Throughout history, rulers have sought to justify their authority not just through force or law, but by claiming a connection to the divine. This strategy has allowed kings, emperors, and pharaohs to inspire loyalty and discourage rebellion, portraying their reign as sanctioned by higher powers. By presenting themselves as gods, demigods, or chosen ones, these ...

After the Civil War ended and slavery was officially abolished, the Southern states faced a dramatic shift in social order. Rather than embracing equality, state legislatures quickly enacted a series of restrictive measures known as Black Codes and similar laws. These statutes were designed to regulate the lives of newly freed African Americans, limit their ...

by David Stockman, Activist Post: Sure, Zohran Mamdani, surprise winner of the Dem primary for New York City mayor, is an ultra-left-wing wackadoo. But it occurs to us that this veritable assault on sanity— via the election of a 33 year-old nincompoop who wants rent controls, free day care, communist grocery stores, and confiscatory taxes […]

Pharaoh Narmer, carving on a greywacke palette, 31st Century BC. In the Egyptian Museum, Cairo   The Pharaoh was the king of Egypt, particularly following the unification of Upper (Southern) Egypt with Lower (Northern) Egypt by Narmer/Menes around 3150 BCE. That was until the Roman Republic conquered Egypt in 30 BCE under the rule of Caesar Augustus (Octavian).  The title is derived from an Egyptian word meaning “great house,” and was gradually applied to the ruler of that house, and particularly applied to the ruler of the greatest house in Egypt since around 1400 BCE.    The Pharaoh served an important religious function. As a god of Egypt, he served as an intermediary between the other gods and the Egyptian people. The Pharaoh was a divine god and the High Priest among the Egyptians, and had the responsibility to “promote harmony and repel chaos.”     The First Pharaoh The Narmer Pallette, from around 3100 BC, depicting Narmer unifying Egypt   The first Pharaoh is generally held to be Narmer (also possibly known as Menes), who unified Upper and Lower Egypt in 3100 BCE, likely by military conquest. He may have had dealings with nearby Canaan in the Levant area.  Little is known regarding many of the figures of early Egypt, but various artifacts depict lists and accomplishments of various kings in early Egyptian hieroglyphs. For Narmer, a well-preserved ceremonial Palette from the 3000s BCE was discovered, as well as his name on various other artifacts throughout the region.   When the Pharaohs Ruled Egypt Head of Tutankhamun Valley of the Kings, c. 1323 BCE. Source: Egyptian Museum, Cairo   The Pharaohs ruled over Egypt for almost 3000 years, encompassing about 30 dynasties.  Some dynasties only lasted a few years under one or two rulers, while others lasted for several hundred years. The longest-lasting native Egyptian dynasty was the 18th dynasty, which lasted from about 1550 BC to 1292 BCE. The 18th Dynasty produced some of the most well-known figures of ancient Egypt – several Pharaohs named Thutmose, Hatshepsut – the longest reigning woman Pharaoh, the famed boy Pharaoh Tutankhamen, along with Akhenaten and his wife Nefertiti.     The Scorpion King Detail of the Scorpion Macehead from 3000 BCE. Source: History of the Ancient World   There may have been two Scorpion Kings in Ancient Egypt. Both “Scorpion Kings” are known as such due to the Scorpion symbol associated with their figures on artefacts. Scorpion I was likely the ruler of Upper Egypt before Narmer, and head of the Thinite Confederacy. One of the earliest recorded battles – the Siege of Naqada in 3320 BCE – is where Scorpion I’s army defeated Naqada. Scorpion II, a possible contemporary of Narmer, is shown in various other artifacts, but little is known about him.     The Last Pharaoh 1st C BCE Bust of Cleopatra. Source: Wikipedia   The last ruler from Egypt to properly claim the crown of Pharaoh is the famed Cleopatra VII from 51 BC to 30 BCE, when Egypt was taken over by the Roman Republic under Octavian. The title of Pharaoh was not restricted to men – several women over various dynasties held the title at one point or another. Cleopatra was not even properly Egyptian, as she was descended from the Macedonian Ptolemy I, who was a successor of Alexander the Great in the 300s BCE.    The last truly Egyptian Pharaoh was Nectanebo II, who ruled from 358-340 BCE, and was defeated by the Persians under Artaxerxes III. The Persians would go on to be defeated by Alexander the Great, and a new dynasty began, led by the Ptolemys.   *NOTE ON UPPER AND LOWER EGYPT:  The names “Upper Egypt” and “Lower Egypt” refers to their position on the Nile River, which flows south to north, emptying into the Mediterranean Sea.  Upper Egypt is in the south of Egypt, at a higher elevation.  Lower Egypt is in the north, where the Nile Delta is contained.

  The Illyrians were a mosaic of tribes spread across the western Balkans, a region defined by dramatic coastlines, mountain strongholds, and cultural complexity. From their earliest traces in the Bronze Age to assimilation into the Roman Empire, the Illyrians remained a distinct presence on the periphery of the classical Mediterranean. Although Roman writings often labeled them as pirates and barbarians, they were far more than mere raiders of the Adriatic. Independent, organized, and strategically positioned, the Illyrians repeatedly drew the attention and unease of Rome. But why did Romans fear them so much?   Origins & Geographic Scope of the Illyrians Map of Illyrian Tribes. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The question of the origin of the Illyrians is still not fully resolved. The Illyrians are generally considered part of the Indo-European linguistic and cultural family, which would mean that they settled in the western Balkans from northern Europe sometime in the 2nd millennium BCE. However, there are also theories suggesting that the Illyrians were actually descendants of the prehistoric local population that had lived in this area since the Neolithic period.   Geographically, the Illyrians occupied the area from the Adriatic Sea in the west to the Morava and Vardar rivers in the east, from the Julian Alps in the north to Epirus in the south. This area was highly diverse, including numerous mountainous elevations, fertile valleys, and a vast coastline. This very diversity, along with their deep knowledge of the terrain, helped the Illyrians resist foreign invasions for a long time. This area includes the territories of present-day Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Albania, as well as parts of Slovenia, Serbia, and North Macedonia.   There is no evidence that the Illyrians actually called themselves by that name. It was most likely an exonym that originally emerged in ancient Greece and was later adopted by the Romans. The Illyrians referred to themselves as Dalmatae, Dardanians, Liburnians, Autariatae, Pannonians, and by other tribal names. Therefore, we can speak of the Illyrians only as a geo-cultural zone, not as a single, cohesive nation.   How the Illyrians Entered the Greek Chronicles & Clashed With Macedon Silver Tetradrachm of Philip II Macedon, c. 359-355 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   The first detailed military-political account of the Illyrians is given by Thucydides in his “History of the Peloponnesian War.” Around 423 BCE, King Perdiccas II of Macedon formed a military alliance with the Spartan general Brasidas and the Illyrians, who were supposed to help him fight Arrhabaeus of Lynkestis. However, when the time for battle at Lynkestis came, the Illyrians turned against their allies and joined their enemy. The Macedonian army fled under the fierce assault of the Illyrian warriors, leaving Brasidas alone, who then withdrew silently.   Under the rule of Philip II, Macedonia expanded into parts of Illyria. At the Battle of Erigon Valley in 358 BCE, a decisive clash occurred between Philip II and the Illyrian king Bardylis, who ruled the Dardanian tribe. Bardylis suffered a crushing defeat, and according to Diodorus Siculus, over 7,000 Illyrian soldiers were killed.   When Alexander the Great succeeded Philip II, the Illyrians saw it as an opportunity to free themselves from Macedonian rule. In one of the earliest campaigns of his career, Alexander set out with 23,000 soldiers to invade Pelium, which was held by Cleitus, the son of Bardylis. Cleitus was soon reinforced by Glaukias, the king of the Taulantii tribe. For a short time, Alexander was surrounded by enemies, but during the night, he managed to slip behind their lines and launch a counterattack. After defeating the Illyrian army, he stormed Pelium and burned it to the ground.   The Rise of Illyrian Sea Power Under Agron & Teuta Novilara Stele depicting a naval scene with a liburna, a type of fast Illyrian ship later adopted by the Romans, c. 7th century BCE. Source: Biblioteca e Musei Oliveriani, Pesaro   By the end of the century, the Ardiaei had emerged as the most powerful of the Illyrian tribes. King Agron completely transformed the naval forces and began to dominate parts of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas. The ships used by the Illyrians during this period were light and agile galleys, ideal for quick attacks and even quicker retreats. These galleys were called liburnas, named after the Liburnian tribe, and they were later incorporated into the Roman fleet as a standard part of their navy.   When the island city of Medion in Acarnania came under siege by the Aetolian League in 231 BCE, the Acarnanians called upon Agron for help. Agron sent a massive fleet that achieved a decisive victory and lifted the siege of Medion. It is recorded that he celebrated the victory for several days and ultimately died from excessive alcohol consumption.   Agron was formally succeeded by his underage son Pinnes, but in reality, the new ruler became his widow, Queen Teuta, who took Illyrian piracy to an even more dramatic level. Illyrian pirates attacked Greek cities, Roman merchant ships, and coastal settlements. These provocations attracted the unwanted attention of Rome, which sent envoys to Teuta in an attempt to negotiate better relations. After the negotiations failed, one of the envoys was killed, leading to the beginning of a series of conflicts known as the Illyrian Wars.   The Illyrian Wars & the End of Coastal Sovereignty Queen Teuta Orders the Murder of Roman Ambassadors, by Augustyn Mirys, c. 1720-1790. Source: MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History   The First Illyrian War began in 229 BCE, triggered by Illyrians killing a Roman envoy. Rome responded by sending 200 warships, 20,000 infantry, and 2,000 cavalry, led by consuls Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus and Lucius Postumius Albinus. Rome also had the support of the Greek city of Corcyra, which had previously been besieged by the Illyrians.   Demetrius of Pharos, a prominent Illyrian leader who was formerly allied with Teuta, switched allegiance to the Roman Republic in exchange for being allowed to continue ruling over Pharos. This betrayal shattered Teuta’s power and allowed the Romans to directly strike her ports. Realizing she could not win the war, Teuta soon negotiated peace with Rome. Her rule was reduced to a small portion of inland territory.   Demetrius of Pharos proved to be a highly capable and cunning politician. He began expanding his influence and territory into areas that had once been under Teuta’s control. Demetrius’s ambition was to create a new Illyrian kingdom. Rome was dealing with the rising threat of Hannibal in the west and could not afford any incidents on the opposite front. As a result, in 219 BCE, the Senate dispatched a fleet led by the consul Lucius Aemilius Paullus to seize all of Demetrius’s strongholds. After a seven-day siege, they successfully captured the important city of Dimale, from which they moved directly toward Pharos. In the decisive battle at Pharos, the Romans emerged victorious. Demetrius himself managed to escape to Philip V of Macedon, where he became his close advisor.   Unlike the first two Illyrian wars, the Third Illyrian War did not begin because of piracy. The last Illyrian king, Gentius, leader of the Ardiaean tribe, provoked Roman fear through his aggressive diplomacy and military buildup. For the Romans, the timing was unfortunate. They were already deeply engaged in the Third Macedonian War, and King Gentius had formed a military alliance with the Macedonians.   Ruins of ancient Scodra at Rozafa Castle. Source: Elite Travel Albania   Gentius deliberately sought conflict, believing he would receive strong support from Perseus of Macedon. The Roman Senate sent Lucius Anicius Gallus with 30,000 soldiers, who advanced quickly toward Gentius’s capital, Scodra. Gentius had an army of 15,000 men and hoped for military assistance from Macedonia. After a seven-day siege of Scodra, realizing that no help was coming, Gentius decided to surrender. He was paraded in a Roman triumph and likely died in prison in Spoletium.   Century-Long Fight Between Rome and the Dalmatae Augustus of Via Labicana, c. 1st century CE. Source: Palazzo Massimo, Rome   After the Third Illyrian War, the entire homeland of the Illyrians came under the supervision of Roman legates and prefects. Due to the resistance of the Illyrian peoples, it took more than a century to create the conditions necessary for the establishment of a province. The fiercest in their resistance were the Dalmatae, who lived in the area of modern-day Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.   The First Roman-Dalmatian War began in 156 BCE, when the Dalmatae captured the city of Promona, which was under Roman control. The Senate first sent Gaius Marcius Figulus, who was unable to manage in the Illyrian terrain. Only in the following year did Scipio Nasica, with a much larger army, succeed in forcing the Dalmatae to surrender.   This victory only temporarily halted the Dalmatae. In 119 BCE, they once again attacked cities under Roman protection. This time, the Senate sent Lucius Caecilius Metellus to Delminium, the capital of the Dalmatae. After a narrow victory, Metellus was awarded the honorary title “Delmaticus.”   Even after this defeat, the Dalmatae did not submit to Rome. Between 78 and 76 BCE, Gaius Cosconius led a new campaign, during which he burned the important Illyrian city of Salona, pushing the Dalmatae into the mountainous regions.   When Augustus took power in Rome, the Dalmatae were still defiant. He launched a decisive campaign against the Dalmatae in 34 BCE with a large number of Roman legions. In just one year, he managed to capture the important cities of Promona, Setovia, and Andetrium, from which he was able to cut off supply routes to the remaining Illyrian fortresses and force them to surrender. After his campaign, the Illyrians were completely subdued by Rome, and the province of Illyricum was established.   The Uprising That Made Rome Bleed in the Balkans Bust of Emperor Tiberius in porphyry and alabaster, c. 17th century. Source: Galleria Borghese   High Roman taxation and forced conscription caused widespread dissatisfaction among the Illyrian population. In the year 6 CE, Rome began the forced mobilization of Illyrians to participate in an invasion of Germania. The Illyrians felt exploited and did not want to fight in distant lands. This event became the trigger for the Great Illyrian Revolt, which the Romans were barely able to suppress.   The Romans called this revolt the Bellum Batonianum (War of the Batos) because the Illyrians were led by two leaders named Bato: Bato of the Daesitiates and Bato of the Breuci. They managed to rally nearly all of Illyricum, especially Dalmatia and Pannonia. In a sudden and coordinated uprising, the Illyrians attacked Roman outposts throughout Illyricum. The rest of the Roman army had to abandon the Germanic campaign and rush to respond.   The Illyrians avoided open battles, knowing that they would be defeated by the powerful Roman legions led by the famous general Tiberius. Instead, their tactics consisted of mountain ambushes and surprise night attacks. This approach proved effective, and soon they were in control of a large part of the province.   Tiberius divided his legions, sending one group to Pannonia to isolate Bato of the Breuci, and the other into the mountainous regions of Dalmatia. Bato of the Breuci surrendered to Tiberius in an attempt to save his tribe; an act that cost him his life. Now, Bato of the Daesitiates stood alone against the powerful Roman legions. Tiberius laid siege to Andetrium, the capital of the Daesitiates. After a long, exhausting siege, Bato of the Daesitiates personally surrendered to Tiberius.   When Tiberius asked him why he had started the revolt, Bato replied: “You Romans are to blame for this; for you send as guardians of your flocks, not dogs or shepherds, but wolves.” Cassius Dio, Roman History, 56.16   Romanization and Rise of Illyrian Emperors Queen Zenobia before Emperor Aurelianus, by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, c. 1717. Source: Museo del Prado   After Bato’s uprising, the province of Illyricum was divided into two provinces: Pannonia and Dalmatia. New cities sprang up rapidly, and the Illyrians gradually adopted the Roman language and culture. The process of Romanization progressed smoothly, so much so that a large number of Roman emperors in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE had Illyrian roots. The first major Illyrian emperor was Claudius Gothicus (268-270 CE). He was originally from Sirmium, near present-day Sremska Mitrovica in Serbia, and is known for stopping a major Gothic invasion at the Battle of Naissus.   Aurelian (270-275 CE) was the next significant emperor of Illyrian origin. He reunified the Roman Empire, which had at that time fractured into the Gallic Empire in the West and the Palmyrene Empire in the East. For this achievement, he was awarded the title “Restitutor Orbis” (Restorer of the World). He also built the monumental Aurelian Walls around Rome, which stood for centuries.   Perhaps the most important Roman emperor of Illyrian origin was Diocletian (284-305 CE) from Salona. Diocletian established the Tetrarchy, a political system with four rulers. He reformed the army, the tax system, and the administration, thus ending the Crisis of the Third Century that had shaken Roman power.   Constantine the Great (306-337 CE) was the last major emperor of Illyrian origin. Unlike Diocletian, who is remembered for his persecution of Christians, Constantine legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan. He also brought an end to the Tetrarchy and established himself as the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.

  The Trojan War is the subject of Homer’s Iliad, composed in the 7th century BCE. This was one of the most popular pieces of literature in the ancient world, and it remains so to this day. Many researchers have attempted to demonstrate that it is fundamentally rooted in historical events. Supporting this argument are Hittite documents, which supposedly refer to the Trojan War. What exactly are these documents? Do they really support the conclusion that the Trojan War was a historical event in the Bronze Age? Or, instead, have some researchers read too much into the evidence?   Hittite Records That Might Prove the Trojan War The Treaty of Kadesh, a Hittite document from the supposed era of the Trojan War, c. 1250. Source: Istanbul Archaeology Museum   The Hittite Empire ruled over much of Anatolia throughout the Late Bronze Age, the era between approximately 1550 and 1150 BCE. Numerous Hittite documents have been uncovered and translated. Many of these documents are diplomatic letters sent between rulers. In quite a few of these letters, the Hittites refer to attacks on western Anatolia by a nation called the Ahhiyawa. While there is no universal acceptance among historians regarding their identity, the majority of scholars agree that the Ahhiyawa were the Mycenaean Greeks. The ethnonym “Ahhiyawa” is held to be a Hittite version of “Akhaioi,” the Greek form of “Achaeans.”   As soon as these documents were uncovered and translated, historians began to realize the potential significance of them as regards the Iliad. According to that ancient poem, a thousand Greek ships were launched against Troy in western Anatolia. This was not a war against just one city but against Troy’s many allies all over western Anatolia as well.   Archaeological site of Hisarlik, showing the ruins of ancient Troy. Source: Alison Day via Flickr   When we combine this basic plot of the Iliad, the story of the Trojan War, with the fact that the traditional date for the Trojan War among the ancient Greeks was c. 1200 BCE, this all starts to seem rather significant. These Hittite documents appear to confirm that the Greeks at that time really were engaging in large-scale warfare in western Anatolia.   Even more significant are the references to Wilusa. The Hittite documents place this city in northwest Anatolia and associate it with the place name “Taruisa.” The place name “Wilusa” appears to be a Hittite form of “Ilios,” while “Taruisa” appears to be a form of “Troia,” both of which were ancient Greek names for the city of Troy. One document, the Tawagalawa Letter, mentions that the Hittites and the Ahhiyawa, or Greeks, had a conflict over Wilusa. Remarkably, this appears to provide strong confirmation of the basic core of the legend of the Trojan War.   Greek Heroes in Hittite Records The diplomatic letter between Alaksandu of Wilusa and Muwatali of the Hittite Empire, c. 1280 BCE. Source: Istanbul Archaeological Museum   Confirmation of the basic setting of the legend recounted by Homer and other ancient Greeks is not all. Some historians have argued that specific individuals from the Greek legends can be found in the Hittite letters. Perhaps most notable is Paris Alexander. In Homer’s Iliad, he was the prince of Troy who ran off with Helen, the wife of Menelaus. He was thus a major figure in the legends of the Trojan War since his actions directly led to it.   Interestingly, one Hittite letter refers to a king of Wilusa named Alaksandu. This king had a treaty with the Hittite king Mursili II and also with his son, Muwatali. Hence, his official diplomatic relationship with the Hittite Empire covered a few decades, potentially from the late 14th century through to the early 13th century BCE.   Although Paris Alexander is not a king in the Iliad, perhaps we could explain away this inconsistency as a case of the Hittites being inexact with their use of the term king.   Relief showing Hittite king Muwatali II, in whose reign Piyama-Radu fought against the Hittites, c. 1280 BCE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Another figure who is regularly mentioned in discussions of how ancient Hittite documents supposedly confirm the legend of the Trojan War is Piyama-Radu. He was a war leader who was active across much of western Anatolia. Several different Hittite letters refer to him, suggesting that he was active for quite some time. He seems to have been a particularly notable figure in western Anatolia during the traditional era of the Trojan War. This has naturally led to him being identified with a character from Greek legend.   Due to the similarities between their names, Piyama-Radu and Priam of Troy have frequently been linked together. Priam, of course, was the king of Troy during the Trojan War, and the father of Paris Alexander. As such, he was a prominent figure in that region. Some sources even describe him as marrying a Phrygian princess. On this basis, the powerful war leader Piyama-Radu, whose name is similar to Priam, is ostensibly a good match.   Problems With the Hittite Records The Abduction of Helen by Paris, by Giuseppe Angeli. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Based on the Hittite documents, many historians over the 20th century attempted to argue that the Trojan War was a historical Bronze Age event. These documents appeared to confirm not only that the basic story of the war was historical but also that certain specific individuals from the legends really existed. However, in recent decades, many scholars have moved away from such claims.   One of the key issues is that these identifications suffer from major problems. In the case of Alaksandu, there are serious objections to the idea that he could be the historical Paris Alexander. As noted earlier, Alaksandu is described by the Hittites as a king, whereas Paris Alexander was not the king of Troy in the legends. With the best will in the world, this cannot be explained away as the Hittites being loose with their use of the word king. The context of his appearance in these Hittite letters makes that abundantly clear. How so?   The Death of Priam, by Jules Lefebvre, 1861. Source: Beaux-Arts de Paris, France   Alaksandu, referred to as the king of Wilusa, is credited with having a treaty with the Hittite kings. This clearly shows that he was the king of Wilusa, and was not simply referred to as a king in the sense of being a powerful official or prince. He was the one with whom the Hittite kings, who were really emperors, had their treaty. Furthermore, the legends of the Trojan War present Paris Alexander as being the younger brother of Hector of Troy, Priam’s heir. This makes it even more improbable that Paris Alexander could have represented his father as the king of Wilusa before the Hittites.   Regarding Piyama-Radu, he was a war leader who ravaged the settlements of the very nations that were Troy’s allies in the Iliad. He is even described as attacking Wilusa (Troy) itself in one Hittite letter. The idea that he can be identified as Priam, the king of Troy, very clearly flies in the face of everything that the Hittite documents credit him with doing. Additionally, the Hittite documents place him after Alaksandu, not before, so these identifications are mutually exclusive.   Was There Really a War at Wilusa? Distribution of the Hellenic Races: 1000 to 800 BC, by H.G. Wells, 1920. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Even if we reject these identifications, what about the Trojan War itself? Can we not at least maintain that the contemporary Hittite letters confirm that the Trojan War was a historical event in the Late Bronze Age?   One big problem is that there is essentially no significance to the fact that the Hittite documents confirm that the Greeks were waging war in western Anatolia in c. 1200 BCE. The reason is that these documents actually confirm that such warfare existed as far back as c. 1400 BCE, in the time of a king called Attarsiya. Furthermore, archaeology shows the continued arrival of Greeks throughout the Greek Dark Ages, which followed the Bronze Age. Even at the start of the Archaic Era, further conquests continued.   Regarding Troy, the letter that refers to a conflict involving Wilusa does not confirm that a war took place. The crucial word is a general one that simply means conflict. This could easily have involved trade rather than outright war. Even more importantly, the letter specifically states that this conflict was concluded amicably.   Do the Hittite Records Prove the Trojan War? The Burning of Troy, by Johann Georg Trautmann, c. 18th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In conclusion, what did the Hittites say about the Trojan War? Do Hittite records really confirm that the Trojan War was a historical event of the Bronze Age? As we have seen, these ancient documents confirm that the Mycenaean Greeks (probably) really were engaging in warfare in western Anatolia at the traditional time of the Trojan War. A conflict involving Wilusa is mentioned, as are two individuals who may match Paris Alexander and his father Priam of Troy.   One vital problem is that the Greeks were engaging in such warfare for many centuries. Hence, the fact that part of this warfare happens to coincide with the Trojan War’s traditional date is hardly significant. Furthermore, the conflict involving Wilusa was just that, a conflict. We do not know if any battles actually occurred. What we do know is that it allegedly ended peacefully, which does not fit the Trojan War. Regarding Paris Alexander and Priam of Troy, it stretches credibility to try to connect them to the individuals mentioned by the Hittites. Whether the Trojan War really occurred or not, these Hittite documents cannot be used to prove its historicity.

  Although World War II history often focuses on the more dominant players, such as England and Germany, the contributions of Australia and its people cannot be underestimated. Nearly one million Australian men and women served in the conflict. The war even came to Australia itself, and the mainland would come under attack for the first time. One of these barrages took place in the historic town of Darwin, whose place in history would become even more cemented with its role in the viscera of war.   Note: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be aware that this story may contain and provide links to images and names of deceased persons.    Establishing Darwin Darwin’s coast. Source: Cunard   The first people to live in the area that would become Darwin were the aboriginal Larrakia people. The Larrakia traditionally called the area from Cox Peninsula in the west to the Adelaide River in the East their home. The tribe interacted with other groups in the area, establishing trade routes that they used to barter with the Tiwi, Wagait, and Wulna people, along with fishermen who visited from the region near Indonesia.   Larrakia dancers performing in Darwin in 2016 at a celebration of a land claim handover ceremony, Stefan Postles photo. Source: Lifegate   In 1839, an English ship, the HMS Beagle, entered the harbor near the future town of Darwin. Lieutenant John Lort Stokes was aboard the ship and named the harbor for his former traveling companion, Charles Darwin. Though Darwin himself never visited the area, the harbor and later the town came to bear his name.   An 1890 illustration of the HMS Beagle from the Bettmann Archive. Source: Forbes   However, the first name of the town adjacent to the harbor was Palmerston, which was established in 1869. Despite the Palmerston moniker, the city port was always known as Port Darwin. The settlement was then officially renamed in 1911.   Growth & Development An annual gold panning championship still takes place at Pine Creek. Source: ABC News   Not long after its founding, Darwin began to grow rapidly. In 1871, gold was discovered near Darwin, and expansion accelerated. The Northern Territory has a deep history of gold production, and Pine Creek, the area where gold was discovered in Darwin, is one of the three main goldfields still in operation today.   Infrastructure began to rise up around the town. Government House, the home of the territory administrator, was completed in 1883. Today, it is the oldest surviving continually occupied built structure in the Northern Territory. In 1959, Darwin’s growth was such that it was granted status as a city. It was made the capital city and today remains the largest population center in the Northern Territory.   Aboriginal Relations Many Aboriginal children were removed from their families and forced into assimilation programs. Source: Australians Together   The Larrakia people welcomed the white settlers, providing the earliest inhabitants with food and other support. The Larrakia and other Aboriginal people were part of Darwin’s infrastructure and society throughout its growth and development. However, assimilation policies resulted in segregation, forcible movement of children from their homes, and other tactics designed to disrupt Indigenous culture. As the white population increased, Aboriginal Australians found more of their rights and land taken away from them. Children with one white parent and one Aboriginal parent were known as “half caste” and subjected to societal restrictions and shunning.   Indigenous Australian children at a church school in 1893. Source: State Library of New South Wales   In 1910, a law known as the Northern Territory Aboriginals Act was passed. With this act, the position of Chief Protector was created, and this person was appointed the “legal guardian of every aboriginal and every half-caste child up to the age of 18 years,” illustrating the power that white society held.   Compounds, similar to the American reservation system, were created, and many Aboriginals were forcibly moved to them, where they suffered from overcrowded conditions and forced assimilation. Nevertheless, the Larrakia and other Aboriginal people persisted and remained essential contributors to Darwin’s history.   John McEwen by Alexander Page, 1969. Source: Parliament of Australia In 1939, federal Minister for the Interior John McEwen was appointed. He was shocked at the conditions in Darwin’s compounds and soon announced a “New Deal” policy in regard to Aboriginals. Though it was still assimilation-based and had a long way to go toward equality, the policy increased funding for many of the compounds and improved educational standards.   However, the outlook for McEwen’s New Deal was cut short with the arrival of World War II on Australia’s shores. Segregation persisted, and Aboriginal people were prevented from enlisting in Australia’s armed forces.   Australia in World War II Australian troops disembarking in Singapore, 1941. Source: National Museum Australia   Although Australia had become a self-governing dominion in 1901, it was still considered a part of the British Empire in 1939. Though domestic affairs were largely self-governed, Britain still dictated Australia’s relations in terms of international affairs. As a result, when the United Kingdom declared war on Nazi Germany in the autumn of 1939, Australia followed suit.   As a member of the Allied forces, Australia also declared war on Italy and Japan. Close to one million Australians, both men and women, fought in Europe and North Africa. Thirty-nine thousand Australians died in the war, with another 30,000 taken prisoner. Darwin’s military presence was enlarged during the war, with airfields developed and other infrastructure created to support the war effort. It became a launch point for the deployment of forces to the Pacific.   Female troops made significant contributions to Australia’s war effort. Source: Australia War Museum London   World War II was the first time war had come to the Australian mainland and included air raids and sea attacks from Japan. Australia’s proximity to the Japanese Empire caused some trepidation about possible attacks from the moment the war began. That fear would be realized just two months after the US suffered attacks at Pearl Harbor.   Horror By Air A view of Darwin’s harbor during the attack. Source: Library & Archives, Northern Territory   Just before 10 AM on February 19, 1942, Australia’s first wartime attack occurred when Japanese planes executed two consecutive attacks over Darwin and its harbor. Two hundred sixty Japanese aircraft, launched from carriers in the ocean, were involved in the attack. The first attack lasted about 40 minutes, and the second attack, which started an hour later, was about 25 minutes in length.   Just over 250 people were killed in the direct attack, which targeted not only Darwin’s military and government buildings but also ships and planes. Around 400 people were injured in addition to those who died, 23 aircraft were lost, and eight ships were destroyed. The attack aimed to put a dent in Australia’s military capabilities, in addition to stopping the flow of Allied supplies and traffic moving through the area. This was temporarily successful, as many survivors quickly moved out of the area, though just for a short period. Most of Darwin’s infrastructure was completely destroyed, with only a few buildings surviving.   Matthias Ulungura, photographed in 1942. Source: Library & Archives Northern Territory   The Japanese lost four planes in the attack, including one that crash-landed on a nearby island. The pilot survived and was taken prisoner by an Aboriginal man, Matthias Ulungura, becoming the first World War II prisoner of war taken on Aussie soil. Ulungura, a member of the Tiwi tribe, was honored with a commemorative statue in 2016.   More to Come? Soldiers work with an anti-aircraft gun in Darwin, Northern Territory Library Forces Collection. Source: Australian Defence Business Review   The immediate worry in Darwin was that the attack was a precursor to a land invasion of the city by the Japanese. About half of the civilian population fled immediately, and the city became rife with looting and confusion. However, this was not Japan’s intention, as they were instead looking to invade Timor, northwest of Australia.   The disruption in Darwin would not only damage the military operations in the area but also prevent a timely Allied response to Timor’s invasion. Still, Japan would go on to hit Darwin and other Australian locations with air raids multiple times over the next year. After 64 raids of varying sizes, the final Japanese attack on Darwin took place on November 12, 1943. Thanks to the rebuilding efforts undertaken in Darwin, none of these attacks would be as devastating as the initial onslaught, which became known as “Australia’s Pearl Harbor.”   Rebuilding Buildings destroyed in the initial bombing. Source: Library & Archives Northern Territory   Although the initial response by many was to flee, others stood fast. Within a few months of the initial attack, Darwin had initialized rebuilding, and was well on its way to creating a stronger defense than ever. Coordinated response efforts were planned and implemented using tools such as radar and searchlights.   Additional troops, anti-aircraft guns, and new fighter planes were sent to Darwin in the months following the attack, with several new airfields constructed to house the new additions. Furthermore, the attack on Darwin encouraged the country as a whole to bolster its defenses, altering Australia’s war strategy and forcing it to focus more on home defense measures and strengthening its military.   The remains of the Darwin post office, where all nine workers were killed, 1942. Source: Returned Services League Australia   With the help of Allied partners, notably the United States and the Netherlands, counterstrikes against the enemy began to develop and were deployed in future attacks. While Japan was able to invade Timor the day after the first bombing in Darwin and successfully took it on February 23rd, by the end of the year, they were losing ground and being pushed back from the areas they had taken in this region.   Haunting Memories The Darwin Cenotaph, 2017. Source: Tripadvisor   The tragic recollections of the city’s World War II experiences are still memorialized in modern Darwin. Memorials celebrating those who were killed or showed heroics in the attack can be found around the city and the surrounding areas.   The Darwin Cenotaph, located where the first shots were fired in defense of Darwin by the 14th Anti-Aircraft Battery during the initial attack, is considered the center point of commemoration for those who suffered and died in the bombing. It bears the names of all Australian servicemen and women from the Northern Territory who sacrificed their lives for their city and country. At 9:58 AM on February 19 every year, Darwin’s air raid siren sounds in continued remembrance of the tragedy that befell its people in 1942.

  Among martial arts enthusiasts and certain internet circles, a fierce debate rages: between the knightly longsword and the Japanese katana, which is the better sword? Both two-handed swords were used by a warrior-noble class as their sidearm, both depicted at various times as the “ultimate” close combat weapon. They were briefly contemporaries, albeit used by cultures on opposite sides of the known world.   Katana vs Longsword Katana and Tsuba, Edo Period. Source: British Museum   Despite these surface similarities, the two weapons are intended for use in different contexts, and comparing them can be a case of apples and oranges. We can analyze the tendencies of each sword, but before we do so, let’s specify what type of longsword and katana we are using for comparison.   The katana, as we know it, made its widespread appearance in the 1300s after the Mongol invasions of Japan, and remained in use until the abolishment of the samurai class during the 1867 Meiji reforms. Our hypothetical katana for this discussion will be a 28-inch blade with tori-zori (centered) curvature and an o-kissaki (long tip) that was typical of the period. The longsword, meanwhile, saw its heyday in the 1300s and 1400s, and for our purposes, we’ll use a 36-inch Oakeshott XVIa-style blade. The hilts of both swords will measure 9 inches.   Context of Use Longsword. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Various theories abound as to the evolution of the longsword, but one of the most prevailing ones is that it evolved from the single-handed knightly arming sword, with the extra length granting extra range and leverage. It was not often used as an everyday carry weapon, mainly being relegated to the role of sidearm during field engagements, but there were judicial duels in which the combatants would use long swords.   The katana, meanwhile, was one of the weapons carried every day by samurai as part of the set of daisho, or the katana and wakizashi. It was as much an indicator of status as it was a weapon. The shorter blade of the katana was derived from the earlier tachi, which was the long, deeply curved sword used on horseback. Worn edge-up in the obi, the katana was easy to draw and use in tight spaces at a second’s notice, and also saw some use on the battlefields of feudal Japan.   Cutting 47 Ronin, Sadayuki, by Utagawa Kuniyoshi, circa 1850. Source: Ukiyo-e.org   The longsword in question likely would have a hexagonal cross-section and a moderate profile taper starting from midway up the sword. This would provide a balance between cutting and thrusting ability and maintaining the sword’s rigidity, which is important especially when dealing with an armored foe. However, because it is straight, it has an inherent disadvantage when compared with a curved sword in the cut.   The katana, meanwhile, has a cross-section that is wedge-shaped with slightly rounded sides coming to the edge. The blade is sharpened to a razor’s edge all the way to the tip. The curvature of the katana means that the force of a cut is concentrated on a smaller area, and if you think of the sword as a combination of a wedge and a lever, you can understand that the wider base of a wedge transfers more energy than a narrower one. Moreover, the katana is noticeably tip-heavy, and the ideal cutting portion of a katana’s blade is near the tip. This means that yet more momentum carries through the sword when wielded properly.   Thrusting Picture of Schielhau, by Peter von Danzig, c. 1452. Source: Wiktenauer   The narrower, more tapered point of the longsword, along with the straightness of the blade, allows the wielder to thrust more effectively because of the momentum of the sword’s mass, and the kinetic chain of the body will be lined up directly behind the tip. It is thinner and more likely to flex than the katana, but half-sword techniques help to stiffen the sword and to provide more leverage and control. When dealing with the gaps in plate armor, this tactic was an essential tool.   Meanwhile, the katana has an almost chisel-like tip in comparison. It is therefore stiffer in the thrust. The kissaki, designed to be longer and narrower than average, is better suited for armored combat, but it is more of an extension of the edge, designed for shallower snipping cuts if that part of the sword made contact.   Versatility Fencers in full HEMA protective gear. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The myth of a longsword being a glorified metal club has largely been dispelled in recent years thanks to the spread of HEMA (historical European martial arts). The presence of the pommel counterbalances the extra length and serves as a bludgeoning implement, while the crossguard protects the wielder’s hands and can also be used to strike the foe.   Using the half-sword grip, wherein one hand remains on the hilt and the other grasps the blade halfway, lets the longsword become a lever that can be used to trap, throw, or restrain an enemy. Grasping the blade with both hands turns the sword into a makeshift warhammer. The longsword, being double-edged, has the advantage of false-edge cuts. If one needs to cut at an upward angle, they can simply lift the sword along its previous path without needing to turn the wrists.   The katana is mostly used as a single-edged cutting weapon for infantry or cavalry engagements. That being said, half-sword techniques exist, but rather than gripping the blade, the user braces their palm against the spine to add leverage to a cut or a parry. Some pommel strikes exist, as well as trapping an enemy’s sword on the inside of the curve. Where the katana excels is in quick-draw cutting. It is short enough to clear the saya with ease, and the curve follows the natural movement of the arm.   Ease of Use MSKK5012 manuscript showing the Zornhau, by Peter Falkner, c. 1490s. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Although the longsword is heavier than the katana, it does not feel as heavy because the pommel counterbalances the blade (which, remember, is tapered to a thin point) and makes it more controllable and nimble than you might expect from initial appearance. However, it is thinner, therefore less forgiving of poor edge alignment: the edge must be in line with the direction the sword is moving to perform a proper cut, or the impact will damage the sword. The typical hewing cut of a longsword involves the wielder using something resembling a throwing or punching motion with the dominant arm, and pulling on the pommel to create a snap at the end of the cut, bringing the point on line with the target. The Zornhau (Wrath Hew) in German longsword exemplifies this motion and is described as the motion that comes easiest to a “wrathful” person.   The katana, by contrast, feels more tip-heavy despite being lighter overall than the longsword, but its thicker spine adds more mass behind the cut and helps to self-correct poor edge alignment, but only to an extent. The proper technique to cutting with a katana is similar at first glance, but it involves more rotation of the hips and torso and snapping the wrists out to full extension at the apex of the cut’s arc, twisting both wrists inward to stop the sword instead of carrying it through.   Is There an Overall Better Sword? Armored Fencing in the Veldenz Manuscript, by Joachim Meyer, 1561. Source: Wiktenauer   Now that we’ve compared the two weapons, is there an unquestionably better one? Short answer: no.   Long answer: each sword is designed for the best possible use in its specific context—if it didn’t work well, it would not have been used. Each weapon has its pros and cons, as outlined above. In a more battlefield-oriented scenario where one would likely face heavy armor, the longsword will have more of an advantage. Against lighter armor or in close quarters, this same advantage will likely go to the katana.   It also depends on the dimensions of the person in question: a shorter person might find a katana easier to wield than a longsword, and vice versa for a taller person. Ultimately, the better sword between these two iconic weapons is a matter of the specific circumstances and personal preference.

  The Plantation of Ulster was a major colonial enterprise that transformed a formerly rebellious province into a stronghold for the British Crown in Ireland. The process of how Ulster became Protestant saw the native Gaelic Irish population being evicted in favor of English and Scottish settlers while large tracts of land were also granted to merchants, soldiers, and nobles. The resulting demographic changes have directly impacted the political landscape of the British Isles, with six counties of Ulster remaining part of the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland.   Ireland in the Early 17th Century Battle between English and Gaelic forces in The Image of Irelande by John Derrick, 1581. Source: Edinburgh University Library   The 16th century was one of great change for Ireland. The religious violence of the continent arrived on the island after the Tudors had embraced the Reformation while the native Irish largely remained with the Catholic faith. Warfare also intensified on the island. At the start of the 1500s, both sides had preferred bows but by the end of the century firearms were predominant in both English and Irish armies.   Numerous wars had raged across the island and the Desmond Wars devastated the southern half of the country during the second half of the 1500s. These were followed by the cataclysmic Nine Years War which saw the end of the Gaelic order and the establishment of English rule over the entire island. During this period Ireland experienced famine, war, and disease, as well as foreign armies landing on her shores after the island was dragged into larger-scale conflicts such as the Anglo-Spanish War.   The Nine Years War had devastated the country, no area left untouched by the violence. Although the Gaelic nobility had submitted, there remained the potential for the outbreak of further hostilities. The conflict had nearly bankrupted the Crown and the new king, James I, was eager to ensure there would not be another one. James had a prejudiced view of Gaels, both in Ireland and Scotland. He resolved to revive a popular tactic of colonial control, plantation, seeking to ‘civilize’ the more moderate Gaels while removing or destroying those he saw as barbarians.   The Process of Plantation 17th Century Plantation of Ulster. Source: Ulster Historical Foundation   Plantation was a process where the native Gaelic or Irish population was evicted and their land was granted to incoming English and Scottish settlers. The land chosen was typically of great economic or strategic value, while the original Gaelic occupants were evicted to upland areas full of bogs and hills. Planters had to abide by certain conditions to take this offer, and many were forbidden from having Gaelic tenants on their land. In practice this did not always happen and it took decades in some cases for planters to finally clear their lands of Gaelic Irish families.   Plantations had been attempted before in counties such as Laois and Offaly and most of the province of Munster. A failure to attract settlers and subsequent rebellions led to their failure. Ulster was to be the most successful and long lasting of the plantations. Settlers had been outnumbered, with a hostile native population surrounding them. Ireland was extremely forested at this time and rebels would use the woods as cover for ambushes and raids on the English settlements. Similarly, in Scotland, protracted resistance in the Highlands and Islands could impede or ruin an English colony. The Flight of the Earls removed any prospect of organized resistance in Ulster.   Incoming settlers generally took the land under certain conditions, often serving the role of a supplementary garrison to regular armed forces. They were required to own weapons and towns were fortified with even villages boasting a small fort or stronghold. Planter settlements were intermixed with Irish ones in order to ‘civilize’ them by converting them to Protestantism and compelling them to abandon their native Gaelic tongue for English.   The Planters Map of Northern Ireland’s Catholic Population based on 2001 census data by Dr Sunil Prasannan of Imperial College London, 2001. Source: Ulster University   The settlers who took advantage of the Ulster Plantation came from diverse backgrounds. Early attempts at settlement in the province had been undertaken by Scots from the Highlands and Islands who, sharing a common language with the Gaelic Irish (Scottish and Irish Gaelic being related dialects) had encountered much less hostility as both sides had intermarried and alternately warred and traded with each other. Those coming across in the early 1600s were cut from a much different cloth. They tended to be from England or the English-speaking Scottish Lowlands.   The first type were referred to as undertakers as they ‘undertook’ to plant British settlers on the confiscated lands. Undertakers were generally wealthy English or Scottish who were required to bring across at least ten families for every 1,000 acres they took. They were also required to fortify their holdings and maintain an armed militia. Another type were servitors, generally ex-soldiers or officials who had served in Ireland. They received smaller estates but unlike undertakers could have both Irish and British tenants on their land.   Other settlers included Protestant clerics, wealthy merchants, and most surprisingly of all, some Gaelic Irish lords. These were typically supporters of the Crown during the war and were rewarded with land for their loyalty. However they were subject to the highest rents in order to keep them from growing too powerful. Land grants to native Irishmen were also generally smaller than those to planters from Britain.   Impact on the Gaelic Irish Tyrone in 1609 prior to plantation. Source: Public Record Office of Northern Ireland   Despite James’ grim design, the act of plantation in Ulster (and across Ireland) proved hard to implement. It would take some decades for the process to be completed. In Laois only 289 families could be evicted over four years as the local English garrison lacked the manpower to enforce the policy. Many undertakers also initially disobeyed the prohibitions against employing local Irish as they had no wish to leave much of their land unworked. A decade on from the start of the plantation, a surveyor was horrified to find only 866 British families on a Tyrone undertaker’s land alongside some 1,200 Irish families.   This casual attitude in the quiet years after the war was to have ramifications in 1641 when a new conflict broke out in Ireland. Until then, little violence was offered as the Gaelic population had been devastated in the Nine Years War. Troublemakers were also regularly exiled from the island. 6,000 Irish were shipped off to fight for Charles IX in Sweden in his wars with Poland and Russia, with 1,300 ‘itinerant swordsmen’ alone transported in 1609.   Although some Irish retained their land, there was a noticeable cluster of Gaelic settlement on poorer land of higher altitude, generally with 500 feet above sea level as the dividing line between Irish lands above and British lands below. Even where mixed settlement was tolerated, the Irish were segregated by allocating them the poorer, more isolated land. Pressure was also put on Irish tenants to convert to Protestantism and speak English instead of Irish, part of the king’s ‘civilizing’ mission.   Expansion and Growth City plan of Derry (Londonderry) by Thomas Philips, 1836. Source: Public Record Office of Northern Ireland   Many towns in Ulster on both sides of the border date from the time of the plantations. By 1660, nearly 90% of British settlers lived within five miles of a market center. Derry was rebuilt in 1618 by the London merchants with walls that made it the envy of any fortress in Ireland. Coleraine and Carrickfergus received similar fortifications. Smaller settlements were based on a triangular or irregularly shaped green (known as diamonds) with houses constructed around them, usually with a fort or castle nearby. Settlements also would have a church.   There was an English/Scottish border influence in the design of some settlements as some planters originated from the Border Reivers, clans of marauders who prior to the unification of England and Scotland had made a living by raiding their neighbors. Transplanted to Ulster, they were ideal as settlers. Their fortified homes were designed like a mini castle, not designed for a fully fledged siege but enough to withstand raids.   As settlement expanded, the economic exploitation of the region began. Prior to the Tudor conquest, Gaelic Ireland had a localized redistributive economy. Some surplus would find its way to the market but foreign trade was predominantly from the Anglo-Irish towns. Exports increased dramatically as the plantations grew. Wool exports to Chester had only been around 1,000 kilograms in the late 1580s but by 1639 over 40,000 kilograms of wool was being exported annually. Land prices also dramatically increased from seven or eight times the annual rent to nearly twenty times by the 1630s.   Effects Still Felt Today War on the Home Front by Don McCullin, 1971. Source: National Galleries of Scotland   Although Ireland in the 21st century is a modern nation with many cultures, the effects of the plantations, particularly the Ulster plantation are still visible and felt today. Ulster (three counties in Ireland with another six in Northern Ireland) still has a much higher percentage of Protestants than the rest of the island. The Protestant minority in the other provinces also tend to be from other denominations while Presbyterianism continues to be the predominant denomination within Northern Ireland.   This cultural conflict was to cause much violence over the next centuries. When Ireland erupted into violence in 1641 as part of the wider Wars of the Three Kingdoms, Ulster was the site of conflict between Irish Confederates, Scottish Covenanters, and English Parliamentarians and Royalists. Similarly, the Williamite War in 1689 saw much violence in Ulster. The descendants of planters sided with William of Orange and some still celebrate his victory at the Battle of the Boyne. During the Rebellion of 1798, Ulster was the site of further conflict as the United Irishmen were active in counties Antrim and Down.   The presence of a large ethnically and religiously distinct minority in the northeast of the island influenced the 1921 partition of Ireland after the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-1921. Perhaps the most well known struggle arising from the Plantation of Ulster has been the 20th century Troubles, a sustained period of sectarian conflict over three decades which continues to impact the British Isles to this day. The Plantation of Ulster four centuries ago has left obvious marks in the language, religion, and even in the very landscape of the region.