In 1492, Italian explorer Christopher Columbus, sailing for Spain, discovered that a new land mass lay across the Atlantic Ocean between Europe and India. Within a few decades, Spain and Portugal were rapidly colonizing the “New World.” Britain and France, as well as the Netherlands, quickly joined them by focusing on North America. Why did these European powers send thousands of men and shiploads of weapons and supplies across the oceans? Not surprisingly, they got back far more than they invested in terms of natural resources and native labor. For over 400 years, nations engaged in imperialism to access the natural resources and cheap labor of other lands.

Setting the Stage: Empires of the Old World

For as long as there have been organized societies, there have been attempts to seize desired resources from neighboring societies. Initially, this meant arable farmland, sections of coastlines suitable for ports, and geographic features that made good natural defenses. Around 100 AD, the Roman Empire had expanded beyond the Italian peninsula in search of arable land and vast resources to fuel its growth and enrich its people. At its peak, the population of the empire may have reached one million people, a significant number during that time. While the Roman Empire is probably the best-known early empire to most observers, it was certainly not the first.

The first empires, where a local ruler engaged in conquest to take control of other territories, likely began in ancient Egypt. From the Egyptians to the Romans, the goal was to access desirable resources. These efforts required significant organization and infrastructure, including roads and irrigation. The Greeks, Romans, Persians, and the Han Empire in China created professional militaries and government bureaucracies to help organize the resources needed to conquer vast territories, as well as plan and manage the resources and goods being shipped back home.

1492-1700s: European Colonization of the Western Hemisphere

Empires and nation-states in the Old World (Europe, the Middle East, and Asia) traded with one another using overland trade routes. This was time-consuming and expensive, and some Europeans began looking for an oversea route to access India and Asia. They believed that sailing west across the Atlantic Ocean would eventually allow them to reach the Asian continent. In 1492, Christopher Columbus, an Italian sailing for Spain, set out to do just that and instead ended up discovering land masses in the Caribbean. Quickly, Spain and Portugal began settling the Western Hemisphere, beginning with Central and South America. The Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 was intended to bisect South America and prevent Spain and Portugal from warring over the continent.

Britain, France, and the Netherlands got involved in New World exploration as well and began settling North America. The French arrived first, exploring the Mississippi River from south to north, while the British arrived along the eastern coast of North America at modern-day Virginia. To the north, the Dutch arrived shortly afterward. All European powers quickly discovered new peoples and crops, while the Spanish discovered gold and silver mined by advanced societies in Central and South America. Early explorers brought European crops with them, hoping that they would grow well in the warm and well-watered lands of the New World.

Columbian Exchange and Triangular Trade

Europeans quickly sent crops they discovered in the New World back home, establishing the Columbian Exchange. Both Europe and the Western Hemisphere were introduced to crops and animals from the other. Cattle and horses arrived in the New World from Europe, and many crops, including potatoes, beans, peppers, and tobacco, were sent back to Europe. Both Native Americans and Europeans quickly adapted to the foodstuffs introduced by the others, with Europeans becoming dependent on crops from the Americas and Native Americans adopting the use of horses and pigs.

Unfortunately, Europeans arriving in the New World demanded low-cost labor to assist with economic development. Native Americans had no natural immunity to smallpox, brought by Europeans, and many perished from disease. Therefore, Europeans brought slaves from Africa to the New World. Europeans traded with Africans for slaves, sent the slaves to the New World, and shipped goods and foodstuffs made by slave labor back to Europe, creating the infamous Triangular Trade system. Slave labor allowed Europeans to expand their empires in the New World, especially in North America.

1600s-1800s: Trade Monopolies

Colonies in the New World desired manufactured goods from Europe, and governments granted charters (formal approvals) to trading companies to have monopolies on cross-oceanic trade. The first of these joint-stock companies was the Dutch East India Company, established in 1602. These massive companies even developed their own armies and navies, with some even manning forts along trade routes to protect against pirates, thieves, or angry natives. They vastly expanded European nations’ reach into territories in North America, Africa, and Asia between 1602 and the mid-1800s in pursuit of profit.

Trading companies’ ability to pursue profit through the use of armed force was highly unethical but benefited the governments that chartered them. Governments often received significant taxes, loans, and some financial kickbacks from company owners and could use the well-armed companies as supplemental assistance in fighting off rival powers in colonized areas. Until the 1800s, monopoly trading companies were also seen as beneficial to merchants in the home countries by limiting competition. This kept prices for consumers higher but prevented trade wars. By 1800, however, trading monopolies fell out of favor due to political instability that erased many political connections and the growing power of producers in the colonial territories.

Mid 1800s: European Imperialism Shifts to Asia and Africa

Between 1781 and 1820, the imperial powers of Britain, France, and Spain lost control of most of their Western Hemisphere territories, beginning with the American Revolutionary War. This was followed by France’s economically-forced sale of Louisiana to the new United States in 1804, which was needed to give a bankrupt France money for Napoleon Bonaparte’s planned conquests in Europe. Finally, New Spain broke from Spain in a series of revolutions, beginning with Mexico. However, European powers could all turn to Asia and Africa for new sources of cheap labor and natural resources.

With Britain forced from the Thirteen Colonies, the British focused their attention on China, from where they had begun to import popular tea and silk. Trade with China was highly profitable, but many in China came to resent and distrust the growing power of European merchants. Much of the anger came from Britain’s exportation of opium from its Indian colonies to China. The Opium Wars resulted when China attempted to prohibit British smuggling of opium into China to pay for tea, silk, and other exotic goods. Two Opium Wars resulted in increases in British power in China, including British control of Hong Kong. Meanwhile, France focused on expanding its foothold in Indochina (south of China; southeast Asia), creating French Indochina.

1898: The Spanish-American War Creates an American Empire

The United States emerged as a growing industrial power after the American Civil War, purchasing Alaska from Russia and settling the West. By the 1890s, it was looking to make inroads into the Pacific Region for profitable trade. It wanted access to the same markets in Asia enjoyed by Britain and France, and viewed islands in the Pacific as good bases to support merchant ships. Many members of the US government also wanted to put military bases on those islands to help assert dominance over the region. The Spanish-American War, which erupted in February 1898, provided an opportunity to take such islands.

The war itself erupted over Cuba, still a colony of Spain, which was a valuable source of sugarcane for American markets. After an American warship exploded in the harbor of Havana, Cuba, the US quickly blamed Spain. The war was a rapid success, and Spain lost its remaining colonies. Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines were ceded to the United States. It also gave the US the pretext to complete the annexation of Hawaii, in which the monarchy had been overthrown by American businessmen in 1893. With Spain’s former Pacific colonies and Hawaii, the United States had the infrastructure to enter Asian trade markets with force.

Boxer Rebellion in China: Japan Becomes First Non-European Imperial Power

For economic reasons, Britain continued to make exploitative trade inroads in China while France took control of southeast Asia. The Netherlands, which had long exited North America, controlled the East Indies in and around Indonesia. Other European powers and the United States also wanted access to these markets, and their presence rapidly increased during the 1890s. Resentment often ran high in these Asian countries at Western domination, which took advantage of cheap labor and mocked local customs. In late 1899, a growing group of Chinese peasants began attacking Western enclaves in China, which were seen as destroying Chinese culture and society.

As China’s new empress chose not to act, the Boxers besieged Western embassies in June 1900. Britain and France, along with the United States, four other European powers, and Japan, sent troops to relieve the besieged Western enclave in Peking (present-day Beijing). They swiftly defeated the Boxers and increased Western economic and political domination over China, continuing China’s century of humiliation (1840s through World War II). Shortly after the Boxer Rebellion and the Russo-Japanese War over control of Manchuria (northeastern China), Japan seized control of the Korean Peninsula from China.

World War II: Axis Powers Seek Empires for Resources

After World War I, a defeated Germany was stripped of its colonies in Africa, which it had been allotted during the 1880s. 15 years later, however, Germany was resurgent under the Nazi regime, and Italy, under Mussolini, had colonial ambitions. Italy struck first, seizing the only independent nation in North Africa, Ethiopia, in the 1935-36 Second Italo-Abyssinian War. 40 years earlier, Ethiopia, also known as Abyssinia, had humiliated Italy by defeating a first attempt to colonize the country. Both Germany and Italy thought seizing other colonies in Africa and the Middle East would supply them with valuable resources, especially oil. The desire for oil led Germany to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, a move also designed to seize lebensraum, or living space, for its people.

In Asia, Japan similarly sought more colonies for economic purposes. In 1931 and 1937, it seized more territory in economically valuable Manchuria. The second invasion sparked the Second Sino-Japanese War, which became one of the major theaters of World War II. This growing war increased Japan’s demand for resources, including oil. To obtain it, Japan planned a major offensive across the South Pacific, aimed at the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies and expanding its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. To prevent the US Navy from interfering, Japan attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941. Ironically, the attempts to take oil fields by force led to the eventual defeat of both Germany and Japan.

Post-War Controversy: Did Exploitative Trade Replace Imperialism?

The defeat of the Axis Powers by 1945 ended the era of imperialism aimed specifically at seizing resources. A new economic era of free trade began. Most nations agreed after 1945 that free trade was a better way to obtain resources and sell goods than creating captive markets. Between 1945 and 1960, most remaining colonies were granted independence, opening them up to trade with the world. The United States, virtually the only world power not economically exhausted from World War II, saw these new markets as great sources of revenue.

By the 1960s, many Western countries were again building factories in former colonies, taking advantage of cheap labor and lack of environmental and worker protections. This became known as “neocolonialism,” with wealthy nations able to use their economic, political, and military power to maintain advantageous trade and labor situations over former colonies. Instead of applying direct pressure, Western powers can use financial debt instruments and conditional guarantees of security to allegedly manipulate the governments of these former colonies to let Western companies maintain desired policies.

The Global South and Economic Imperialism

Critics of colonialism and neocolonialism argue that this exploitation has become entrenched, creating a permanent situation of economic underdevelopment in the “global south,” a term for nations, mostly south of the equator, that were once colonies. Many people argue that these nations have been taken advantage of by their wealthier neighbors to the north. In recent years, they have begun advocating for more international political consideration, such as at the United Nations, for the needs of these countries. They also want more economic consideration, with some researchers declaring that trillions of dollars in resource wealth have been drained from the global south from unequal trade deals.

One problem perpetuated by colonialism and neocolonialism is capital flight, where the wealth generated in developing countries, many in the “global south,” is immediately sent to wealthy countries to be invested (after being converted into those countries’ currencies). This is common when the owners of factories and productive resources are well-connected to colonial powers and have easy access to foreign investments. Unfortunately, this means a lack of domestic investment in the former colonies, leaving them continually reliant on foreign-owned jobs and infrastructure.

In the late 1100s and early 1200s AD, several figures arose in English history whose reputations passed into both historical importance and legendary stories. One of the more prominent figures that falls into both categories is King John of England.

Was John Supposed to be King?

Not really.  John was the youngest of the four legitimate sons of King Henry II. The eldest, Henry the Young King, ruled alongside Henry II (but had little actual power).  Richard I, “the Lionheart” would eventually become King in his own right. Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany, inherited and obtained substantial lands. But John, nicknamed “Lackland,” received little, yet may have become the most powerful and influential of all his brothers. Each of them rebelled in some way against their father, but each died before their rule could be well established, leaving John with the title.

John’s Family

At this time, French and English nobility were so intertwined that the English court was more French than English. William of Normandy – the Conqueror – had invaded England less than a century before and established his rule there. John’s mother was Eleanor of Aquitaine, former Queen of France as wife of Louis VII and Queen of England as wife of Henry II, John’s father. John technically inherited some parts of France and continuously was at war to obtain more holdings.

His French holdings made him vassal to the King of France (only for those parts of France he inherited, not in England). He was a member of the Plantagenet-Angevine dynasty, which had French roots.

John’s Accomplishments

While it is difficult to show that John had a major accomplishment during his rule, there were various incidents that were monumentally influential in Western history. John’s signing of the Magna Carta is probably the most significant moment of his entire rule.  John was dealing with open revolt from English nobles in the early 1200s, and was forced to the negotiating table by the nobility to allow them to have more rights over their own property.

While both King John and the nobility did not fully keep to the terms laid out in the Magna Carta, it became one of the most influential documents of English law and undoing the idea of the divine right of kings.

John was not as capable in war as his brother Richard, but was not a total loser at war, holding several military victories in France, but none that were important.  He was also a decent administrator, which was probably his best gift as king.  He spent more time in England dealing with English matters than engaging in war than his predecessors, and the legal system got more defined with John at the helm.

Because he needed money to operate the government and engage in his military actions, John also found various innovative ways to raise taxes on both the nobility and populace… which is the reason he is part of the Robin Hood legend.

King John and Robin Hood

While John’s policies of taxation were, at times, overbearing, the legend of Robin Hood is likely mostly fiction.   The earliest part of the Robin Hood legend does not appear until the tail end of John’s reign, and then the records do not begin until after John’s death in 1216.   Whether or not John or his subordinates had any dealings with a figure who even inspired some of the Robin Hood legends is not, and may never be, known.

A popular Red Army song began as follows:

“The White Army and the Black Baron
Are preparing to restore to us the tsar’s throne,
But from the taiga to the British seas,
The Red Army is the strongest of all!”

Many myths surround General Pyotr Wrangel. Famous for wearing a black Cossack uniform,  this charismatic commander played a major role in the Russian Civil War. He did not actually attempt to restore the Romanovs. Even after his defeat, the Soviets considered Wrangel a threat and may have plotted his unexpected death.

A Powerful Family

Born into a famous family of Baltic German origin in Lithuania in the Russian Empire on August 27, 1878, Baron Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel had aristocratic blood running through his veins.

His ancestor, Carl Gustaf Wrangel, led Swedish forces during the Thirty Years War and in the Second Northern War. The Wrangel family’s Latin motto, Frangas, non flectes (“You can break, but you can’t bend”), would represent Pyotr Wrangel’s life.

After graduating from St. Petersburg’s Mining Institute, Wrangel worked as an engineer, but his heart remained with the military. When the Russo-Japanese War broke out, Wrangel signed up as a volunteer. He received multiple awards, including the Order of St. Anna for bravery.

Before World War I, Wrangel changed careers by graduating from the Nikolaev Military Academy in Moscow. Next, he joined the Russian Army General Staff while finishing a course at the Officer Cavalry School. This strong affinity for the military set a defining course for the rest of Wrangel’s life.

Rising Star

In 1914, Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination sparked a European powder keg. After the Russian Army’s mobilization, Colonel Wrangel led the Life-Guards Cavalry Regiment in a daring attack on an enemy battery in East Prussia. With his horse shot out from under him and suffering from a concussion, Wrangel led his men to victory on foot. Tsar Nicholas II awarded Wrangel the Order of St. George, making him the first officer to receive this military award for bravery during World War I.

Wrangel distinguished himself as a courageous commander for the rest of the war, participating in the successful Brusilov Offensive against Austria in 1916. Now a major general in the cavalry, Wrangel successfully screened the infantry’s retreat after a failed Russian offensive in the summer of 1917. Meanwhile, revolution loomed, threatening Wrangel’s army and his family.

The Coming Storm

After the February Revolution, the Russian Imperial Army began to disintegrate. Over the next several months, desertions increased and workers’ unrest intensified.

In October 1917, the Soviets led a coup that ushered in the Bolshevik Revolution. The Soviets came to power with the slogan “Bread, Peace, and Land,” promising to end the war with the Central Powers and give confiscated property to the people.

At Supreme Command Headquarters, Wrangel planned to raise a volunteer army to continue fighting Germany. When he realized his commander-in-chief had no intention of resisting the Bolsheviks, Wrangel headed south, where an anti-Soviet army started gathering.

Arrest and Escape

The October Revolution forced the general and his family to move to Yalta. But the situation in Crimea became more dangerous. Gangs of Bolshevik soldiers and sailors patrolled the streets. They broke into houses, helping themselves to cash, jewelry, and other valuables and dragging people before revolutionary tribunals.

One morning, Wrangel woke to loud voices, stamping feet, and slamming doors. As the general sat up in bed, six sailors, swathed in machine-gun cartridges and carrying rifles, rushed into the room.

Two sailors held him at gunpoint, shouting: “Not a muscle, you’re under arrest.”

The sailors hauled Wrangel onto a ship flying a red flag anchored in the harbor. Most interrogations ended the same way. In the water below their feet lay hundreds of drowned victims of summary Soviet trials.

An aristocrat and former tsarist general who openly wore his officer’s shoulder straps on the street in a move that almost got him killed, the baron represented everything the Bolsheviks hated.

His interrogation took place in a cell where a revolutionary chairman named Vakula asked the reason for his arrest.

“Probably because I am a Russian general,” Wrangel replied. “I know of no other guilt.”

The chairman turned to his wife, Olga Wrangel, who had accompanied the baron, and asked why they arrested her.

“I am not arrested,” she clarified. “I just want to be with my husband.”

The Baroness’ calm behavior evoked unusual sympathy among the tribunal.

An astonished chairman told Wrangel, “Not everyone has such wives, and you owe your life to your wife.”

He ordered the general’s release on the spot.

Unlike tens of thousands who disappeared under the Bolsheviks, Wrangel had a lucky escape. He moved to Miskhor, where he lived under a fake passport, avoiding the ongoing wave of raids and arrests.

After the Germans seized the area, Wrangel traveled to Ukraine, where he tried to join Hetman Pavlo Skoropadsky’s government. Having been installed as the leader of a nominally independent Ukraine by the German authorities, Skoropadsky’s government teetered on the brink of collapse. Wrangel therefore decided to join Anton Denikin’s Volunteer Army in September 1918.

Denikin gave him a frigid welcome. Due to his arrest, Wrangel could not participate in the brutal Ice March, which took the Volunteer Army south during the first Kuban Campaign. This meeting foreshadowed future tensions between the two men.

The Black Baron vs the Red Army

Despite frosty relations with Denikin, Wrangel had a reputation as one of the best cavalry commanders in the former imperial army. With a force primarily made up of Kuban Cossack horsemen, Denikin desperately needed a good cavalry general who could relate to the separatist-minded Cossacks.

One of Wrangel’s first actions during the Russian Civil War included taking the city of Stavropol back from the Bolsheviks. In December 1918, Denikin promoted him to lieutenant general.

By 1919, Wrangel began to push back against Denikin’s strategy. He argued that they should join forces with Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak’s troops moving toward the Volga and throw their forces into the fight to take back the critical town of Tsaritsyn (later renamed Stalingrad).

Denikin, feeling threatened, rejected Wrangel’s proposal. Instead, he insisted on defeating the Soviets in the Donbas first. This decision may have proved a fatal mistake.

If the Volunteer Army had joined the battle with the Reds during Kolchak’s Volga Offensive, they could have defeated the Bolsheviks in the Volga region. The Red Army would have had to withdraw troops from Siberia, relieving pressure on Kolchak’s front and enabling him to throw troops into combat at Tsaritsyn. Dividing and conquering the Red Army may have prevented the collapse of Kolchak’s eastern front and the downfall of the Omsk Siberian Provisional Government.

By this time, Wrangel distinguished himself as one of the prominent leaders of the White movement. A popular commander, he also had a reputation as a strict disciplinarian who punished violence and robbery among his troops. In contrast, he faced a ruthless Bolshevik commander named Joseph Stalin. During the second siege of Tsaritsyn (September–October 1918), Stalin clashed with Leon Trotsky, disobeyed orders, and illegally seized supplies sent through Tsaritsyn for the Red Army. Vladimir Lenin refused to tolerate his insubordination and recalled Stalin to Moscow.

On June 30, 1919, Wrangel captured Tsaritsyn in the most successful operation of his career. Vastly outnumbered and using only cavalry units, Wrangel defeated the Soviets at “Red Verdun” and took tens of thousands of prisoners.

March on Moscow

The conquest of the Donbas failed to strengthen the anti-Bolshevik cause. Instead, the campaign brought a largely antagonistic proletarian population under White control. Leon Trotsky’s attack through the Donbas proved fatal for the Volunteer Army. Although the area had rich steel and coal resources, the Whites did not control its military industry. The Volunteer Army, having failed to join Kolchak, proved unable to stop the admiral’s defeat later that year.

Denikin also overestimated the Reds’ defeat at Tsaritsyn. Ignoring the logistical issues his overstretched forces would face, Denikin issued his famous “Moscow Directive.” While aimed at capturing the capital, the Moscow Directive lacked any strategic details. Instead, the White Army marched in spread formation in a single direction. Each corps simply received a roadmap to Moscow.

Wrangel objected. He called the Moscow Directive a “death sentence.” He advised Denikin to strike at Moscow from the shortest possible route, transferring his main forces from Tsaritsyn without waiting for it to surrender.

Denikin refused to listen to Wrangel’s advice. Instead, he split his forces, sending a significant part of the Volunteer Army to capture Kyiv and right-bank Ukraine, a division of strength that dangerously diluted the main march to Moscow.

Wrangles With Denikin

Ultimately, the Moscow Directive failed because Denikin divided and stretched the Volunteer Army too thin across a key section of their front. The Whites also failed to mobilize enough Ukrainian peasants to support their campaign. Unable to concentrate his forces or defend his supply lines, Denikin’s offensive bogged down beyond Oryol, some 200 miles south of Moscow. In contrast, the Red Army mobilized the peasant population. With their chance to take the Soviet capital lost, the Volunteer Army retreated south.

After the Moscow disaster, Wrangel went public with his disagreement with Denikin. He issued a report criticizing Denikin’s strategy and blaming him for the Whites’ defeat. When copies of this report circulated among senior officers, many agreed.

This act came at a cost. In February 1920, Denikin dismissed Wrangel for his outspoken criticism. Facing defeat, Denikin then initiated a disastrous evacuation at Novorossiysk in March. Authorities failed to provide enough ships to evacuate an estimated 100,000 troops, in addition to civilians, fleeing the Red Army. The botched evacuation left thousands of soldiers and refugees behind. In the aftermath, the Bolsheviks executed 60,000 people who could not escape. It is considered the single largest massacre of the Russian Civil War.

A New Command

In April 1920, Denikin resigned. At a meeting of the Military Council, several officers nominated Wrangel to take his place. While not everyone, including Wrangel, agreed that subordinates should elect their commander-in-chief, a shout went up: “Long live General Wrangel!”

Denikin responded by appointing Wrangel commander of the Armed Forces of South Russia. Wrangel accepted the position with the words: “I have shared the glory of victories with the army and I cannot refuse to drink with it the cup of humiliation.”

By now, the Allies, who had funneled resources to the Volunteer Army despite official bans from getting involved in the Russian war, refused to supply further food, weapons, or supplies. Despite this blow, most of the generals voted to keep fighting.

One of Wrangel’s first acts as general was to rename the Volunteer Army the Russian Army. Meanwhile, an amphibious landing via the Black Sea and an advance through southern Ukraine in April met stiff resistance by the Red Army and collapsed.

A Model State

Setbacks in the North Caucasus and Ukraine pushed the Russian Army back toward Crimea. Wrangel used the peninsula as his base to establish law and order, reorganize the army, and create a model anti-Soviet state.

Under Wrangel’s administration, shops opened, postal services operated, and trains ran again. Despite these social and economic strides, the overall war effort kept deteriorating. The British withdrew aid and began negotiating with the Bolsheviks. Wrangel knew millions of pounds’ worth of supplies had been frittered away on Denikin’s army. But after Wrangel cracked down on corruption, foreign aid stopped.

As head of the anti-Soviet government in Crimea, Wrangel rolled out a more liberal social and political policy than Denikin entertained.

“I am trying to make life possible in Crimea, at least on this little patch,” Wrangel announced. “To show the rest of Russia: you have communism there, that is, hunger and emergency, and here…order and possible freedom are being established. No one is strangling you; no one is torturing you—live as you lived before.”

The Baron decided to avoid another march on Moscow. Instead, he concentrated on creating a model state characterized by democracy, economic stability, workers’ rights, and agrarian reforms. He also advocated for broad Ukrainian autonomy.

One of these laws transferred most of the landowners’ land to the peasants but held the government responsible for reimbursing the landowners. The problem was that this reimbursement exceeded the land value due to rampant inflation. If the imperial government had passed this law before 1917, it might have prevented the Revolution. Compared to the Soviets’ sweeping promises, most peasants had little incentive to join the Whites now.

For a time, Wrangel created a model state intended to make the citizens of “Sovdepia” envy them.

The outbreak of the Polish-Soviet War bought the anti-Bolsheviks some valuable time. Taking advantage of the Red Army’s troop diversion, Wrangel launched a cavalry attack to break out of the peninsula. His tactical combination of horses, tanks, airplanes, and armored trains resulted in a resounding victory that defeated Dmitry Zhloba’s cavalry units and captured 9,000 prisoners. Wrangel’s combined arms tactics anticipated those employed in future wars.

Last Stand

The anti-Bolshevik state in the Crimea only lasted six months.

In October 1920, the Red Army dealt the Russian Army a fatal blow at the Soviet bridgehead at Kakhovka on the left bank of the Dnieper. Meanwhile, the Polish Army overpowered the Red Army near Warsaw that autumn. Although the Polish Army could have marched on Moscow, Józef Piłsudski refused. Neither Wrangel nor Piłsudski supported each other in the past, and Wrangel had not recognized Polish independence. As a result, the Polish-Soviet truce in October 1920 sealed the fate of anti-Bolshevik Crimea.

While the French government recognized Wrangel’s Government of South Russia, the lack of internal resources and external aid proved fatal for the White movement. Without coal, oil, military supplies, or food resources, it became only a matter of time before the Russian Army collapsed under the onslaught of the victorious Red Army.

Flight From Crimea

In November 1920, the besieged White forces braced themselves for attack. Five Red Army columns combined to strike the exhausted Russian Army during the Perekop-Chongar Operation. Determined to prevent Wrangel from maintaining his foothold in Crimea, Lenin ordered his commanders to wipe the Russian Army off the map.

As winter came on, an unequal fight began. The Whites had only 41,000 infantry and cavalry, who fought on foot due to a lack of horses, and 213 artillery pieces. In contrast, the Soviets employed a force of 200,000 troops, 40,000 cavalry, 17 armored trains, and 98 artillery pieces.

The White defensive line clung on despite overwhelming enemy forces. In the early hours of November 11, 1920, the Red Army crossed the frozen Syvash Marsh in a surprise attack and broke through the Russian Army’s defenses at Perekop. Under cover of predawn, the White Army fell back to the sea to avoid annihilation.

With fate staring him in the face, Wrangel tried to ensure that this evacuation did not mimic Denikin’s disastrous attempt.

After the Perekop breakthrough, Wrangel appealed to the people: “The Government of the South of Russia considers it its duty to warn everyone about the severe trials that await those arriving from within Russia…The government advises all those who are not in immediate danger from enemy violence to remain in the Crimea.”

Many people decided to stay. Tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians subsequently succumbed to the Red Terror which the victorious Soviets dealt out after conquering Crimea. Still, Wrangel managed to evacuate 145,693 people on 126 ships from the ports of Yalta, Sevastopol, and Feodosia. This number included 50,000 soldiers, army officials, civilians, and 6,000 wounded. The ships transported the refugees to the Gallipoli Peninsula and the Greek island of Lemnos.

Despite its limitations, Wrangel’s evacuation avoided mass panic, demonstrated greater organization, kept the core of the Russian Army together, and shipped about 100,000 more people to safety compared to the previous evacuation attempt.

An Opponent in Exile

Life for refugees on Lemnos was hard. They had no resources, no passports, and no country.

Wrangel landed in Constantinople, where he organized the army for the next two years. In 1922, Wrangel founded the Russian All-Military-Union to unite and support 100,000 military émigrés and continue a political and psychological struggle against Soviet power.

The Black Baron’s strong reputation in the émigré community and his ability to successfully lead troops meant that the Soviets kept trying to discredit or destroy him.

Sickness or Murder?

In 1924, Wrangel emigrated to Belgium where he worked as an engineer. Now the man who once faced down the Bolsheviks on the battlefield feared only one thing: poisoning.

As it turned out, his fears may have been justified.

During the 1920s, the Soviets ramped up their espionage activities in Europe. The next few years witnessed an increase in former White émigrés-turned-Soviet-spies and double agents. This resulted in the kidnapping, disappearance, and murder of several high-profile anti-Bolshevik leaders.

Things took a turn in March 1928 when Wrangel’s orderly, Yakov Yudikhin, asked Wrangel to take in his refugee brother. The baron agreed.

As it turned out, this “brother” was a sailor on a Soviet ship.

When the sailor left on March 8, the general fell suddenly and violently ill. At first, it seemed like a winter cold, accompanied by a high fever, stomach pain, and coughing. Doctors could not agree on a diagnosis. Doctor Weiner diagnosed the baron with intestinal issues. Meanwhile, Ivan Aleksinsky thought Wrangel had influenza. Three days later, three doctors admitted the situation looked more dire than they initially realized.

An analysis revealed that the baron’s lungs were riddled with Koch’s bacilli. The general grew worse daily. He began to hallucinate. Imagining himself back on the battlefield, he tried to get up, directed military operations, and gave endless orders.

After suffering for over a month, General Baron Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel died on April 25, 1928. The Black Baron’s sudden death convinced his family and some later historians that an OGPU agent used poison to infect him with a fast-acting bacteria. He died just six months before the discovery of penicillin. For the hundreds of emigrants at his funeral, Wrangel’s death seemed like the end of their hopes to restore their motherland.

Always With Honor

It’s no secret that Wrangel was a strict commander who balanced courage and a sense of honor with military expediency.

While he was a monarchist, the baron believed Russia needed an elected, democratic form of government. He created a short-lived model state based on democratic principles and agrarian reform.

In exile, the general fought for his soldiers’ welfare and waged an ideological war against the Soviets. The Black Baron’s reputation as arguably the most competent anti-Bolshevik commander made him a formidable opponent until his death.

The invention of the telephone transformed human history, and for 150 years, Alexander Graham Bell has been widely lauded as its sole inventor. History is rarely straightforward, and in this case, there was a race to patent. Technicalities with timing, issues with corruption, and charges of theft leave the “facts” open to interpretation.

And perhaps the credit for the invention should really go to a man named Elisha Gray…

Alexander Graham Bell, Elisha Gray, and the World’s Most Famous Patent

On February 14, 1876, two crucial legal documents were filed with the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. One was a patent application delivered by Alexander Graham Bell’s attorney, and the other was a caveat, a statement of intent delivered by Elisha Gray’s lawyer. Both documents stated an intent to invent the telephone. 

According to popular belief, Bell was able to claim the rights to the telephone simply because his lawyer arrived at the office first. This belief, however, came from an incorrect assumption. Bell’s lawyer did not arrive first, nor would it have mattered. The system was based on the first to invent, not the first to file.

According to Gray, his caveat was filed before Bell’s application and therefore sat at the bottom of the in-basket. Meanwhile, Bell’s lawyer had requested that his receipt be filed immediately. Thus, the order in which they appeared in front of patent examiner Zenas Wilber was not necessarily the order in which they were submitted. 

Wilber claimed, under oath, that he found Bell’s receipt ahead of Gray’s and determined Bell’s application to have been delivered earlier. He admitted that he failed to investigate further. 

The issue with timing, however, wasn’t the real scandal. 

The Variable Resistance Breakthrough and the Liquid Transmitter

Gray’s caveat included a diagram for a liquid transmitter. This device has a short wire attached to an acoustic membrane. While one end of the wire is in water, it creates a variable resistance in response to an incident sound wave. This results in an undulating current, which causes the receiver to reproduce the original sound with a much higher degree of accuracy. 

It has been suggested that Bell’s design lacked this refinement and that an addition was made to the patent after Bell had illegally seen Gray’s caveat. Bell’s invention, the following month, suspiciously included this form of transmitting sound, replacing his previous idea of the “harmonic telegraph.” On March 10, Bell publicly demonstrated the first working telephone, declaring into the receiver the famous words, “Mr Watson, come here. I want to see you.”

While suspicions were certainly present, Bell and Gray met in June and seemed to put legal matters behind them, managing to conduct an amicable and professional relationship. 

Corruption and the Confessions of Zenas Wilber

According to Seth Shulman in his book, The Telephone Gambit, which details the events, Zenas Wilber was an alcoholic who owed money to Marcellus Bailey, Bell’s attorney. This was a violation of the Patent Office regulations, and to pay Bailey back, Wilber showed him Gray’s caveat. Bailey originally assumed that Gray had submitted a design for a harmonic telegraph. When he saw that Gray had submitted a caveat for a telephone, Bailey contacted Bell, who was in Boston at the time, and advised him to come to Washington, DC immediately. 

When Bell arrived, Wilber showed him the patent, and Bell gave him $100. Bell then amended his patent to include forms of “transmitting vocal or other sounds telegraphically.” Days later, Bell drew a diagram in his books that was very similar to the diagram Gray had drawn in his application. His application was accepted, and Gray’s was denied. 

Six Hundred Lawsuits and the Supreme Court Verdict

In 1877, Bell, along with Gardiner Hubbard and Thomas Sanders, founded the Bell Telephone Company. Much of the company’s financial success was due to its aggressive, litigation-heavy reputation. In the two decades since its founding, it battled nearly 600 patent lawsuits, several of which went to the Supreme Court. 

In 1878, Western Union hired Elisha Gray and Thomas Edison in a bid to challenge the Bell Telephone Company. Although the latter company held the patent to the telephone, Western Union held certain better components, and claimed Bell’s telephone patent was a case of fraud. The Bell Telephone Company sued for patent infringement, and on November 10, 1879, the court ruled in its favor.

In 1888, the Supreme Court found that claims of fraud against Bell’s patent could not be sustained, and claims of a prior telephone invention by Daniel Drawbaugh were found lacking. In another case, a few years later, the government brought a lawsuit to annul the patent, but the suit was tainted with corruption and conflict of interest, leading to its failure in 1897.

The aggressive reputation of the company from a business and legal perspective, however, can hardly be attributed to Bell. He removed himself from running the business and left it in the hands of his partners. He kept only ten shares in the business and gave the rest of his shares to his wife, Mabel, who was the daughter of Gardiner Hubbard, and whom he married on July 11, 1877.

The situation left a bitter taste in Bell’s mouth, and he went back to his previous vocation of working with the deaf, vowing never to enter the telephone business ever again.

The 150 Year Legacy of a Stolen Idea

Modern interpretations of the events favor the idea that Bell’s methods were not entirely legal. Unsurprisingly, Elisha Gray’s claims have gained popular interest in the media, as the public has always had a particular affection for a good underdog story. The debate isn’t completely one-sided, however, and Bell does have his defenders. 

Dr. Benjamin Brown, professor emeritus of physics in the Klingler College of Arts and Sciences at Marquette University, believes his research settles the entire dispute, and evidence certainly shows Bell to have invented the telephone before Gray. A letter from Bell’s fiancé, Mabel, dated January 17, 1876, mentions that Bell had added the liquid telephone transmitter to his patent application. 

There is also the lack of evidence for Gray’s attorneys’ claims that information was passed to Bell’s associate, George Brown, on January 26, 1876. Brown was the publisher of the Toronto Globe and kept detailed notes of daily submissions; his notes fail to mention any receipt of information about Gray’s telephone on that day. This helps disprove the notion of Gray’s chronological priority.

Furthermore, Zenas Wilber’s claims have been challenged. He submitted several affidavits which contradict each other, and in none of them is the mention that Bell’s patent application was changed after submission. 

Thus, Dr. Benjamin Brown concludes that there was no act of plagiarism. 

Whether or not a certain element of Bell’s invention was appropriated by illegal actions, there is no denying the revolutionary quality of his invention. The question, however, remains whether Alexander Graham Bell was a visionary who legally integrated ideas or an underhanded strategist who used legal loopholes to claim the honor (and profit) of inventing the telephone first. 

In 1835, the Mexican state of Texas declared its independence, sparking the Texas Revolution. The brief but intense conflict resulted in Texas winning its sovereignty by force of arms. Mexico, however, did not want to let Texas go quietly, and briefly invaded the new republic with raids during the early 1840s. 1845 saw a major geopolitical change as the United States agreed to annex Texas as one of its states. Texas became the 28th state, thus making its border with Mexico the United States’ border with Mexico. A year later, war erupted between the two nations over the Texas border dispute. Why did Mexico’s leader, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, ultimately lose Texas permanently in this conflict?

Who Is Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna?

General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna began his life in New Spain as a child born to a respected Spanish family. The boy’s father served as a functionary for the Spanish government in the Veracruz region. As a young teen, Santa Anna worked for a merchant in the city and in 1810 went to a military academy. During the 1810s, Santa Anna fought insurgents and Native Americans who rebelled against the government, where he developed a reputation for bravery. In March 1821, however, Santa Anna switched sides in the ongoing Mexican Revolution, joining the Mexican revolutionaries against the Spanish government.

When Mexico won its independence, Santa Anna became the state governor of Veracruz. In 1829, beginning a trend that would continue throughout his life, Santa Anna returned to military status from civilian “retirement” to head off the Spanish invasion at Tampico. The success of Santa Anna at Tampico, ending Spain’s hope of reconquering Mexico, made him a war hero. In 1833, thanks to his heroic image, Santa Anna was elected president of Mexico… for the first of several non-consecutive terms.

Mexican Texas

During the 1820s and early 1830s, while Santa Anna was becoming a renowned military hero, the Mexican state of Coahuila y Texas was growing popular with settlers from the United States. This settlement was encouraged by Mexico, as it feared Texas’ sparse population made it a target for potential takeover by foreign rivals. Empresarios worked as agents for the Mexican government to encourage settlers by offering land grants. Tensions arose as many settlers from the United States brought their slaves to work the agriculturally-suited land of East Texas. Slavery was illegal in Mexico, though the state of Texas had granted a temporary exception.

The early 1830s saw tensions increase as more white settlers arrived in Texas but maintained cultural ties to the United States. New Mexican president Santa Anna disliked the considerable autonomy given to the state of Texas and wanted to centralize power. He was incensed that settlers in the state were making political demands and organizing their own conventions. In 1835, Santa Anna overthrew the Constitution of 1824, creating a centralized Mexican state and granting himself absolute power.

Santa Anna and the Texas Revolution

The suspension of the Constitution of 1824 was the final straw for independence-minded Texians, though shooting had already started. A month before the suspension of the constitution, Santa Anna had sent an army to Texas to seize a cannon that he thought might be used in an independence movement. October 2, 1835, saw Texians fire on Mexican dragoons (mounted infantry) at Goliad, sparking the Texas Revolution. By December, emboldened Texians had forced Mexican garrisons past the Rio Grande River.

General Santa Anna (having abdicated his presidency) responded with force, arriving in Texas in February 1836 with a sizable army. They defeated the Texians at the Alamo and Goliad, executing almost all survivors. This brutality, adopted by Santa Anna from his mentors as a young officer, had the opposite effect of its intention: rather than cowing the Texians with fear, it steeled their resolve. In April, the Texians struck with the element of surprise in the Battle of San Jacinto, routing the Mexicans and capturing Santa Anna himself shortly after the battle. As a prisoner, Santa Anna signed the Treaty of Velasco, granting Texas independence on May 14, 1836.

Santa Anna After Texas Independence

The Texians originally held Santa Anna to ensure the Mexican military followed through on the terms of the Treaty of Velasco, but eventually allowed him to travel to Washington, DC, from where he returned to Mexico the following year. On May 20, 1836, the Mexican government had disavowed the treaty, arguing that Santa Anna signed only under duress as a prisoner-of-war. However, the United States quickly recognized Texas independence, extending formal recognition on March 3, 1837—only a few weeks after Santa Anna arrived back in Mexico.

The loss of Texas and Santa Anna’s brutality during the war harmed his reputation, as did his agreement to sign the Treaty of Velasco. Fortunately for the general, a new crisis erupted that made his skills valuable: France invaded Veracruz, Mexico, over unpaid debts incurred in fighting the Texas Revolution. The French were also upset over damage to a bakery owned by a French pastry chef, giving the conflict the name Pastry War. General Santa Anna emerged from retirement, rallied the troops, and forced the French out of the city. In the fighting, he lost his leg to French cannon fire.

Santa Anna and Texas Statehood

As during the Mexican Revolution, Santa Anna’s bravery in combat made him a folk hero. This allowed the general to claim the presidency once again in an acting capacity in both 1839 and 1841. After claiming the presidency in 1841, Santa Anna became a de facto dictator thanks to the Bases of Tacubaya (a plan to restructure the Mexican government) on September 28. Six months later, Santa Anna sent an army to San Antonio, Texas, as a form of harassment and retaliation—he lacked the resources to attempt to retake the state. The Vasquez Raid, named after Mexican general Rafael Vasquez, ended after two days, but caused much panic across Texas.

A larger raid in September 1842, under General Adrian Woll, held the town of San Antonio for a week. Texians resisted fiercely, but it was clear that the small republic could not win a prolonged campaign against Mexico. As a result, an increasing number of Texians came to support annexation by the United States. Texian President Sam Houston pushed for annexation, which was fiercely debated in the United States Congress due to Texas’ allowance of slavery. On December 29, 1845, Texas officially became the 28th state of the United States, a move supported by expansionist US president James K. Polk.

1846-48: The Mexican-American War

When Texas became a state, Santa Anna had been ousted from power and exiled after a popular uprising in December 1844, which included a mob disintering his buried leg and parading it through the streets. In exile in Cuba, Santa Anna watched as his home country and the United States moved toward war following Texas’ annexation. When war erupted in 1846, Santa Anna offered his military services. He also made a secret deal with the United States to end the war… but reneged on the deal and arrived in Mexico City ready to defend the nation.

Unfortunately for Santa Anna, who assumed a battlefield role, the US military was much swifter, better led on the battlefield, and more modernized than anticipated. The much larger United States Navy was able to dominate the coastlines and deliver troops close to Mexico City, while Santa Anna preferred a land-based conflict. The March 1847 amphibious landing at Veracruz, the largest in history at that time, allowed the US to get thousands of troops within striking distance of Mexico’s capital. Six months later, the city was captured. On February 2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo officially ended the war, ceding more than half of Mexico’s territory—its northern portion—to the United States.

Why Did Santa Anna Lose Texas to the United States?

The Mexican-American War ended any hope of Mexico reclaiming Texas. By the end of the war, the US was a dominant military power with its own armaments industry. Mexico, by contrast, relied heavily on imported weapons from Europe (mostly left over from the Napoleonic Wars), which were largely obsolete. Likewise, Mexico lacked anything close to America’s bustling shipbuilding industry, eliminating any chance of competing militarily on the high seas. There was no real hope of Mexico ever being able to contest the results of the war.

Aside from the United States’ greater military strength, Mexico suffered from internal political and economic weaknesses that made it difficult to fight a rigorous war. In the years leading up to the Mexican-American War, Mexico had been rocked by civil wars, coups, and insurrections. There was also racial, ethnic, and sociopolitical strife due to centuries of Spanish rule and its Casta (caste) system. This lingering social hierarchy, coupled with Mexico’s use of unpopular conscription, made Mexico’s army primarily composed of illiterate, poorly-trained young people. Social discrimination, conscription, and lack of regular pay led to high desertion rates and a lack of discipline in Mexico’s military during the war, causing its underperformance.

Post-War Santa Anna

Santa Anna had gone into exile again, this time voluntarily, after his defeat in the Mexican-American War, allowing a new government to sign the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Five years later, he was invited back to Mexico after a conservative revolt. Again, Santa Anna became an authoritarian ruler, this time proclaiming that he should hold office for life. The threat of war quickly loomed again between the US and Mexico, this time in disputed New Mexico territory. Fortunately, diplomacy won the day and Mexico sold the disputed territory in what became southern Arizona for $10 million in the Gadsden Purchase of 1854.

The sale of the Gadsden Purchase was seen as a corrupt deal by Santa Anna, with many Mexicans upset that he was selling more territory to the United States after the humiliating Mexican Cession of 1848. Accused of corruption, Santa Anna fled into exile yet again in 1855. In 1866, he tried to return to Mexico to help fight the French, who had installed Emperor Maximilian I in Mexico City. This time, Santa Anna’s offer of assistance was rejected by supporters of the Republic of Mexico, likely due to fear that the former dictator would once again try to gain executive power. For eight more years, Santa Anna remained in exile, struggling with eroding health, until finally being allowed to return to his country. He passed away on June 21, 1876, in Mexico City.

The 1950s saw the U.K. seeing and hearing American rock ‘n’ roll for the first time. From this, British musicians would create their unique sounds. By the 1950s, American culture, especially rock, began to take hold. Through movies, radio (usually pirate stations!), and albums introduced Elvis, Billy Haley, and the Comets, plus blues musicians like B.B. King. British kids took to this new, rebellious-sounding music like American kids. Future famous musicians like Mick Jagger, Pete Townshend, John Lennon, and Paul McCartney listened and learned. Iconic bands such as The Yardbirds, the Rolling Stones, and the Beatles took inspiration from them.

American rock influences even led to subgroups like the Teddy Boys. These kids dressed in Edwardian style and danced to music at the movies. This new style included the “Boston” haircut – greased, combed straight back, and cut square in the back. 

When Did the Invasion Start?

This musical invasion started on February 7, 1964, with the Beatle’s arrival in New York City. The four young men from Liverpool would perform on the Ed Sullivan Show two days later. Playing the pop song “I Want to Hold Your Hand” to a screaming, enthusiastic crowd gained an American toehold. 

With the Beatles here, other bands quickly followed. Over the next three years or so, U.K. bands dominated the music charts. Their dominance waned as their fewer chart-toppers appeared. One reason for this change is attributed to the Beatle’s refusal to tour after 1966. Changing musical tastes could have been another reason.

Who Were the Key Bands?

The Beatles, who started this movement, debuted first to American audiences. With their catchy lyrics, sounds, and mop-top haircuts, Beatles songs shot to the top. Following them across the Atlantic came more English groups adding their distinctive sounds.

Next came the Rolling Stones, which consisted of Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, and Bill Wyatt. Their defiant attitude and bluesy guitar riffs showed their American blues influences. Early chart toppers for the Stones were August 1965’s “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” and “Ruby Tuesday.”

The Who’s American time began in late 1965. Their first album, My Generation, was released in late 1965 and fronted by the dominating Roger Daltrey, the Who combined pop and forceful hard rock. The band became known for great live performances and, later, rock operas. Townshend’s power chords helped their reputation. My Generation produced great hits like “My Generation”, “I Can’t Explain,” and “Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere.” Other important groups include The Animals, The Kinks, and Herman’s Hermits.

What Was the British Invasion’s Cultural Impact?

The British Invasion became a reversal of American rock and roll’s impact on the U.K. This went beyond music, influencing fashion, entertainment, and fashion. Music still had its place, creating new genres, among them psychedelic rock. Using lyrics and instruments, it aimed to develop emotions and sensations-a liberal use of drugs helped too. Even the Beatles took this route, starring in the animated movie” The Yellow Submarine.”

Mod Fashion came with the British bands. Differentiated by tailored suits, bold patterns, and bright colors. Patterns like polka dots, vibrant colors, and geometric patterns became the rage. Colors like red, orange, and yellow were dominant. The movement had go-go boots made famous for women by Linda Sinatra or Chelsea Boots for men. Counter-culture kids adopted these fashions, which helped define1960s styles.

Why Was the British Invasion Roll So Popular?

One explanation is that the British Invasion differed slightly from American rock. Each had its influences, movements, and sounds. For example, American rock and roll took in blues, country, and R&B, looking for sincere feelings and emotions. The Invasion, again by the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, drew more from the blues or rock but created their sound. 

Also, record labels and managers saw a good thing and capitalized. Once the Beatles landed on the tarmac, the race was on. It’s like how American baseball is today with talented Dominican, Japanese, and Korean players on MLB teams; these promoters sought after any talented British band or musician. Bands like The Kinks or The Zombies did well and sold many records. That dominance lasted from 1964 to 1967. During these three short years, few months had no Top Ten British hit.

Critics can’t deny the British Invasion’s impact. Bands from that era are household names and still seen as influential to young musicians.

Sensual dancer, spy in World War I, or just an innocent scapegoat? Mata Hari is a woman of intrigue whose many facets continue to fascinate the public. But who was the real Mata Hari, and how did she end up being accused of espionage? We track her complicated life story.

Mata Hari’s Early Years

Mata Hari was born Margaretha Zelle on August 7, 1876 in Leeuwarden, the Netherlands. Her father was a well-to-do hatter for most of her childhood. Her life seemed like a typical Dutch childhood. When she was a teenager, the family turned on hard times and her father lost the family money. Her parents would also later divorce, with her mother dying in 1891 when she was around 15, after which time she was shipped off to live with relatives.

Four years later Zelle met and married Captain Rudolph MacLeod, who was an officer in the Dutch army. Sadly, their marriage was not a happy one. It was fraught with issues, including abuse from her husband who was not faithful. They had two children, Norman-John and Louise. Yearning to have a life of her own is what would eventually drive her to transform her into a dancer with a stage name that would make her famous.

Hari eventually moved to Paris, France in 1905 to become a dancer of Asian-inspired movements. She adopted the stage name Mata Hari, or “eye of the day” in Malay, and became famous enough to tour across Europe and Asia. She created a myth that she had been trained in these dances by a priestess and she was actually born in India. 

Life as a Spy in World War I

While some of the most popular spy vs spy stories in the United States involve Russia and the Cold War, spies have been around for many years. Espionage was essential in wartime. The need to discover what was going on the other side was planning, if there would be a chance at winning the war. World War I was unique in that, unlike the old form of spying of individuals observing and ferreting out information – which was still utilized – spying through planes with aerial cameras started in this time period.

While movies and books like James Bond show spies with fancy tech gadgets, suave attire and an attitude where they don’t care if they are found out, real spying is a lot less glamorous and usually involves getting close to people to find out information and passing it on to the appropriate parties, while trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. By 1917, over 1000 estimated spies worked in various countries involved in the war.

Besides Zelle, some other famous spies during World War I include Fritz Joubert Duquesne, a South African who led a German spy ring and British spy Sidney Reilly.

Mata Hari and Espionage

Mata Hari would have been an excellent candidate for espionage. The Netherlands didn’t officially join World War I. Since it was neutral, Zelle could go through the borders of different countries without raising any red flags.

She had apparently been approached by Germany in 1915. Her role as a courtesan and dancer, and her fame, gained her access to military elites and high up individuals. This was crucial for gaining information. She used her charm to listen in on private discussions from high up individuals who didn’t always maintain their guard around her. Whether it was her profession or the fact that she was female is unclear. How much actual information she was able to get outside of more basic knowledge of the war or movements of officers is also unclear.

Mata Hari’s Arrest, Trial, and Execution

Working as a spy for the French led Mata Hari to have six names, including an assumed double agent for Germany. The death of the agent led them to believe that she had given the names to Germany. She was arrested in Paris at the Hotel Elysee Palace on February 13, 1917. She was tried on July 24 of that year, accused of causing the deaths of thousands of soldiers through her work with Germany. Due to her fame, the trial of “Mata Hari” was a media sensation. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, on August 12, 1917, it had a headline stating that, “[Mata Hari] has left a trail of romance and tragedy unequaled in lurid fiction—From Burma to Paris she drew men to death and disgrace.”

Zelle died on October 15, 1917 by a French firing squad. Even at the time some viewed Mata Hari as a tragic victim of war and circumstance. Some wondered if she deserved such a cruel fate because of her spy work, which was all too common during the war. It certainly calls into question the ways in which women in history have suffered.

Mata Hari’s Lasting Legacy and Image as a Femme Fatale

Zelle’s infamous reputation lasted long past her execution. Even her stage name, “Mata Hari”, is now synonymous with a femme fatale or female spy. Her story has been immortalized in books, films, television shows, and other forms of modern media, including documentaries that talk about her life, and historical fiction.

The interesting part of Mata Hari’s story is how much of it is actually true. The trial was largely built on circumstantial evidence and the need to have a reason the war was going badly. According to the press, the climate of acceptable forms of entertainment in France had changed during the war, making her an outsider with her risqué dance styles. Historian Wesley War said that, “They needed a scapegoat, and she was a notable target for scapegoating.”

So, was she a femme fatale, a dangerous seductress who preyed on men in order to gain access to information, or was she as American historians Norman Polmer and Thomas Allen say, merely a victim of men, duped to be a pawn in a larger game? The questions remain unanswered.

An ominously named landscape of bleak, almost alien beauty, the Scablands in southeast Washington State is a geological wonder that holds many secrets and fascinating facts. It is a truly unique place that enthralls visitors of all kinds, from scientists to hikers to photographers, who come to marvel at its incredible forms.

Here are 6 interesting facts about the Scablands!

1. The “Channeled Scablands” Was Named by a Geologist

The first settlers in the area were not impressed with the quality of the soil in the Scablands. To them, the area was useless and generally ignored. To geologists, however, the region held great interest.

Geologist J Harlen Bretz of the University of Chicago named the area the “Channeled Scablands” in 1920 while conducting a geological study of the area. He proposed the theory that the Scablands was created by a massive flood. These floods carved approximately 150 channels known as “coulees” into the bedrock. These coulees are hundreds of feet below the original surface, and while spectacular, they held little value for the pioneers and settlers wishing to create a new life in what would become Washington State.

2. The Scablands Is the Result of Massive Flooding

At the end of the last ice age between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago, periodic floods known as the Missoula Floods swept through eastern Washington and down the Columbia River Gorge. The ice dam on the Clark River Fork melted and re-froze numerous times, causing massive floods to sweep down into the lands below, carving out paths through the basalt.

Research by hydrologist Jim O’Connor and scientist Gerardo Benito shows evidence of at least 25 such floods. Geologist R.B. Waitt Jr. argues that there were at least 40 such floods, each one occurring every few decades over a period of 2,000 years. The largest of these floods is estimated to have discharged 2.4 cubic miles of water per hour—13 times that of the Amazon River. With raging torrents traveling up to 80 miles per hour, the effect on the landscape was powerful.

J Harlen Bretz first proposed his theory of these floods in 1923 and encountered much derision from his peers. How the Scablands was formed was a subject of great academic debate among geologists, which lasted for many decades.

Although Bretz proposed the idea of the Scablands being formed by a great flood, he had no solid ideas as to what could have caused this flood. Geologist Joseph Thomas Pardee added to Bretz’s theory in this regard and suggested that the floods were the result of the draining of a glacial lake. After three decades of painstaking work in the field, Pardee concluded that Lake Missoula in western Montana was the lake in question.

It was eventually accepted that Bretz was correct in his thinking. As the decades passed, Bretz’s and Pardee’s theories garnered more support as evidence mounted. Research in open-channel hydraulics in the 1970s helped push the theories further. Satellite imagery provided by NASA helped solidify this theory, as it clearly showed evidence of the land being carved by megafloods. In 1979, Bretz received the Penrose Medal, the highest honor awarded by the Geological Society of America.

Such was the power of the Missoula Floods that geologists have calculated that they actually caused earthquakes as the walls of water thundered through the landscape.

3. The Scablands Has a Shrub-Steppe Ecosystem

The Scablands constitute part of the shrub-steppe system of the western part of the United States. This system is characterized by low-rainfall natural grassland with few trees but enough moisture to support perennial groundcover. The region is very windy, which discourages tree growth and assists in the spread of grass seeds.

Despite being a barren wasteland as far as farming is concerned, the ecosystem is bountiful in unique flora and fauna that make their home in this wilderness. Ground squirrels and marmots live amongst the shrubs while grazing mammals such as deer, elk, and antelope are common. Efforts to introduce pronghorn antelope back into the ecosystem were made in the 1930s, 1950s, and 1960s. Although rare, the species is slowly growing in number and currently stands at around 250 individuals, according to a 2023 report.

In the skies, hawks, falcons, and owls scan the ground for their next meal, while predators on the ground, such as snakes and badgers, burrow into the earth.

4. Dry Falls Was the Largest Known Waterfall to Ever Exist

Aptly named, there is a wide cliff face that hints at a spectacular geological past. As beautiful and tranquil as this place is today, during the end of the last ice age, water swept over the 400-foot rock face at 65 miles per hour along a 3.5-mile-long precipice—five times the width of Niagara Falls and three times the height. To put the volume into perspective, that is ten times the water flow of all the rivers in the world combined.

One of the major attractions in the Scablands, Dry Falls prompts visitors to imagine the immense cascade that once tore through these lands, scouring the landscape and carving massive channels on an unprecedented scale.

Dry Falls is identified as the largest waterfall ever discovered in the prehistoric records. Given that the Earth is billions of years old, it is unlikely that Dry Falls was the largest waterfall ever to exist, but it is the largest discovered so far.

5. The Area Was Once Covered in Swamps and Forests

Washington State’s official state gem is petrified wood—a strange choice but one well suited to a state known for its forests and timber industries. Evidence of the state’s official gem can even be seen in the Scablands, a place with very few trees today!

Near the small town of Vantage in central Washington is the Ginkgo Petrified Forest. Ginkgo trees are considered “living fossils” today, as this species of tree was around when the dinosaurs roamed the earth over 60 million years ago.

Here, the ginkgo trees are long dead, but their remains have turned to stone. These remains hearken back to a time when the area was wet and humid and covered in swamps and forests. Many millions of years ago, a volcanic eruption caused mudslides that carried the trees into a nearby lake.

Around 15.6 million years ago, a lava flow came upon this lake and its fallen detritus. The waterlogged tree trunks were protected from being burned and were covered for millions of years and petrified before eventually being revealed through erosion of the surrounding volcanic rock.

6. The Scablands Is Home to Fascinating Rock Formations

As hot and inhospitable as it is bleak, Frenchman Coulee is a place that would not look out of place in a post-apocalyptic fantasy. A large, treeless, flat-bottomed canyon flanked by 300-foot cliffs, Frenchman Coulee is known for its striking rock formations and has become an attraction for rock-climbing enthusiasts who wish to test their skills on the ominous-looking cliff faces.

This is not the only place with alien-looking rock formations, though. The Scablands is filled with areas characterized by hexagonal basalt columns. Drumheller Channels is filled with small, isolated buttes with steep basalt-lined sides made up of thousands of hexagonal columns. Geologically spectacular, it is unusual to see geometric patterns on such a grand scale in nature.

The ancient riverbeds of the Scablands also feature large potholes formed by powerful water vortices called “kolks.” These kolks gathered such vigor that they were able to pluck basalt columns out of the earth underneath them, leaving behind large holes in the bedrock. The movement of the water continued to grind and erode the holes until the rocky surface was smooth.

Difficult to identify on the ground, the massive ripple trains are evident when seen from the air. As typically seen in rivers and on beach sand, the movement of water can cause a sequence of small ridges to form on the ground surface. This also happened in the Scablands, except on a scale that is absolutely gargantuan. Instead of leaving marks in the sand, the fast-moving water deposited sediment in the form of rocks and boulders. This sediment formed patterns of consecutive ridges that can be seen clearly from the air.

Filled with wondrous sights that hold incredible geological stories behind them, the Scablands is a place that is truly unique. For hikers, climbers, geologists, or those just wishing to appreciate the distinctive vistas, there is no place quite like it anywhere else in the world.

The Sand Creek Massacre was one of the most barbaric events in the history of the United States of America. On November 29, 1864, the 750 Cheyenne and Arapaho camped on a bend of the Sand Creek River in what is now Colorado were attacked by men of the Third Colorado Cavalry and the 1st Colorado Infantry Regiment of Volunteers under the command of Colonel John Chivington. Thousands of people were killed and maimed, including women, children, and the elderly. The attack was unprovoked, and it was pure butchery. More than a century later, Fabrizio De André, one of Italy’s most famous and beloved singer-songwriters, re-enacted the massacre in his song Sand Creek River. It is a powerful and extremely poetic piece in which the violence inflicted on the Cheyenne and Arapaho by the Third Colorado Calvary is evoked through the eyes of a Native American child.

Fabrizio De André

Fabrizio De André (1940-1999) is widely regarded as Italy’s greatest singer-songwriter, or cantautore, in Italian. In his hometown of Genoa, he is affectionately known as Faber. His friend Paolo Villaggio (1932-2017), a well-known Italian comedian and actor, gave him this nickname due to its phonetic similarity to De André’s name, as well as his fondness for Faber-Castell’s pencils and pastels.

Like the Cheyenne and Arapaho chiefs tragically killed during the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864, De André was a man of peace. He strongly believed in the power and necessity of non-violence as a means to resolve conflicts between nations and groups. His 1968 anti-war song, La Guerra di Piero (The War of Piero), which begins with the evocative line “You sleep buried in a field of grain,” continues to be taught and sung in Italian schools.

In Italian culture, particularly during the counterculture movements of the 1960s and 1970s, The War of Piero has played a role similar to that of Bob Dylan’s Blowin’ in the Wind in the United States. Many of De André’s songs feature outcasts and rebels, people who have been marginalized and misunderstood by society. He often describes and gives voice to thieves and prostitutes, as seen in his powerful and rhythmically intense song Bocca di Rosa (Rose-Mouth), as well as to starving men and figures from Christian history.

In 1981, De André recorded Fiume Sand Creek (Sand Creek River), which offers a unique take on the Sand Creek Massacre. For the album cover, he chose Frederic Sackrider Remington’s The Outlier (1909), depicting a Native American warrior sitting on his horse, rifle in hand, in front of a full moon in a nocturnal, dream-like scene.

The selection of Remington’s painting for the cover is itself meaningful. On one hand, by drawing attention to Native Americans and Remington himself, who is widely regarded as one of the most esteemed (and controversial) chroniclers of the American West, De André makes Sand Creek River stand out among the album’s other songs. On the other, it serves as a reminder that Native Americans were more than just victims or “savages.” They were proud people, with rich and complex cultures and rituals, who fiercely resisted American encroachment and violence.

The Sand Creek Massacre

In 1864, about 750 Cheyenne and Arapaho men, women, and children were camped at the Big Sand Creek, some 50 miles north of Fort Lyon in present-day Kiowa Country, in southeastern Colorado. The leading chief of the Southern Cheyenne was Black Kettle (1803-1868), who was born into the Northern Só’taeo’o band of the Northern Cheyenne and later married into the Southern Cheyenne. A pragmatic man committed to peace, before the Sand Creek Massacre (also known as the Sand Creek Betrayal), he had attended several council meetings to advocate and secure peace for his people.

In 1864, Black Kettle led them to camp in a bend of the Big Sandy Creek following orders from the US Army. The encampment was ready to move to Fort Lyon, where they would be guaranteed to find safety and receive supplies, as promised in the proclamation issued by the Governor of the Territory of Colorado, John Evans (1814-1897).

Evans’s proclamation, however, was in direct conflict with the standing order that, throughout the Territory of Colorado, any Indigenous man, woman, or child could be shot and killed if seen approaching a Fort. The Cheyenne and Arapahos stationed at Big Sandy Creek were in a stalemate and a dangerously precarious situation. The grave dangers they were subject to became evident on the morning of November 29, 1864.

At around 6.30 AM, Colonel Chivington rode into the camp with 250 men of the Third Colorado Cavalry and gave orders to attack the peaceful camp. Two officers refused and told the men under their command to hold fire. They were Lieutenant Joseph Cramer (1838-1869), in charge of Company K of the First Colorado Calvary, and Captain Silas Soule (1838-1865), in charge of Company D. Born into a progressive family of abolitionists and himself an active abolitionist, Soule was assassinated two months after testifying before a US military commission.

The massacre lasted all morning. Children were shot on sight. Women were mutilated, scalped, and tortured. Robert Bent (also known as Ho-my-ike in Cheyenne), son of non-Indigenous William Bent and Cheyenne Owl Woman, testified of a woman “lying on the bank, whose leg had been broken. A soldier came up to her with a drawn sabre. She raised her arm to protect herself; he struck, breaking her arm. She rolled over, and raised her other arm; he struck, breaking that, and then left her without killing her.”

The soldiers chased those who tried to escape by following the river (although most of them survived), and did not leave the camp until December 1. For a day and a half, they checked the bodies for jewelry and other possessions they could use or sell, scalping and desecrating the dead.

Fiume Sand Creek (Sand Creek River)

In 1879, Major Scott Anthony of the First Cavalry of Colorado recalled a scene he witnessed during the Sand Creek Massacre: “There was one little child, probably three years old, just big enough to walk through the sand. The Indians had gone ahead, and this little child was behind, following after them. The little fellow was perfectly naked, traveling in the sand. I saw one man get off his horse at a distance of about seventy-five yards and draw up his rifle and fire. He missed the child.” Two other soldiers fired at the child. Eventually, they struck him dead, and “the little fellow dropped.”

In Sand Creek River, De André recounts the Sand Creek Massacre through the eyes of one of the children who died there, a child who, after that terrible day, was found “asleep at the bottom of Sand Creek.”

The song is divided into five stanzas. Each stanza is linked to the next by a verse describing, concretely or metaphorically, the battle’s progression through the objects that fall into the river. The arrival of Chivington’s men is symbolized by the silver dollar dropped to the bottom of the Sand Creek: the massacre has just begun. As the Cheyenne and Arapaho run for their lives, fish “sing” at the bottom of Sand Creek.

The haunting verse, “Now the children sleep in the Sand Creek bed,” serves to bridge the third and fourth stanzas. In the final stanza, as the dead lie defiled on the ground among the overturned teepees, an arrow—a potent symbol of Indigenous defiance and resistance—is loosed toward the sky, but it eventually plants itself in the riverbed. The river, one of the song’s main characters, is used as both a literal and metaphorical witness, flowing through each stanza, absorbing the violence and bearing witness to the massacre unfolding along its banks.

“They took our hearts under a dark blanket
Under a moon that died young, we were sleeping without fear.
It was a 20-year-old general
Wearing a uniform as blue as his eyes,
It was a 20-year-old general
The son of thunder.”

The Sand Creek Massacre is also known as the Chivington Massacre after John Chivington (1821-1894), the Colonel who gave the order to attack the Cheyenne and the Arapaho encamped at Sand Creek. De André describes him as a “20-year-old general,” but in reality, Chivington was already in his 40s. De André is seeking to reverse our expectations: he is telling us that in American history, the romantic figure of the blue-eyed 20-year-old general is actually a mass murderer who orders his man to butcher defenseless women and children.

It was early morning when Chivington’s soldiers attacked the camp. Men, women, and children were fast asleep, sleeping “without fear,” as De André writes in the first stanza. The soldiers’ arrival is announced by a “distant tune” that grows louder and louder. In a sick turn of events, music is here transformed into a harbinger of violence, betrayal, and death.

“Our warriors were far away on the bison track,
And that distant tune grew louder and louder.
I closed my eyes thrice,
I found myself still there.
I asked my grandpa, ‘Is this a dream?’
My grandpa said, yes. 
Sometimes the fish sing at the bottom of Sand Creek”

The child narrator tries to “disappear” by closing his eyes three times, an instinctual, childlike defense against the harrowing experience he is witnessing. To no avail. Seeking comfort, he turns to his grandfather, who assures him that yes, it is just a dream. But as the massacre unfolds, the child starts bleeding from his nose. The dream, now a nightmare, refuses to dissolve and seeps into the child’s mind.

The more the battle rages, the more poetic, dream-like, almost sweet De André’s lyrics become. Death comes with nosebleeds and lightning. Death transforms people and the landscape. As the child slowly bleeds to death, he sees the snow-covered trees surrounding the camp bloom “with red stars”—possibly a symbol of both death and resurgence.

“I dreamed so vividly that I started to bleed from my nose,
Lightning in one ear, heaven in the other,
The smallest tears,
The biggest tears,
When the snowy tree 
Blossomed with red stars.
Now the children sleep in the Sand Creek riverbed.” 

The Aftermath of the Massacre

As we have seen, the first three stanzas of the song describe the arrival of Chivington’s soldiers at Sand Creek and the brutal attack they carried out against the Cheyenne and Arapaho. While the last stanza is identical to the first, thus taking us back to the beginning, the fourth stanza leads us deep into the Native American camp once the soldiers have left.

We are asked to bear witness to the death and devastation Chivington’s soldiers inflicted on the Arapaho and Cheyenne. Ironically, it is the most dramatic and complex stanza in the whole song. At first glance, the devastation seems to be filtered, once again, through the eyes of the child narrator: the fact that he shoots an arrow at the sky “so that it may breathe” is consistent with a child’s perspective.

“When the sun raised its head between the night’s shoulders,
There were only dogs and smoke and overturned tepees
I threw an arrow at the sky
So that it may breathe
I threw an arrow at the wind
So that it may bleed 
Look for the third arrow on the bottom of Sand Creek.”

However, the scene described is extremely vivid and claustrophobic. The sky is like a cloak that traps human beings beneath it, preventing them from breathing fully. It almost seems as if the narrator of the stanza is a survivor (or an outsider), helplessly wandering among the smoke and overturned tepees, unable to breathe, overwhelmed by the devastation he is witnessing.

The men, women, and children who died at Big Sand Creek belonged to several Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes. Some of them, such as Chief Black Kettle’s band, were nearly exterminated. Several sources estimate that between 70 and 600 Cheyenne and Arapaho were killed and mutilated during the massacre. About two-thirds of them were women and children.

Black Kettle’s wife, Medicine Woman Later, was severely wounded, sustaining nine bullet wounds. Southern Cheyenne chief White Antelope (Wōkaī hwō’kō mǎs) was shot dead, his body brutally desecrated and his belongings stolen.

Some accounts, including that of George Bent, claim that he remained in his lodge and sang his death song before he was killed, while others describe him running toward the soldiers, either holding a gun or unarmed, shouting at them to lay down their weapons.

In addition to the trauma it caused among generations of Cheyenne and Arapaho, the massacre also had the effect of severely weakening the older, more peaceful Native American faction, opposed by the Dog Soldiers (Hotamétaneo’o). In fact, among the dead were eight members of the Council of 44, the council of Cheyenne chiefs responsible for peace negotiations. In addition to White Antelope, Ochinee (also known as Lone Bear and One Eye), Yellow Wolf (Ho’néoxheóvaestse), War Bonnet, Spotted Crow, Bear Robe, Big Man, and Bear Man were all killed.

The 1864 Sand Creek Massacre, one of the most brutal events in the history of 19th century United States, also served to “radicalize” many Cheyenne and Arapaho who until then had believed in the possibility of negotiating peace with the “white men.” In the months that followed, thousands of them joined the Dog Soldiers and carried out attacks on forts and stations throughout the Platte Valley and in Powder River country. Among them was the Northern Cheyenne warrior Roman Nose (Vóhko’xénéhe).

De André’s song, Fiume Sand Creek, was released in 1981, 117 years after the Sand Creek Massacre. By presenting the massacre through the eyes of a child, he goes beyond a mere recounting of historical facts. The child’s perspective, unclouded by ideology or context, serves to highlight the senselessness and the brutality of the soldiers’ violence. Sterile facts are transformed into an intimate and almost dream-like narrative. Fiume Sand Creek is both a tribute to the victims, particularly children, and a lament for the lives lost that day, as well as a reminder of the irreparable damage inflicted on future Cheyenne and Arapaho generations.

Some beloved Christmas characters from festive film, music, or literature have stood the test of time, becoming icons in their own right. Who are they and why are they so beloved?

1. Clara Stahlbaum in The Nutcracker by E. T. A. Hoffmann (1816)

“What a splendid little man!” 

Clara is the wide-eyed young heroine whose Christmas Eve transforms into a magical journey through enchanted realms. The ordinary melts into the fantastical when a toy Nutcracker she receives as a gift comes to life on Christmas Eve and whisks her away to sparkling realms ruled by sugar and snow. Clara’s journey captures the childlike wonder that turns December into a fairy tale, and reminds us that magic need only exist in our imaginations.

2. The Christmas Witch (La Befana) of Italian Folklore

“La Befana vien di notte con le scarpe tutte rotte” (“The Befana comes at night with her shoes all tattered and torn”).

Befana is a magical figure, originating from Italian folklore, who delivers gifts on Epiphany Eve. She is half-witch, half-grandmother, and represents the older, fairy-tale roots of Christmas tradition. She symbolizes kindness, mystery, and winter magic. Her scary exterior masks the goodness of her insides, reminding children to judge no book by its cover.

3. Clarence Odbody, Angel Second Class in It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

“Remember, no man is a failure who has friends.”

Clarence is the gentle angel who earns his wings by showing George Bailey the value of his life. Clarence is full of bumbling celestial charm as he guides George through a vision of what life might look like had he not been born. Clarence’s cajoling humor and steadfast kindness turn the holiday into something miraculous. His earnest and constant belief in the goodness and worthiness of others is a message to all, proving that angels can be just as human as the people they help.

4. The Little Drummer Boy in Carol of the Drum (1941)

“I played my best for Him, 
Then he smiled at me, 
pa rum pum pum pum.”

A poor orphan drummer boy is summoned to see the newborn Jesus alongside the Magi. He is intimidated by the lavish gifts the Magi carry to Bethlehem: the gold, frankincense, and myrrh. When they arrive at the stable, the drummer boy has nothing to offer but music. He plays his drum, as it is all he can offer, for which he earns a smile from the baby Jesus.

The original song was written by Katherine Kennicott Davis in 1941, and was inspired by old European folktales of poor citizens giving what little material possessions they have to the Christ Child in Bethlehem. Davis was an American composer and pianist, likely influenced by the romanticized “drummer boy” icon that emerged around the time of the American Civil War, when drummers were used on the battlefield to keep time for marching troops. Their roles were incredibly vulnerable, and the drummers were often young. A famous drummer boy, Robert Hendershot, was made famous after heroic service at the Battle of Fredericksburg, where he captured Confederate soldiers in a Union-boosting act of bravery.

The carol has inspired countless retellings, both in literary and visual culture, inspiring animations, picture books, and even children’s toys. Famous artists such as David Bowie, Justin Bieber, Bing Crosby, and Joan Baez have released covers of the carol—all putting a new spin on a timeless story of giving with nothing to offer.

5. Tiny Tim in A Christmas Carol (1843)

“God bless us, every one!”

Tiny Tim Cratchitt is Charles Dickens’s most beloved child character, a small boy with optimism and compassion in quantities enough to soften even Scrooge’s hardest of hearts. Tiny Tim’s blessing reminds us to be grateful for our lot, no matter how small. Tim tells his father, after a visit to church, that he hoped people saw him, “because he was a cripple, and it might be pleasant to them to remember upon Christmas day who made lame beggars walk, and blind men see.”

Tim’s frail body houses his indestructible moral compass. His sense of self is a catalyzing force in Scrooge’s redemption.

6. Buddy the Elf in Elf (2003)

“The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear.”

Buddy is a human raised by elves who spreads Christmas cheer with pure-hearted enthusiasm. His wide grin, unwavering optimism, and obsession with sugar turn the adult world around him into a playground.

As a baby, Buddy accidentally crawled into Santa’s sack on Christmas Eve. He was raised by Papa Elf and the other elves, despite being human-sized. Buddy (played by Will Ferrell) travels to New York to meet fellow humans and is met with an overwhelming culture clash. Ultimately, he restores belief in the magic of Christmas to all he encounters.

Perhaps when reduced to its simplest form, Buddy represents the feeling of being outside looking in. He desperately attempts to assimilate with the human world, but longs for the elves that raised him.

7. Susan Walker in Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

“I believe. I believe. It’s silly, but I believe.”

Susan Walker is a nine-year-old girl who does not believe in Santa Claus because her mother has raised her to avoid indulgence in fantasy. Soon enough, Susan meets the real Santa at Macy’s Department Store and begins to believe in magic.

In the 1947 film, Susan is played by Natalie Wood (who would later go on to star in West Side Story). In the 1994 remake, Susan is played by Matilda star Mara Wilson.

8. Jack Skellington in The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

“What’s this? What’s this? There’s magic in the air!”

Disney and Tim Burton collide to create a gothic delight. Jack Skellington is exhausted. Another year of Halloween festivities draws to a close, and he’s had enough of Halloweentown. His scornful wanderings take him stumbling into Christmastown. For Jack, a change is as good as a rest. He is captivated by the sparkle, warmth, and joviality of Christmas and attempts to bring it back to Halloweentown.

Jack’s misadventures are eerie and enchanting; he is a gothic dreamer who stumbles into the magic of Christmas and wants the feeling to stay. He soon learns, however, that the grass isn’t always greener, and that perhaps home really is where the heart is…

9. Frosty in Frosty the Snowman (1950)

“Frosty the snowman was a jolly, happy soul,
With a corncob pipe and a button nose
And two eyes made out of coal.
Frosty the Snowman is a fairy tale, they say,
He was made of snow, but the children know
how he came to life one day.”

A snowman brought to life for one perfect winter’s day, Frosty was first conceptualized in the popular song written by Steve Nelson and Jack Rollins in 1950. The ditty has a thread of mild threat, as the snowman must return to the North Pole before he melts, and was first sung by Gene Autry and the Cass County Boys. Others soon followed suit, and Nat King Cole, Roy Rogers, the Ronettes, and many more released covers in the subsequent years. Immediately, the world had a Christmas classic.

However, the first visual Frosty was immortalized by Rankin/Bass Productions and aired on CBS on December 7, 1969. Jimmy Durante provided the narration, telling the story of the jolly snowman brought to life by a magic hat for a day of adventure with his new friends. The TV special aired in the slot straight after the fifth showing of A Charlie Brown Christmas, which was already a huge ratings hit.

10. Cindy Lou Who in How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

“Santa? Don’t forget the Grinch. I know he’s mean and hairy and smelly, but I think he’s actually kinda sweet.”

Cindy Lou Who is the quiet hero of Dr. Seuss’s festive fairytale, a small child with a heart bigger than the Whos’ Christmas feast. Cindy Lou’s innocence softens the Grinch’s resentment and becomes the moral center of the story, proving how powerful simple compassion can be. She sees goodness where others see mischief, helping the Grinch discover what the holiday truly means. No one is too small to make a difference.