In the chaotic years that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the newly created Russian state was consumed by political turmoil. The culmination of this period was the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. It was a showdown that claimed the lives of 147 people and was eventually brought to an end with military force. The confrontation showed how fragile Russia’s new democracy had become and set the course for the trajectory of the country over the next decade.

Historical Context: The Collapse of the Soviet Union

Many historians believe that the constitutional crisis of 1993, particularly its violent nature, was predicted by the August coup in 1991. The coup exposed the serious flaws in Soviet leadership, which Yeltsin used to gain support among the Russian people and portrayed himself as a hero of the Independence movement. Yeltsin’s famous speech outside the Russian Parliament Building in defiance of the hard-line communist coup made him a hero in the eyes of many people. After the coup failed, Yeltsin acted quickly as prime minister of Russia to dissolve the Communist Party and officially begin the process of dissolving the Soviet Union itself.

The euphoria of Russian independence soon was replaced by chaos and uncertainty as the leaders of Russia were now faced with filling a power vacuum that had been left by 70 years of autocratic and centralized government. A political conflict was almost inevitable because of the improvised and contradictory nature of the political institutions that were set up in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. One of the key sources of conflict was the Soviet Constitution of 1978, which was adopted by Russia but unfit to govern a nation in the post-Soviet world. The constitution caused a number of disputes over the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government, which set the stage for the constitutional crisis of 1993.

A Nation on the Brink

During the early 1990s, Russia was constantly on the verge of political and economic collapse as it attempted to navigate the hardships left in the wake of the Soviet Union. The nation’s political structure, still stuck in the Soviet past, was pulled from either side by the two forces of the executive and legislative branches of government. Each branch claimed they had the constitutional power to set the country’s agenda, and the stage was set for a showdown.

Boris Yeltsin was a passionate supporter of swift modernization and rapid change, which he saw as the only way to help Russia emerge from the post-Soviet period. However, his aggressive economic measures, which were characterized by his policy of “shock therapy,” brought about quick but painful changes in the market, which triggered runaway inflation that made the lives of everyday Russians miserable. In opposition to Yeltsin’s reformist approach was the Russian Parliament, which was dominated by officials from the Soviet era. These old Soviets grew wary of Yeltsin and began to demand that the executive powers of the presidency be checked by the Russian Constitution.

The Road to Crisis: Causes and Build-up

One of the key motivations behind the 1993 constitutional crisis was a fundamental disagreement between parliament and representatives over the direction, nature, and pace at which Yeltsin pursued constitutional reform to achieve his aims. Yeltsin argued that the newly independent Russian nation required a strong leader to navigate the challenging tides of transition; therefore, he advocated that the president be given more power to impose swift and decisive reforms. In contrast, the Russian parliament, which was made up mostly of conservative and nationalist officials, aimed to hold on to a significant amount of legislation or authority in order to check the growing power of the president.

Between 1992 and 1993, the relationship between parliament and the presidency became increasingly hostile. A legislative impasse resulted in parliament preventing Yeltsin from carrying out several of his most important decrees. Russian Vice President Alexander Rutskoy became a key figure in support of parliament and became the de facto leader of the opposition against Yeltsin.

The Constitution Controversy: Power Struggles

To settle the dispute between parliament and the presidency, Yeltsin sought to dismiss the 1978 Soviet-era constitution in favor of a new document that would create a presidential republic. This new constitution would give the president broad executive authority, allowing Yeltsin to carry out his reform program without the permission of parliament.

However, the Russian Parliament fiercely opposed Yeltin’s planned constitution as they believed such a document would give the executive overwhelming power to overrule the democratic checks and balances that the 1978 Soviet-era constitution had created. They saw Yeltsin’s proposal as a prelude to an authoritarian government that would stifle Russian democracy before it had a chance to flourish.

In response to Yeltsin’s proposal, the Russian Parliament refused to pass any of the president’s proposed laws and reforms. To circumvent this, Yeltsin used a number of presidential decrees to get his laws passed. In retaliation, the Russian Parliament attempted to limit Yeltsin’s authority by passing laws that restricted his reforms and even approved the budget without his approval. As more members of the Russian parliament opposed Yeltsin’s orders, a string of legal and political disputes ensued, leaving the government in disarray and the country in chaos.

The Confrontation: Decrees and Counter-Decrees

The Constitutional Crisis effectively began on September 21, 1993, when Yeltsin issued a presidential decree that dissolved parliament and triggered an election. This sparked the beginning of an open confrontation between the Russian president and the Russian Parliament. To justify his decree, Yeltsin claimed that the legislative branch was blocking important reforms that went against the best interests of the country. His actions were framed as a necessary step to prevent a national emergency and bring back order. However, there was widespread opposition to Yeltsin’s move, and many accused him of behaving unconstitutionally.

In response to his decree, the parliament began the process of impeaching Yeltsin and declared his declaration invalid and unconstitutional. The crisis reached a dangerous stage when parliament declared Vice President Alexander Rutskoy the acting president of Russia. The leaders of the legislative group, Rutskoy and Chairman Ruslan Khasbulatov, further inflamed the conflict by calling on the military to back them in their opposition to Yeltsin.

Constitutional instability deepened over the next few days as both sides issued a series of decrees and counter-decrees. The support of senior military officers, regional governors, the United States, and other Western countries emboldened President Yeltsin, and no compromise was made. As the situation worsened, the Russian Parliament Building, known as the White House, was turned into the center of resistance against Yeltsin, and the Russian Parliament sealed itself within the building in preparation for a siege.

The Siege of the White House

The Constitutional Crisis reached a violent peak on October 3 when pro-parliament demonstrators arrived in Moscow, blockaded streets, and attempted to take control of the Ostankino television center. Yeltsin was forced to declare a state of emergency to regain control over the capital and demonstrate his authority. During the storming of the Ostankino TV tower, Russian military forces defended the building from huge crowds of protesters with deadly force. In total, 46 people were killed during violent clashes at the TV station.

One day later, Yeltsin ordered the Russian armed forces to invade the Russian Parliament building and bring the crisis to an end. The White House was surrounded by tanks, and the parliament was attacked by heavy artillery. The resulting resistance within the building was quickly put to an end as the White House was consumed by flames.

The leaders of the parliamentary faction, notably Rutskoy and Khasbulatov, quickly surrendered themselves to the military and were later taken into custody. The use of force to end the standoff highlighted how serious the constitutional crisis was and how far Yeltsin was prepared to go in order to maintain control. More than a hundred people died during the siege, which was one of the bloodiest days in post-Soviet Russian history and represented the ruthless end to parliamentary resistance to executive power.

Aftermath: Victory and Fallout

After the Russian Constitutional crisis came to an end, the political and social culture of the nation experienced a profound change. Yeltsin quickly began consolidating his power and acted quickly to bring into force a new constitution that would give him broad authority. This new constitution dramatically changed how the Russian Federation was governed, giving the executive considerably more power than was even possible under the Soviet Union.

The new constitution was given public legitimacy in a national referendum in December 1993. While the new constitution aimed to improve the stability of the government and free the executive branch from the obstructions of the legislature when implementing essential reforms, it also created a precedent for future executive overreach that would have serious consequences.

The 1993 Russian Constitutional Crisis and how it was resolved had a significant impact on the trajectory of Russian democracy. Yeltsin’s strategy of dealing with the crisis by using violence and force set a precedent that would characterize the later years of his presidency and that of his successor Vladimir Putin. Moreover, the crisis contributed to a disillusionment with democracy and the peaceful political process.

Legacy: Reflections on the Crisis

The political future of Russia was permanently changed by the Constitutional Crisis of 1993. Although Yeltsin’s victory brought short-term stability to the country, it also weakened legislative oversight and greatly increased presidential authority, planting the seeds for a slide toward autocracy and the end of democracy itself.

The long-term effects are seen in the ongoing consolidation of power by the executive. The new constitution was used by Vladimir Putin to further solidify his hold on power, frequently at the expense of democratic institutions and civil rights. What happened in 1993 showed that parliamentary opposition could be overcome by strong executive action, which helped to foster a political climate in which stability and power were frequently valued above democratic procedures.

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. 

Cast aside by Catholic Europe, Elizabeth I pursued an unexpected alliance with Sultan Murad III of the Ottoman Empire. Capitalizing on their shared enemies and limited European trade routes, Murad III accepted Elizabeth I’s offer and introduced her impoverished island nation to the opulence, power, and wealth of the Islamic world. Even though English popular culture quickly exoticized and stigmatized its new Muslim allies, this friendship became one of England’s most profitable commercial relationships, laying the foundation for its future as a global superpower.

Relations Between Christian and Islamic Empires

By the advent of the Ottoman Empire in 1299, most Christian European kingdoms, voivodeships, and republics were in commercial contact or involved in campaigns against Islamic empires. From 711 to 1492, different Spanish Catholic Kingdoms fought to remove the Moors from their occupation of Southern Spain in the Andalusia region. Eastern European kingdoms and the Byzantine Empire were in constant trade with Islamic caliphates in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Persia. Yet, the Papacy and its fellow Catholic powers were increasingly threatened by the quick expansion of the Ottoman Empire and its encroaching influence in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and the Mediterranean region. After Mehmed II defeated the Byzantine Empire at the Siege of Constantinople in 1453, the Papacy condemned the Empire as one of the greatest threats to Christendom.

However, after being excommunicated by Pope Pius V on February 25, 1570, Elizabeth I found herself and her kingdom in the same heretical and political blacklist as the Islamic nations. Surrounded by Catholic kingdoms ready to invade, cut off from some European trade networks, and abandoned by most allies, Elizabeth I was left with no choice but to pursue unconventional alliances that horrified Christian Europe.

“The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend”

Inheriting an impoverished nation wracked by plague and sectarian violence with no allies, Elizabeth’s advisors sought any alliance that could stabilize England. Inheriting a debt of £300,000 from her father King Henry VIII, Elizabeth I was also targeted by the king of Spain, Philip II. Widower of her late sister Mary I, Philip II was a staunch Catholic, notorious for his religious intolerance and violence. His animosity towards Elizabeth only intensified after she rejected his marriage proposal and ascended to the throne as an unwed Protestant queen regnant. As a result, he and other Catholic monarchs promised Catholic rebels in England military and financial support to depose their Protestant queen.

Her excommunication was soon realized to be her saving grace. No longer pressured into following papal and imperial policies forbidding diplomatic ties with Islamic empires, Elizabeth I’s advisors began encouraging her to pursue new relations with fellow sovereigns rejected by Catholic Europe. Her spymaster, Francis Walsingham, advised Elizabeth to form an alliance with one of the largest economic and territorial powers of the time: the Ottoman Empire. Accordingly, Elizabeth and her advisors devised an offer to appease the Ottomans based on shared enemies, like Pope Pius V, Philip II, and other Catholic monarchs.

Murad III ruled the Ottoman Empire during its territorial peak from 1574 to 1595, inheriting the sparkling legacy of his grandfather Suleiman the Magnificent. However, his reign began in the aftermath of the Ottomans’ naval defeat by Catholic forces. Aiming to suppress the Empire’s expansion, Pope Pius V reenacted the Holy League led by Spain and Venice, defeating and almost destroying the entire Ottoman navy at the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571.

Even though the Ottoman navy was quickly rebuilt, this was one of the first and most definitive victories of Catholic forces against the Ottomans. With financial and social strains emerging all over the empire from continuous military campaigns, Elizabeth I approached a Sultan who was just as eager to form profitable European alliances away from and against the pope and Spain.

Unexpected Pen Pals

Elizabeth I first reached out to Murad III in 1579 in a letter offering a commercial and diplomatic alliance. She detailed how their nations were facing the same threats from Spain and the Papacy, but together could form a profitable relationship that would strengthen their reigns, economies, and overall standings in Europe. In addition to their shared enemies, Elizabeth I contended that their alliance would not only be pragmatic but theologically sound. She asserted that Sunni Islam and Protestantism shared a fundamental belief that condemned idolatry, which she argued was evident in the Catholic tradition of using priests and saints for intercession with God.

Accounts from the Ottoman court detail Murad III’s astonishment at receiving such a bold offer from a female queen. After being shown where England was on the map, Murad III was captivated by Elizabeth’s small nation and its ability to survive while surrounded by Catholic enemies. Curious and intrigued, Murad III accepted Elizabeth’s offer to cultivate a peaceful alliance that would expand his markets away from Catholic Europe.

Elizabeth I received Murad III’s response on March 7, 1579. His letter dazzled the English court, arriving in a satin satchel clasped with silver and dusted with gold. Written in a gilded font, his three-foot-tall letter accepted Elizabeth I’s offer and granted English merchants safe and total access to all Ottoman ports. While war with Catholic states waged on, Elizabeth I was now welcomed into one of the most robust, extravagant, wealthy, and diverse trade networks in the early-modern world.

From this original correspondence blossomed a 17-year friendship between Elizabeth I, Murad III, and his wife, Safiye Sultan. Despite never meeting in person, Elizabeth I became one of the largest recipients of royal correspondence from the sultanate in Ottoman history.

Elizabeth I often sent gold fabric, portraits, paintings, and clocks decorated with precious jewels to the Sultan and Sultana. In return, Elizabeth was gifted clocks, musical organs, carriages, and gowns made from the gold cloth. These letters not only reflect the formidable diplomatic and economic ties developed between England and the Ottoman Empire, but also remain some of the first documented regular correspondences between an English monarch and a non-Christian ruler.

England’s Diplomatic Entrance Into the Islamic World

From 1579, Elizabeth I began developing intensive diplomatic channels to foster new trade networks throughout the Ottoman Empire and neighboring Islamic empires. In 1580, Murad III issued the Ottoman Empire’s first Capitulation with England, granting all English traders, merchants, and diplomats unlimited access to Ottoman markets with extraterritorial status. This granted Englishmen a special tax and status that exempted them from Ottoman laws.

Shortly after, consuls representing Elizabeth I were established throughout the Ottoman Empire, enforcing English laws on their citizens and facilitating the expansion of English companies and capital.

Through the legitimization of English industries in Ottoman markets, Elizabeth I expanded her international networks to other Islamic empires. Referred to as Sultana Isabel, the Kingdom of Morocco and Barbary States offered Elizabeth I similar trade access and treaties. For example, Moroccan Sultan Ahmad al-Mansur granted English ships safe passage along their North African coasts through the Strait of Gibraltar, giving English merchants direct maritime access to the Ottoman Empire. Also threatened by Spain, the Barbary Company signed a similar charter in 1585 to grant England exclusive trading rights on its Mediterranean coasts with protected access to Ottoman ports.

With these new allies and international markets, Elizabeth I now had direct access to the prosperity, consumer culture, and technological developments across North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, the Middle East, and the Levant.

Exchange of Goods Between Islamic and English Markets

English consumer culture surged with the circulation of new silks, textiles, spices, art, and tiles from the Ottoman Empire and its neighboring territories. Ottoman tapestries and carpets became status symbols for wealthier households. Additional luxury items like Iranian silk, cotton, pearls, precious metals, and gemstones became coveted displays of rank and class in English high society. Persian, Egyptian, Syrian, and Anatolian tapestries and tiles became common backdrops for English portraiture.

New words were even invented in English to account for the explosion of Ottoman goods in English markets. For instance, the word tulip was added to the English language during this period. Spices, new fruits, nuts like pistachios, and most importantly, sugar from Moroccan companies became popular among the English population. Candied fruits from Morocco quickly became Elizabeth I’s favorite treat. Many accounts and researchers believe that her obsession with Moroccan sweets was the real culprit behind her blackened teeth.

In return for direct and more affordable access to goods previously limited in English markets, English merchants offered Islamic businesses lucrative deals related to war manufacturing and rearmament. Further enraging Catholic Europe, Elizabeth I stripped the ruins of former Catholic churches destroyed during the English Reformation to sell tin, lead, and other metals used to make bullets and weapons. English merchants additionally exchanged these metals alongside timber, muskets, and cloth with the Kingdom of Morocco for saltpeter, the key ingredient for gunpowder. English textiles and fabrics were also sold to make Ottoman military uniforms.

These lucrative exchanges not only strengthened the English and Islamic economies but also provided them with the weapons necessary to wage war against Catholic Europe.

Exchange of People Between England and the Islamic World

The alliance between England and the Ottoman Empire also launched a mass circulation of people between the two nations. Thousands of English traders, merchants, diplomats, and those who could afford it were eager to travel and explore the Ottoman Empire, the Holy Lands, and sites of the most prolific ancient civilizations in Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula. Stories from those travelling quickly became exoticized retellings of everyday life across the Ottoman Empire as Englishmen tried to explain how a culture so foreign to theirs possessed such wealth, diversity, and vibrancy.

Hundreds of English subjects were permanently settled across the Islamic world. Most who remained converted to Islam and changed their names to participate in the business opportunities and cosmopolitan lifestyles within the Ottoman Empire.

Some English subjects who were even kidnapped by pirates along these trade routes also preferred to stay in the Empire. For example, Samson Rowlie was an English merchant who was captured, castrated, and brought to Algiers to serve as a eunuch by pirates. He converted to Islam, adopted the name Hasan Agar, and later became the main treasurer for the Ottoman administration in Algiers. He rejected his family’s demands to return to England, arguing that he would not have such a great position, food, or weather back home.

It was less common for Ottoman subjects to travel or permanently settle in England. While Ottoman diplomats frequently visited Elizabeth I’s court, the sultanate did not have a tradition of establishing permanent embassies. Similarly, the Kingdom of Morocco would send diplomats to England for short periods. For example, the Moroccan Ambassador Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud is believed to have inspired Shakespeare’s character of Othello during his stay in London.

Some historians contend that one of the first Muslim women recorded in England was welcomed during Elizabeth I’s reign. Anthony Jenkins, an English diplomat and businessman, gifted Elizabeth I an enslaved Tatar woman, named Aura Soltana, whom he purchased in Greater Russia when travelling back from the Ottoman Empire. Elizabeth I welcomed Soltana into her court and elevated her to one of her ladies-in-waiting and fashion advisor.

Exoticization of the Muslim “Other” in English Popular Culture

Murad III and Elizabeth I’s friendship coincided with the birth of theater culture as the dominant form of entertainment in England. Despite Elizabeth and Murad’s strong friendship, her subjects were still wary of trusting non-Christians. English populations were just as intrigued as they were terrified by the incomparable wealth and luxury that was coming from the Islamic World in comparison to their humble island. To grapple with their exotic, rich, yet un-Christian trading partners, English playwrights began including Muslim characters, histories, and settings into their productions.

Sultans, Islamic merchants, and diplomats became caricatures of the exotic “other,” socially legitimizing grand generalizations, exoticizations, and prejudice against Muslim communities. After the opening of England’s first playhouse in 1576 to the end of Elizabeth I’s reign in 1603, over 60 plays featured Muslim characters that were labelled interchangeably as “Turks,” “Persians,” or “Moors.” Despite the diversity of beliefs, cultures, and identities across all Islamic empires, English plays depicted Muslim characters as greedy and brutish villains or tyrants with darker skin complexions who sought to defile naïve European women.

Famous playwrights like Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare highlight the common ways Muslim characters were portrayed and stereotyped during this time. For example, Marlowe’s first famous play, Tamburlaine the Great (1590), loosely depicts the history of Timur, a notorious 14th-century Turco-Mongol conqueror. Marlowe characterizes Tamburlaine as a sacrilegious, overly ambitious, and bloodthirsty ruler with exotic features and an affinity towards violence that the English associated with Turkish and Muslim leaders.

Some of Shakespeare’s characters also built upon these stereotypes. For instance, in his famous play, Othello (1603), Othello is portrayed as a dark and exotic Moorish Venetian general who falls for Desdemona, a European noblewoman. Even though these plays are not outwardly anti-Muslim, their characterization of figures from Islamic regions shows how English populations generalized, judged, and, to some extent, feared Muslim communities and their homelands.

The End of an Era

The friendship between England and the Ottomans dwindled after the passing of Murad III in 1595 and Elizabeth’s passing in 1603. Her successor, James I of England and VI of Scotland, continued to profit from the intensive trade routes and businesses with the Ottoman Empire. However, his pious nature made him less inclined to maintain strong diplomatic ties with his Islamic counterparts.

Instead, James, I was drawn to healing England’s fractured relations with Catholic Europe, finding their partnerships less blasphemous than his cousin’s previous bond with non-Christian empires. As such, in 1604, James I signed the Treaty of London with Spain, officially recognizing Protestant England as a sovereign nation, ending 19 years of warfare, and resuming peaceful trade between the two nations.

The Capitulations, trade negotiations, treaties, and business deals continued between England and the Ottomans until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922. While history tends to focus on the Ottoman Empire’s final chapter as “the Sick Man of Europe,” it was the Sultan who took a chance on a fractured island nation that helped Elizabeth’s reign become the Golden Age of England. With the commercial and political support from some of the wealthiest empires in the early-modern world, these Islamic nations helped build the foundations that led England to later become one of the most dominating empires in modern history.

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.

Starting in the 700s AD, Viking raiders attacked settlements in the northern French coast. These raids led to two sieges of Paris, the establishment of a new Duchy in northern France, and indirectly, the Norman invasion of England.

The Coming of the Northmen: France Faces the Viking Onslaught (8th–9th centuries)

After several years raiding the coasts of the British Isles, Vikings began to target settlements in northern France. ​The first Scandinavian ships appeared off France in 799. They arrived at a perilous time for the locals. The local Frankish nobility struggled to maintain control over their territories and lacked the resources to defend themselves against these raiders. As a result, the Viking raids quickly increased in intensity.

The Vikings initially aimed to plunder the coastal areas, targeting abbeys, churches, and small towns for their wealth. The Vikings were experienced in raiding coastal settlements and the Carolingian rulers in France struggled to respond. The lackluster defense only encouraged more raids as the Vikings were eager to seize more riches.

In the 830s-840s, Viking raiders began establishing fortified camps in the Seine estuary to allow them to raid further inland. In 841, a Viking fleet sailed up the River Seine and plundered Rouen and the Abbey of Jumièges. These raids showed two things: the Carolingians were too weak and the Vikings were planning on staying there. This would have profound implications for the political future of northern France.

The Siege of Paris and the Crisis of the Carolingians (845–885)

In 845, one of the most important moments in Frankish history took place when thousands of Vikings sailed down to the Seine to attack Paris. The Frankish king, Charles the Bald, was poorly prepared for this attack. After the Frankish vanguard was defeated, the Viking chieftain Ragnar Lothbrok laid siege to the city. Charles decided to pay off the Vikings by giving them 7,000 livres of silver and gold.

The Vikings found that by laying siege to poorly defended cities like Paris, they could exact major tributes. Repeated attacks throughout the rest of the 9th century AD devastated towns such as Rouen, Tours, and Angers, while monastic centers like Saint-Denis and Fontenelle were burned multiple times.

In 885, a much larger Viking force numbering in the tens of thousands laid siege to Paris again. This time, Odo, the Frankish Count of Paris, managed to defeat the Vikings thanks to careful preparation and a formidable defense. He also had to pay a ransom to force the Vikings to leave, but the Frankish defense deterred additional Viking attacks on the city. A stalemate now emerged: northern France was at the mercy of the Vikings, but areas further inland were harder to reach due to stronger Frankish defenses.

Rollo and the Settlement at the Lower Seine (911)

While this stalemate persisted, a prominent new Viking ruler appeared on the scene. Rollo, a Scandinavian chieftain born in either Denmark or Norway, took control of much of the Viking-held territory in the Seine estuary and on the coast. His position was strengthened by the fact that the Carolingians were very weak, enabling him to maintain control of the territories seized by prior Viking warlords.

While the Vikings were unable to seize Paris itself, they could take control of the city’s hinterland, leaving it isolated from the rest of France. King Charles the Simple decided that he would try to negotiate with the Norsemen instead of trying to oust them entirely. In 911, both leaders met and signed the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. This accord enabled Rollo to take control of the vital territory near Rouen. In exchange, he agreed to make peace with the Franks and pledge allegiance to King Charles. He even converted to Christianity and married Charles’s daughter.

Rollo’s realm came to be known as Normandy, or “land of the Northmen.” From now on, the Vikings in northern France were no longer a threat to the Frankish kingdom. Instead, they were co-opted to protect their Frankish liege lords from other external threats. The treaty and subsequent events consolidated the Duchy of Normandy and stopped the rampant Viking pillaging that plagued northern France at the time.

From Raiders to Rulers: The Early Norman Dukes (10th century)

Upon the signing of the treaty between Rollo and King Charles, northern France underwent drastic changes. Many of the Vikings who lived there decided to settle down, adopt a Christian lifestyle, and intermarry with the locals in the towns in the region. The establishment of a prosperous Norman state on the French coast encouraged further migration from Scandinavia.

Rollo proved an able ruler. He fortified Rouen, established law and order, and encouraged trade along the Seine, turning his once-hostile base into a thriving center of commerce. His son and successor, William Longsword, expanded Norman control westward toward the Cotentin and eastward into the Vexin, using both the carrot and the stick. The Normans’ growing power alarmed neighboring counts, but their martial discipline and strategic marriages secured their position.

In 942, Richard I became the Duke of Normandy and he decided to increase the power of the Church in the region. He welcomed reforming monks and established more monasteries to support the Church’s growth. The close ties established between the Duchy and the Church ensured that the Normans could integrate more easily into the Frankish kingdom than if they had retained their Norse pagan beliefs.

Normandy’s Rise: Power, Prosperity, and Integration (11th century)

Normandy continued to expand as a result of the strategic decisions of its dukes and the growth in its population. The descendants of Rollo had perfected the art of balancing independence with loyalty to the French crown. Under Duke Richard II and his successors, the duchy consolidated its institutions, strengthened ducal authority, and cultivated a distinctive Norman identity.

In the late 10th century, the Norman dukes helped to put Hugh Capet on the French throne, an act that demonstrated their influence beyond Normandy. Additionally, their military power was growing. By the mid-century, over 300 permanent knights protected the castles in the duchy, not including thousands more warriors that could be called up in a crisis. The dukes imposed vassalage on the lay nobility as well. Until Richard II in the late-10th century, Norman leaders were willing to call over more Scandinavians to strengthen their numbers.

The mid-11th century witnessed the rise of Duke William, the illegitimate son of Duke Robert I of Normandy. William had become duke at eight years old in 1035 and spent the next few decades facing a host of challenges to his power. After restoring stability to his realm, William turned his attention to England. William’s great-aunt Emma of Normandy had been the mother of the childless Edward the Confessor, whose death in 1066 encouraged William to lay claim to the English throne.

Legacy of Conquest: Normandy and the Wider World

Following Edward’s death in January 1066, his brother-in-law Harold Godwinson moved quickly to seize the crown. William claimed that Edward had previously promised him the throne and invaded England in the fall of 1066 to stake his claim. During that fateful year, Harold not only faced the threat of William’s Normans to the south but also had to defend his kingdom from invasion by King Harald Hardrada of Norway in the north.

Although Harold prevailed against the Norwegians at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, the Normans emerged victorious and Harold was slain at the Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066. After his coronation in December, William became king of England as well as the duke of Normandy. England and Normandy remained separate realms after William’s death, with his eldest son Robert taking over in Normandy and his second son William II becoming king of England. The territories were reunited in the person of Henry I, William’s third son.

The Normans carried to England their distinctive blend of Viking audacity and Frankish organization. They centralized political administration, and created a new aristocracy bound by loyalty to the new king. Their castles dominated the surrounding countryside as a statement of the new regime. Norman rule reshaped English society and governance, leaving long-lasting legacies in law, architecture, and language.

Across the channel, the duchy itself remained a cornerstone of English power in France until King John was forced to cede the duchy to France in the early 13th century. Born from Viking raids and forged in Frankish politics, Normandy had become a model of adaptability, resilience, and growth. Its influence extended long after the end of the Duchy and to this day, the legacy of the Viking settlers remains imprinted on the territory.

When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the Russian economy was plunged into uncertainty. The newly independent nation was faced with the task of transforming a centralized economy reliant on government subsidies and incentives into a market-based system. To do this, Boris Yeltsin and his allies used shock therapy economics to revitalize the Russian economy to drastic effect. This article answers the question of what shock therapy was in Russia and looks at its many consequences, including the immediate and long-term economic and social repercussions.

The Collapse of the Soviet Union: Causes & Consequences 

The end of the Soviet Union in 1991 was the culmination of a decades-long stagnation and political upheaval that brought about the end of the communist system. The collapse was made possible by a combination of structural flaws, stagnation, and economic problems that made people’s lives increasingly difficult. The Soviet system was characterized by a rigid lack of flexibility that relied on the centralized planning initiatives that were successful in the early years of the USSR but failed to address modern problems. The end of the Soviet Union itself was foreshadowed by the collapse of the Soviet economy in the 1980s caused by falling oil prices and a lack of innovation in the industrial sector. By 1990, the Soviet economy was reduced in value to less than half that of its main rival, the United States.

When Mikhail Gorbachev took office in 1985, he attempted to breathe new life into the Soviet economy and society with two policies: Glasnost, which promised openness, and Perestroika, which strove to rebuild the broken economy. However, instead of slowing the decline of the USSR, Gorbachev’s policies merely accelerated it as political turmoil increased, and the Soviet republics began to demand more autonomy within the system and eventually called for independence.

When the USSR finally broke up in December 1991, fifteen newly independent countries were created, with the bulk of the Soviet Union’s industry and resources inherited by Russia. President Boris Yeltsin was tasked with taking a broken Soviet economy and turning it into a modern capitalist market. This was a monumental undertaking as Russia also inherited the economic obligations of the USSR, including a huge military budget. These challenges prepared the groundwork for a drastic policy known as “shock therapy.”

How the Soviet Economy Worked Before 1991 

Before it collapsed, the Soviet economy was centralized in Moscow, where various economic targets were set, prices were fixed, and a planned structure was followed. This planned economy was first put in place during the collectivization policies that Joseph Stalin used to modernize the economy in the 1930s. In the 1930s, centralized planning involved strict state control over all economic activity, intensive industrialization, and collectivization of agriculture. While the planned Soviet economy was initially successful in achieving widespread industrialization of the USSR, it could not compete with the increasing digitization that transformed the West.

The Soviet economy in the 1970s and ’80s was plagued by a chronic shortage of consumer goods, an overabundance of certain items that resulted from the absence of market mechanisms, and a lack of profit incentives or competition. The problems of the Soviet economy were made even worse by widespread corruption that flourished under a system that was held back by a stifling bureaucratic class. As the Soviet Union entered the 1980s, the economy stumbled, and the standard of living for many fell far below that of the West.

Russia Begins a Transition to a Market Economy

In the early 1990s, Boris Yeltsin implemented several drastic measures to accelerate the transition to a market economy. One such measure was the “shock therapy” doctrine, which aimed to liberalize the financial sector in a matter of weeks.

The shock therapy approach involved the rapid removal of pricing controls, the signing of new free trade agreements, and the privatization of state-owned businesses. By letting market forces decide how to allocate resources, Yeltin’s government aimed to end the persistent shortages that had been a daily struggle during the Soviet Union.

However, these policies caused inflation to spiral out of control as the cost of previously subsidized commodities increased dramatically. The newly introduced trade liberalization also made it possible for foreign companies to compete in domestic markets, which was disastrous for local industries that were used to the isolation of the Soviet Union and were not ready for such a quick transition.

The Soviet Economy Meets Privatization

One of the main components of the shock therapy period was privatization, which sought to move Russia from a state-run command economy to one that was focused on the influences of the free market. Privatization aimed to give the private sector ownership of state-owned firms in order to increase competition, efficiency, and innovation. However, the procedure was convoluted, divisive, and full of major obstacles and unexpected repercussions.

One goal of privatization was to shift enormous amounts of public property into private ownership, creating a new class of business owners and boosting economic growth. However, the process was largely unfair, as former Soviet industry leaders who held sway over the economy were given priority when it came to privatization. As a result, corruption became widespread.

Yeltsin’s Disastrous Loans-For-Shares Scheme

In an effort to spread the wealth of privatization, the Russian government gave out privatization vouchers, or shares of the country’s wealth, to the Russian people between 1992 and 1994. The goal was to disperse ownership broadly and encourage public participation in the recently privatized economy. The reality, however, was quite different: many people, driven by financial need and ignorant of market dynamics, sold their vouchers for a low price to local business owners and enterprising individuals. This led to an unequal concentration of vouchers in the hands of a select few who obtained huge shares in massive state-owned companies.

The Russian government launched a more contentious stage of privatization in 1995 with the loans-for-shares program. In this strategy, the government pledged shares in significant state-owned firms as collateral in exchange for borrowing money from private banks. The shares were auctioned off at rates much below their market value, and the banks that had given the loans were frequently the winners. As a result, a new class of oligarchs—extremely wealthy, politically connected people who gained substantial control over vital industries like oil, gas, and natural resources—were created.

The Key Figures and Influencers in Russian Economic Reform

During the years of shock therapy, a number of significant individuals shaped Russia’s economic transformation. Leading the charge was Russian President Boris Yeltsin, whose vision for Russia was based on quick and drastic changes to the market. Yeltsin supported radical economic policies because he thought quick change was better than slow reform.

Anatoly Chubais, who served as Yeltsin’s principal economic counselor and subsequently as his deputy prime minister, played a crucial role in the privatization effort. He was the driving force behind voucher privatization, which aims to disperse public assets. However, Chubais’s initiatives drew criticism from the Russian people as they encouraged corruption and economic inequality.

The mastermind of the shock therapy doctrine was Yegor Gaidar. As acting prime minister in 1992, Gaidar pushed forward significant economic reforms such as fiscal de-regulation and pricing liberalization. Internationally, influential thinkers such as American economist Jeffrey Sachs also had an impact. Sachs worked with reformers in Russia to develop shock therapy policies and persuaded the Russian government to go ahead with quick changes to the market based on comparable policies undertaken by governments in Eastern Europe and Latin America. However, because of the unique complexity of the Soviet economic system that Russia had inherited, such advice proved disastrous.

The Immediate Economic Impact of Shock Therapy 

Shock therapy had immediate and catastrophic consequences for ordinary people. Inflation reached unimaginable heights in the 90s, rapidly diminishing the purchasing power of the average Russian and making them much less well off than they were under the Soviet Union. Inflation rates reached over 2,500% in 1991-1992, which completely devalued savings and fixed incomes. The abrupt elimination of price controls and the liberalization strategy that allowed market forces to set prices—converting the state-subsidized economy into a free market in a matter of months—were the main causes of this hyperinflation.

Millions of people lost their jobs when hundreds of state-owned businesses collapsed or downsized due to an inability to survive in the new competitive climate, and government subsidies were cut. During this period, Russia’s GDP plunged dramatically, shrinking by about 40% between 1991 and 1996. The banking industry also had difficulties, with numerous banks failing due to the strain of abrupt shifts in the economy and unstable financial markets. The volatility of the Russian currency made foreign investment and international trade even more difficult.

The Social Consequences of Economic Decline 

The economic disaster of the 1990s caused by shock therapy had dire societal repercussions. The economic collapse led to mass poverty, reduced life expectancy, and a massive decline in living standards. For the majority of Russians, shock therapy meant economic ruin. Some studies have since shown that by the mid-1990s, approximately 40% of the population was living below the poverty line.

The consequences of shock therapy also caused a sharp rise in inequality. A tiny number of oligarchs and well-connected people gained enormous wealth as a result of privatization, while the majority of people saw their living standards deteriorate and their salaries decline. This widening gap made social unrest worse, added to the general disenchantment with Yeltsin’s reforms, and made people wish for a return to the relative stability of the Soviet Union.

Formerly essential components of Soviet social policy, such as healthcare and education, saw severe underfunding and a decline in quality. A catastrophic drop in life expectancy coincided with the emergence of public health concerns, such as the rise in drug and alcohol abuse, infectious illness outbreaks, and alcoholism. The new economic realities proved too much for social safety nets like pensions and unemployment benefits, which left many vulnerable people, especially the elderly and those with disabilities, in abject poverty.

The Legacy of Shock Therapy

Shock therapy left the Russian economy with a divided legacy. On the one hand, the privatization of state-owned businesses did result in the establishment of a more vibrant private sector. Increased international investment and trade contacts also contributed to Russia’s enhanced integration into the global economy.

On the other hand, the Russian economy continued to be highly dependent on the export of natural resources, specifically oil and gas, which left it vulnerable to changes in the price of commodities globally. Rapid privatization left behind a lopsided income distribution and a class of super-rich oligarchs that used their wealth to influence the politics of the nation.

While some Russians saw their standard of living rise, many still had to deal with inequality and economic instability. Russia’s political and economic environment today is a result of the long-lasting damage caused by the social and economic upheaval of the 1990s.

Following the invasion of the Soviet Union, Germany had a very specific plan to colonize Ukraine. Part of the plan included the mass killings of Jews, Roma, and other people considered subhuman by the Nazi regime. The massacre at the Babyn Yar ravine outside Kyiv claimed over 100,000 lives. Part of a phenomenon known as the Holocaust by bullets, the killings were carried out by firing squad as opposed to the gas chambers and torture in concentration camps that came later.

The Jewish Community in the Ukrainian SSR Before 1941

When Ukraine was forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1922, Ukrainian Jews faced a set of choices: flee to safer grounds or stay and become loyal citizens of the new regime. While tens of thousands of Jews left Ukraine, many more stayed behind, hoping that they would benefit from Soviet promises of equality. The Soviets abolished the Pale of Settlement and offered Jews jobs in bureaucracy and industry while going after the perpetrators of the pogroms in the Russian Civil War. Many Jews in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic hoped that Vladimir Lenin’s promises would be a start of a new era.

However, matters deteriorated when Joseph Stalin took power after Lenin’s death in 1924. He purged the Ukrainian Communist Party of anyone he didn’t trust, began setting quotas on Ukrainian foodstuffs, and shut down the Ukrainian intelligentsia. He also distrusted Jews as bourgeois nationalists and sought to purge them from the Union’s leadership. His policies led to a state-engineered famine known as the Holodomor that killed millions of people in Ukraine. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian Jews were caught up in the famine or Stalin’s purges.

Jewish communities had a major problem in Ukraine. Notwithstanding the fact that many suffered from Soviet state policy, the prominent presence of some Jews in the Soviet hierarchy meant that they were collectively blamed for Bolshevism. Many peasants in Ukraine blamed the Jews for the Holodomor and the destruction of Ukrainian churches. This boded ill for the Jewish population in Ukraine.

Germany’s Plan for the Conquest of Ukraine

Despite the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the partition of Eastern Europe between the USSR and Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler and senior Nazi leaders believed a clash with the Soviets was a matter of time. Germany and several of its allies in the Anti-Comintern Pact sought to conquer large portions of the Soviet Union and totally destroy communism in Europe. They also sought to establish racial supremacy by annihilating or enslaving anyone deemed subhuman. Their plan involved seizing Ukraine, a vital agricultural hub and strategically located on the Black Sea.

Germany’s Generalplan Ost was the brainchild of SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who sought to annihilate every Jew and Roma he could. The plan involved murdering all the Jews, Roma, and Communists the Germans could get hold of, enslaving the remaining Slavic populations, and settling the conquered areas with Germans from all over Europe. This was the promise of Lebensraum as set out in Hitler’s infamous manifesto Mein Kampf. Ukraine, with large Jewish, Roma, and Slavic communities and ample land for settlement, was a prime target. Most of its land would be annexed into Germany while other parts would be given to Axis allies like Romania and Hungary. Grain and foodstuffs would be forcibly seized by Axis troops to supply the war effort. Notwithstanding their plan of conquest, German officials believed that they would be welcomed among anti-Bolshevik nationalists in Ukraine.

Axis forces received assistance from anti-Soviet political movements that hoped Germany would grant them power and independence. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, founded in 1929 to oppose both Soviet and Polish designs on Ukraine, agreed to assist the German war effort. OUN was split into two factions led by Stepan Bandera and Andriy Melniyk, both of whom admired fascism and wanted to create a Ukrainian ethnostate. The Nationalist movement was not a monolith and some of its members opposed Germany’s racial policies, but much of the leadership and its members signed onto Germany’s war plans in the hope of regaining Ukrainian statehood.

OUN created two battalions of troops to assist with the invasion and later contributed men to Germany’s police battalions. Nevertheless, within a few months of the German invasion Bandera soon clashed with the German occupation authorities and was arrested alongside the OUN leadership in September 1941. The OUN did not wish to see their country being subjugated by Germany and underestimated the extent to which the Nazis considered Slavs as a subhuman race.

Operation Barbarossa and the Einsatzgruppen

On June 22, 1941, Axis forces began their long-awaited invasion of the USSR. Army Group South, composed of German, Romanian, Hungarian, and other Axis forces, entered the Ukrainian SSR and overran the ill-prepared Soviet forces. They pressed onwards towards Kyiv and planned to seize the entire territory of Ukraine by the end of the year. As they advanced, they were welcomed by parts of Ukraine’s population who opposed Soviet rule. Others, including a large proportion of the Jewish population, fled or went into hiding.

The atrocities began almost immediately. When Axis forces seized Lviv in western Ukraine, the local populace, with the assistance of OUN and Wehrmacht units, began massacring thousands of Jewish people. Many people in the region regarded the Jewish community as communist sympathisers and sought to settle scores. In the region of Kamianets-Podilskyi, OUN, German, and Hungarian forces massacred and deported most of the Jewish and Roma populations. When Romanian forces entered Odesa, they exterminated most of the remaining Jews and Roma with such ferocity that even some German observers were astonished.

This was known as the Holocaust by bullets. Over a million Jews were shot or butchered near their homes or in ditches outside the places they lived. Death squads known as Einsatzgruppen followed closely behind advancing army units to kill large numbers of civilians. These groups were composed of police and reservist battalions called Sonderkommandos or Shutzmannshaft. Most Axis troops had become convinced this was a race war and that Jews were at the forefront of the communist revolution. The atrocities on the Eastern Front exceeded even the worst violence of the Russian Civil War.

Capture of Kyiv and First Round-ups to Babyn Yar

By September 1941, Axis forces managed to encircle the Soviet garrison near Kyiv and captured the city. Some members of OUN followed, hoping to establish a Ukrainian administration in the city. Large numbers of Jews, Roma, and Communist party officials managed to flee beforehand, but many others failed to escape. Additionally, the Germans had captured tens of thousands of Soviet POWs when taking the city.

When Axis forces had seized cities in Ukraine before, they typically ordered the Jews to assemble and clean up any rubble and corpses after the battle. While withdrawing from Kyiv, elements of the Soviet NKVD blew up ammunition stores and bridges throughout the city. German commanders blamed the Soviet POWs and Jews they had captured for these explosions and ordered a general roundup of any Jew they could find. They were actively assisted by members of OUN who also believed that Kyivan Jews were Soviet collaborators. The roundups were officially disguised as work parties to clear up rubble around the city.

The Germans and their collaborators took the condemned people to a ravine outside Kyiv known as Babyn Yar, or Grandmother’s Ravine. People who were rounded up were ordered to bring some possessions with them and were told that they were going to work. Despite widespread anxieties among the group, there was little resistance to the roundups. Some people thought that they were going to be sent elsewhere in the country. Others thought that they would be allowed to return home after being put to work.

The Initial Round of Killings

When the first round of victims arrived at the ravine, they were separated into small groups by Sonderkommando 4a and the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police. Once these groups were stripped of their clothes and belongings, they were marched into the ravine and shot. The process was repeated for 36 hours in a row. Some locals were hired to drive their trucks full of people destined for the firing squads. Then they drove back to the city with the belongings of the murdered people.

Within 36 hours, 33,771 Jews were slaughtered. Many survivors hid with the help of Soviet partisans or sympathetic locals. Additionally, some Roma and Soviet POWs were killed in the initial round of executions. Soviet POWs and conscripted locals were ordered to bury the corpses in the ditches where they were shot. The ravine, which had also been an NKVD execution site before the war, was literally bloodsoaked. The Germans opened a camp on its outskirts for captured Soviet troops and locals accused of being partisans. Many of the camp’s inmates were subsequently shot.

SS-Standartenführer Paul Blobel was the German officer directly responsible for the executions, but he was far from being the only person culpable for the atrocity. Almost every German staff officer in Army Group South knew what transpired. They had received orders to shoot Soviet Commissars, and the rhetoric about the invasion painted Jews, Roma, and communists as eternal enemies of Germany. Years of brainwashing and radicalization conditioned most German servicemen in the Wehrmacht, not just Nazi Party members, to accept that the mass murder of their enemies was justified.

The Aftermath and Babyn Yar’s Legacy

Babyn Yar continued to function as an execution site while Kyiv remained under German occupation. Soviet POWs, local partisans, additional Roma and Jewish victims, and Ukrainian nationalists were shot in the same spots where the initial killings took place. By the time the city was liberated in 1943, the Germans had killed around 100,000 people at Babyn Yar. It was one of the largest mass murder sites in Europe. The perpetrators did not go unpunished: Paul Blobel was convicted by a US army court martial and sentenced to death, while the commander of Einsatzgruppe C and some subordinates were either imprisoned or executed by either the Western Allies or the Soviets.

For many years, the Soviet authorities did not allow the construction of a memorial to Babyn Yar for its victims. Following the intervention of cultural figures such as the poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko in his 1961 poem “No monument stands at Babi Yar” and the composer Dmitry Shostakovich, whose Symphony No. 13 sets Yevtushenko’s poem to music, a monument was finally erected in 1976. There was no reference to Jews or Roma being killed, just that the victims were Soviet citizens. They also did not allow foreign observers to visit the grounds to identify the names of victims.

Anyone who tried to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust in the USSR was considered dangerous by the Soviet security services. Hence, most of the victims’ names have still not been identified to this day. Much of the terrain of the ravine changed too, making it difficult until recently to identify where exactly the killings took place. Shortly before the fall of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian government unveiled a memorial to the Jewish victims of the Babyn Yar massacres.

The Holocaust in Ukraine was different to much of the rest of Europe in that the majority of victims were shot, not gassed or subject to experimentation. Their killings seemed indistinguishable from other Soviet victims of Axis atrocities. The mass shootings also exposed how much of the German war effort on the Eastern Front was about racially and ethnically reordering Eastern Europe as much as it was about defeating the Soviet Army.

For centuries, royal marriages have been plotted by the nobility, strategized by popes, or, in rare cases, struck in the name of love. Most unions were carefully strategized like moves on a chessboard for the enrichment, protection, and stability of one’s kingdom, dynasty, or empire. Yet, concubines still became sultanas, queens left their kings, and undying love turned into deranged madness. From infamous affairs that sparked Reformations, to forbidden love that dismantled centuries of custom, these scandalous marriages really question if love conquers all.

1. Cleopatra and Mark Antony

The legendary romance of Cleopatra VII (69–30 BC) and Mark Antony (88–30 BC) led to the end of 3,000 years of Egyptian sovereignty, gave rise to the Roman Empire, and captivated Shakespeare. After meeting in 41 BC, the pair began a passionate and public affair that scandalized the ancient world. The former lover of Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, sought to preserve Egypt’s autonomy against the encroaching might of Rome. Similarly, Antony was desperate to consolidate his power against his bitter rival and co-ruler Octavian.

The two wed in a lavish celebration in 37 BC, despite Antony still being married to Octavian’s sister, Octavia. In 34 BC, Antony conquered the Kingdom of Armenia, dividing the land between his and Cleopatra’s children and celebrating in Alexandria instead of Rome. Adding insult to injury, Antony declared the son of Cleopatra and Caesar, Caesarion, the true heir of Rome. Octavian publicly smeared Antony, claiming Cleopatra bewitched him away from Rome.

Octavian officially declared war on Cleopatra after Antony divorced Octavia in 32 BC. He delivered a brutal blow against the pair at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, forcing them to flee. With Alexandria encircled, Cleopatra hid in her tomb and sent a false report to Antony of her suicide. Struck with grief, Antony stabbed himself and was brought to Cleopatra. To avoid humiliation and capture, she followed suit, possibly by poisoning herself on August 12, 30 BC. Her death ended the Ptolemaic Dynasty and the Roman Republic, enabling Octavian to consolidate power and become Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome.

2. Justinian and Theodora of the Byzantine Empire

The marriage between Theodora (c.490/500–548 AD) and Justinian I (483–565) rewrote Roman law and solidified the dominance of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Justinian shattered norms in 525 AD by choosing his mistress, a former actress, to be his wife and co-ruler. Enthralled by her beauty, intelligence, and wit, he outmaneuvered a 500-year-old law forbidding marriage between actresses and the elite. Instead, he forced an imperial decree to amend the law, granting these unions if the actress reformed her previous lifestyle. He then elevated Theodora to the patrician rank to legally wed her.

Despite infuriating his family and the aristocracy, their marriage became a dynamic force of imperial power. Trusted as his equal ruler and confidant, the pair codified Roman law, birthing modern civil law, and commissioned grand public works like the Hagia Sophia. Theodora became infamous for her dynamic politics and her ruthlessness. When Justinian wished to flee during the Nika Riots in 532 AD, she forced him to stay, fight, and order the massacre of 30,000 rioters.

Yet, her contemporaries, like historian Procopius of Caesarea, never accepted or respected her rise to power. Instead, their accounts demonized her image, creating grotesque pornographies annihilating her character as a demonic and power-hungry sex fiend. In reality, Justinian revered and worshiped Theodora even after her death, never taking another lover. Her legacy is also cemented in her dedication to legal protection and autonomy for women. For example, she banned forced prostitution, freed prostitutes, and built rehabilitation centers for them, rape victims, and homeless women.

3. Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II of England

The union of Eleanor of Aquitaine (1122–1204) and Henry II (1133–1189) birthed the Plantagenet Dynasty, elevating England into a formidable medieval power. However, their marriage began as an immense scandal. Prior to their wedding in 1152, Eleanor was the wife and queen of King Louis VII of France. Yet, after 15 years, no sons, mutual animosity, and multiple kidnappings from eager suitors, Eleanor annulled their marriage and married Henry within two months.

Together they established the Angevin Empire, adding her inherited Duchy of Aquitaine, covering half of medieval France, to his English territories. They had eight children, including Richard the Lionheart, and three future European queens. Despite their triumphs, Eleanor supported her sons’ revolt against Henry in 1173. In retaliation, he imprisoned her for 16 years. Following Henry’s death, Eleanor regained her influence, ruling England in place of her sons during Richard’s participation in the Third Crusades, negotiating his ransom, and securing the throne for her next son, John. She remained a key political figure until her death at age 82.

Despite Eleanor being one of the most powerful, educated, and wealthy women in the Medieval Period, her contemporaries framed her as “unholy” and “demonic” for her independent attitude and political aptitude. Yet, these generalizations minimize how she is regarded as the most important woman of the medieval world. Likewise, her patronage of music and poetry developed quintessential themes still associated with this period, like the development of Arthurian Legends and tales of chivalry, knighthood, and courtly love.

4. Queen Jadwiga of Poland and the Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania

The union between Queen Jadwiga (c. 1373/1374–1399) and King Jogaila (1352/1362–1434) remains a pivotal moment in Eastern European history. Their marriage unified Poland and Lithuania, converted Europe’s last pagan stronghold, and established the Jagiellonian Dynasty. Serving as Poland’s first and last female monarch, Polish nobles organized Jadwiga’s marriage to the Lithuanian duke to counter the Teutonic Order, Hungary, and Austria. Confirmed by the Union of Krewo in 1385, they agreed to wed and unify the Polish and Lithuanian crowns in exchange for the conversion of Jogaila and his people.

Adopting the name Władysław II Jagiełło, Jogaila was baptized and married Jadwiga in 1386. Their partnership thrived with Jadwiga serving as an advantageous diplomat and Jogaila as a fierce military leader. Jadwiga additionally expanded access to education and religion, funding schools to help Lithuanian converts and establishing the first centers for Polish academia, culture, and art.

However, their marriage was not rooted in love. Often portrayed as an innocent girl sacrificing all for her country, Jadwiga was only twelve when she wed Jogaila, who was ten to 20 years older. After ten years, they were able to conceive, but she and their baby died from childbirth complications in 1399. Jogaila kept the Polish throne for 35 years, defeating the Teutonic Knights in 1410 at the Battle of Grunwald and establishing the Jagiellonian Dynasty with his fourth wife. Jadwiga remains a national hero, canonized in 1997 by Pope John Paul II for her sacrifices and her devotion to her faith and nation.

5. Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon

The union of Isabella of Castile (1451–1504) and Ferdinand II of Aragon (1452–1516) unified Spain and forged the first European global superpower. The pair secretly wed on October 19, 1469, defying Isabella’s brother and lacking the papal support required for second cousins to wed. After merging their thrones in 1479, they unified Spain by defeating the Emirate of Granada in 1492. After completing the 800-year Reconquista, they cemented their legacy by funding Christopher Columbus’s maiden voyage.

Their zealous pursuit of a homogenous, Catholic nation in Europe and abroad earned them the title, “The Catholic Monarchs,” at the cost of untold millions. In 1478, they launched the Spanish Inquisition to persecute, torture, and execute perceived heretics. Between 1492 and 1502, tens of thousands of Jews and Muslims were forced to convert, be executed, or flee. The Monarchs also supported severe economic policies and forced conversions of indigenous populations under Columbus’s governorship in Hispaniola. After years of complaints of tyranny, brutality, and the sex trafficking of indigenous children, the Monarchs arrested Columbus in October 1500. They pardoned him by December, endorsing his fourth voyage.

Isabella and Ferdinand also redrew the map of European diplomacy. Their daughters were married to future kings in England, Portugal, and the Holy Roman Empire. The Monarchs cemented their strong favor with the Borgia papacy, preserving their support for their colonial endeavors. By Isabella’s death in 1504, Europe was either connected to, intimidated by, or loyal to Spain.

6. Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII of England

The union between Anne Boleyn (c. 1501/1507–1536) and Henry VIII (1491-1547) sparked the English Reformation and the first execution of an English queen. Henry became enamored with Anne in 1522 while she served as a lady-in-waiting for his wife, Queen Catherine of Aragon. After 24 years of marriage, they were unable to have a male heir. Unlike her sister Mary, Anne refused to become the king’s mistress and demanded marriage.

Henry pursued an annulment from Catherine to marry Anne in 1527. However, Pope Clement VII refused because Catherine was the aunt of Charles V and the daughter of the Catholic Monarchs (Isabella and Ferdinand). By 1534, Henry severed all ties with Rome, declared himself the ruler of the Church of England, executed his closest Catholic confidants, and ignited the English Reformation. Despite the Privy Council, nobles, and his spiritual advisors enabling Henry, Anne is often painted as a conniving witch responsible for the sectarian violence that ensued.

Already pregnant, they secretly wed on January 25, 1533, and by June, Anne was crowned as Queen. She dutifully provided welfare, hospitals, and schools for the poor. But after multiple miscarriages, Henry blamed Anne for not producing a male heir. On May 19, 1536, he had her executed under false charges of incest, adultery, and treason. Henry famously went on to have four more wives, none of whom had a son who lived or reigned into adulthood. Despite his attempts to remove all traces of Anne, her legacy was forever cemented through the reign of her daughter, Queen Elizabeth I.

7. Catherine de’ Medici and Henry II of France

The marriage of Catherine de’ Medici (1519–1589) and Henry II (1519–1559) oversaw civil wars, artistic revolutions, and the end of the Valois Dynasty. While the French nobility slighted Catherine as a foreign “Merchant’s Daughter,” King Francis I and Pope Clement VII organized their union on October 28, 1533, to unify the Papacy and France against the Habsburgs and Protestantism. After a decade of infertility and Henry’s infidelities with his beloved mistress Diane de Poitiers, the couple had ten children. However, in 1559, Henry died in a jousting accident, thrusting his non-royal Italian queen consort into decades of regency, overseeing the tumultuous reigns of three sickly sons.

Her cunning approach to legitimize her children’s rule and stabilize France during the French Wars of Religion led to her moniker, the “Serpent Queen.” History blames Catherine for this bloody period of civil unrest and sectarian violence despite the involvement of the Royal Council, the aristocracy, and the military. For instance, Catherine is often scapegoated as the architect of the infamous St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572. But her son King Charles IX ordered the assassination of Huguenot leaders gathered in Paris for his sister’s wedding, which turned into a month-long massacre, slaughtering up to 30,000 Huguenots.

Often ignored is Catherine’s life-long dedication to stabilizing the throne, unyielding diplomacy with Huguenot leaders, and life-long patronage of the arts. She introduced the Italian Renaissance to France, birthed French ballet, commissioned iconic palaces in Paris, and even introduced the fork to French etiquette.

8. Hürrem Sultan (Roxelana) and Suleiman the Magnificent

The marriage between Hürrem Sultan (c. 1505–1558) and Suleiman I (1494–1566) revolutionized gender norms, succession, reproductive politics, and charity within the Ottoman Empire. Roxelana, an enslaved Slavic woman, was brought to the Ottoman harem in 1520. Converting to Islam and adopting the name Hürrem, Suleiman immediately fell in love with her. Breaking 200 years of custom by producing one son for the sultan, then relocating to a provincial capital, Hürrem birthed five more children, ultimately becoming his wife and co-ruler.

To the shock of the Ottoman world, in 1534, Suleiman married his former concubine in the most lavish wedding of the century. She continued horrifying the elite by moving the Imperial Harem permanently to Topkapi Palace, establishing the “Sultanate of Women” whose political influence is often demonized or oversexualized. While Suleiman was named “the Magnificent” for ushering in the empire’s golden age, Hürrem’s influence has branded her as an evil seductress and witch responsible for imperial decay.

Her cunning nature and suspected role in the executions of Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha and Suleiman’s firstborn son, Şehzade Mustafa, further demonized her legacy. However, Hürrem’s brilliance and political tact made her a skilled diplomat and philanthropist. She was the first sultana devoted to supporting the most vulnerable members of Ottoman society. She commissioned new public schools, baths, and soup kitchens in Jerusalem, Mecca, and Medina. Hürrem also founded the Haseki Sultan Complex, the first women-only hospital that provided free healthcare for pregnant, poor, sick, or disabled women.

9. Anastasia Romanovna and Ivan the Terrible

The marriage of Anastasia Romanovna Zakharyina-Yurieva (1530–1560) and Ivan IV Vasilyevich (1530–1584) preceded one of the most violent eras in Russian history. Ivan’s volatile childhood, scarred by boyars’ (Russian nobility’s) power struggles, caused lifelong paranoia. Orphaned young, Ivan’s mother was believed to have been poisoned when he was just eight. By age 16, Ivan was crowned the first Tsar of Russia in 1547.

Ivan continued distrusting and defying the boyars, choosing his bride in 1547 from a lower-ranking family out of 1,500 candidates. Ivan fell deeply in love with Anastasia, calmed by her gentle and nurturing disposition. But, after 13 years of marriage and six children, Anastasia fell ill and died in 1560. Convinced the boyars poisoned her like his mother, Ivan suffered a complete emotional breakdown that he never recovered from. He ripped his hair out, banged his head on the floor, and sobbed uncontrollably at her funeral.

His sadistic nature spiraled, earning him the nickname “the Terrible.” From 1562 to 1572, his secret police, the Oprichnina, terrorized and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of suspected traitors, especially boyars, rivaling Stalin’s purges. In 1581, Ivan beat his daughter-in-law, inducing a miscarriage, then killed his son and heir Ivan in a fit of rage. After Ivan’s death in 1584, the Rurik Dynasty rested upon the heirless Feodor I. Feodor’s death triggered a 15-year civil war that ended with the election of Anastasia’s great-nephew, Michael Romanov, to the throne. Through her lineage, the Romanov dynasty was established and ruled Russia until its fated end in 1917.

10. Catherine the Great and Peter III

The marriage of Catherine the Great (1729–1796) and Peter III of Russia (1728–1762) is a tale of betrayal and murder that marked the beginning of the Golden Age of the Russian Empire. Empress Elizabeth chose Catherine, previously known as the German princess Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst, to be the future wife of her nephew and successor. Unfortunately, these second cousins hated each other but were wed on August 21, 1745.

While Peter remained a boring, childish, and cruel drunk, Sophie replaced her German identity with that of a legitimate empress by learning Russian, converting to the Orthodox faith, adopting the name Ekaterina, and pursuing intensive studies in politics, philosophy, and art. Upon learning of Peter’s intentions to divorce months after their ascension to the throne, on July 9, 1762, Catherine usurped her husband with the help of her lover Grigory Orlov. Peter mysteriously died eight days later under the watch of Orlov’s brother Alexei, leaving Catherine as the sole ruler of Russia.

Catherine went on to revolutionize Russia as the longest ruling female leader until her death in 1796. Inspired by the Enlightenment, she transformed Russian politics, the economy, welfare, and the legal system while championing the arts. Her reforms introduced schools, orphanages, and hospitals across Russia. Expanding the Empire, she wiped Poland off the map for centuries as a main architect of the Polish Partitions. Catherine also protected serfdom, endorsed severe anti-Semitic policies, and violently thwarted any potential threats at the expense of her son, Paul I’s, love and sanity.

Famous historic years: 1666 (the Great Fire of London), 1776 (the year of American Independence), 1789 (the French Revolution), 1939 (the outbreak of the Second World War). All of these dates are ingrained in our minds, but few hold as much sway over history as 1492. In a year that saw the Jews expelled from Spain, the Catholic Monarchs also took over the Alhambra Palace, marking the end of Moorish rule, and funded Christopher Columbus’s voyage to what would become known as the Americas—all within the space of less than twelve months. Read on to learn about the key events of 1492.

The Background to the Fall of Granada

A Spanish Christian from the 15th century would likely think January 2, 1492 was a glorious start to the year. However, if you asked a Moorish resident, they would likely say that the year had gotten off to a disastrous start. This is because the Fall of Granada was a huge victory for the Spanish and Catholicism, but a huge blow for Islam in the Iberian Peninsula.

By the late 15th century, Granada was the last stronghold of Islam in the Iberian Peninsula, and since 1482, the Granada Wars had been raging on, as a means of expelling Islam from Spain. The wars generally stopped during the winter months, which gave both sides time to prepare for conflict in the spring and summer.

Because Granada was the last stronghold, tensions on the Islamic side were high, and there was often bitter internal civil conflict. On the contrary, the Catholics were so determined to take Granada back into Catholic hands (it had been under Muslim rule for almost 800 years) that they were generally a united front.

Perhaps the biggest reason that Christian Spain was united, though, was because of their monarchs, who would become known simply as “the Catholic Monarchs.” On October 19, 1469, Ferdinand of Aragon married Isabella of Castile in Valladolid. Their marriage united the crowns and thus the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, making them a powerful unity. Their shared beliefs in Catholic doctrine also strengthened the beliefs of their subjects, perfect for raising a force to defeat the Islamic infidels in Granada.

January 2, 1492: The Fall of Granada

In April 1491, a siege outside the city had begun, but both sides were prepared to endure the winter and see it through. Unfortunately for Muhammad XII, the ruler of the Emirate of Granada and the last ruler of the Nasrid Dynasty, Spain’s forces were simply stronger and more united.

He retreated to the mighty Alhambra Palace, an incredible feat of Islamic architecture and engineering which can still be seen today, and stayed out of the siege behind its walls.

The Catholic Monarchs, knowing how sacred and important the Alhambra was, refused to directly attack the palace, which is why it likely still stands today.

Eventually, after an almost eight-month siege, Muhammad gave up the keys to the Alhambra Palace and wept bitterly. His mother was reported to have said, “Weep like a woman over what you couldn’t defend as a man.”

The Catholic Monarchs took control of the Alhambra Palace, but kept its beautiful Islamic architecture, preserving the character of the building. As for Muhammad XII, it was a disastrous loss. Islam had finally been expelled from Spain, and the addition of the Kingdom of Granada made the Crown even more united, and perhaps more importantly, even richer. This gave them the means to finance other things such as important overseas voyages, but more about that later on.

March 31, 1492: The Expulsion of the Jews

Following on from the Fall of Granada, the next major event came just under three months later: the Alhambra Decree.

The goal of this decree was to order the expulsion of all practicing Jews from their kingdoms, under the guise of religious unity under the Crown. The Christians argued that they had expelled the Muslims, and now it was time for the Jews to convert to Christianity or be expelled. Jews had until July 31 (four months) to make the decision to convert to Catholicism or to leave Spain, forfeiting their property.

This, in turn, made the Crown even richer, as they claimed hundreds of properties in the aftermath of the thousands of Jews who left. Many of these Jews went to neighboring Portugal, while others went east across Europe, and some into North Africa. This became known as the Sephardic Diaspora. It is estimated that 180,000 Jews left Spain under the Alhambra Decree.

This event was one of the shadows over 1492, and it was not (shockingly) until 1968 that this decree was officially rescinded by the Spanish government, over 400 years after it had been issued. The government offered the descendants of all Sephardic Jews Spanish citizenship if they wanted it.

In the case of 1492, the Alhambra Decree often goes unnoticed, with most Westernized histories focusing on the Fall of Granada and Christopher Columbus’s voyages to the Americas as the focal points of the year.

From an Islamic and a Jewish point of view, 1492 was a terrible year. In essence, 1492 should rightly be seen as a controversial year rather than a wholly successful one, something which more historians are now acknowledging.

The Background to Columbus’s Voyages

In the late 15th century, many European explorers and merchants believed that one huge ocean surrounded Europe, Africa, and Asia. While there had been a land route for centuries (the famous Silk Roads), this had been fraught with its own dangers, such as ambush attacks, diseases, and more. It was a treacherous route, and could take months to cross.

In 1488, the Portuguese explorer Bartolomeu Dias became the first Westerner to round the Cape of Good Hope around South Africa (which he originally called the Cape of Storms). It offered a sea route around Africa, meaning that travelers could avoid having to traverse the land via caravan from Europe to Asia. Nine years later, in 1497, Vasco da Gama successfully used this route to reach India, which meant that there was now a definite route to reach Asia via the ocean from Europe.

However, the Cape of Good Hope was notoriously dangerous, and as such, Christopher Columbus thought that there must be another way. He attempted several times to encourage the Catholic Monarchs to fund his expedition to sail west from Europe and reach Asia that way.

Obviously, the dangers were inherent: Columbus was sailing into the unknown. Many had tried and failed, with the majority meeting their deaths far out at sea, dying of starvation, dehydration, or simply due to storms capsizing their boats. As such, the crew that Columbus was granted was primarily made up of prisoners and ex-prisoners; in other words, cannon fodder, should anything go wrong.

August 3, 1492: Christopher Columbus’s First Voyage

Just three days after the Alhambra Decree had expelled 180,000 Jews from Spain, Christopher Columbus set off on his first voyage in an attempt to reach Asia.

Perhaps the most important reason Columbus actually managed to reach the Americas when so many others had failed often goes under the radar. The Canary Islands were currently being fought over by the Berber people and the Spanish, and by 1492, both Lanzarote and Gran Canaria had been taken. La Palma would be taken the following year, and by 1496, Tenerife would also be under Spanish control. However, Columbus made a tactical stop on Tenerife with his three ships: The Niña, Pinta, and Santa María. This stop not only enabled them to take on board more supplies, but also gave them time to fix and repair any damage to their ships before sailing west.

However, another reason why this trip was so successful is that the Canaries are south of the prevailing winds, which blow east across the Atlantic Ocean. As such, Columbus and his crew largely avoided these winds, when other explorers who had set off directly from the Iberian peninsula, or further north in Europe, had been caught in these winds, rendering their expeditions either useless or fatal.

October 12th, 1492: Land Ahoy!

Around a month after his departure from the Canary Islands, land was spotted. Naturally, Columbus thought that they had reached Asia, which is why, when they landed, he referred to the natives as “Indians.” It is also why the Caribbean, for years afterwards (and still in the modern cricketing world) was referred to as “the West Indies.”

The land that was spotted, and where the crew landed, was actually an island in the modern-day Bahamas, named San Salvador (it was called Guanahani by the locals, or Tainos as the Spanish referred to them as).

Over the course of the next two months, until January, Columbus and his crew explored the Bahamas and other neighboring islands, including Cuba and Hispaniola (home to the modern-day countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic).

Columbus returned to the Catholic monarchs successfully, even bringing back some of the natives as well as other items that they had found and traded on the islands, much to the great joy of the monarchs. As such, Columbus had unintentionally discovered the Americas for Europe (despite never landing on the actual continent of North or South America), and thus opened up the “New World” for Spanish exploration, and later, colonization.

Final Thoughts

It is inherently wrong to say that 1492 was a fantastic year for Spain. History is not so black and white, and contextually, 1492 was a successful year for the Catholic Monarchs, but they were not expelled from their homes or victims of early modern colonization. 1492 was certainly a controversial year, and the fact that so many key events happened in the space of less than twelve months (realistically, ten months) is something rarely experienced in history.

1492, while controversial, was the key turning point for Spain to become a powerful European nation under the Catholic Monarchs and to become a global powerhouse. Thanks to these three major events, 1492 also marks the end of the Medieval Period, or Middle Ages, and the beginning of the Early Modern Period.

1492 was one of the most controversial years on record, and it still remains that way in Spain to this day.

Portugal’s deep-rooted history spans medieval castles, Roman ruins, and Moorish fortifications scattered across the landscape.

If you’re eager to explore the country’s hidden, ancient soul, there’s no better way than visiting its timeless villages perched on hills or tucked into remote mountains. Here are ten must-visit historic villages in Portugal that promise a journey back in time.

1. Monsanto

This historic village in central Portugal is renowned for its distinctive architecture, with granite houses built around massive boulders that give it a striking appearance. Perched on a 758-meter hill, Monsanto offers sweeping views over the surrounding countryside.

In 1165, King Afonso Henriques granted the village to the Knights Templar, who added a hilltop castle that still dominates the landscape. Named “the most Portuguese village in Portugal” in 1938, Monsanto’s winding cobblestone paths, castle ruins, and annual Festa das Cruzes draw visitors seeking a deep connection to the country’s heritage.

2. Sortelha

Sortelha is one of Portugal’s oldest and best-preserved medieval villages. Established in the 12th century, it received a charter in 1228 from King Sancho II, who also ordered the construction of its castle. The village is encircled by well-preserved granite walls and narrow cobblestone streets lined with traditional stone houses.

Visitors can explore the 13th-century castle for panoramic views and admire unique granite formations, such as the “Old Lady’s Head,” while soaking up Sortelha’s remarkably intact medieval atmosphere.

3. Castelo Rodrigo

Perched atop a hill in Portugal’s Centro region, Castelo Rodrigo dates back to the 12th century, with major fortifications added during the reign of King Dinis. Encircled by medieval walls, the village’s narrow streets and stone houses reflect its defensive past.

Notable sites include the ruins of Cristóvão de Moura’s palace, the 16th-century pillory, a medieval cistern, and the Church of Our Lady of Rocamador, home to a statue of Saint James the Moor-slayer.

4. Piódão

Nestled in the Serra do Açor mountains, Piódão is known for its schist houses with blue-painted windows and doors. Established in the Middle Ages, the village’s remote location once made it a refuge, contributing to its secluded character.

Its winding cobblestone streets lead to highlights such as the 17th-century Igreja Matriz, whose white façade contrasts sharply with the surrounding dark stone, and nearby Foz d’Égua, famous for its stone bridges and natural pools.

5. Marialva

This hilltop village in Portugal’s Centro region rose to prominence during the 12th century, when its castle became a key defensive stronghold. Marialva is divided into three distinct areas: the Citadel within the castle walls, the Arrabalde with its traditional stone houses, and Devesa beyond the old fortifications.

Within the Citadel, visitors can explore Marialva Castle, enjoy views over the Côa Valley, and visit the Parish Church of Santiago, a Gothic structure dating to the 14th century.

6. Idanha-a-Velha

Idanha-a-Velha is one of Portugal’s oldest settlements, founded by the Romans in the 1st century BCE as Civitas Igaeditanorum. Over time, it passed through Visigoth and Muslim hands, leaving layers of history behind.

Today, visitors can explore Roman walls, the Torre dos Templários built atop a former Roman temple, the 4th-century Cathedral of Idanha, and an ancient olive press, all reflecting the village’s role as a historical crossroads.

7. Monsaraz

Monsaraz is a hilltop village in Portugal’s Alentejo region, preserved within medieval walls and overlooking the Guadiana River. Reclaimed from Moorish rule in the 12th century and fortified by the Knights Templar, its castle remains the village’s defining feature.

Cobbled streets wind past whitewashed houses to landmarks such as the Church of Nossa Senhora da Lagoa, the Chapel of São João Baptista with its frescoes, and the Casa da Inquisição. From the castle walls, visitors can enjoy sweeping views over the Alqueva Reservoir.

8. Belmonte

Perched on the slopes of the Serra da Estrela, Belmonte is best known as the birthplace of explorer Pedro Álvares Cabral. Its 13th-century castle, later home to the Cabral family, anchors the village and offers panoramic views.

Belmonte is also notable for its enduring Jewish community, which survived the Inquisition in secret. The Jewish Museum of Belmonte and the synagogue Bet Eliahu offer powerful insight into this unique and resilient heritage.

9. Almeida

Near the Spanish border, Almeida is defined by its impressive star-shaped fortress, a hallmark of 17th-century military architecture. The 12-pointed fortifications highlight the village’s long-standing strategic importance.

Visitors can walk the preserved walls and gates, explore the historic center, and visit the Military Museum, which documents Almeida’s role in conflicts such as the Peninsular War.

10. Linhares da Beira

Established in the 12th century on the slopes of the Serra da Estrela, Linhares da Beira grew around its imposing medieval castle, which once defended the region from invasion.

The village’s cobblestone streets are lined with granite houses featuring Manueline windows and Gothic doorways. Landmarks such as the Igreja da Misericórdia and the Igreja Matriz reflect the city’s architectural heritage, while the castle offers expansive views of the Mondego River Valley.

Quick Guide to Portugal’s Most Historic Villages