Hollywood never fails to entertain with a powerful display of knights on horseback, crashing into a line of terrified infantry. The images and sounds are visceral, with men screaming and the clash of steel upon steel as hundreds of horses charge headlong into the enemy at high speed, carving a deep wedge into the enemy formation. This powerful visual seems effective on screen, but it is full of poetic license that wouldn’t work well on a real battlefield.

In reality, the use of cavalry in medieval combat was far more nuanced. It relied on careful planning, immense discipline, and a large degree of psychology to be effective. And when it was effective, it was utterly devastating.

The Myth of the Suicidal Horse Collision

Horses are naturally skittish animals. Even well-trained warhorses are prone to instinctive responses in dangerous situations that humans can be trained to override. Historian Sir John Keegan noted that cavalry charges against disciplined, well-prepared infantry often failed because horses refused to gallop into a dense mass of enemies. When a mass of soldiers is wielding sharp objects, the prospect becomes even less appealing. 

While pikes were perfect for holding back cavalry, they were not the only option. Even before the age of the pike, infantry with spears and other polearms were easily able to resist cavalry charges. A perfect example of this is the Battle of Hastings in 1066, where the Anglo-Saxon shield wall stood firm against many attempts by the Norman cavalry to break through.

Here, and in many battles before and since, the horses simply refused to impale themselves on spears. Which is quite reasonable from the horses’ perspective. In the age of the pike, the “spears” became ever longer and deadlier, putting a lot more distance between the charging cavalry and the defending infantry. 

So, with the refusal of horses to throw themselves onto a wall, bristling with spikes, how did the cavalry charge actually succeed? Much of the answer lies with psychology.

Shock Tactics and Psychological Warfare on the Battlefield

From ancient to modern times, mass charges used shock tactics, relying heavily on breaking enemy morale and forcing soldiers to rethink the wisdom of standing in the path of 1000 lbs of equine fury. Throughout history, holding the line against mounted riders has always been a terrifying proposition. In the face of a wall of horses and mounted knights, all it takes is for a few infantrymen to break, for a gap to be exposed, which cavalry can then exploit.

As such, cavalry had to break the enemy formation, not by force, but by psychology. A feigned charge could cause men to scatter, and a feigned retreat could cause infantry formations to break in pursuit, at which point the cavalry wheeled round and took advantage of the lack of infantry cohesion. 

Ultimately, it was a game of chicken in which the resolve of the infantry and the cavalry was tested until one side broke or miscalculated the other’s intentions. 

Although exceptions always exist, a solid line of cavalry seldom made contact with a solid line of unbroken infantry, and when it did, it was often catastrophic for the cavalry. Without a gap to exploit, cavalry would simply be impaled. 

In short, the general theme was that cavalry would charge at the infantry. If the infantry broke, the cavalry would press the attack. If the infantry stood firm, the cavalry would veer off at the last moment and reform to try again. Sometimes the cavalry would feign retreat to lure the enemy infantry out of formation, then turn and attack.

Mass, Momentum, and Deadly Precision

Hollywood’s full-pace cavalry charges are certainly spectacular, but full of creative interpretation, and often very far from reality. Approaching the enemy was far more disciplined and slower than on-screen depictions.

The cavalry line was not haphazard. It was in the formation of cohesive, serried ranks of knights, slowly increasing speed, and breaking into a gallop at the last moment. Mass and momentum were key. Such discipline played into psychology, heightening the panic in the enemy. With lances presented, such a sight could easily cause individual soldiers to flinch, panic, and in some cases, run. If the infantry, even individuals, lost their nerve, gaps would open, and the cavalry would ride in, pushing soldiers aside and widening the wedge.

If that happened, the infantry formation was doomed more often than not. 

Picture a slab-sliding ironclad rounding a bend on the Cumberland River in 1863. Firing on the move and belching black smoke, these nearly invulnerable vessels suddenly made any Confederate river defense vulnerable. While their ocean-going cousins captured national headlines, river ironclads were busy splitting the Confederacy in half.

As a central part of Winfield Scott’s Anaconda Plan to control the Mississippi River, river ironclads were purposely built. With their slow speeds, shallow drafts, armor, and firepower, these ironclads were the real weapons that cracked open the South’s interior.

The Brown Water Navy

While the ocean contingent of the Union’s naval campaign was critical, the Mississippi River Squadron, also known as the Brown Water Navy, was no less important. Built to operate within the narrow, shallow confines of the different rivers like the Cumberland, Red River, and Mississippi, river ironclads became the campaign’s workhorse. Army owned and commanded by Navy officers, they projected power inland, often helping to win crucial campaigns.

At the start of the Civil War in 1861, the Union scrambled to obtain ships. Paddle wheelers, towboats, and steamboats were converted using timber and iron plating. These sufficed until intentionally designed ironclads and later river monitors arrived. These had similar characteristics, such as shallow drafts, armored hulls and turrets, large naval guns, and side or stern wheels for propulsion.

Beginning in January 1862, ironclads began to appear. Soon, they and the Union Army started to break the Confederates’ Mississippi lifeline, which cut off Texas, Arkansas, and parts of Louisiana.

Unique, Powerful, but Not Impervious

During the Civil War, the Union produced about 76 ironclads of different types by 1865: monitors, casemates, and armored river rams. Of these, the City-class ironclads stood out. Designed by Samuel Pook, their distinctive sloped casemate armor helped deflect shots, a wide beam for stability, and armored paddle wheels positioned inside the hull earned them the nickname “Pook Turtles.” These characteristics allowed survival against Confederate shore batteries.

Their size enabled ironclads to deliver firepower in unexpected spots. Boats like the City-class brought heavy naval artillery, such as 42-pounder rifles, to bear. They simply blasted their way past earthen works or hurriedly built outposts manned with often inferior guns. Yet these behemoths had weaknesses too.

Working in a heated, enclosed iron box meant temperatures spiked past 120 degrees. Crews frequently fainted in the intense heat or from fumes from massive boilers or furnaces. Even their armor had a weakness, typically from above. Plunging Confederate shellfire punched through thinner armored (or unarmored) spots. But these powerful ships still clobbered their way past defenses. They were great but imperfect weapons.

Ironclads Versus Fortifications

The Union river fleet’s ironclads, starting in 1862, completely upended the Confederate defense tactic of static river blockades. Under normal circumstances, their heavy guns would shred wooden hulls. Now, Union ironclads sailed up to the forts, shrugged off most hits, and pounded the emplacements to pieces. Whereas a normal siege might take weeks, the ironclads placed shells along the defenses, helping force a surrender in days. This did come with risks— the City-class ironclad USS Cairo sank upon striking a mine during the run-up to the Vicksburg Campaign.

This approach became clear to frustrated Confederate officials during the 1863 Battle of Vicksburg (May 18-July 4). Of the Mississippi River naval battles, this bruising fight is considered the most important. Union ironclads repeatedly traversed the river under Vicksburg’s guns to bring supplies, men, and artillery, despite repeated hits. The city eventually fell on July 4, 1863, splitting the Confederacy.

Confederate Rams as a Response

The Confederates quickly realized the Union ironclad’s menace to their cause. Unlike the industrialized North, the South had few rolling mills, few foundries capable of forging iron plates, and almost no engines. Workers scavenged railroad iron, scrounged machinery, and unseasoned lumber to build boats like the CSS Arkansas. Cobbled together, this underpowered Confederate warship was later scuttled following several important battles only due to engine failure (August 1862).

The South also built cottonclads, or armed steamers loaded with tightly packed cotton bales. This unconventional but effective armor was built cheaply and quickly. These weren’t meant to clash with ironclads but were effective as an expendable defense.

While improvisation was the rule, the South’s industrial weakness quickly hampered defense efforts. The North’s boatyards consistently rolled out City-class (or similar) ironclads. The Confederacy struggled to produce one, often due to material shortages or long delays. The Union wore down its opponents, but the inability to match the North’s production led to the loss of the Mississippi theater.

The Civil War helped introduce the 19th century to ironclad technology. Union ironclads proved themselves as a winning factor on America’s rivers. They turned the Confederate river lifeline into a Union highway by 1865.

Pope Innocent VIII’s bull, published on December 5, 1484, commissioned two Dominican Inquisitors and professors of theology, Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer, to end witchcraft, which was, at the time, considered to be practiced by “heretics and other enemies of Christendom, both groups and individuals.” This marked a shift from how those accused of witchcraft were treated in the early Middle Ages and before. 

Unfortunately, as women were the ones most often accused of witchcraft, they received the bulk of the hatred, and subsequent texts and images depicting witchcraft, rituals, and deals with the devil became misogynistic. Sprenger and Kramer aided in creating the image of a witch and the danger they posed to society with the 1487 publication of the Malleus Maleficarum, or The Hammer of Witches, which led to surveillance and discrimination against women, especially those who fell outside of “normal” society.

The Radical Zealotry of Heinrich Kramer

While Sprenger and Kramer both wrote The Hammer of Witches, Kramer was the principal author of the medieval witch-hunting manual. Heinrich Kramer was born in 1430 in Lower Alsace. He joined the Dominican order as a monk and rose in prominence quickly within the field.

Driving him was an earlier trial involving a woman named Helena Scheuberin, the defeat of Kramer in accusing her of witchcraft, and the subsequent descent into his vendetta against women. Scheuberin refused to be locked into the traditional feminine role of her time and voiced her displeasure with Kramer’s sermons. Her refusal to go to service led him to accuse her of witchcraft. 

According to scholar Jane Schuyler, witches in the Middle Ages were regarded warily, as they were believed to cause harm, but they were mostly treated as social misfits isolated from normal society. This changed with the idea that witches were “heretics in league with the devil, opposed to the rule of God on earth; they were seductive and immoral, and received their powers as gifts from Satan,” where they bound their life to his turning away from their Christian faith.

Kramer already had a questionable reputation within the theological fields of his time. When he sought the University of Cologne’s approval for his text in 1487, he was considered too extreme. His fight against heresy and his insistence that the Church was not doing enough against women who were involved with the Devil drove him to push the boundaries of who was in charge of the trials, how they were conducted, and with what evidence. Kramer ended up writing and collecting pieces for The Hammer of Witches only a couple of years after the trial of Scheuberin. His disgust for women operating outside social norms became twisted with misinformation and misogyny that was used to look for and “hunt” witches across Europe, focusing specifically on women in vulnerable positions.

Deconstructing the Systemic Misogyny of the Text

The Hammer of Witches had five sections: the justification of the witch hunts, the papal bull, approval by professors of theology at the University of Cologne, the table of contents, and the main body.

Kramer argued, “women to be the sole operators of witchcraft, ‘What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger.’” Those ideals already show the nature of the text regarding women and how they should be held in suspicious regard. Of course, they were more likely to be witches and a danger to the public, and responsible for things like disastrous crops, deaths of vital work animals, sicknesses plaguing the village, or a couple being unable to have children. These events could be devastating to the survival of the village, and the need to point fingers and find a cause meant women were easy scapegoats.

The only way to escape from a witch, according to Kramer, was by turning to religion, saying that, “[If the man being ensnared by the witch] pleaseth God shall escape from her; but he that is a sinner shall be caught by her.”

How the Printing Press Distributed Social Paranoia

While similar ideas and texts were in circulation before, The Hammer of Witches is unique in both the spread of the ideology and its survival over hundreds of years. Johannes Gutenberg changed the course of history for both printing and books with the invention of the movable type printing press in 1436. Unlike in the past, when other texts required entire pages to be carved from a block or hand-lettered, the printing press enabled The Hammer of Witches and other texts to be printed faster and more cheaply. This allowed it to spread across Europe. 

If Kramer had written this text 50 years earlier, it might not have spread as far as it did, ingraining itself into the public’s perception of what a witch is and how to find them. This instead became a printed copy for the educated population, and judicial officials and other men in the court system could use it as a blueprint for how to conduct a witch trial. 

Weaponizing Secular Courts Against the Female Population

When examining how witch trials were conducted, it is important to recognize the fundamental differences between trials in the Middle Ages and those today. Today, it is often considered that the person accused of a crime is ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ The court presents an argument and evidence that a person is guilty. Back then, it was the complete opposite. The accused person had to prove to the court that they were innocent of the crime. 

Now imagine a woman having to prove to a group of men who already have a text that tells them how susceptible women are to getting involved with the Devil and witchcraft. Many, although not all, of these victims were also marginalized by society for being too loud, having vices, mental illnesses, or being older and alone with no support system. Potentially, they could not provide for themselves, and became beggars and a ‘nuisance’ to their village. The change that Kramer pushed for also meant that these crimes that were originally tried religiously could be tried in secular courts as well, which resulted in more trials and executions.

Evidence in the trial could include confessions that were given under coercion, or through torture, and the promise that naming themselves or others as a witch would make the pain end. The ‘observations’ of witchcraft could include testimony of others, including neighbors who may be feuding with the accused. Even testimony of a husband being in bed with his wife all night would not suffice, as the Devil could make witches travel in the blink of an eye. It seems there was little way to protect yourself once you ended up on trial as a witch in Europe during that time.

The Enduring Historical Trauma of the Witch Trials

While witch hunts are no longer a literal event in the modern world, it doesn’t end the trauma related to the damage these trials and executions had on the public, especially for the women accused or worried about being accused. One of the last documented trials of a witch may have been in 1775 in Poland, showing that this text had a lasting impact on the culture. It is estimated that around 40,000 to 60,000 people died because of the witch hunts. 

These views of witchcraft in the text have leaked into other parts of culture that have lasted until even today. Art during the day reinforced the negative stereotypes of women engaging in inappropriate behaviors and meeting with the Devil. Today, we still see images of witches wearing all black, with warts on their noses, flying on broomsticks, and cursing people.

The Hammer of Witches is not the only theological, religious, or historical text that codified systemic prejudice against a group of people. Nor is it the only one that has been used in history to carry out atrocities. However, it serves as a reminder of how women were demonized for years and suffered personally, publicly, and judicially at the hands of men who took this manual verbatim on how to prosecute witches.

For centuries, French political power had been centralized in Paris, even when the royal court shifted frequently. But while earlier rulers stayed in central urban strongholds like the Louvre, King Louis XIV decided to move his entire government to the quiet countryside in 1682. The relocation of the French court to Versailles was a calculated move that completely reshaped the French monarchical system of power. 

The Reasons Behind the Commissioning of the Palace

Building upon the site of his father’s existing hunting lodge, Louis XIV began transforming it into the grand palace we know today. The huge project lasted throughout his entire reign and cost an immense amount of money to complete. Costing between 81 and 100 million livres, the structure would be unlike any other royal palace, serving as the ultimate sociological theater. Louis made the change in order to maintain greater control over the historically powerful and often rebellious French nobility. By compelling the aristocracy to reside permanently within these walls, few dared to rebel against him.

Why would Louis go to such extreme lengths? 

It is hypothesized that when Louis looked back at his childhood, he remembered the trauma and danger caused by the Fronde Rebellion that led to his family being driven out of Paris twice in the dead of night, leaving him with a lifelong distrust of the capital. From 1648 to 1653, the young Louis feared for his life as various groups of the nobility fought one another and the royal family. The experience strengthened Louis’s hatred and distrust of the French nobility for the rest of his life.

Domesticating Warlords Through Mandatory Presence

By 1682, Louis had created the perfect solution— force every nobleman who wanted to become rich and powerful to live at his palace. By pulling every important nobleman into the fancy surroundings of Versailles, which was 20 km from the center of Paris, he could keep a close eye on them and prevent them from rebelling against his authority. The distance effectively cut off the nobles from their local sources of power.

To understand Louis’s reasoning, one has to understand his position. Louis wanted to be an absolute ruler, and he gained the opportunity to be one after the chief minister, Cardinal Mazarin, died in 1661. To tame the fiercely independent elites, he required an unprecedented level of leverage; hence the Versailles strategy.

The Ritualization of Power

If the nobles wanted to keep their high social positions, they had to constantly wait around Versailles, hoping to gain notice in the king’s eyes. This gave rise to highly competitive court etiquette. For example, the famous le lever ritual, the king’s waking ceremony at Versailles, turned the simple act of the king waking up into a highly sought-after privilege where chosen nobles competed just to hold his shirt.

They also couldn’t simply ignore the king and go back home, because then, they would face total social isolation. In the Ancien Régime, if the king didn’t speak to a noble, it was basically the end of their career, and they would be left politically and financially ruined.

Soon, creating fierce competition and secret plotting among the nobles became Louis XIV’s specialty. He watched as the lords and ladies of France tore each other apart, trying to stay fashionable and gain favor with him. Meanwhile, the non-stop parties and the cost of living at Versailles made the nobles lose their fortunes. This calculated financial drain systematically bankrupted the nobility and left them completely dependent on him, as they had to rely on yearly payments, awards, and favors from the king just to survive.

Louis effectively controlled the time of everyone who lived at his palace, which at its highest point included between 3,000 and 10,000 people.

The Legacy of Limitless Power

When Louis died in 1715 after ruling for a remarkable 72 years, he left behind a weak and dependent group of nobles that initially left his child successor with a deceptively quiet kingdom free of open revolt. The problem was that Louis and most of the rest of the royal family prioritized the glory of the crown over the welfare of the people of France. Much of his time, money, and resources were spent trying to control the ambitions of the nobility. By the time revolutionaries forced the royal family to leave the palace in 1789, the system had collapsed.

Thomism (the philosophical system founded by Thomas Aquinas) is intended to be an interrelated web of complementary concepts and arguments, akin to overlapping layers of a flower’s petals, which can only be appreciated by contemplating all its imbricated structures. Asking the question “Does God know evil?” occasions asking what evil is, what its cause is, what reasons God has for permitting it, what role it plays in providence, and what its consequences are.

Here, the first question is addressed.

Evil as Privation

How does Thomas Aquinas conceive of evil? He holds that evil is not a “thing”— a doctrine known as privatio boni (Latin for “privation of the good”), which dates back at least to Augustine of Hippo. All created essences possess being and contain, qua essences, no defect, and are good in that they bear a likeness to the being of God. In this way, the order of beings excludes evil from its essential nature. Put differently, God doesn’t directly create any evil thing. 

However, God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting corruption and privation in that created order (reasons we cannot detail here) through the agency of secondary causes—those creatures endowed by the Creator with the capacity to be their own causes, whether through natural laws or through the powers of voluntary action. The first grouping corresponds to the world of the physical sciences; the second refers to the spheres of moral interaction that we will into existence. 

Thomas Aquinas generally defines evil as “the privation of that which is connatural and due to a thing” (Book III, Ch. 7, Summa contra Gentiles). It consists either in a defect in the apprehension of good, in the case of moral evil, or in a deficient cause within the physical order of things, pertaining to one or more of the four Aristotelian causes. For example, a person limps, Aquinas says, only on account of some defect or “crookedness in the tibia” that hinders their power to walk (Book III, Ch. 10, Summa contra Gentiles). Moral evil, having to do with a failing in our powers to act, arises due to a misperception of the ends towards which we ought to be directed, whether misguided by our will or reason. 

In this way, evil always parasitizes what is good—it lives by living on what is good. It exists exploitatively, through some mal-achievement or some misconception. 

How God Knows Evil Exists Without Creating It

Some might think that God cannot know evil, since He knows only Himself, who is the sovereign good; and further, can neither tolerate the company of evil nor turn away from His own essence. Similarly, one might think that it would be beneath Him to contemplate ignoble things, such as the forms of mud, filth, or hair, let alone think eternally about every seemingly trivial detail or fact, such as an infinite number of tautologies or logical equivalences, or sets of endless and meaningless combinations of letters or words. 

One rebuttal Aquinas issues in response is that God must know even those things we might consider lowly since the order of the universe is nobler than any of its parts, which follows if the parts are directed toward the good of the whole. Thus, if God knew only the parts we consider dignified to the exclusion of the rest, it would render His knowledge less noble, not more so. Further, God knows all these things because he pours Himself out into all things as their Creator and First Cause.

Thomas Aquinas maintains that God knows evil things by virtue of His omniscience. He also knows particular evils in the world, and how they work to providentially fulfill His plan. However, only the first aspect will be discussed below. 

• That evil is evil and opposed to good is true, which an omniscient God would know to be true, implying that God knows evil. 
• God perfectly knows the form, that is, the perfection due to every created thing. Evil is the lack or absence of perfection due to a thing. To know the form of a thing perfectly is to know what it would look like if that form were somehow lacking in it. Thus, by knowing the form of things, or by knowing the complete reality of the good in things, he knows evil; 
• God creates both form and matter. Matter can actualize either toward what is not (privation) or toward what is (form), and God perfectly knows every possible state in the universe pertaining to material potentiality, being its Creator. As already said, Aquinas understands natural evil to arise when privation occurs within material potentiality. So, God would know evil;   
• In fashioning the universe, God arranged every part to work together for the perfection of the whole. This would require knowing how the parts would ward off specific types of harm. God thus possessed knowledge of evils in the context of how certain things were designed to remove them. 

These arguments are only part of the larger story of Thomism, and here we have barely begun to investigate a single petal of the flower mentioned earlier. Many questions remain unresolved, but perhaps that is not why they are important. His arguments unceasingly prompt further reflection on the divine nature, and his works are in that regard nearly unparalleled.

A consistent image of the Old West portrayed in movies, media, and TV shows usually involves the Saloon—the local bar with various patrons—cowboys, gamblers, women in corsets drinking whiskey or beer, and passing through swinging doors. But is this depiction actually true to life?

Where Did the Very First Old West Saloon Open?

The first Western saloon is generally held to be Brown’s Saloon in Brown’s Hole, Wyoming, established in 1822. It catered to fur trappers who frequented the local trading fort near the Green River. As western expansion continued, similar saloons were built in nearly every western town. Usually, the saloons served some form of homemade whiskey made from ingredients at hand—tobacco, sugar, corn, or anything that could feasibly be used as an ingredient.

What Was the Shocking Reality of Culture Inside Frontier Saloons?

Saloon culture varied, but often most vices were tolerated to a degree. “Respectable” women were not allowed inside saloons (which was a factor in the prohibition movement of the early 1900s, primarily led by women). Saloons were also generally a “whites-only” environment, excluding Indians and Oriental people particularly. Black men could occasionally enter depending on their level of respect. Privacy was also a custom, as questions about personal business were looked down upon. Gambling, drinking, carousing, and all the other activities commonly seen in movies were generally true of the saloon environment. An honor system also persisted regarding paying for drinks, offering drinks, and refusing drinks, even from total strangers.

Saloons also served as a meeting place within the town. As a sort of neutral ground, the saloon offered a place for parties to meet to discuss business and served as a place for just about any social gathering.  

Why the Most Famous Lawmen and Outlaws Owned Western Saloons

Several of the Old West’s most famous figures were also saloon owners at one point or another. Wyatt Earp owned or worked in saloons in Idaho, California, Alaska, Kansas, and most famously the Oriental Saloon in Tombstone, Arizona. Judge Roy Bean had a combination Saloon and courthouse on the Rio Grande River in Val Verde County, Texas, where he required jurors to purchase drinks when court was in recess. Other notable saloon owners were Wild Bill Hickock, Bat Masterson, and Doc Holliday. It seems just about every famous figure in the Old West had some sort of saloon interest.

Why Poker Was Not the Most Popular Gambling Game in the Wild West 

Five-card draw poker is the most popularized gambling game in most westerns, but faro, a card game with French origins, was the more popular game in saloons. Poker was common, and the most famous hand—two aces and two eights, the “dead man’s hand”—was held by Wild Bill Hickok when he was shot in Deadwood, South Dakota, during a poker game. Dice games and other card games were common, as were gunfights and brawls over such games.

What Finally Caused the Sudden Downfall of the Old West Saloon?

As westward expansion continued, the West became more “civilized,” and the saloon culture began to slowly fade for several reasons. When mining became unprofitable for various reasons, or when the railroads bypassed certain towns, the clientele waned. The prohibition movement of the late 1800s also caused a major decline in saloons, and many closed by the early 1900s. Continuing social pressures regarding morality also reduced patronage.

When prohibition was repealed, the Old West was done—the railroads stretched from coast to coast, the automobile was taking over as a means of transportation, and the Old West towns with their saloons had become a thing of the past, later to be romanticized in books and film a generation later.

The Roman legion is regarded as one of the most enduring and most powerful military units in history, undergoing several major transformations in organization and equipment over more than 1,000 years. Interestingly, the size of the legion varied quite drastically throughout the course of Rome’s long history, from the beginning of the Republic to the time of Rome’s military restoration of the late Empire.

The Roman Legion During the Mid-Republic Era

During the mid-Republic era, which spanned the mid-3rd to mid-2nd centuries BC, the Roman legion operated essentially as a citizen militia, as it was formed only during wartime. At the time, citizens who possessed land were legally obligated to enlist in the military during such times. The Greek historian Polybius stated that during the Punic Wars, which lasted from 264 to 146 BC, there were about 4,200 infantrymen per legion, 3,000 of whom were heavy infantry, a figure that increased to 5,000 in cases of dire emergency.

Notably, the legion was further divided by rank, age, and socio-economic status. The youngest and poorest citizens typically served as velites (light skirmishers) and amounted to about 1,200 men. The remaining legionaries split into three distinct ranks— hastati, principes, and triarii, basically young men, men in their physical prime, and seasoned veteran reserves, respectively. The hastati and principes each had about 1,200 soldiers, while the triarii were composed of 600 men, bringing the legion’s total to about 4,200 soldiers. 

How the 5,000 Figure Came About

In 107 BC, the Roman army changed drastically. Confronting a critical shortage of manpower, Roman general Gaius Marius allowed the landless proletarii to enlist. Literary records reveal that equipment became increasingly standardized and issued by the state, and that every soldier of the Roman legion would henceforth be an infantryman trained to fight as one large block. 

Military manuals and sources describe a legion as consisting of ten cohorts, each typically containing six centuries of about 80 men. This gave a theoretical strength (for the standard cohorts) of around 4,800 men. Legions are commonly cited as having a paper strength of about 5,000 to 5,200 men. This is because the First Cohort, the most elite and prestigious tactical unit in a Roman legion, was often double-strength (five centuries of roughly 160 men each, totaling 800), and officers, specialists, and other personnel are factored in.

By the late Republic and early Empire era, the velites and the distinctions involving triarii gradually faded, and almost all legionaries became heavy infantry primarily armed with the pilum (a heavy javelin) and gladius (short sword), though specialized elements within the unit could carry alternative spears. Consequently, the legion lost some specializations in the attempt to fill every role on the battlefield during that era.

The Rise of Smaller Legions

Late imperial records indicate that in the beginning, with the Crisis of the Third Century (circa 235 AD) and lasting through the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine the Great, the legion began to change drastically in size. The old 5,000-man juggernauts were replaced by smaller units to allow for greater administrative flexibility and strategic distribution as Rome transitioned into a period of military restoration.

Records from that time indicate that legions making up the comitatenses (field armies) during the 4th century numbered from 1,000 to 1,200 men each. Though smaller, these units remained officially designated as legions. 

Legion Manpower Fluctuated Wildly

It is widely accepted that no Roman army has ever fought at full strength. Correspondences found on the Roman frontier, called the Vindolanda tablets, for example, indicate that at any given time, at least one-third of a unit was considered absent. As such, men on detached duty guarding granaries, serving as governors’ personal guards (singulares), or staffing small forts and outposts were always subtracted from the overall strength of a legion. It is therefore estimated that a legion on campaign during this time may only have been operating at around 60 to 80 percent capacity.

Renowned biographer Plutarch (46 to 120 CE) recounted that at the Battle of Pharsalus (48 BCE), Julius Caesar’s legions had been heavily understrength due to years of continuous fighting. Modern estimates suggest that certain cohorts (10 cohorts made up a legion) might have numbered as few as 200 men relative to their nominal strength of 480 men.

Sounding like a term out of science fiction, “dead zone” means exactly that. This term refers to the irreparable damage inflicted on the landscape. The harm results from contamination, destruction, or long-term environmental breakdown and can persist for decades or even centuries.

These zones are not limited to one continent. Most dead zones are found in Africa, Europe, and Asia. Whether it’s poisoned soil, chemical-laden forests, or toxic dust, there is no quick fix. Examples include France’s Zone Rouge, Angola’s mined provinces, Vietnam’s unexploded ordnance, or Fallujah in Iraq.

The Structure of a Dead Zone

With the definition established, the next question is what makes the land uninhabitable. There are four scenarios of how war has created the dead zone.

• UXO: Or “unexploded ordnance.” Ordnance can mean mines, artillery, or bombs.

Whole landscapes can be covered. Cluster bombs, buried shells, and dormant mines remain active for decades, shifting with the weather and hidden by vegetation. Fields become unusable, causing communities to decline. As the munitions age, even the slightest disturbance can trigger them.

• Chemical Contamination: Wartime chemicals contaminate water and soil for years, poisoning people and entire communities. Examples include the Great War’s arsenic from artillery shells, which doesn’t degrade, and Agent Orange in Vietnam. Heavy metals, carcinogens, and toxins settle in the soil. Farming fails, or wildlife disappears due to the radical change.

• Toxic Dust/Structural Collapse: Urban battles and aerial bombing campaigns pulverize cities and infrastructure to rubble. Hazardous materials, such as toxic dust (asbestos) or chemicals, are released into the environment. The rubble may contain UXO, making rebuilding dangerous. 

• Ecological Collapse: War inevitably changes ecosystems. Forests are burned or bulldozed. Soil and waterways are wrecked by chemicals from munitions. Wildlife is decimated, either by war or by refugees seeking food. 

Welcome to the Dead Zone

Zone Rouge: Created by the Great War 100 years ago, Zone Rouge originally covered 460 square miles of northeastern France. Within the Zone, contamination is so harmful that the French government classified it as “permanently unsafe for human life.”

Farmers in the Somme Region regularly dig up UXO, calling it the “iron harvest.” With so much ordnance, extreme levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, and chlorine exist. Near Verdun, arsenic levels in the ground reach nearly 18%. With so much more still hidden, France declared some villages “to have died for France.”

Angola and Mozambique’s Minefields: For decades, these two African countries reeled under civil war. Both sides planted minefields, usually with virtually no record keeping. Minefields became a major weapon, laid across villages, rivers, and farmers’ fields. 

Due to the minefields’ incredible density, ordnance experts stated that the soil was now “weaponized.” Additionally, the dangers of the mines still loom for both man and animals. Movement and farming are now restricted as both could be lethal. Local wildlife suffers too, as elephants, giraffes, and other animals accidentally trigger the devices. 

As some of the world’s worst dead zones, ecological recovery is both expensive and time-consuming. Clearing Angola and Mozambique‘s dead zones will require decades.

Agent Orange: This herbicide, deployed by the US before and during the Vietnam War, didn’t create one dead zone like Zone Rouge. Several sites exist across Southeast Asia, primarily in Vietnam. From 1962 to 1971, the American military sprayed 20 million gallons. Contaminated with the toxic dioxin TCDD, Agent Orange destroyed vegetation that opponents used for cover. Whether on the Ho Chi Minh Trail or around bases, the Agent worked. 

The land became unsafe, however, as the dioxin binds itself to soil and sediment. The residue resists breakdown and can be harmful to organisms. Sites sprayed or where Agent Orange was stored, like Da Nang Airbase, became dead zones. Vegetation failed to grow or mutated, animals avoided the area, and human health declined (cancer, birth defects).

Ecological and Human Costs

Unfortunately, dead zones can’t be easily remediated. Unexploded ordnance or explosive residues linger for decades. Though tedious, mine removal can be (and is) done. The limiting factors are human effort and cost. Experts ruled that Zone Rouge can never be restored to its original state. 

With a slow natural breakdown, dioxins like Agent Orange take centuries. Only a few sites were cleaned in the last 50 years. Dead zones will exist for years to come.

Gladiators represented ancient Rome’s greatest athletes, and like today, diet was the primary concern. Surprisingly, however, the gladiator diet did not consist of protein-rich meat. It was vegetarian.

And it wasn’t due to lack of nutritional knowledge. This diet was deliberate, carefully monitored, and even medically supervised.

What the Bones Tell Us

While the ancient texts mention the vegetarian diet of the gladiators, the hardest evidence (literally) comes from the skeletons of the gladiators who lived 2000 years ago.

A study on the bones of Roman gladiators from the city of Ephesus (in Turkey) reveals some surprising things about their diet. Beans and grains formed the bulk, supporting the historical accounts in which gladiators earned the nickname of “hordearii” or “barley eaters.”

Of note in the study were the strontium and calcium values in the bones, with strontium buildup indicating a high vegetarian intake. The strontium-to-calcium ratio also suggests that the ancient texts are correct— gladiators drank a plant-ash beverage as a dietary supplement.

The Ancient Sources Confirm It

Modern analysis of bones is supported by historical texts that discuss the gladiator diet.  Pliny the Elder famously referred to gladiators as barley eaters, while other contemporary accounts noted the same focus on carbohydrate-rich diets.

This diet wasn’t designed to create the ultimate fighting machine. It was designed for spectacle. Gladiators had more fat than most people, and this extra layer protected vital organs from wounds. What would have been deep wounds for others were flesh wounds for gladiators. As such, they were able to fight on. Even with bodies slashed and bleeding, these gladiators kept the crowds cheering.

A Greek physician named Galen of Pergamon (129 – c. 216 AD) noted that: “There is also much use made of fava beans. Our gladiators eat a great deal of this food every day, making the condition of their body fleshy – not compact, dense flesh like pork but flesh that is somehow more flabby.” 

As for the ash drink, this is also attested to in ancient texts. Pliny quotes the famous author, Marcus Varro, as stating that lye from the hearth should be drunk as a cure for abdominal cramps and bruises, and that it was a staple of gladiators. This was not a superstition. It was based on science. And it worked.

Professor Fabian Kanz from the Medical University of Vienna states, “Things were similar then to what we do today — we take magnesium and calcium (in the form of effervescent tablets, for example) following physical exertion.”

This ash drink could be considered one of— if not, the first— sports drink, containing a host of important electrolytes!

No Meat by Circumstance

Vegetarianism for gladiators was not ideologically driven (there would have been a certain irony if it were). It was driven by medical and economic factors.

Gladiators were significant investments for lanistae, who owned, trained, and traded them. Ultimately, their concerns were financial. They wanted their gladiators to provide a spectacle, but they also had a great interest in keeping them alive. A dead gladiator couldn’t turn a profit!

The vegetarian diet had several advantages. Apart from the bulk it gave the gladiators, it was far cheaper than meat, which was more commonly found on the plates of the wealthier parts of society than in the bowls of gladiators, who, after all, were slaves. 

The Romans understood performance and diet 2000 years before the advent of “sports science,” which is thought of as a wholly modern dynamic. Before modern athletes were attended to by degree-wielding nutritionists, the Romans were carb-loading and taking calcium supplements.

And however they looked, the media turned them into superstars, doing away with the chunky fat and depicting them in heroic proportions!

The disciples dropped everything to follow Jesus. This is particularly evident when Jesus calls the fishermen, and they leave their nets. For these men, letting go of their nets meant letting go of familiarity, their livelihoods, and their safety. The call was not simple, but the disciples knew exactly what they were saying “yes” to.

The Cultural Significance of the Rabbinic Call

When Jesus called the fishermen and other disciples to follow Him, they left everything behind and obeyed Him immediately. Why is this? 

In simple terms: These Jewish men grew up learning the Scriptures, and only the very best would advance to “high school,” where they could choose a rabbi to follow. Being a disciple was an honor reserved for a select few. 

When you were a disciple of a rabbi, you were their student and protégé, but you would learn from them not only in a typical classroom setting. Disciples followed rabbis around and lived with them to see how theory becomes praxis. As the famous saying went, “May you be covered in the dust of your rabbi.” 

How Jesus Reversed the Traditional Discipleship Model

Jesus disrupted the status quo by calling those who had already “failed out” of the formal religious education system and returned to their trades. The fishermen were in the boat with their father, yet they left him and the family business behind.

Standing on the shore, Jesus must have spoken with the authority of God to call these men to follow Him and have them leave everything immediately. It was probably a combination of this and the fact that he was calling humble and ordinary men to something great. 

Jesus had many disciples. The Twelve were closest to him. The larger crowd of 70 who followed him also included women. Beyond that, large crowds of thousands (including women and children) followed him and learned from him. 

The Economic Cost of Abandoning the Family Business

Saying that the fishermen were humble and ordinary does not necessarily mean they were poor. The family fishing businesses meant long hours and hard work, but it was likely considered “good, honest work” at the time.

Other disciples also left behind their success to follow Jesus, such as Matthew, a tax collector, and Luke, a doctor.

The significance of Christ’s call to discipleship is also evident in other passages where we see people who were called but who hesitated. In one account, someone asks if they can first go bury their father who recently died, to which Jesus responds: “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:59-62).

The rich young ruler is another account of someone who was close to becoming a disciple, but whose possessions and love of money held him back (Matthew 19:16-30).

Understanding What it Meant to Fish for Men

“They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” At once they left their nets and followed him.” 

— Matthew 4:18-20, NIV

Despite being God incarnate, Jesus often chose to speak to people in ways they could understand. He used parables to teach, and spoke in metaphors that applied to each listener’s unique context. His teachings have a timeless effect on them, as the words used often still carry weight today.

Jesus gave the disciples a glimpse of what their job description would be as his disciples— he was saying: “Instead of fishing for fish, follow Me and I will show you how you can fish for people.” He translated their physical skills into a spiritual mission.

Being a disciple of Jesus meant that you participated in the Great Commission, where all disciples were tasked to take on the role of making more disciples (fishing for men).

Political and Spiritual Unrest in First-Century Judea

Stepping out of the boat with the disciples, let’s consider for a moment the socio-cultural context around them. What were they following Jesus into?

As Jews, these men were in anticipation of God’s promised Messiah coming to save them from oppression and suffering. They knew the prophecies about a coming King, and they hoped he’d overthrow the Roman Empire and give them freedom. 

In later years, the Jews were genuinely disappointed when they discovered Jesus came as a humble, servant-hearted leader. They were hoping for vindication, vengeance, and war— someone like Alexander the Great. But they got a donkey-riding teacher who dined with sinners.

The Call to Discipleship is Radical

Discipleship is a call to “pick up one’s cross and follow Him”— It is based on dying to oneself and living for Him. Galatians 2:20 explains this well when Paul writes, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.”

The term “disciple” is becoming something of a buzzword nowadays among Christians again. More and more believers are returning to this perspective of truly “counting the cost” and following Him wholeheartedly— leaving behind careers, security, dreams, and other forms of identity.

“Our discipleship to Jesus Christ costs us nothing less than everything.” — Richard Foster