry’s shifting desires made Anne a target. Anne’s status was attacked both personally and politically as Henry’s quest for a son continued., and her failure to fulfil would mark the beginning of her end.

Despite several failed pregnancies and the birth of her daughter Elizabeth, the King’s frustration grew. Influential courtiers such as Thomas Cromwell and Anne’s own Uncle Thomas Boleyn fuelled the fire. Cromwell saw Anne’s failure as an opportunity to orchestrate charges of adultery, incest, and treason against her. Beyond her issues with delivering an heir, it was Anne’s intelligence and assertiveness in court that fuelled her enemy’s hatred towards her. Her downfall is a warning to any woman daring to have power in a patriarchal society.

With Annes failures and the charges in place a public trial was inevitable- and Thomas Cromwell ensured the system worked to transform the Queen’s religious ambition into a criminal act in eyes of a patriarchal court. Anne Boleyn was a woman who spoke with influence, she was also a vocal supporter of Protestant reform, aligning herself with a faith that was radicalised unsettled the catholic court. Her promotion of protestant beliefs and reformist teachings stemmed from her early years in France where she was exposed to them. These views in turn with her refusal to be a passive queen made her many enemies within the traditional court that was based on patriarchal beliefs. To men like Cromwell, Anne’s qualities made her dangerous, by painting her as morally and politically corrupt. Cromwell weaponised Anne’s gendered defiance and her reformed ideology all under the guise of loyalty to the King.

In the afternoon of May 2nd, 1536, Anne Boleyn was taken from Greenwich Palace to the Tower of London on the charges of adultery, incest, and treason. These charges against her were extreme by design she was accused of committing adultery twenty times with five different men including incest with her own brother George Boleyn. Furthermore, she was accused of plotting to kill her husband the King. The charges were deliberately designed to destroy her morally, politically, and personally. Adultery by a Queen in Tudor England questioned the legitimacy of the heir to the throne as it endangered the royal line. Meanwhile incest added to the horror that ensured public outrage towards Anne. The case was backed by questionable evidence; confessions extracted under torture, inconsistent dates that would frequently change or be retracted by men who would later die in disgrace.  But the whole truth was never expected in this case. The accusations were branding tools in a propaganda campaign that would lay the groundwork for Annes inevitable downfall.

The Tragic Queen

Anne Boleyn’s fall from grace was not simply because of failed pregnancies or court rivalries — it was the tragic consequence of a woman who was determined to defy social and gender expectations in a traditional patriarchal society that was not ready for a powerful woman like her. A woman who would pay the ultimate price with her life — a life cut short by a world that demanded their Queens to be silent and submissive, Anne’s intelligence, wit and reformist ideas made her into a dangerous and revolutionary figure.

As Henry’s eyes began to wander and his affections towards Anne shifted so did her alliances as her position became increasingly unstable. The most shocking came from her own family her uncle Thomas Howard showed no hesitation in turning against his niece for his own self-preservation. Her fellow courtiers who had once benefited from her favours and support also retreated to protect their own status. In a world were allegiance dictated survival, Anne was left alone to defend herself. Her own father remained silent throughout the trial and even after the execution he retreated to his home in Heaver castle with his wife.

Even in death, Annes legacy refused to be diminished — all her wit, charm and intellect was passed onto her daughter Elizabeth I who would be one of England’s most influential Queen’s. Elizabeth would have a long reign despite her father who believed that women should not rule on their own.

 Over the years Anne Boleyns legacy has been retold, reimagined, and reinterpreted — transforming her from a tragic Queen into one of the most compelling figures in English history. A legacy that includes triggering the English reformation, giving birth to the future Queen Elizabeth I, and becoming a symbol of endurance and dignity in the face of injustice. Once condemned as a traitor and a temptress, vilified by all in Tudor England, she is now portrayed across the media as powerful women ahead of her time

Conclusion

Anne’s life cannot be reduced to a single label, word, or tragic ending. She was a woman who was too complex for a male Tudor England too understand. Her complexity was shown through her determination to not be another submissive woman within the court but to be an intelligent and politically astute Queen. Though history tried to define her as a temptress that seduced the King or a traitor who betrayed their King and country. None of these labels fully capture the woman who reshaped the English monarchy and left a legacy through one of its greatest rulers Queen Elizabeth I.

Her story forces us to confront the uncomfortable truths around how women in power were treated in comparison to their male counterparts. Anne’s rise and fall from grace reflects the unattainable expectations and harsh limitations that are placed on women from a patriarchal society — and the dangers they are faced with when challenging it. In the end it was the court of male Tudor opinion that destroyed her not her feminine flaws.

So, we must now ask ourselves when we consider Anne Boleyn as a traitor, temptress, or a tragic Queen, are we understanding her — or simply repeating the same patterns that tried to silence her in life?

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.

Marco Polo: The Venetian who Brought the East to Europe

Marco Polo stands as one of the most iconic figures of medieval exploration, a man whose name became synonymous with far-flung lands, daring journeys, and the opening of new worlds to the imagination of Europe. Born in 1254 CE into a Venetian merchant family, Marco Polo grew up in a city that was then a thriving hub of Mediterranean commerce. His father, Niccolò Polo, and his uncle, Maffeo, were seasoned merchants with experience trading in Constantinople and along routes leading deep into Asia. Their ventures laid the groundwork for Marco's own journeys, ensuring he was raised with an understanding of trade, diplomacy, and the lure of distant markets. Marco's mother died when he was young, leaving his extended family to raise him. By the time he reached his late teens, the Polo family's mercantile ambitions had drawn him into one of the greatest adventures of the Middle Ages.

Terry Bailey explains.

A depiction of Marco Polo's caravan traveling east.

In 1271, Marco Polo, at just seventeen, set out with his father and uncle on a journey that would take them across Asia to the Mongol court of Kublai Khan, the powerful grandson of Genghis Khan. Their route followed the Silk Road, a web of trade paths that stretched across deserts, mountains, and great cities, linking Europe with Asia. The journey was arduous, spanning thousands of miles through regions plagued by political instability, banditry, and natural hardships.

The Polos travelled through the Middle East, passing through Acre and crossing Persia, where Marco was exposed to Zoroastrianism and Islamic culture. From there, they trekked across Afghanistan's rugged terrain, scaled the heights of the Pamir Mountains, and crossed the vast steppes of Central Asia before reaching China. Marco, experiencing these lands for the first time, recorded their customs, geography, and products with a keen eye for detail. His descriptions, later written down, became the first systematic attempt to convey knowledge of Asia to Europeans.

When the Polos arrived at Kublai Khan's court around 1275 CE, they entered one of the most powerful empires the world had ever known. The Mongol Empire stretched across Eurasia, and Kublai ruled as the founder of the Yuan dynasty in China. Marco quickly impressed the khan with his intelligence, linguistic aptitude, and curiosity. Unlike most Europeans who reached Asia, Marco did not remain on the fringes of court life; instead, he became a trusted envoy and administrator.

Over the next seventeen years, Marco Polo travelled extensively across China and beyond, often on missions for Kublai Khan. He reported seeing the dazzling city of Hangzhou, which he called the most splendid city he had ever encountered, with its bustling markets, canals, and vibrant cultural life. He journeyed to Yunnan in the southwest, observed the production of salt, described the use of coal as a source of heat, and marveled at China's system of paper currency, which seemed like a miracle to Europeans accustomed only to gold and silver.

Marco's accounts also extended beyond China. He wrote of voyages to Southeast Asia, describing the islands of Sumatra and Java, and even hinted at distant Japan, known to him as Cipangu, which was said to hold great riches. His descriptions were sometimes a blend of direct observation and second-hand reports, but together they painted a remarkable picture of lands far beyond Europe's horizon.

What distinguished Marco Polo was not only his access to Kublai Khan's empire but his ability to observe and record with precision. He provided detailed descriptions of China's postal system, in which relays of riders could carry messages across vast distances with astonishing speed. He noted the cultivation of rice, the production of silk, and the intricate social customs of the Chinese people.

Yet he also reported marvels that seemed fantastical to European readers. He spoke of rhinoceroses, which he mistook for the mythical unicorn, and of stones that burned like fire, a reference to coal. He described strange religious practices, palaces roofed with gold, and exotic animals that few in Europe had ever seen. His accounts mixed practical knowledge with elements of wonder, a blend that ensured his book would captivate audiences for centuries.

However, by 1291CE, the Polos were ready to return to Venice. Their departure from Kublai Khan's court was delicate, as the khan valued their service. They gained permission to escort a Mongol princess to Persia, and after a long sea voyage through the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, they eventually made their way back across Asia and arrived home in 1295 CE., Marco Polo had been gone for twenty-four years.

The Venetians who greeted him hardly recognized him. He returned wealthy, adorned in fine robes, and with tales so extraordinary that many thought them impossible. Yet his knowledge of distant lands, goods, and languages set him apart from any other traveler of his generation.

Not long after his return, Venice found itself at war with its rival Genoa. Marco Polo, serving as a naval commander, was captured during the Battle of Curzola in 1298 CE and imprisoned. It was during this imprisonment that his life took another remarkable turn. Sharing a cell with the romance writer Rustichello da Pisa, Marco dictated the story of his travels. Rustichello, with a flair for embellishment, shaped Marco's recollections into a narrative that combined detailed description with elements of wonder and adventure.

The resulting work, Il Milione, known in English as The Travels of Marco Polo, became one of the most influential travel books of the medieval world. More than just a record of trade routes, it offered a vivid picture of Asia's geography, politics, economy, and culture. While skeptics dismissed it as exaggerated fantasy, others treated it as a treasure trove of knowledge. Copies spread across Europe, translated into multiple languages, and inspired generations of explorers.

Marco Polo's greatest contribution to society lay in the expansion of European knowledge of the wider world. His descriptions of Asia helped shatter the narrow horizons of medieval Europe, where much of geography was based on classical sources or myth. By providing concrete, if sometimes imperfect, details about cities, governments, and resources, he offered Europeans a glimpse of civilizations far more advanced and wealthier than their own.

His book inspired explorers for centuries. Christopher Columbus carried a copy of The Travels on his voyage across the Atlantic, convinced that Marco's descriptions of Cipangu and the riches of Asia lay just beyond the western seas. For merchants, Polo's accounts served as a guide to potential opportunities, while for Cartographers, they provided invaluable data that reshaped medieval geography.

After his release from captivity, Marco Polo returned to Venice, where he resumed his life as a respected merchant. He married Donata Badoer, a woman from a prominent Venetian family, and together they had three daughters. Although he continued to trade, his fame rested more on his book than on his business ventures.

Skepticism about his stories persisted throughout his life. Many Venetians called him "Il Milione," implying that he exaggerated his accounts "by the million." Yet Marco Polo never wavered in his insistence that what he had described was true. On his deathbed in 1324 CE, when asked to retract his tales, he reportedly replied, "I have not told half of what I saw."

Marco Polo's legacy endures not only in his book but in the symbolic role he plays in history as a bridge between East and West. He was not the first European to reach China, others, such as the Franciscan friar Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, had done so, but he was the first to produce a sustained, detailed, and widely circulated account. His observations introduced Europeans to technologies, products, and cultures that would shape their ambitions and worldview.

While scholars today debate the accuracy of parts of his narrative, pointing out omissions such as the Great Wall of China or possible exaggerations of wealth, there is little doubt that Marco Polo travelled extensively in Asia and faithfully recorded much of what he saw. His writings influenced cartography, commerce, and exploration, ensuring his place in world history.

Marco Polo's life embodies the human spirit of curiosity and discovery.

In an age when most people never left their hometowns, he crossed continents, served a foreign emperor, and brought back stories that expanded the boundaries of knowledge. His journeys and writings remain emblematic of the transformative power of exploration, reminding us that the world has always been larger, richer, and more interconnected than we imagine.

In conclusion, Marco Polo's extraordinary life and travels epitomize the spirit of curiosity, courage, and cross-cultural engagement that defined the age of exploration. From his early upbringing in the mercantile hub of Venice to his twenty-four-year odyssey across Asia, Polo's journey was shaped by both personal ambition and the broader commercial and diplomatic networks of his family.

His intimate observations of the Mongol Empire and the vast reaches of China, along with his encounters in Southeast Asia, offered Europeans a window into civilizations that were previously almost unimaginable. Beyond mere adventure, his meticulous documentation of cities, trade systems, technologies, and social customs provided an unprecedented corpus of knowledge, blending practical information with a sense of wonder that captured the imagination of generations.

The writing of Il Milione during his imprisonment in Genoa transformed Marco Polo from traveler to chronicler, allowing his experiences to transcend time and space. While critics have debated the accuracy of his accounts, there is little doubt that his writings fundamentally expanded Europe's understanding of the wider world, inspiring explorers, merchants, and mapmakers alike.

Figures such as Christopher Columbus drew directly from Polo's narratives, demonstrating the profound influence his observations exerted on the course of global exploration. Furthermore, Marco Polo's life illustrates the human capacity to bridge cultures, serving as an intermediary between East and West and demonstrating the value of empathy, observation, and intellectual curiosity in fostering understanding across diverse societies.

Ultimately, Marco Polo's legacy endures not simply in the factual details he recorded, but in the symbolic role he plays as an emblem of exploration itself. His journeys are a reminder that the pursuit of knowledge, even in the face of uncertainty and peril, can reshape our perception of the world. By venturing into unknown lands and faithfully recording his experiences, Marco Polo expanded not only the geographical horizons of his contemporaries but also the intellectual and imaginative boundaries of Europe, leaving a lasting imprint on history that continues to inspire the spirit of discovery today.

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 Travels of Marco Polo — From Prison Cell to Renaissance Maps

When Marco Polo dictated his adventures to Rustichello da Pisa in a Genoese prison in 1298 CE, he could hardly have imagined the extraordinary afterlife of his words. Il Milione, or The Travels of Marco Polo, quickly became one of the most copied, translated, and debated books of the late Middle Ages. Yet the text's journey through history was almost as adventurous as the merchant himself.

The original manuscript has not survived. Instead, dozens of versions circulated across Europe, each copied by hand and often altered by scribes who added flourishes or omitted details. Some editions emphasized Polo's observations of commerce and geography, while others leaned into the marvels and wonders, turning the book into a medieval adventure tale. As a result, there is no single "authentic" version of The Travels, only a family of manuscripts, each reflecting the tastes and expectations of its audience.

Despite these variations, the book's impact was profound. For European readers who knew little beyond the Mediterranean, Polo's accounts of vast cities like Beijing (which he called Khanbaliq), of wealthy trading ports, and of the court of Kublai Khan were revelations. Cartographers eagerly incorporated his descriptions into their charts, filling in the blank spaces of Asia with names and details lifted directly from his text. The Catalan Atlas of 1375 CE, one of the most influential medieval world maps, bears clear marks of Polo's influence, situating cities, rivers, and kingdoms that Europeans otherwise would never have known.

By the time of the Renaissance, The Travels had become more than just a book of wonders, it was a geographic authority. Scholars, merchants, and explorers mined its pages for information. As indicated in the main text Christopher Columbus owned a Latin copy, heavily annotated in the margins with his notes, and relied on Polo's descriptions of Cipangu and Cathay to bolster his conviction that a westward route to Asia was possible. For Columbus and many of his contemporaries, Marco Polo's text was less a travelogue than a guidebook to future discovery.

Though modern scholars have criticized its omissions and embellishments, The Travels gave Europe its first detailed portrait of the East. Its manuscript history, fragmented and colorful, mirrors the medieval world's hunger for knowledge and storytelling. More than seven centuries later, it remains a testament to the power of narrative to shape the course of exploration, geography, and the imagination of entire civilizations.

The myths of Marco Polo

Few historical figures have attracted as many myths as Marco Polo, and perhaps the most enduring is the tale that he introduced pasta to Italy after encountering noodles in China. According to the legend, Polo brought the recipe for long strands of wheat-based noodles back from his travels, and from this simple act, Italian cuisine was forever transformed.

It's a charming story, but historians agree it's just that, a story. Archaeological evidence shows that Italians were making pasta-like dishes centuries before Marco Polo's journey. Records from Sicily in the 12th century, nearly a hundred years before Polo's return, describe itriyya, a form of dried pasta made from durum wheat. The Arabs, too, had introduced noodle-like foods to the Mediterranean world long before the Polos set foot in Asia.

So where did the myth come from? It likely originated in the 20th century, popularized in American marketing campaigns that wanted to romanticize pasta as an "exotic" gift from the East. Polo's fame as a traveler made him the perfect character to credit with the culinary import.

Other myths attached themselves to Polo as well. Some claimed he never went to China at all, that his accounts were borrowed from Persian sources; others accused him of exaggerating "by the million," giving rise to his nickname "Il Milione."

While modern scholarship confirms that Marco Polo did indeed reach China, the layers of myth reflect just how deeply his name became woven into both history and legend.

In truth, Marco Polo did not introduce pasta to Italy, nor did he single-handedly open Asia to Europeans, however, his vivid storytelling left such an impression that centuries later, people were still eager to attach myths to his name, proof of the enduring fascination he inspires.

War of 1812 – The Battle of York

The War of 1812 was raging when the capital was stormed.  The invaders made short work of the overmatched defenders and rampaged through the city, setting fire to the legislative buildings and executive mansion.  Withdrawing, they left behind smoldering ruins and a foe with a keen desire for retribution.  That  retribution would occur sixteen months later, when the British ravaged Washington D.C. in retaliation for the pillaging of the Canadian capital of York by U.S. forces on April 28, 1813.

James F. Byrne Jr explains.

The arrival of the U.S. fleet prior to the capture of York. April 27, 1813.

In June of 1812, the nascent United States declared war on its former colonial master in response to British impressment of American seamen and other outrages to national honor.  Focusing on its ongoing existential struggle against Napoleon, Britain initially adopted a defensive strategy with its 5500 regular troops in Canada.  This strategy would prove to be more than a match for American offensive actions.

The Americans expected a quick and resounding victory,  but events would prove the preparedness of the American Army was not equal to these lofty expectations.  A campaign launched in 1812 resulted in the humiliating loss of Detroit and additional disasters along the Niagara River.  Viewing the results of the American operations, the London Times complacently reported “the war had lasted nearly four months yet … the record of the American achievements is a universal blank.”

To rectify this situation, Secretary of War Armstrong pushed for a concentrated attack along Lake Ontario against Kingston - the primary British naval base on the lake.  If Kingston fell, Upper Canada would eventually follow.  However, Armstrong’s plan was opposed by the senior Army commander along the Canadian border, General Henry Dearborn.  A Revolutionary War veteran, the now overage, and overcautious Dearborn erroneously believed that Kingston was strongly defended and convinced Armstrong to forego striking that strategic objective in lieu of seizing a symbolic prize – York, the capital of Upper Canada.

Weakly garrisoned by 600 British regulars, militia and native warriors, York was under the command of Lieutenant Governor Roger Sheaffe.  The defenses of York consisted of a series of blockhouses and obsolete artillery.  Shaeffer scattered his regulars and native allies around the city and left the militia in the capital – more or less to their own devices.

On April 26, 1813, an American flotilla of 14 armed brigs carrying 1,700 regulars arrived off the coast of York.  The following morning  troops under the command of General Zebulon Pike stormed ashore west of the town against feeble opposition.  British reinforcements were miles away and unable to move  along the shore road which was pounded by naval gunfire.  Forced to detour into the woods, some reinforcements got lost, most got delayed, and none reached the bridgehead.  As the British floundered in the woods, Pike ordered an advance.  British attempts to rally were futile, as well coordinated American artillery and ship-based fires supported the advancing Infantry.  General Sheaffe ordered his regulars to abandon the city and retreat east along the shore.  He left the Canadian militia (in the words of one observer) “standing in the street like a parcel of sheep,” instructing them to negotiate their own surrender.

Battle over

The battle was over, but the victory not yet secured.  Over 300 tons of gunpowder stored in a stone warehouse exploded as the Americans approached the city.  Among the 37 casualties was General Pike, courageously if not wisely leading from the front.  The death of Pike led to a breakdown of discipline among the American troops.  Officers on the ground could not rein in their men, and Dearborn remained aboard ship, observing while the Canadian capital was destroyed.

The burning of York infuriated the British command.  The Commander in Chief instructed his subordinates to “assist in inflicting that measure of retaliation which shall deter the enemy from a repetition of similar outraged.”  In August of 1814, those instructions were faithfully conducted when British forces captured Washington D.C., torching most government buildings.  

Lessons Learned:

·       Joint operations are a combat multiplier.  The well-coordinated naval support at York hamstrung British mobility.

·       Force management is necessary for victory.  Sheaffe ignored over half his potential combat power (the militia) and suffered accordingly.

·       A blind army is a defeated army.  Sheaffe did not recon alternate routes to possible landing sites and was unable to reinforce his defense at the point of the American attack.

·       Have a succession plan.  Pike carefully orchestrated the American landing and assault – but discipline died with him.

·       Operations should support strategic objectives; the successful attack at York had little positive impact on the war.

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

What the Portraits of Catherine of Aragon Reveal About Her Role and Image

Catherine of Aragon, King Henry VIII's first and longest-serving wife, faced numerous challenges throughout her life, battling for her reputation from a young age until her final days. Her unwavering fortitude is strikingly evident when examining her surviving portraits.

What can portraits of the incredible Queen of England, Catherine of Aragon, tell us about her? Kateryna Dronova explains.

Young Catherine: Glimpses from Early Portraits

The Virgin and Child, by Michael Sittow c. 1515-1518. Source:  Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegaleri, https://recherche.smb.museum/detail/829489

Catherine of Aragon, the youngest child of the renowned Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, was born into a world where strategic marriages were crucial for securing dynastic power. Named after her great-grandmother Katherine of Lancaster, she received a comprehensive education in governance, religion, and diplomacy, preparing her for a significant role in the interconnected European landscape.

Growing up in the royal court, Catherine witnessed pivotal historical events, such as the fall of Granada in 1492, which marked the end of the Reconquista and solidified Spain's dominance under Christian rule. Constantly on the move with her parents and sisters, the itinerant nature of the court was driven by a mix of practical considerations and the need to maintain control over a still-fragmented Spain. This upbringing instilled in Catherine a deep understanding of the complexities of ruling a kingdom and navigating the shifting political landscapes of her time.

In March 1488, a significant diplomatic effort took place between England and Spain, led by Rodrigo de Puebla, the Spanish ambassador to England. The goal was to strengthen the relationship between the two kingdoms and change the political landscape of late 15th-century Europe. The primary objective was for Henry VII's eldest son, Arthur, to marry Catherine of Aragon. Negotiations for this marriage had been ongoing, with Isabella determined to ensure a secure future for her daughter.

In 1493, when Catherine was just seven years old, it was decided that she would go to England. In 1497, Henry VII sent her a "blessed ring" as a sign of his affection.

Catherine of Aragon as the Magdalene by Michel Sittow, c. 1468 - 1525 or 1526 Source: Detroit Institute of Arts. https://dia.org/collection/catherine-aragon-magdalene-61540

Young Catherine indeed arrived in England as planned, but after marrying Arthur, she faced tragedy when he passed away just five months after their wedding in 1502. She was only 16 at the time, found herself a widow, and her future became uncertain. Despite the circumstances, she maintained that her marriage to Arthur was never consummated, a claim she upheld throughout her life.   

While her portrait from that period wasn't particularly significant for her propaganda, Catherine's acute awareness of the power of visual representation in asserting her position is evident in her portraits. These images exude dignity and sorrow.  Additionally, her unwavering commitment to her Catholic faith was a fundamental aspect of her identity throughout her life. All this likely motivated her decision to portray herself in biblical themes, such as Mary Magdalene, to underscore purity, holiness, and her steadfast religious convictions.   

Notably, her two early portraits, attributed to the Spanish artist Miguel Sittow, are believed to depict her, aligning well with her narrative as a devout Catholic and a symbol of purity. These portraits are instrumental in presenting Catherine as a pure and virginal future bride.

The Virgin and Child, and Catherine of Aragon as the Magdalene by Michael Sittow.

This portrait reveals similarities between the depictions of Catherine as Mary Magdalene and the Virgin Mary, also by Michael Sittow, suggesting a shared model for both.

The identity of the model in these portraits remains a subject of discussion. Some suggest it could be Catherine, her sister, or their mother, Isabella I of Castile.

If its Cathrine, the portrait may serve another purpose: presenting Catherine in a more relatable light, as she is depicted in humble attire rather than regal garments. Historical depictions of esteemed queens from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries often portray them as advocates for ordinary people, highlighting their role in interceding on behalf of the welfare of the populace.   She had been preparing to be queen from a young age, so these portraits could be part of her propaganda, portraying her as a good and humble queen who understands her people.

Another portrait by Sittow, initially identified as young Catherine of Aragon, was later re-identified as Mary "Rose" Tudor, the sister of King Henry VIII.

Mary Rose Tudor  by Michiel Sittow, 1514. Source: Kunsthistorisches Museum.

The association of the portrait with Catherine began in 1915 when Max Friedländer proposed this identification. Friedländer's paper focused on a painting of the Madonna and Child, noting that the sitter in the painting bore a resemblance to the young woman in the Sittow portrait. His argument was largely based on the prominent jewels in the painting: the border of gold cockleshells centered by a tiny "C" adorning the neckline of the bodice, and a heavy gold collar necklace set with jewels, pearls, and alternating enameled roses and the initial "K." Since roses were a symbol of the Tudor dynasty and cockleshells represented Santiago, the patron saint of Spain, Friedländer theorized that the woman was a Spanish princess.

However, this identification was later reconsidered. It was found that the jewelry in the portrait matched pieces given to Mary Tudor as part of the betrothal negotiations with her erstwhile suitor, the Habsburg Prince Charles ("Karolus").

At this point, none of the portraits of a young Catherine have been definitively proven to depict her. The identities of the sitters in these portraits remain subjects of debate and speculation.

Queen of England: Royal maturity

Catherine of Aragon by Lucas Horenbout (or Hornebolte), c. 1525. Source: National Portrait Gallery. https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw01143/Katherine-of-Aragon

Catherine possessed all the essential personal qualities required to be a Queen of England. While she embraced the customs of her new country, she also remained committed to furthering Spanish interests for years to come. With a foundation of strong principles, she set a high moral standard for her household. Beneath her outward appearance of meekness and submission to her husband, she harbored a resilient and tenacious character that allowed her to face the challenges that fate would later present with grace and dignity. These qualities are evident in her portraits, where she is depicted as a mature woman.

The portrait of Catherine painted by Lucas Horenbout around 1525 captures her regal stature. A miniature of her, now housed in the National Portrait Gallery, starkly contrasts with the charming young woman depicted in Miguel Sittow's 1505 portrait, revealing a significant transformation over a decade. Horenbout's portrayal presents a mature, stout woman whose countenance reflects a certain anxiety and sadness. Her once-vibrant red-gold hair now appears darker, possibly due to the pigmentation in the paint, and is styled in a bun or braid at the nape of her neck, adorned with a Juliet cap—an unconventional fashion choice in England during that period.

The inscription "Queen Catharine, his wife" indicates that this portrait was likely part of a pair, with the other depicting Henry VIII. Dated to around 1525-1527, this small work is among the earliest English portrait miniatures.

Catherine of Aragon by an unknown artist, early 18th century. Source: National Portrait Gallery, London.https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image/?mkey=mw01144

The portrait by an unknown artist, located in the National Portrait Gallery in London, showcases Catherine adorned in a traditional gable hood, wearing an opulent brown velvet gown with a low square neckline. Her figure, characterized as portly, eschews claims to beauty, with a pale face conveying a slightly disdainful expression and a prominent, firm chin. The signs of aging are evident, marked by lines of sadness, while her body shows the toll of frequent childbirth, not the body of a young woman anymore. These two portraits reveal a striking evolution in Catherine's depiction.

The third portrait from her queenship period also underwent reidentification. Initially thought to depict Catherine Parr, Henry VIII's last wife, it was later identified as Catherine of Aragon.

This rare painting of Catherine of Aragon, created during her lifetime, depicts her at around 35 years of age. Portraits like this one played a crucial role in establishing Catherine's position as queen and highlighting her wealth and status, as well as that of her husband, Henry VIII. In the portrait, Catherine is depicted with her hands clasped in front of her, her face slightly turned, looking off to the side rather than directly at the viewer. This standard pose was commonly used in portraits of the time.

Katherine of Aragon by Unknown artist, c. 1520. Source: National Portrait Gallery, London.https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw194913/Katherine-of-Aragon?LinkID=mp00801&role=sit&rNo=0

The lighting on her face indicates she could be looking through a window. At the same time, her solemn facial expression matches the traditional portraits of the 1500s, which focused on social standing instead of personal traits. The expensive and fashionable clothing, along with her jewelry, demonstrates Catherine's wealth status. The costly red dye cochineal used for her clothing was accessible only to the most affluent members of society. The use of gold as a status symbol in her clothing became restricted by Henry VIII through laws that limited access to gold fabric for royalty and the elite classes of society. Rubies and pearls, which were highly valued during that period, served to demonstrate her royal status. The luxurious fabrics and jewels imported from abroad demonstrated the extensive international relationships of the country.

The recent re-identification of this portrait of Catherine of Aragon led to its pairing with a painting of Henry VIII. The artwork displays their royal positions as king and queen while showcasing the dominance of the Tudor dynasty. The artists probably created these portraits to match each other, so Catherine's posture duplicated Henry's , while demonstrating their joint power during their time as rulers.

Henry VIII,by  unknown  Anglo-Netherlandish artist, c.1520,  and Catherine of Aragon, by unknown artist, c.1520. National Portrait Gallery, London.

Catherine experienced a period of contentment during this time because she enjoyed both her royal position and her marriage to Henry VIII. Her life was about to undergo significant changes because difficulties and disturbances were approaching.

What is with the monkey?

Catherine of Aragon with a monkey copy after Lucas Horenbout, c.1530. Source: Getty Museum. https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/108MGT

Several portraits depict Catherine holding a monkey. The original portrait of Catherine of Aragon, believed to be painted by Lucas Horenbout, became a significant and representative image for the Queen, with several copies made, including one in 1530. This suggests that at some point, Catherine herself embraced this particular depiction and its iconography to convey a specific message or assert her identity, especially during a period of intense personal and political upheaval.

The monkey can represent several ideas, such as subtly addressing the perceptions of femininity, loyalty, and the role of a queen in the Tudor court. Like her father-in-law, Henry VII, and several other contemporary royals, Catherine likely enjoyed having a monkey as a pet (reportedly from her native Spain).

However, this monkey serves a specific purpose in this image: it holds a Tudor rose in one hand while reaching for Catherine’s crucifix instead of the coin she offers.  By the time this portrait was created, Henry VIII was already involved with Anne Boleyn. In this context, Catherine likely sought to depict herself as a wise queen and loyal wife, emphasizing her adherence to her religious convictions and her role as a steadfast and principled monarch. Her portraits convey a message of dignity and moral integrity, underscoring her commitment to her marriage and her faith, even as she faced personal and political challenges.

Could this be the message Catherine is conveying, particularly as Henry replaces her? We know that Henry VIII began the divorce process with Catherine of Aragon in 1527. Same year she promptly increased her clothing budget by 50%. Perhaps she intended to appear more attractive to the fashion-conscious king, but dressing extravagantly would also serve to assert that she, as the Queen, outranked her rival. During the years that both she and Anne remained at court, sharing the same household while Henry sought to dissolve his marriage to Catherine, the Great Wardrobe and the Royal jewels became a battleground.

Unfortunately, Catherine ultimately lost this battle. Despite her efforts to maintain her position and uphold her marriage vows, Henry pursued a divorce, which ultimately led to the annulment of their marriage in 1533. This marked a significant turning point in English history, as it led to the English Reformation and the establishment of the Church of England.

But Catherine remained resolute and refused to yield. She steadfastly rejected Henry's new church, his new wife. In her eyes, she remained the rightful Queen of England.

Catherine of Aragon died at age 50 on Friday, January 7, 1536, but despite her isolated passing, rumors of poisoning circulated widely for a long time, though they were not true.

Even after centuries, Catherine of Aragon's persona remains highly respected, and her legacy, marked by resilience, dignity, and a steadfast commitment to her beliefs, continues to be seen in her portraits, where she looks at us through the ages, whether as a young girl with curly hair or a serious queen with a strong, resolute face.

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

Rocketry Evolution from Ancient Cultures to the Saturn 5

The story of rocketry stretches across centuries, blending ancient ingenuity with modern engineering on a scale that once seemed the stuff of myth. Its roots trace back to the earliest experiments in harnessing stored energy for propulsion, long before the word "rocket" existed. Ancient cultures such as the Greeks and Indians experimented with devices that relied on air or steam pressure to move projectiles. One of the earliest known examples is Hero of Alexandria's aeolipile, a steam-powered sphere described in the 1st century CE, which used escaping steam to produce rotation, a primitive but important precursor in the understanding of reactive propulsion.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Apollo 11 Saturn V rocket launch on July 16, 1969. The rocket included astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr.

While such inventions were more scientific curiosities than weapons or vehicles, they demonstrated the principle that would one day send humans beyond Earth's atmosphere: action and reaction. The true dawn of rocketry came in China during the Tang and Song dynasties, between the 9th and 13th centuries, with the development of gunpowder and a steady evolution. Initially used in fireworks and incendiary weapons, Chinese engineers discovered that a bamboo tube filled with black powder could propel itself forward when ignited.

These early gunpowder rockets were used in warfare, most famously by the Song dynasty against Mongol invaders, and quickly spread across Asia and the Middle East. The Mongols carried this technology westward, introducing it to the Islamic world, where it was refined and studied. By the late Middle Ages, rockets had reached Europe, largely as military curiosities, though their accuracy and power remained limited.

During the 17th and 18th centuries, advances in metallurgy, chemistry, and mathematics allowed rockets to become more sophisticated. In India, the Kingdom of Mysore under Hyder Ali and his son Tipu Sultan developed iron-cased rockets that were more durable and powerful than earlier designs, capable of longer ranges and more destructive force. These "Mysorean rockets" impressed and alarmed the British, who eventually incorporated the concept into their military technology. William Congreve's adaptation, the Congreve rocket, became a standard in the British arsenal during the Napoleonic Wars and even found use in the War of 1812, immortalized in the line "the rockets' red glare" from the United States' national anthem.

However, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rocketry began to move from battlefield tools to the realm of scientific exploration. Pioneers such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in Russia developed the theoretical foundations of modern rocketry, introducing the concept of multi-stage rockets and calculating the equations that govern rocket flight. In the United States, Robert H. Goddard leaped from theory to practice, launching the world's first liquid-fuel rocket in 1926. Goddard's work demonstrated that rockets could operate in the vacuum of space, shattering the misconception that propulsion required air. In Germany, Hermann Oberth inspired a generation of engineers with his writings on space travel, which would eventually shape the ambitions of the German rocket program.

It was in Germany during the Second World War that rocket technology made its most dramatic leap forward with the development of the V-2 ballistic missile. Developed under the direction of Wernher von Braun, the V-2 was the first man-made object to reach the edge of space, travelling faster than the speed of sound and carrying a large explosive warhead. While it was designed as a weapon of war, the V-2 represented a technological breakthrough: a fully operational liquid-fueled rocket capable of long-range precision strikes. At the war's end, both the United States and the Soviet Union recognized the strategic and scientific value of Germany's rocket expertise and sought to secure its scientists, blueprints, and hardware.

Saturn V

Through Operation Paperclip, the United States brought von Braun and many of his colleagues to work for the U.S. Army, where they refined the V-2 and developed new rockets. These engineers would later form the backbone of NASA's rocket program, culminating in the mighty Saturn V. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, under the guidance of chief designer Sergei Korolev and with the help of captured German technology, rapidly developed its rockets, leading to the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the first human, Yuri Gagarin, into orbit in 1961. The Cold War rivalry between the two superpowers became a race not just for political dominance, but for supremacy in space exploration.

The Saturn V, first launched in 1967, represented the apex of this technological evolution. Standing 110 meters tall and generating 7.5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff, it remains the most powerful rocket ever successfully flown. Built to send astronauts to the Moon as part of NASA's Apollo program, the Saturn V was a three-stage liquid-fuel rocket that combined decades of engineering advances, from ancient Chinese gunpowder tubes to the German V-2, to produce a vehicle capable of sending humans beyond Earth's orbit. It was the ultimate realization of centuries of experimentation, vision, and ambition, marking a turning point where humanity's rockets were no longer weapons or curiosities, but vessels of exploration that could carry humans to new worlds.

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.

Extensive notes:

After Saturn 5

After the towering Saturn V thundered into history by carrying astronauts to the Moon, the story of rocketry entered a new era one shaped less by raw size and more by precision, efficiency, and reusability. The Saturn V was retired in 1973, having flawlessly fulfilled its purpose, but the appetite for space exploration had only grown. NASA and other space agencies began to look for rockets that could serve broader roles than lunar missions, including launching satellites, scientific probes, and crews to low Earth orbit. This period marked the shift from massive single-use launch vehicles to versatile systems designed for repeated flights and cost reduction.

The Space Shuttle program, inaugurated in 1981, embodied this philosophy. Technically a hybrid between a rocket and an airplane, the Shuttle used two solid rocket boosters and an external liquid-fuel tank to reach orbit. Once in space, the orbiter could deploy satellites, service the Hubble Space Telescope, and ferry crews to space stations before gliding back to Earth for refurbishment. While it never achieved the rapid turnaround times envisioned, the Shuttle demonstrated the potential of partially reusable spacecraft and allowed spaceflight to become more routine, if still expensive and risky.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union pursued its heavy-lift capabilities with the Energia rocket, which launched the Buran spaceplane in 1988 on its single uncrewed mission.

By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, private industry began to take an increasingly prominent role in rocket development. Companies like SpaceX, founded by Elon Musk in 2002, pushed the boundaries of reusability and cost efficiency. The Falcon 9, first launched in 2010, introduced the revolutionary concept of landing its first stage for refurbishment and reuse. This breakthrough not only slashed launch costs but also demonstrated that rockets could be flown repeatedly in rapid succession, much like aircraft. SpaceX's Falcon Heavy, first flown in 2018, became the most powerful operational rocket since the Saturn V, capable of sending heavy payloads to deep space while recovering its boosters for reuse.

The renewed spirit of exploration brought about by these advances coincided with ambitious new goals. NASA's Artemis program aims to return humans to the Moon and eventually establish a permanent presence there, using the Space Launch System (SLS), a direct descendant of Saturn V's engineering lineage. SLS combines modern materials and computing with the brute force necessary to lift crewed Orion spacecraft and lunar landers into deep space.

Similarly, SpaceX is developing Starship, a fully reusable super-heavy rocket designed to carry massive cargo and human crews to Mars. Its stainless-steel body and methane-fueled Raptor engines represent a radical departure from traditional rocket design, optimized for interplanetary travel and rapid turnaround.

Other nations have also stepped into the spotlight. China's Long March series has evolved into powerful heavy-lift variants, supporting its lunar and Mars missions, while India's GSLV Mk III carried the Chandrayaan-2 lunar mission and is preparing for crewed flights. Europe's Ariane rockets, Japan's H-II series, and emerging space programs in countries like South Korea and the UAE all contribute to a growing, competitive, and cooperative global space community.

The next generation of rockets is not only about reaching farther but doing so sustainably, with reusable boosters, cleaner fuels, and in-orbit refueling technology paving the way for deeper exploration. Today's rockets are the culmination of more than two millennia of experimentation, from ancient pressure devices and Chinese gunpowder arrows to the Saturn V's thunderous moonshots and today's sleek, reusable giants.

The path forward promises even greater feats, crewed Mars missions, asteroid mining, and perhaps even interstellar probes. The journey from bamboo tubes to methane-powered spacecraft underscores a truth that has driven rocketry since its inception: the human desire to push beyond the horizon, to transform dreams into machines, and to turn the impossible into reality. The age of exploration that the Saturn V began is far from over, it is simply entering its next stage, one launch at a time.

The development of gunpowder

The development of gunpowder is one of the most transformative moments in human history, marking a turning point in warfare, technology, and even exploration. As outlined in the main text its origins trace back to 9th-century China, during the Tang dynasty, when alchemists experimenting in search of an elixir of immortality stumbled upon a volatile mixture of saltpetre (potassium nitrate), sulphur, and charcoal.

Instead of eternal life, they had discovered a chemical compound with an extraordinary property, it burned rapidly and could generate explosive force when confined. Early records, such as the Zhenyuan miaodao yaolüe (c. 850 CE), describe this "fire drug" (huo yao) as dangerous and potentially destructive, a warning that hinted at its future military applications.

Needless to say, by the 10th and 11th centuries, gunpowder's potential as a weapon was being fully explored in China. Military engineers developed fire arrows, essentially arrows with small tubes of gunpowder attached, which could ignite and propel themselves toward enemy formations. This led to more complex devices such as the "flying fire lance," an early gunpowder-propelled spear that evolved into the first true firearms.

The Mongol conquests in the 13th century played a critical role in spreading gunpowder technology westward, introducing it to the Islamic world, India, and eventually Europe. Along the way, each culture adapted the formula and experimented with new applications, from primitive hand cannons to large siege weapons.

In Europe, gunpowder arrived in the late 13th century, likely through trade and warfare contact with the Islamic world. By the early 14th century, it was being used in primitive cannons, fundamentally altering siege warfare. The recipe for gunpowder, once closely guarded, gradually became widely known, with refinements in purity and mixing techniques leading to more powerful and reliable explosives.

These improvements allowed for the development of larger and more accurate artillery pieces, permanently shifting the balance between fortified structures and offensive weapons.

Over the centuries, gunpowder would evolve from a battlefield tool to a foundation for scientific progress. It not only revolutionized military technology but also enabled rocketry, blasting for mining, and eventually the propulsion systems that would send humans into space. Ironically, the same quest for mystical transformation that began in Chinese alchemy led to a discovery that would reshape the world in ways those early experimenters could never have imagined.

The spread of gunpowder

The spread of gunpowder from its birthplace in China to the rest of the world was a gradual but transformative process, driven by trade, conquest, and cultural exchange along the vast network of routes known collectively as the Silk Road. As outlined it was originally discovered/developed during the Tang dynasty in the 9th century, gunpowder was initially a closely guarded secret, known primarily to Chinese alchemists and military engineers.

Early references describe how gunpowder became a standard component of military arsenals, powering fire arrows, exploding bombs, and early rocket-like devices. The Silk Road provided the ideal channels for such knowledge to move westward, carried by merchants, travelers, and most decisively armies.

The Mongol Empire in the 13th century became the major conduit for the transmission of gunpowder technology. As the Mongols expanded across Eurasia, they assimilated technologies from conquered territories, including Chinese gunpowder weapons. Their siege engineers deployed explosive bombs and primitive cannons in campaigns from China to Eastern Europe, and in doing so exposed the Islamic world and the West to the potential of this strange new powder.

Along the Silk Road, not only the finished weapons but also the knowledge of gunpowder's ingredients, saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal, were transmitted, along with basic methods for their preparation. These ideas blended with local metallurgical and engineering traditions, accelerating the development of more advanced weaponry in Persia, India, and beyond.

By the late 13th century, gunpowder had firmly taken root in the Islamic world, where scholars and artisans refined its composition and adapted it for use in both hand-held and large-scale firearms. Cities like Baghdad, Damascus, and Cairo became hubs for the study and production of gunpowder-based weapons. At the same time, Indian kingdoms began experimenting with their designs, leading eventually to innovations like the iron-cased rockets of Mysore centuries later. From the Islamic world, the technology moved into Europe, likely through multiple points of contact, including the Crusades and Mediterranean trade. By the early 14th century, European armies were fielding crude cannons, devices whose direct lineage could be traced back to Chinese alchemists' experiments hundreds of years earlier.

The Silk Road was more than a route for silk, spices, and precious metals, it was a pathway for the exchange of ideas and inventions that altered the trajectory of civilizations. Gunpowder's journey along these trade and conquest routes transformed it from an obscure alchemical curiosity in China into one of the most influential technologies in world history, fueling centuries of military innovation and eventually enabling the rocketry that would take humanity into space.

Saving A Philadelphia Christmas Tradition — Even In the Summer

Michael Leibrandt explains tell us about how Philadelphia is trying to save a Christmas tradition. 

The beginning of many great traditions started in Philadelphia — the City’s 1913 grand display outside of Independence Hall – saw a forty-five piece Regimental Band and an over sixty-foot Spruce Tree adorned with over 4,000 sparkling lights. It drew a crowd of over 20,000 people. Each year since , Philadelphia marks the Christmas season with the annual lighting of an outdoor tree in Center City.

Wanamaker's Christmas light show in December 2006. Source: Bruce Andersen, available here.

Now Philadelphia is trying to save another Christmas tradition — beginning in July. Last Friday was the first in what promises to be a series to raise $350,000 in funding intended to preserve the Christmas Light Show and the Dickens Village in the Wanamaker Building. Last Friday — officials in the City held a news conference to announce that the popular tradition is coming back for 2025 and that a fundraising campaign is underway called “Save the Light Show” with the intention of covering the expense of the Christmas costs tradition for (many) to see in the future.

Right there next to the great Holiday tradition of that (outdoor) Philadelphia Tree — is that of Christmas at Wanamakers. For almost seventy years — festive Philadelphia Holiday shoppers have been treated to the joyous experience of the (Holiday Light Show) against the backdrop of beautiful music from the Wanamaker Organ. You haven’t experienced Christmas in Philadelphia until you’ve heard the sweet sound of the organ and seen those colorful lights.

Last year in March 2025 — the latest retail business to occupy 1300 Market Street(Macy’s) shuttered its doors. The new owner of 1300 Market Street (TF Cornerstone) has vowed to preserve both — which are on the Philadelphia National Historic Registry. The more than 28,000 plus Pipe Organ was acquired by owner John Wanamaker from the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair.

The year 1910 would see legendary Philadelphia businessman John Wanamaker complete his largest venture — when architect Daniel H. Burnham’s Florentine Style (Granite Walls) became a reality and the 12-story building dazed Philadelphia shoppers. The marvel of a brand new department store took two vital pieces of Philadelphia history that still remain today from the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair. The (some 29,000) actual pipes of the iconic Organ, constructed in the (Grand Court) and what is still the largest pipe organ in the world to this day and the equally iconic bronze Wanamaker Eagle. 

It’s not certain what will be the ultimate fate of 1300 Market Street. And while that building’s future may be out of our control — it appears during the heat of the summer — that one of our city’s finest Holiday legacy’s is still safe.

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