The Bronze Age Minoan civilization thrived on the island of Crete from approximately 2600 to 1100 BCE. The Minoan culture is known for its colorful art and great palatial architecture. Although many aspects of their culture remain unknown, we do know that bulls had a strong symbolic significance for the Minoans and were a common motif in their art. Images of bull-leaping, acrobatics on a charging bull, are also found in Minoan art, providing a glimpse into one of the Minoan Civilization’s most peculiar rituals. So, what do we know about Minoan bull-leaping, and what questions remain unanswered?   1. Religion or Entertainment? Two types of bull-shaped ceremonial vessels: On the left, a black steatite, jasper, and nacre, 1550-1500 BCE. Source: Heraklion Archaeological Museum; On the right, a terracotta rhyton, from 1450-1400 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   The Minoan culture centered around palaces, which had a huge open courtyard at the center. The biggest was the palace of Knossos, located near the modern-day city of Heraklion. The frescoes from Knossos offer a unique insight into the Minoan culture. They show that both men and women participated in different social activities and religious practices.   Even though bulls are found everywhere in Minoan imagery, the role of bull-leaping remains largely unknown. Was it entertainment, an acrobatic performance for an appreciative audience, or part of a religious ceremony?   The bull-leaping fresco from the palace of Knossos. Source: Wikimedia Commons   We know that bulls were a powerful symbol in Minoan culture, associated with fertility, strength, and possibly divinity. Bull horns adorned stone altars and ritual vessels. Bulls were also sacrificed during religious practices. Leaping over the bull might have had ritualistic or symbolic meaning. Maybe bull-leaping was a way to demonstrate courage and devotion. Some scholars think that it could have been part of an initiation or fertility ritual. However, concrete evidence is limited.   On the other hand, we know the Minoan palaces were not solely religious centers. The palaces held an important economic role, storing various goods, such as olive oil and grains. As social centers, the palaces could have offered entertainment and festivals. Maybe bull-leaping served both to entertain and connect with the divine. The answer seems to have been lost to time.   2. Did Women Participate in Bull-Leaping?  A detail of the bull-leaping fresco from Knossos shows the contradictory figure, whose gender has been under debate.   The most famous depiction of bull-leaping is undoubtedly this fresco from Knossos, which shows a huge, muscular bull, along with three leapers. The debate concerning the gender of these leapers is ongoing.   Sir Arthur Evans, the archaeologist who excavated the palace in Knossos, was convinced that the Minoans followed a color code to differentiate men and women in their art. Like the Egyptians, women’s skin was always painted white, and men’s red or orange. However, the Minoans don’t seem to have always followed this convention. Among the problematic images is the bull-leaping fresco. Two of the three individuals are painted with white skin, and one with red. Yet all the leapers have similar body types, are depicted topless, and are of the same height.   A fragmentary fresco depicting a young Minoan woman wearing a priestess’ clothing and makeup, palace of Knossos, c. 1450 BCE. Source: Greek Ministry of Culture   The participation of women in bull-leaping is remarkable because it goes against the typical gender roles found in other ancient societies. Comparatively, and as far as gender is concerned, the Minoans were an egalitarian society. There is also a notable lack of images of women as mothers or with children. The fact that women could have been involved in bull-leaping highlights their active participation in Minoan life. There are several examples of women priestesses in Minoan art, who are also depicted topless, although in these cases, always with visible feminine bodies.   Most modern attempts to perform acrobatics on a bull have proved that the activity is extremely dangerous, even impossible, according to some. We are left to wonder whether this was a practice open to both men and women.   3. Where Did Bull-Leaping Events Take Place? Bronze statuette of an acrobat somersaulting over a bull’s head, from 1600-1450 BCE. Source: British Museum   The palace of Knossos is the most famous Minoan site associated with bull-leaping. Many archaeological finds from Knossos provide visual evidence of this practice. But even though there are images of bull-leaping, the precise location where they took place remains unknown.   A bull galloping at full speed would need a large open space, which could be found within palace courtyards, central plazas, or maybe arenas dedicated to bull-leaping. But there are some problems with these scenarios.   Minoan signet ring representing bull-leaping, Archanes, Crete, c. 1450-1375 BCE. Source: Ashmolean Museum   During the bull-leaping ritual, the leaper would first approach the bull, grab its horns, utilize the upward motion of the bull’s head to perform a flip, and finally land on the ground behind the bull. There is a reason why Spanish bullfighting, for example, takes place in sand-covered arenas. For the bull, slippery stone courts, such as those in the Minoan palaces, would result in the bull falling over. For the acrobat, landing on stone flooring would be equally challenging.   While we don’t have definitive information on the exact locations, bull-leaping likely took place in open spaces within the settlements. Some scholars also ponder that bull-leaping happened outside the palaces, where there was sufficient space for the bull, the acrobatic movements, and spectators.   4. Did the Egyptians Copy the Bull-Leaping Frescoes?  Reconstructed bull-leaping fresco from Avaris, currently in the Heraklion Archaeological Museum in Crete. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In 1991, archaeologist Manfred Bietak discovered Aegean-style wall paintings in the Egyptian Delta site of Tell el-Dab’a, known in ancient times as Avaris. The date to the 18th Dynasty, c. 1550-1069 BCE, and were found in a palace environment. What is fascinating is that the paintings are executed using the same color schemes and techniques as Minoan frescoes.   The images include bull-leaping, bull-wrestling, hunting, landscapes, animals, and people. Men in the frescoes wear Minoan-style clothing, kilts, and boots. There are also acrobats, palm trees, and papyrus plants, but no Egyptian hieroglyphs or emblems. One fresco shows four bulls against a maze-patterned background, with one bull collapsing on its forelegs. One fragment shows a tumbler performing a handstand with an impressive headdress.   The frescoes are proof of strong cultural and trade interactions between Egypt and the Aegean world. But who created these frescoes and why? Many archaeologists believe that the artists were Minoan due to the use of Minoan techniques, motifs, and colors. Another option is that the painters were trained by Minoans or copied a style they had seen.   5. Was Bull-Leaping Adopted From Other Cultures?   A Sumerian bearded bull’s head, made with copper and using lapis lazuli and shell for eyes. Source: Saint Louis Art Museum   While bull-leaping is closely associated with Minoan culture, evidence suggests that similar sports existed in other ancient cultures as well:   Indus Valley culture: A Banawali seal dating back to c. 2300-1700 BCE depicts an acrobat leaping over a bull. A seal from Mohenjo-Daro, c. 2600-1900 BCE, shows two people with a bull. Sumerian culture: In ancient Mesopotamia, the Sumerians had a bull-leaping tradition depicted in their art. Cylinder seals from the Early Dynastic period, c. 2900-2350 BCE, show acrobatic movements around bulls. Hittite culture: The Hittites, an ancient Anatolian civilization, c. 1600-1178 BCE, also had a form of bull-leaping. Reliefs carved on rocks discovered at the Hittite capital of Hattusa show scenes of people vaulting over charging bulls. Thracian culture: The ancient Thracians, who inhabited regions of modern-day Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey, are believed to have also practiced bull-leaping. Terracotta figurines and reliefs from the Thracian period, circa 5th-3rd century BCE, depict acrobatics over bulls.   However, there is no definite proof of the roots of the Minoan tradition.   6. Why Are There So Many Animals in Minoan Art? A fresco depicting blue monkeys, birds, rocks, a waterfall, and various flowers, 1580-1530 BCE, from the palace of Knossos, house of the frescoes. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Animals had a role in various aspects of Minoan society and were a common subject in art. Wall paintings, frescoes, pottery, and seals often depicted animals. The beauty, grace, and vividness with which they depicted animals have generated an image of the Minoans as animals and nature-loving people.   Bulls held sacred and symbolic status. Other animals, such as snakes and birds, and sea life, such as dolphins and fish, also had symbolic connotations and were featured in iconography and religious practices. The Minoans also raised livestock such as cattle, sheep, and goats.   Small Minoan terracotta figurine of a bull seems to smile, c. 1700-1060 BCE. Source: British Museum   However, the relationship between humans and animals is more complex. Towards the late Bronze Age, there was a significant increase in the portrayal of wild or supernatural creatures in frescoes and seals. The animals participate in activities, such as hunting, which was seen as a prestigious activity. The imaginary animals include a griffin with a bird’s head and a lion’s body. There are few images of animals in domestic scenes, even though domesticated animals were important. Even the bull is found outside of the domestic circle as a part of the bull-leaping activity. Regardless, it seems that the role of animals, including bulls, in Minoan society is not yet fully understood. What is certain, however, is that the Minoans were fascinated by the beauty of the natural world.   7. Did the Minoan Bull-Leaping Events Really Take Place? A bull running event in Pamplona, Spain, in 2013. Every year, several people get injured or even killed in the event. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Minoan bull-leaping images are, for the most part, similar, but there are also some variations. In most depictions, one or more individuals, both men and women, engage in acrobatic movements over a charging bull. The leapers are often shown flying in mid-air, with arms and legs in dynamic poses. The bulls typically have powerful, masculine horns and muscular bodies. They are often shown with their heads lowered, charging forward, or jumping while the leapers maneuver around them.   While these general elements in most images are similar, some compositions and details vary. The attire of the bull-leapers ranges from loincloths and belts to skirts or tunics, and sometimes the leapers wear elaborate headdresses or other adornments. Some depictions include spectators or onlookers, sitting or standing.   A Minoan Agate Lentoid sealstone with an engraved image of a man leading a bull, c. 1600-1400 BCE. Source: British Museum   While these images seem realistic, the Minoans are known for creating fantastical imagery with animals and plants. Therefore, they did have the imagination and artistic will to create images that don’t represent reality. Anyone who has witnessed a Spanish bullfight or the Pamplona bull run in Spain can understand that a bull charging at full speed is powerful, fast, and totally unpredictable. The question remains: would it have been possible to do vaults by grabbing the bull from its horns and jumping over its back at full speed? Or was the connection between man and the beast meant to be more symbolic? We may never know if Minoan bull leaping was myth or reality.

  Irish soldiers have fought for numerous foreign powers across history. Thousands of Irish emigrated to the United States in the wake of the Great Famine. The Irish were an unpopular immigrant group in mid-19th-century America since they were predominantly Catholic Gaelic speakers. Yet tens of thousands of Irishmen willingly enlisted to fight as part of the Irish Brigades in the American Civil War. What motivated them to do so?   Irish Soldiers Abroad The Irish Brigade in French service by Horace Vernet, 1828. Source: Museum of the History of France via Wikimedia Commons   The Irish Brigades in the American Civil War were not the first Irishmen to fight under a foreign flag. Irish soldiers had been fighting overseas in Europe in some form since the Middle Ages. Hiberno-Norman lords brought Irish auxiliaries with them on their campaigns in France for the English king. Increasing amounts of Irish soldiers went to the continent as English control over Ireland tightened in the 16th century. Spain had enough refugee soldiers to raise an Irish Brigade in 1587, and Irish regiments were still being formed in the 1700s.   Similarly, France received thousands of Irish soldiers after the Williamite War and their Irish Brigade existed until the time of the French Revolution, even aiding in the Jacobite Rebellions in Scotland. Irish officers also served across the continent, most prominently the Habsburg Empire, Prussia, and Russia. The large numbers of Irish in continental service only began to fall when the British government loosened restrictions on Catholics serving and from the 1800s onward, large numbers of Irish enlisted in the British Army.   Just over a decade before the American Civil War, US forces defeated Mexico in the Mexican-American War 1846-1848. During the conflict, large numbers of Irish soldiers had deserted from the US Army to join the Mexican Army. They left because of harsh conditions, promises of land in Mexico, and sympathies with the cause of a smaller Catholic country fighting a larger Protestant one. Enough of them left to form the Saint Patrick’s Battalion, known in Spanish as the San Patricios.   From Rebel to General Thomas Francis Meagher. Source: Montana State Library   The most famous commander of the Irish Brigade in the American Civil War was Thomas Francis Meagher, an ardent Irish nationalist. He had led the failed 1848 Rebellion, also known as the Young Ireland rebellion or the Battle of Ballingarry. International outcry prevented his execution and he was transported to Australia where he escaped in 1852. He went to the United States where he became a lecturer in law and journalism.   Despite personal sympathies with the Confederacy, Meagher remained a staunch Unionist as he felt he had a duty to the country that had granted him asylum. In New York, he joined the 69th Infantry Regiment—nicknamed the Fighting 69th—as a captain despite his lack of military experience. He was promoted to colonel after the capture of his commander Michael Corcoran at the Battle of Bull Run. Meagher returned to New York then to recruit for an Irish Brigade, a larger formation consisting exclusively of Irish soldiers. The Brigade was formally authorized in September 1861.   Irish immigrants at the time were unpopular. They were seen as violent, barbaric drunks and their predominantly Catholic religion put them at odds with the established Old English Protestant families in the northeast. The fact many of the poorer immigrants also came from Gaelic Irish speaking regions was another aggravating factor. Meagher believed that serving in the war would improve the condition of the Irish immigrant population in the United States. He also had a secret belief that it would be ideal training for future Irish patriots so that they could use their experience from the war to fight for Irish independence back home.   Success in the War Battle of Antietam (1862) by Thure de Thulstrup, c. 1887. Source: Library of Congress   The core of the Irish Brigade were three New York regiments, the 63rd, 69th, and 88th. The unit was completed with a 4th regiment, the 29th Massachusetts. This was a strange choice as the regiment was a self-described Yankee unit, one composed of Protestant English descendants which made them an unlikely match with three regiments of New York Irish. The 29th behaved correctly if not warmly to their Irish comrades and an undiplomatic Meagher gave them a backhanded compliment when he called them “Irishmen in disguise.” However, he recognized their bravery on the battlefield and even offered them an Irish color, which was declined.   The 29th were eventually replaced with the 28th Massachusetts and the 116th Pennsylvania, both Irish regiments. The Brigade fought well in the Seven Days Battles but took heavy losses in the sanguinary Battle of Antietam in September 1862. This was to be followed by another bloody day at the Battle of Fredericksburg that December. Chancellorsville in May 1863 completed the trinity of destructive engagements.   The Irish Brigade gained a reputation for toughness. At Antietam they advanced repeatedly into Confederate fire until ordered to withdraw. The Confederate position in a sunken road earned the nickname “Bloody Lane” owing to the heavy death toll. Similarly, at Fredericksburg, the Irish advanced into Confederate volleys, unable to get in range with their outdated muskets. Their smoothbore weapons lacked the accuracy of rifles and the Irish paid a heavy price for the difference as they were shot at before they could return fire.   Decimation and Destruction Battle of Fredericksburg (1862), by Carl Röchling. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The constant engagements were having a serious effect on the Irish Brigade’s numbers. At Fredericksburg alone, nearly 600 out of the 1,200 Irish Brigade soldiers were casualties. Meagher requested permission to recruit the Brigade back to full strength but was denied. He requested permission in May 1863 after Chancellorsville but Union authorities denied it again. A frustrated Meagher resigned but was reassigned to Union forces in the west. His replacement was another Irishman, Patrick Kelly. The only reinforcements the Brigade received were recovered soldiers from hospitals. By the time of Gettysburg in July 1863, the Brigade could only field some 600 soldiers, less than a regiment.   The Brigade fought well at Gettysburg but again their ranks were scythed down. The second day of fighting saw the Irish Brigade join a multi-brigade attack on Confederate positions in the Wheatfield. The Irish took Stoney Hill but were driven back by the Confederate counterattack with over a third dying in the fighting. The slow death of the Brigade continued even with the belated arrival of replacements. Kelly was replaced by Richard Byrnes but was quickly reinstated when Byrnes was killed at Cold Harbor. Kelly himself fell in battle leading a charge at the Siege of Petersburg in June 1864.   The US Army disbanded the Brigade and folded the survivors in with other units. A second Irish Brigade was eventually reformed from the original regiments, but recruitment diluted its Irish character. It was eventually disbanded in July 1865 after the cessation of hostilities.   Irish Fighting for the Confederacy Battle of the Cold Harbor (1864). Source: Meisterdrucke   Foreign born soldiers were represented in greater numbers in the Union Army than among the Confederate forces. Over a million Germans lived in the northern states by 1860, they and their descendants made up an estimated ten percent of the Union’s two million soldiers. The Irish weren’t far behind, with nearly 150,000 in the Union army. In the Confederacy, the numbers were much smaller though contingents of Irish, Germans, Italians, and Poles were counted in the thousands. Certain units had a foreign character but nothing compared to the scale seen on the Union side.   While there was never a designated Irish Brigade in the Confederate Army, several units had large numbers of Irish or Irish-Americans in the ranks. A number of Irish also served as officers in Confederate uniforms. The Virginian Regulars 1st Battalion was popularly known as the Irish Battalion. The Louisiana Tigers had a large Irish contingent and quickly gained a reputation for indiscipline and brawling while also displaying courage in battle.   The war’s politics caused rifts between former friends. One of Meagher’s closest friends chose to fight for the Confederacy. John Mitchel had settled in the south and felt loyalty to his adopted home. While Meagher also had sympathies for the secessionists, the two eventually fell out over the issue of slavery. Meagher chose to fight for the Union, Mitchel and three of his sons fought for the Confederacy.   From One War to Another Battle of Ridgeway, 1869. Source: Government of Canada   Some of the veterans of the Irish Brigade could never escape their past. Their commander had left Ireland as a rebel, now some chose to return there. Veterans lent their expertise to the Fenian Brotherhood, an Irish revolutionary organization, both at home and abroad. Civil War veterans attempted to transport arms to Ireland for the 1867 Fenian Rising but poor organization and British counterintelligence efforts damned it from the start.   Between 1866 and 1871, the Fenians caused an international incident by launching raids into Canada from American soil. Despite their divided loyalties in the American Civil War, the Fenian cause united Irishmen. At the Battle of Ridgeway, 1866, former Union soldiers fought alongside former Confederate troops. The raids had mixed success. The veteran Fenians did win some tactical successes against inexperienced Canadian militia but were usually forced to retreat when faced with British regulators and larger bodies of militiamen. Since the raids were being launched from American territory, the US government was also forced to act by arresting conspirators and confiscating weapons and ammunition.   The legacy of the Irish Brigade is continued by the “Fighting” 69th—which continues to be an active unit in the New York National Guard. Its dedication and reliability were begrudgingly recognised at the time even by their opponents, and over time they gained acceptance from their adopted countrymen. As the British war correspondent George Townsend put it, “When anything absurd, forlorn, or desperate was to be attempted, the Irish Brigade was called upon.” Only two other infantry brigades in the Union Army suffered higher losses than the Irish Brigade.

  This Western language’s rise started in the 18th century, reflecting France’s central position as the most powerful and centralized country. French culture also became emulated in other European courts. The rise coincided with King Louis XIV’s reign, beginning around 1643. His court at Versailles was seen as the height of sophistication. For the aristocracy, French emerged as the language of refinement.   French’s international lingua franca also emerged from international treaties and a colonial empire. The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which settled the War of the Spanish Succession and was written in French, is the first example. Next, as France expanded across the globe during the late 18th and 19th centuries, the language’s popularity grew. This wouldn’t change for decades.   Representing France’s Political Power and Prestige World Map Showing French-Speaking Countries. Source: Wikimedia   France’s political, cultural, and intellectual rise began in the 1600s. The infamous Cardinal Richelieu, under King Louis XIII, eliminated internal foes and centralized the government. Louis XIV (1643-1715) went further (“I am the state”), establishing Versailles as a cultural hotspot. He sponsored all manner of programs in art, culture, and science.   Louis XIV’s France participated in at least three aggressive and several smaller campaigns. Despite some setbacks, France came out as Europe’s dominant power. Negotiated in French, the treaties made it the premier international language.    The standing of Latin and Spanish waned as France became the international lingua franca. Latin, as a functionally extinct language, became viewed as antiquated. Spanish was considered a Habsburg and an imperial influence. Next, add in France’s cultural influence, and French popularity only grew.    French, Prestige, and The Enlightenment Versailles Photocrom Print 1870. Source: Central Institute for Art History, Germany   Luckily for the French language, the Enlightenment roughly spanned 1688 to the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815). The Enlightenment, resulting from the earlier Scientific Revolution, proved a boon for French. By 1700, French was the preferred language across Europe. A Russian noble, an Ottoman diplomat, or an English ambassador all learned to speak fluent French.   Many famous French thinkers, like Descartes, Montesquieu, and Voltaire, became known across Europe. Topics they took included human nature, reason, and liberty. French was now the language of debate. These debates often took place in noble salons or spaces where gossip, debate, and knowledge exchange occurred. And, of course, primarily spoken in French.   A unique advantage French possessed came from the Académie Française, founded in 1635. This body codified French grammar and kept French “pure”. The Académie avoided unreasonably complex or lengthy sentences, preferring clarity. It promoted logical, concise sentences. Though more complicated than other languages, it avoided inconsistencies. German, for example, had little standardization, contained many regional dialects, and was harder to learn.   18th Century Voltaire Portrait. Source: Library of Congress   French’s prestige only grew across Europe. Whether by a cultural wave or emulation, the language became the standard for elegance and taste. Monarchs and nobles hired French tutors, read French books, or adopted French fashions. Elite schools also taught French, making it a common language among the nobility or ruling class.    The Colonial and International Reach 1856 Congress of Paris (Treaty) Ending the Crimean War. Source: Chateau De Versailles   France, like most of Europe, acquired colonies in Africa, the New World, and Asia. Naturally, the French imposed their own language. A French-speaking administrative and upper class emerged, like in Vietnam or Senegal. In other places, such as Haiti and Réunion (in the Pacific Ocean), French became the dominant language through colonial rule and assimilation.   International relations and negotiations reinforced French’s diplomatic hold into the 20th century. Already used for European treaties, numerous international treaties were written in French. Significant examples included the Convention of 1800 between the U.S. and France and the 1856 Treaty of Paris, which ended the Crimean War.   A Prestigious Decline and Present Status France’s Seat on the UN Security Council. Source: UN.org   The 1918 Allied victory ended the Great War. Yet this victory weakened the French language’s position. America’s gradual rise as a world power and equal partner slowly tilted the lingua franca to English. For example, the victors drafted the 1919 Treaty of Versailles in French, the enduring dominant diplomatic language. But it was also written in English.    The interwar years saw French’s further displacement as America’s cultural, diplomatic, and economic power advanced. World War II saw English’s almost complete replacement of French as the world’s lingua franca. The 1945 founding of the United Nations placed English alongside French (and four others) as an official language.   Today, French remains an important language and still boasts 321 million speakers. Organizations like the International Court, NATO, and the European Union list French. And, for legal use, few match French’s nuance and precision.

  After more than two years of fighting on several fronts, the United States and Britain made peace with the Treaty of Ghent in December 1814, bringing an end to the War of 1812. While the agreement restored territory to the prewar status quo, both the United States and Britain experienced lasting political, economic, and military effects. While the War of 1812 fostered the development of a peaceful and harmonious relationship between the two leading belligerents, it had disastrous secondary effects for Britain’s Native American allies.   The Treaty of Ghent John Quincy Adams, lead American negotiator for the Treaty of Ghent, as drawn by Jacques Reich, 1899-1920. Source: Smithsonian Institution   Signed on December 24, 1814, the Treaty of Ghent brought an end to hostilities between the United States and Britain. While each side agreed to return any occupied territories to their prewar owners, the agreement failed to address some of the most significant causes of the War of 1812: British impressment of American sailors and British interference in American trade with France. It did, however, have tangible results for each side.   The Treaty of Ghent outlined the exchange of prisoners of war to their respective countries and established commissions to remedy border disputes between American and British territory, particularly in the Great Lakes and Niagara regions. On paper, the Treaty of Ghent stated that Native American lands captured during the war were to be restored and returned to their respective tribes, but American political and military leaders failed to extend this accommodation to tribal peoples after the war.   Much like the inadequacies of the Treaty of Paris following the American Revolutionary War, resulting in the Jay Treaty one decade later, additional negotiations were introduced to remedy major shortcomings of the Treaty of Ghent. The 1817 Rush-Bagot Agreement limited naval armaments on Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes, reducing the prospect of further hostilities near a major area of contention during the war. The following year, the Convention of 1818 resolved territorial disputes between the United States and British Canada.   Geopolitical Outcomes for the United States President James Monroe, whose 1817 visit to Boston inspired the first usage of the phrase “Era of Good Feelings,” as depicted by Goodman & Piggot, 1817. Source: National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution   Following the War of 1812, the United States experienced a decade-long period of national unity known as the “Era of Good Feelings.” Before the war, the Federalist Party opposed hostilities with England. A political faction that favored a strong national government, Federalist leaders included John Adams, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. After the war, the party lost its credibility and influence, resulting in a national one-party system under the Democratic-Republicans. However, the dominant party adopted many Federalist ideas including protective tariffs and infrastructure improvements that it had previously opposed.   During this era of national confidence, the United States adopted an assertive foreign policy in the form of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which warned European powers from seeking to restore their colonial empires in the Americas. While the United States did not yet have the naval capacity to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, the close relationship with Britain after the War of 1812 ensured that the United States would have the backing of the Royal Navy.   By 1819, the nation expanded to the south by acquiring the state of Florida from Spain through the Adams-Onis Treaty, and the United States continued its westward expansion driven by the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark Expedition prior to the War of 1812. While the war and subsequent policy did remove British control and reduce Native American resistance, it did not negate tribal protections of their land west of the Appalachian Mountains in uncharted territories.   Economic Outcomes for the United States Davy Crockett’s 1837 Almanack of Wild Sports in the West, 1837. Source: Smithsonian Institution   The United States witnessed positive geopolitical outcomes of the War of 1812, but the economic impact was catastrophic. The War of 1812 additionally strained the American economy through disrupted trade and agricultural production, causing inflation and food shortages, with domestic prices of goods and services experiencing a 30% increase by 1815 as a result. The American government was on the brink of bankruptcy after the British sacked Washington, but the country rebounded quickly after the war.   While the British blockade of international trade routes remained active during the War of 1812, barriers to trade reduced significantly after the Treaty of Ghent in accordance with a desire for improved relations between the historic enemies. The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 ended the British blockade of French trade and reduced the navy’s manpower requirement, effectively bringing an end to impressment of American sailors without a formal commitment to do so.   By the 1820s, both the manufacturing and agrarian economy were gradually recovering from the wartime impact, but continued economic uncertainty encouraged westward expansionism. Settlers like Davy Crockett ventured west to seize new economic opportunities and better livelihoods than they had back in the east.   The War of 1812 exposed systemic vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure like poorly constructed and defended government buildings which were set ablaze in Washington DC. After making peace with Britain, the United States had the opportunity to invest in infrastructure improvements. The 19th century saw the development of canals and railroads, as well as iron and steel production, textiles, and factory-based manufacturing.   Geopolitical and Economic Outcomes for Britain Napoleon Bonaparte on horseback by Frederick Gleason, date unknown. Source: Smithsonian Institution   While England suffered significant defeats in battle during the latter stages of the War of 1812, notably at Lake Erie and New Orleans, the conflict was not considered a priority during the Napoleonic Wars. A return to the status quo in Treaty of Ghent was interpreted as a favorable end to combat, and the freeing up of military assets in North America was crucial in Britain’s efforts to confront Napoleon after his return to power during the Hundred Days.   While British Canada emerged intact from the War of 1812, their Native American allies were militarily and territorially weakened. The British were compelled to increase their defenses along the Canadian frontier to counter the potential of further American expansion to the north. Much like the United States, Britain experienced serious economic difficulties in wartime before enjoying a significant rebound. The country faced a sizable increase in its national debt and restricted international trade during simultaneous wars on two continents. However, Britain quickly recovered after 1815, witnessing major advances in industrialization and manufacturing. Most importantly, the War of 1812 significantly improved relations between Britain and the United States, which continues to this day.   Native American Outcomes General Andrew Jackson on horseback, artist unknown, 1832-1835. Source: National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution   Of all the parties involved in the War of 1812, Native American tribes suffered the most catastrophic outcomes by the conflict’s end. After suffering considerable losses at the Battle of Tippecanoe and the Battle of Thames, Tecumseh’s Confederacy effectively dissolved. Once a promising symbol of Native American autonomy and unity, the collective did not survive long after its charismatic leader’s death in 1813. Consequently, the War of 1812 left many Native American tribes isolated from potential allies and unable to resist American expansionism.   While the Treaty of Ghent called for the return of Native American lands to their rightful inhabitants, the United States was unwilling to give up its considerable territorial gains at the expense of Native American peoples. After being defeated by Andrew Jackson’s forces, the Creek Indians were forced to give up over 20 million acres of land in the 1814 Treaty of Fort Jackson. Three years later, the Treaty of Fort Meigs ceded Shawnee and Wyandot lands in the Ohio Valley.   By 1830, the continued expansion of American settlers into Native American lands in the wake of the War of 1812 led President Andrew Jackson to sign the Indian Removal Act. This controversial law opened the door for nearly two decades of forced removals of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands east of the Mississippi to present-day Oklahoma. Although Native American peoples like the Choctaw and factions of the Cherokee and Creek Indians were allies with the United States during the war, they were not spared from the trauma of the Trail of Tears.   Lasting Effects The Star-Spangled Banner on display at the National Museum of American History. Source: American Battlefield Trust   The War of 1812 left both positive and negative lasting effects on the North American continent and Britain. For the United States, long-term consequences of the conflict included a strengthening of national identity and a sustained period of economic growth up to the American Civil War. Francis Scott Key’s poem about the “star-spangled banner” that continued to fly amidst the bombardment of Fort McHenry at the Battle of Baltimore became a popular patriotic song before being adopted as the United States’ national anthem in 1931.   For America and Britain, improved relations following the Treaty of Ghent has led to arguably one of the most significant alliances in recent history. During the 20th century, Britain and the United States were major Allied Powers in both World War I and World War II, and strong levels of economic and military cooperation continue into the 21st century. Without the War of 1812 to smooth out the remaining kinks from America’s initial struggle for independence, the Anglo-American “special relationship” might not be as close as it is today.   Alongside these significant longstanding gains, the conflict also had major negative repercussions. Modern society recognizes the generational mistakes in how the United States treated Native American populations in the 19th century. While the War of 1812 was primarily intended to remedy the United States’ grievances with Britain, its outcomes were highly detrimental to the Native American tribes on both sides of the conflict. It is possible to conclude that while both Britain and the United States won the War of 1812, the Native Americans lost.

  Nestor Makhno was one of the most eccentric revolutionaries during the Russian Civil War. He established a regime based on left-wing anarchist principles on the left bank of the Dnipro River in Ukraine and fought against both White and Red armies. Makhno’s project was short-lived but provided inspiration for left-wing revolutionary movements in the following decades.   Nestor Makhno’s Revolutionary Ideals Nestor Makhno and his allies at Huliaipole, 1919. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Born on October 27, 1889 in the Ukrainian village of Huliaipole, Nestor Ivanovich Makhno grew up in a poor environment in which local peasants struggled to advance in society. His father died when he was very young and the conditions he and his family lived in radicalized him. In 1906, he joined a small anarchist cell plotting attacks on Russian policemen. He was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in Butyrka prison in Moscow after killing a policeman in Huliaipole.   He continued working on plans for an anarchist revolution from prison with his cellmate  Peter Arshinov when he was released during the February Revolution in 1917. He immediately returned to Huliaipole hoping to organize workers in the village. Workers’ councils sprouted up all over the Russian Empire to promote nationalism, workers’ rights, and self-determination. Makhno ran one of these councils, known as soviets, in Huliaipole. The town proved receptive to the promises made by Makhno’s soviet.   Like the rest of the Russian Empire, Ukraine experienced rapid industrial development in the late 19th century, and workers in Ukrainian cities were exposed to left-wing socialist ideas. Makhno’s soviet aimed to improve conditions for peasants in Huliaipole while redistributing land from wealthy families, especially the Mennonite community, in the region. He opposed Lenin’s revolutionary dictatorship but hoped to work with other revolutionaries. When the Central Powers invaded in 1918, his soviet organized resistance to their presence while he went to Moscow to gain support.   Ukrainian Independence First General Secretariat of the Ukrainian Central Rada, 1917. Source: Euromaidan Press   Outside of Huliaipole, major developments were underway in Ukraine. Years of underground organizing led to the creation of Ukraine’s national movement. In March 1917, Ukrainian delegates formed a regional congress known as the Central Rada and elected Mykhailo Hrushevsky, a historian and Ukrainian nationalist leader, as its head. Its members were divided on whether they wanted autonomy within a democratic Russia or full independence. After the October Revolution of 1917, the Central Rada declared full independence, establishing the Ukrainian People’s Republic in the process.   The Central Rada was composed of parties representing Ukrainian socialist movements, the Russian Social Democrats, Jewish parties of different backgrounds, and Polish representatives. They agreed to create a social democratic state with equal rights and universal suffrage. The Ukrainian language was rehabilitated and a new army was formed.   The Bolsheviks were opposed to the calls for Ukrainian independence and ordered the Red Army to take Kyiv, the new capital. After a brief fight outside the city, the Central Rada fled along with the remnants of Ukraine’s army. They returned when the Austrian and German armies invaded Ukraine to keep it from falling to Bolshevik rule. However, the Central Powers wanted to rule Ukraine through a puppet and installed a regime called the Hetmanate, led by General Pavlo Skoropadsky. This led to an insurgency throughout Ukraine. Makhno’s soviet organized peasant attacks on Austrian troops near Huliaipole. Skoropadsky was thrown out of power on April 29, 1918, by supporters of Symon Petliura. Ukraine subsequently collapsed into a civil war.   The Formation of the Makhnovshchina Map of the Makhnovshchina’s furthest extent of control in 1919 found in Peter Arshinov’s History of the Makhnovist Movement, 1921. Source: The Anarchist Library   While the Russian Civil War raged around Eurasia, Nestor Makhno and his acolytes began putting their anarchist ideas into practice. It went beyond the village of Huliaipole; a large chunk of territory on the left bank of the Dnipro River came under Makhnovist control. With the help of men like Fedir Shchus, Volin (Vsevolod Eichenbaum), Vasyl Kurilenko, Peter Arshinov, and many others, they began implementing their plans of land distribution, the formation of peasant councils, and creating a militia called the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine. While they supported Ukrainian self-determination, they opposed Petliura’s reestablishment of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, believing it to be too bourgeois.   When the November 1918 armistice went into effect, the Central Powers’ troops went home, leaving a power vacuum in Ukraine. The Makhnovists wanted to extend their control as far as possible and began to clash with both the Petliurists and Russian White Armies. Makhno, now nicknamed Batko (‘uncle’), took advantage of peasant grievances to gain supporters. His military became reputable for its ability to seize towns through trickery. The Makhnovists also played different parties in the Russian Civil War against each other.   The Makhnovshchina (i.e. the area under Makhnov’s rule) was a multiethnic and multireligious territory that officially made no distinctions between people based on their background. Because of the presence of Jews in the Insurgent Army and Makhnovist leadership, there was little antisemitism. Russian anarchists were welcome too, even if the movement was mainly a Ukrainian one. The minority group targeted by the Makhnovists was the Mennonite community, a group of German and Dutch Anabaptist Christians who had been invited to the Russian Empire by Catherine the Great in the 18th century. Because many Mennonites were landowners, they were frequently attacked by Makhno’s militia.   Failed Alliance with Hryhoriv and the Reds Nestor Makhno in Red Army uniform, 1919. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Makhno’s Revolutionary Insurgent Army began fighting the Ukrainian People’s Army and the White Russian Army once the Central Powers evacuated. Petliura could not bring Makhno under his wing and hostilities ensued. Makhno’s forces outclassed the other Ukrainian troops and defeated them repeatedly. At the same time, the White Russian Army moved from areas of southern Russia into Ukraine with the aim of reconstructing the Russian Empire under former loyalists of the tsar. Makhno felt that he was being put in a vice and sought assistance from Red Army commander Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko and a warlord named Nykyfor Hryhoriv.   The alliance with the Reds and Hryhoriv’s militia deteriorated as a result of repression from the Cheka, the Bolshevik secret police. Makhno and his allies opposed the establishment of the Soviet regime in Moscow, favoring libertarian socialism. They also opposed Hryhoriv’s antisemitism. In 1919, when the Makhnovshchina held a Regional Congress, the Bolsheviks announced that they were traitors. The White Army also broke through the Red Army’s lines in Donbas and attacked the Makhnovshchina. Makhno’s army came under attack from multiple directions and was forced to flee over the Dnipro River to Uman.   The Makhnovists continued fighting even with the loss of their center of power. In July 1919, they assassinated Hryhoriv and briefly buried the hatchet with the Ukrainian People’s Republic. Their alliance with Petliura’s forces enabled them to prepare for a counterattack. Both armies assaulted the Whites on the left bank of the Dnipro River and the Makhnovists regained Huliaipole on November 11, 1919.   Zenith of the Makhnovshchina Volin (Vsevolod Mikhailovich Eichenbaum), Chairman of the Makhnovshchina’s Military Revolutionary Council. Source: Wikimedia Commons   For a brief period at the end of 1919 and early 1920, the Makhnovshchina reached the high watermark of its territorial control. Anton Denikin’s Army of South Russia had been forced back out of most of Ukraine. All business enterprises were brought under worker or peasant control again and local soviets were reestablished. Volin, the chairman of the Military Revolutionary Council, advocated that every soviet in the region be given total autonomy, something opposed by other delegates to the Regional Congress. By December 1919, a typhus epidemic ravaged the Makhnovshchina, enabling the Reds to retake control of the area on the left bank of the Dnipro River down to Crimea.   The implementation of the Red Terror by the Cheka enraged the Ukrainian peasantry, leading to additional fighting between the two. An estimated 200,000 Ukrainian peasants were killed during the Red Terror. Much of the progress made by Makhno and his allies was reversed. However, the Whites reared their head again, forcing the Reds and Makhnovists to put aside their differences once more. The Starobilsk Agreement led to another short-lived alliance between the two factions.   As Baron Pyotr Wrangel’s White forces advanced and the Polish Army along with Petliura’s forces marched on Kyiv in the west, the Revolutionary Insurgent Army joined the Red Army in driving back the White advance. Despite serious battle damage to the region, Wrangel’s withdrawal and the terms of the agreement enabled Makhno to set up his autonomous state again. They controlled everything between the Dnipro River and the Azov Sea.   The End of the Makhnovshchina Makhno and members of the Military Revolutionary Committee, 1920. Source: libcom.org   The destruction of the remaining White armies meant that the Bolsheviks no longer required the assistance of the Makhnovists. Vladimir Lenin demanded that the Makhnovists join the Red Army in invading Poland, which Makhno and his supporters refused to do. The Cheka began to suppress many of the local soviets when they refused to recognize Moscow’s authority. The Revolutionary Insurgent Army tried to resist but lacked support and weapons. It was forced to retreat into western Ukraine.   By this point, the peasants who lived in the Makhnovshchina were exhausted by years of war. They formed the main support base of Makhno’s movement but had little left to offer. As a result, Makhno and his supporters went into exile, first fleeing to Romania and then on to France. While in Poland, Makhno was briefly arrested before being released. He later died in 1934 in Paris. The work he and his comrades did was undone by Bolshevik War Communism, in which resources from the countryside were plundered to feed the cities. Even Lenin’s more moderate New Economic Policy involved a greater degree of central control compared to Makhno’s vision of localized socialism.   The Makhnovschina had proven to be resilient and popular through several years of war. Peasants and workers living there embraced land reform and democratic freedoms that they lacked under tsarist or communist rule. However, the endless conflict on the territory took a heavy toll on the people. Without external assistance and recognition, the Makhnovshchina was doomed to fail. It was, however, an inspiration to other anarchist movements and not the last time anarchist leaders attempted to create a mass movement.