Perhaps surprisingly given the zeal with which he went on to lead the French Empire, Napoleon more readily identified as a Corsican and, in his early career, fought fervently for Corsican independence.

It was only after a falling out with Corsican resistance leader Pasquale Paoli that Napoleon made France his home and began to establish himself as the new republic’s rising star by masterminding a succession of vital military victories, including the resistance-breaking Siege of Toulon and, in 1785, the defeat of 20,000 royalists in Paris.

Identified by republican politicians as a natural leader, Napoleon’s ascent to the head of the government was meteoric, propelled by numerous battlefield victories in Italy and then Egypt. In 1799 he seized power of France and became first consul, quickly establishing himself as a hugely popular leader by overseeing continued military dominance and instituting influential legal reforms.

These legal reforms, enshrined in the Napoleonic Code, cemented the aims of the Revolution by replacing the outmoded inconsistencies of old feudal legislation.

Napoleon is perhaps more famous today for being short than for his military prowess and political talents.

Napoleon even succeeded in bringing about peace by defeating Austria and, for a time, quelling Britain’s efforts to stand against the French military. His irresistible ascent to power culminated in his coronation as the Emperor of France in 1804.

Peace in Europe did not last long, however, and the rest of Napoleon’s reign was defined by years of wars across Europe against various coalitions. During this time his reputation as a brilliant military leader was further enhanced, until the War of the Seventh Coalition and the French defeat at Waterloo led to his abdication on the 22 June 1815.

Napoleon saw out the rest of his days in exile on the remote island of Saint Helena.

Here are 10 facts you may not have known about the French emperor.

1. He wrote a romance novel

Behind the ruthless, battle-hardened facade, Napoleon was a bit of a softie, as both his embarrassingly soppy love letters and a recently unearthed romantic novella prove. Penned in 1795, when Napoleon was 26, Clisson et Eugénie is a brief (just 17 pages) exercise in sentimental self-mythologising that, according to most reviews, fails to establish him as a lost literary genius.

2. His first wife, Josephine Bonaparte, narrowly avoided the guillotine

Napoleon’s first wife nearly did not live to marry the French emperor.

Josephine, Napoleon’s first wife, was previously married to Alexandre de Beauharnais (with whom she had three children), an aristocrat who was guillotined during the Reign of Terror. Josephine was also imprisoned and scheduled for execution before being released five days later when the Reign of Terror’s architect, Robespierre, was himself guillotined. 

3. He would disguise himself and walk the streets

At the height of his powers Napoleon developed the habit of dressing up as a lower-class bourgeoisie and wandering the streets of Paris. Seemingly, his aim was to find out what the man on the street really thought of him and he reportedly quizzed random passers-by about their Emperor’s merits. 

4. He was tone deaf

Apparently, one of Napoleon’s least endearing habits was his penchant for singing (or humming and mumbling) whenever he became agitated. Unfortunately, pained accounts suggest that his singing voice was distinctly unmusical.

5. He was afraid of cats (possibly)

Oddly, a whole host of historic tyrants — Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Mussolini, Hitler and our man Napoleon — are reputed to have suffered from Ailurophobia, the fear of cats. It turns out, however, that there is little in the way of evidence to support the common claim that Napoleon was terrified of cats, although the fact that it’s become such a well-worn rumour is interesting. It is even claimed that his alleged fear stemmed from a wildcat attack when he was an infant.

6. He discovered the Rosetta Stone

Now held in the British Museum in London, the Rosetta Stone is a granite slab carved in three scripts: hieroglyphic Egyptian, demotic Egyptian and ancient Greek. It played a vital part in deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphs and has long been considered a hugely important artefact. Less well known is the fact that it was discovered by Napoleon’s soldiers during the Egyptian campaign in 1799.

7. He wore poison around his neck

It is said that Napoleon carried a vial of poison, attached to a cord he wore around his neck, that could be swiftly downed should he ever be captured. Apparently, he did eventually imbibe the poison in 1814, following his exile to Elba, but its potency was by then diminished and only succeeded in making him violently ill. 

8. A submarine escape plot was hatched to rescue him from exile in Saint Helena

An aerial view of the island where Napoleon lived out his final years.

Following his defeat at Waterloo, Napoleon was exiled to Saint Helena, a small island in the South Atlantic, 1,200 miles from the nearest land. Escape from such isolated incarceration was reckoned to be near-impossible. Even so, numerous plans were hatched to rescue the exiled Emperor, including an audacious plan involving two early submarines and a mechanical chair.

9. He wasn’t that short

Napoleon has become synonymous with shortness. Indeed, the term “Napoleon complex”, used to characterise short, overly aggressive people, is conceptually bound to his famously diminutive stature. But in fact, at the time of his death, Napoleon measured 5 feet 2 inches in French units — the equivalent of 5 feet 6.5 inches in modern measurement units — which was a distinctly average height at the time.

10. The cause of his death remains a mystery

Napoleon died, aged 51, on the island of Saint Helena after a long, unpleasant illness. The cause of this illness has never been conclusively established, however, and his death remains a subject surrounded by conspiracy theories and speculation. The official cause of death was recorded as stomach cancer, but some claim foul play was involved. Indeed, claims that he was in fact poisoned appear to be supported by analysis of hair samples that show a far higher than normal concentration of arsenic. Although it is also contended that arsenic was present in the wallpaper of his bedroom.

Driven by revolutionary zeal and militaristic ingenuity, Napoleon oversaw a period of intense warfare against six coalitions, proving his leadership and strategic acumen time and time again, before finally succumbing to defeat, and abdication, in 1815. Here are 10 facts about the conflicts.

1. There’s a good reason they are known as the Napoleonic Wars

Unsurprisingly, Napoleon Bonaparte was the central, and defining, figure of the Napoleonic Wars. They are typically considered to have commenced in 1803, by which time Napoleon had been First Consul of the French Republic for four years. Napoleon’s leadership brought stability and military confidence to France in the aftermath of the revolution and his combative leadership style undoubtedly shaped the conflicts that came to constitute the Napoleonic Wars.

2. The Napoleonic Wars were prefigured by the French Revolution

Without the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars would never have happened. The ramifications of the revolt’s violent social upheaval extended far beyond France’s borders, triggering other conflicts across the globe that became known as the “Revolutionary Wars”.

Neighbouring powers viewed France’s revolution as a threat to established monarchies and, anticipating intervention, the new republic declared war on Austria and Prussia. Napoleon’s ascent through the French military was undoubtedly driven by the increasingly influential role he played in the Revolutionary Wars.

3. The Napoleonic Wars are usually considered to have started on 18 May 1803

This was the date that Britain declared war on France, ending the short-lived Treaty of Amiens (which had brought a year of peace to Europe) and sparking what became known as the War of the Third Coalition – the first Napoleonic War.

4. Napoleon had been planning to invade Britain when it declared war on France

The escalating agitation that prompted Britain to declare war on France in 1803 was entirely justified. Napoleon was already planning an invasion of Britain, a campaign he intended to fund with the 68 million Francs the United States had just paid France for the Louisiana Purchase.

5. France fought five coalitions during the Napoleonic Wars

The Napoleonic Wars are typically separated out into five conflicts, each named after the alliance of nations that fought France: The Third Coalition (1803-06), the Fourth Coalition (1806-07), the Fifth Coalition (1809), the Sixth Coalition (1813) and the Seventh Coalition (1815). The members of each alliance were as follows:

• The Third Coalition was composed of the Holy Roman Empire, Russia, Britain, Sweden, Naples and Sicily.
• The Fourth included Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Saxony and Sicily.
• The Fifth was Austria, Britain, Tyrol, Hungary, Spain, Sicily and Sardinia.
• The Sixth originally included Austria, Prussia, Russia, Britain, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, Sardinia and Sicily. They were lated joined by the Netherlands, Bavaria, Württemberg and Baden.
• The Seventh was formed of 16 members, including Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Switzerland.

6. Napoleon was a brilliant military tactician

Napoleon’s reputation as a brilliant and innovative battlefield strategist was already established when the Napoleonic Wars commenced, and his brutally effective tactics were showcased throughout the ensuing conflicts. He was undoubtedly one of the most effective and influential generals in history and most historians agree that his tactics changed warfare forever. 

7. The Battle of Austerlitz is widely regarded as Napoleon’s greatest victory

The Battle of Austerlitz saw outnumbered French forces take victory.

Fought near Austerlitz in Moravia (now the Czech Republic), the battle saw 68,000 French troops defeat nearly 90,000 Russians and Austrians. It is also known as the Battle of the Three Emperors.

8. Britain’s naval supremacy played a key part in the wars

For all Napoleon’s battlefield ingenuity, Britain consistently managed to present a sturdy opposition force during the Napoleonic Wars. This owed a lot to Britain’s formidable naval fleet, which was substantial enough to allow Britain to continue its international trade and empire building, pretty much untroubled by the threat of an invasion from across the Channel.

Britain’s command of the seas was most famously showcased at the Battle of Trafalgar, a decisive and historically vaunted British naval victory which saw the Franco-Spanish fleet decimated without a single British vessel being lost.

9. The Napoleonic Wars triggered global conflict

Inevitably, power struggles in Europe had an impact on the global stage. The War of 1812 is a good example. The simmering tensions that eventually sparked this conflict between the US and Britain were, to a large extent, caused by Britain’s ongoing war with France, a situation that began to seriously impact on America’s ability to trade with either France or Britain.

10. The Hundred Days period brought the Napoleonic Wars to a dramatic conclusion

Following his abdication in 1814, Napoleon was sent to the Mediterranean island of Elba. But his exile lasted less than a year. After escaping Elba, Napoleon led 1,500 men to Paris, arriving in the French capital on 20 March 1815. This began the so-called “Hundred Days”, a brief but dramatic period that saw Napoleon seize back power before entering into a series of battles with allied forces. The period concluded on 22 June when Napoleon abdicated for a second time following France’s defeat at the Battle of Waterloo.

By the time the last flames were extinguished the fire had laid waste to much of London. Around 13,200 houses had been destroyed and an estimated 100,000 Londoners made homeless.

More than 350 years later, the Great Fire of London is still remembered as both a uniquely devastating episode in the city’s history and as the catalyst for a modernising rebuild that reshaped Britain’s capital. But who was responsible?

A false confession

Occurring amid the second Anglo-Dutch War, rumours that the fire was an act of foreign terrorism began to circulate and a culprit was demanded. A convenient foreign scapegoat swiftly arrived in the form of Robert Hubert, a French watchmaker.

Hubert made what is now known to have been a false confession. It’s not clear why he claimed to have thrown a firebomb that started the inferno, but it seems likely that his confession was made under duress.

It has also been widely suggested that Hubert wasn’t of sound mind. Nonetheless, despite a complete absence of evidence, the Frenchman was hanged on 28 September 1666. It was later discovered that he wasn’t even in the country on the day the fire started.

How did the Great Fire of London start?

It is now widely accepted that the fire was the result of an accident rather than an act of arson.

The source of the blaze was almost certainly Thomas Farriner’s bakery on, or just off, Pudding Lane, and it seems likely that a spark from Farriner’s oven may have fallen onto a pile of fuel after he and his family had retired for the night (though Farriner was adamant that the oven had been properly raked out that evening).

A sign commemorating the starting place of the fire on Pudding Lane.

Image Credit: Ivory / Public Domain

In the early hours of the morning, Farriner’s family became aware of the budding fire and managed to escape the building via a top floor window. With the blaze showing no signs of abating, parish constables decided that the adjoining buildings should be demolished in order to prevent the spread of fire, a firefighting tactic known as “firebreaking” that was common practice at the time.

“A woman could piss it out”

This proposal was not popular with the neighbours, however, who summoned the one man who had the power to override this firebreaking plan: Sir Thomas Bloodworth, Lord Mayor. Despite the fire’s rapid escalation, Bloodworth did just that, reasoning that the properties were rented and that demolition couldn’t be carried out in the absence of the owners.

Bloodworth is also widely quoted as remarking “Pish! A woman could piss it out”, before departing the scene. It is hard not to conclude that Bloodworth’s decision was at least partly responsible for the fire’s escalation.

Why did the Great Fire of London spread so quickly?

Other factors undoubtedly conspired to fan the flames. For a start, London was still a relatively makeshift medieval city comprised of tightly packed wooden buildings through which fires could spread rapidly.

In fact, the city had already experienced several substantial fires – most recently in 1632 – and measures had long been in place to prohibit further building with wood and thatched roofs. But although London’s exposure to fire risk was hardly news to the authorities, until the Great Fire, the implementation of preventative measures had been perfunctory and many fire hazards still existed.

The summer of 1666 had been hot and dry: the timber houses and thatched straw rooves of the area effectively acted as a tinderbox once the fire had started, helping it rip through the nearby streets. The tightly packed buildings with overhangs meant that the flames could jump from one street to the next with ease too.

The fire raged for four days, and it remains the only fire in London’s history to have been given the epithet ‘the Great’.

Investigators have long speculated about the cause of the fire, though a definitive answer has eluded them. But what are some of the possible explanations for why it happened?

Almost exactly a year before its famous demise, the Hindenburg made its first flight from Germany to the US. Indeed, the German dirigible’s fateful final journey was noteworthy for being the inaugural flight of its sophomore season. As such, it was the subject of considerable media attention, meaning plenty of news cameras were trained on the Hindenburg when it burst into flames and crashed to the ground. Spectacular images of the incident swiftly appeared on the front pages on newspapers around the world.

Sabotage!

Perhaps encouraged by excitable media coverage of the disaster, it didn’t take long for sabotage theories to emerge. In the search for likely saboteurs, several key Hindenburg crew members picked out a prime candidate, a German passenger called Joseph Späh who had survived the crash thanks to his training as a vaudeville acrobat.

Having smashed a window with his film camera, Späh lowered himself out the window as the ground approached and hung onto the window ledge, letting go when the ship was 20 feet from the ground and applying his acrobatic instincts to execute a safety roll upon landing.

Späh aroused retrospective suspicion due to repeated trips into the ship’s interior to feed his dog. Crew members also recalled him making anti-Nazi jokes during the flight. Ultimately, an FBI investigation found no evidence of Späh having any connection to a sabotage plot.

Hindenburg over New York on 6 May 1937.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Another sabotage hypothesis focused on a rigger, Erich Spehl, who died in the fire. A theory advanced by A. A. Hoehling in his 1962 book Who Destroyed the Hindenburg? centres on Spehl as the likely saboteur for a number of reasons, including reports that his girlfriend was a communist with anti-Nazi connections.

The fact that the fire originated in an area of the ship that was off limits to most crew members except for riggers like Spehl and rumours of a 1938 Gestapo investigation into Spehl’s involvement also figured in Hoehling’s hypothesis. More recent analysis of Hoehling’s theory has generally found evidence of Spehl’s involvement to be weak.

An accident waiting to happen?

Although sabotage can never be entirely ruled out, most experts now believe that the Hindenburg air disaster was most likely caused by a sequence of issues that were perfectly capable of bringing down an airship without skulduggery. The inherent risks of airship travel are obvious, as the airship historian Dan Grossmann has noted: “They are big, unwieldy and difficult to manage. They are very affected by the wind, and because they need to be light, they are also quite fragile. On top of that, most airships were inflated with hydrogen, which is a very dangerous and highly flammable substance.”

The Hindenburg disaster was such a public spectacle that it shattered confidence in airship travel in an instant, but in truth, with the emergence of safer, faster and more efficient airplanes, it was already on the way out.

According to both investigations at the time and more recent analysis, the most likely cause of the Hindenburg’s fiery demise was an electrostatic discharge (a spark) igniting leaked hydrogen.

Fire bursts from the nose of the Hindenburg in this photograph by Murray Becker for the Associated Press.

Image Credit: Public Domain

A number of factors are thought to have conspired to trigger the blaze. Of course, the theory hinges on the presence of a hydrogen leak, which has never been proven, but investigators point to the difficulty the crew had in bringing the airship in trim prior to the landing as evidence of a potential hydrogen leak at the Hindenburg’s stern.

Rainy weather is thought to have played a part in the generation of an electrostatic spark, as did damp landing rope, which would have effectively ‘earthed’ the airship’s frame, but not its skin (the Hinderburg’s skin and frame were separated). This sudden potential difference between the ship’s skin and frame could have set off an electric spark, igniting the leaking hydrogen gas and rapidly engulfing the airship in flames.

The Hummer evolved from the military Humvee (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle), a model first used by the US military in Panama in 1989 and then used frequently during the Gulf War of 1990-1991. The Humvee’s rugged build and stability off-road made it a mainstay of US military operations in the Middle East for several years.

In 1992, the Humvee was rebranded for civilian use as the Hummer. With its lumbering ex-military build and rugged design, the vehicle swiftly became a favourite of ‘macho’ men, even briefly being advertised with the slogan, ‘reclaim your masculinity’.

Here’s the story of how a robust military vehicle made its way to city streets across America.

A tough vehicle for tough guys

Perhaps fittingly, the Hummer’s reputation as the ultimate tough guy vehicle was driven by the enthusiastic endorsement of Hollywood’s ultimate tough guy, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Inspired by a military convoy he spotted while filming Kindergarten Cop in Oregon, the action movie star became a huge fan in the early 1990s. In fact, he was so smitten that he contacted the manufacturer, AM General, to share his passion for the Humvee, insisting that it should be made available to the public.

That the future Governor of California didn’t regard the Humvee’s gas-guzzling performance (the average fuel efficiency of a military-grade Humvee is around 4 mpg on city streets) as a barrier to commercial success says a lot about changing attitudes to fuel economy.

In addition to its ravenous petrol consumption, the Humvee was, in many ways, wildly impractical for everyday use by civilian drivers, but Schwarzenegger’s wishes were nonetheless realised in 1992 when AM General began selling a civilian version of the M998 Humvee.

Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger poses with a Hummer H2 SUT (Sport Utility Truck) in New York on 10 April 2001 at the world premiere of the concept vehicle. The Hummer H2 SUT was branded as an evolution of the Hummer H2 SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle).

Image Credit: REUTERS / Alamy Stock Photo

The new civilian model, rebranded as the Hummer, wasn’t much different to the vehicle that had been deployed in Operation Desert Storm and, initially, sales stalled: AM General didn’t seem to know how to market its expensive, needlessly hulking ex-military road hog. Considering its price point, the Hummer was unrefined and lacked most of the creature comforts you’d expect to find in a luxury vehicle. But, when General Motors bought the brand from AM General in 1999, these apparent shortcomings were reframed as signifiers of macho authenticity.

General Motors decided to embrace the Hummer’s tough image and position it as the ultimate vehicle for macho men. With its rugged, no-frills design, intimidating proportions and military aesthetic, the Hummer became an alpha male totem in a metrosexual age.

General Motors even employed the tagline ‘reclaim your masculinity’ in its Hummer advertising before criticism prompted a switch to ‘restore the balance’. The softened language may have been less overt, but the message was still clear: the Hummer was being presented as an antidote to a perceived crisis in masculinity.

A Hummer H3, H1 and H2 pictured together

Image Credit: Sfoskett~commonswiki via Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons

Military origins

The Hummer may have become something of a macho affectation, but the original military-grade Humvee’s iconic design was purely practical. The High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle or HMMWV (Humvee is a colloquialism) was conceived by the US Army as a versatile modernisation of Jeep trucks like the M715 and the Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle (CUCV).

When it emerged in the early 1980s, the HMMWV was seen as a jack-of-all-trades solution that could supplant a variety of outmoded tactical vehicles.

The original Humvee, a (relatively) lightweight, diesel-powered, four-wheel-drive tactical vehicle, is a particularly adept off-roader that performs well over a variety of treacherous terrains thanks to its stabilising 7-foot width and a host of design features, including independent double-wishbone suspension units and helical gear-reduction hubs for better ground clearance. It proved to be well-suited to Middle Eastern desert conditions and became a familiar sight during the 1991 Gulf War.

MRAPs like the Cougar HE – seen here being tested with landmines – have largely replaced the Humvee in frontline battle situations.

Image Credit: United States Department of Defense via Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

Despite its lack of armour, the Humvee’s rugged build and all-terrain capabilities made it an effective tactical workhorse. But the Humvee’s limitations in front-line battle situations became increasingly problematic over recent decades. It was particularly prone in urban conflict scenarios when all too often became a sitting duck for insurgents.

These vulnerabilities were increasingly exposed as unconventional warfare became more commonplace and it has largely been usurped by MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles that are designed to withstand Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks and ambushes.

The fire tore through the city’s densely packed wooden buildings with such ease that the task of rebuilding the city demanded a modernising vision. The Great Fire was a transformative moment for London – devastatingly destructive but also, in many ways, a catalyst for changes that have come to define the city we know today. Here are 10 facts about this devastating event:

1. It started at a bakery

Thomas Farriner’s bakehouse, located in Fish Yard off Pudding Lane in the City of London, was the source of the blaze. It is thought that the fire ignited when a spark from the oven fell onto a pile of fuel at around 1am.

2. Firefighting was hampered by the lord mayor

The practice of ‘firebreaking’ was a common firefighting tactic at the time. It essentially involved demolishing buildings in order to create a gap, the logic being that the absence of combustible materials would halt the fire’s progress.

Unfortunately, this course of action was initially scuppered when Thomas Bloodworth, Lord Mayor of London, refused to grant permission to demolish buildings. Bloodworth’s declaration in the early stages of the blaze that “a woman could piss it out” certainly gives the impression that he underestimated the fire.

3. Temperatures hit 1,700°C

Analysis of melted pottery fragments – found in the burnt-out remains of a shop on Pudding Lane – have revealed that the temperature of the blaze hit heights of 1,700°C.

4. The officially recorded death count is widely thought to be a significant underestimate

Only six people were recorded as having died in the fire. But the deaths of working class people weren’t recorded and so it’s highly likely that the actual death toll was much higher.

5. St Paul’s Cathedral was the most famous building destroyed by the fire

St Paul’s Cathedral remains one of London’s greatest architectural landmarks.

The remains of the cathedral were demolished and work commenced on building a replacement in 1675. The spectacular cathedral we know today was designed by Christopher Wren and remains one of London’s greatest architectural landmarks.

Interestingly, Wren had already proposed the demolition and redevelopment of St Paul’s before the fire, but his proposals had been dismissed. Instead, renovation work was commissioned and it’s thought that the wooden scaffolding surrounding the building likely accelerated its destruction in the blaze.

6. A French watchmaker was falsely convicted of starting the fire and executed

In the aftermath of the fire, the search for scapegoats led to the execution of Robert Hubert, a French watchmaker from Rouen. Hubert gave a false confession, stating that he threw a fireball through the window of Farriner’s bakery. It soon became clear, however, that Huber wasn’t even in the country at the time the fire started.

7. The fire sparked an insurance revolution

The Great Fire was especially devastating because it struck in an age before insurance; with 13,000 homes destroyed, the financial implications of the inferno were significant. The scene was set for the emergence of an insurance market that would offer financial protection in such circumstances.

Sure enough, in 1680 Nicholas Barbon founded the world’s first fire insurance company, aptly named the ‘Insurance Office’. A decade later, one in 10 London houses were insured.

8. The fire arrived hot on the heels of the Great Plague

It’s fair to say that the 1660s was a tough time for London. When the Great Fire struck, the city was still reeling from the last major outbreak of the plague, which claimed 100,000 lives – a staggering 15 per cent of the capital’s population.

9. A monument was built to commemorate the Great Fire

Measuring 202ft in height and located 202ft from the site of Farriner’s bakehouse, Christopher Wren’s ‘Monument to the Great Fire of London‘ still stands as a lasting memorial of the Great Fire. The column can be ascended via 311 steps, leading to a viewing platform with panoramic views of the city.

10. Some argue that the fire was ultimately beneficial to London

It may seem perverse given the terrible damage it inflicted on the capital, but many historians see the Great Fire as being the key spur for lasting improvements that ultimately benefited London and its inhabitants.

In the wake of the blaze, the city was rebuilt in accordance with new regulations that minimised the threat of such a fire taking hold again. Stone and brick were used instead of wood and progressive legal reforms were introduced that ultimately helped London become the city it is today.

As in most feudal societies, Vikings farmed their land, growing crops and raising animals to provide for their family. Though their farms were generally small, it is thought that most Viking families would have eaten pretty well, though the seasonality of their diets may have meant that times of plenty were counterbalanced by periods of relative scarcity.

The Viking diet would inevitably vary quite a bit depending on factors like location. Naturally, coastal settlements would have eaten more fish while those with access to woodland were doubtless more likely to hunt for wild game.

How many meals did Vikings eat a day?

The Vikings ate twice a day. Their day meal, or dagmal, was effectively breakfast, served about an hour after rising. Nattmal was served in the evening at the end of the working day.

At night, the Vikings would have typically dined on stewed meat or fish with vegetables and perhaps some dried fruit and honey – all washed down with ale or mead, a strong alcoholic drink made using honey, which was the only sweetener know to the Vikings.

Hedeby Viking Museum, Germany.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

Dagmal would have most likely been composed of leftovers from the previous night’s stew, with bread and fruit or porridge and dried fruit.

Feasts occurred throughout the year to celebrate seasonal and religious festivals like Jól (an old Norse winter celebration), or Mabon (the autumn equinox), as well as celebratory events like weddings and births.

Though the size and splendour of feasts would depend on the wealth of the host, the Vikings generally didn’t hold back on such occasions. Roasted and boiled meats and rich stews accompanied by buttered root vegetables and sweet fruits would have been typical fare. Ale and mead would also have been in generous supply along with fruit wine if the host was wealthy enough to offer it.

Meat

Meat was widely available at all levels of society. Farmed animals would have included cows, horses, oxen, goats, pigs, sheep, chickens and ducks, of which pigs were likely the most common. Animals were slaughtered in November, so it wasn’t necessary to feed them over winter, then preserved.

Game animals included hares, boars, wild birds, squirrels and deer, while especially northern settlements in places like Greenland ate seal, caribou and even polar bear.

Fish

Fermented shark is still eaten in Iceland today. Credit: Chris 73 / Wikimedia Commons

Image Credit: Photo by Diego Delso via Wikimedia Commons

The Vikings enjoyed a wide variety of fish – both freshwater, such as salmon, trout and eels, and saltwater, like herring, shellfish and cod. They also preserved fish using a number of techniques, including smoking, salting, drying and pickling, and were even known to ferment fish in whey.

Eggs

The Vikings not only ate eggs from domestic animals like chickens, ducks and geese, but they also enjoyed wild eggs. They considered gulls’ eggs, which were collected from clifftops, a particular delicacy.

Crops

The northern climate was best suited to growing barley, rye and oats, which would be used to make numerous staples, including beer, bread, stews and porridge.

The day-to-day bread of choice was a simple flatbread. But the Vikings were resourceful bakers and made a wide variety of breads, utilising wild yeasts and raising agents such as buttermilk and sour milk. Sourdough-style bread was created by leaving flour and water starters to ferment.

Fruit and nuts

Fruit was widely enjoyed thanks to apple orchards and numerous fruit trees, including cherry and pear. Wild berries, including sloe berries, lingon berries, strawberries, bilberries and cloudberries, also played an important part in the Viking diet. Hazelnuts grew wild and were often eaten.

Dairy

The Vikings kept dairy cows and enjoyed drinking milk, buttermilk and whey as well as making cheese, curds and butter.

The Warsaw Pact was effectively devised to counterbalance North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a security alliance between the United States, Canada and 10 Western European countries that was established with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949.

By joining the Warsaw Pact, its members granted the Soviet Union military access to their territories and attached themselves to a shared military command. Ultimately, the pact granted Moscow a stronger hold over the dominions of the USSR in Central and Eastern Europe.

Here’s the story of the Warsaw Pact.

A counterbalance to NATO

The Presidential Palace in Warsaw, where the Warsaw Pact was signed in 1955

Image Credit: Pudelek / Wikimedia Commons

By 1955, treaties already existed between the USSR and neighbouring Eastern European countries, and the Soviets already exerted political and military dominance over the region. As such, it could be argued that the establishment of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation was superfluous. But the Warsaw Pact was a response to a very particular set of geopolitical circumstances, specifically the admission of a remilitarised West Germany into NATO on 23 October 1954.

In fact, prior to West Germany’s admission into NATO, the USSR had sought a security pact with Western European powers and even made a play to join NATO. All such attempts were rebuffed.

As the treaty itself states, the Warsaw Pact was drawn up in response to a “new military alignment in the shape of ‘Western European Union’, with the participation of a remilitarised Western Germany and the integration of the latter in the North-Atlantic bloc, which increased the danger of another war and constitutes a threat to the national security of the peaceable states.”

De facto Soviet control

The pact’s signatories were the Soviet Union, Albania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). While the pact was billed as a collective security alliance, much like NATO, in practice it reflected the USSR’s regional dominance. Soviet geostrategic and ideological interests typically overrode genuinely collective decision making and the pact became a tool to control dissent in the Eastern Bloc.

The United States is sometimes held up as NATO’s hegemonic leader but, realistically, any comparison with the role the Soviet Union played in the Warsaw Treaty Organisation is wide of the mark. While all NATO decisions require a unanimous consensus, the Soviet Union was ultimately the Warsaw Pact’s only decision-maker.

The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 was an inevitable consequence of the institutional collapse of the Communist leadership in the USSR and throughout Eastern Europe. A chain of events, including the reunification of Germany and the overthrowing of Communist governments in Albania, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union itself, collapsed the edifice of Soviet control in the region. The Cold War was effectively over and so was the Warsaw Pact.

A Warsaw Pact badge bearing the inscription: ‘Brothers in Weapons’

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Warsaw Pact’s modern legacy

Since 1990, the year of Germany’s reunification, NATO’s intergovernmental alliance has grown from 16 to 30 countries, including numerous former Eastern Bloc states, such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Albania.

It’s perhaps telling that NATO’s expansion east came in the wake of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact on 1 July 1991, a moment that signalled the end of the Soviet Union’s hold over Eastern Europe. Indeed, by the end of that year, the Soviet Union was no more.

After the dissolution of the USSR and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, NATO’s perceived expansion began to be viewed with suspicion by Russia. In the 20th century, the potential enrolment of former Soviet states like Ukraine into NATO proved particularly troubling for some Russian powerholders, including Vladimir Putin.

In the months preceding the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Putin was unequivocal in his insistence that Ukraine, a former member state of the Soviet Union, must not join NATO. He insisted that NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe equated to an imperialist land grab in a region that was previously united (under effective Soviet control) by the Warsaw Pact.

But there’s nothing intrinsically Russian about the notion of oligarchy. Indeed, the word’s Greek etymology (oligarkhía) refers broadly to ‘the rule of a few’. More specifically, oligarchy implies power that is exercised through wealth. You might even conclude that oligarchies are borne of high-level corruption and democratic failure. Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, describes oligarchies as “a debased form of aristocracy”.

Nonetheless, while oligarchies are not inherently Russian, the concept has now become closely associated with the country. It conjures up images of opportunistic, well-connected businessmen who made billions by plundering the remains of the collapsed Soviet state and reinventing Russia as a haven for wild west capitalism.

But how exactly did Russia’s oligarchs get rich during the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Shock therapy

Invariably, the Russian oligarchs who came to prominence in the 1990s were opportunists who took advantage of the messy, wildly corrupt market that emerged in Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

In the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, the newly formed Russian government set about selling off Soviet assets to the public via a voucher privatisation program. Many of these Soviet state assets, including hugely valuable industrial, energy and financial concerns, were acquired by a clique of insiders who subsequently stashed their earnings in foreign bank accounts rather than investing it in the Russian economy.

The first generation of Russian oligarchs were mostly hustlers who had made their money on the black market or by seizing entrepreneurial opportunities in the late 1980s, when the Soviet Union began to loosen its stringent restrictions on private business practices. They were smart and wealthy enough to exploit a poorly organised privatisation program.

Arguably, in his haste to transition Russia into a market economy, Boris Yeltsin, the first President of the Russian Federation, helped to create a set of circumstances that perfectly suited the emergent oligarchy.

Assisted by the influential economist Anatoly Chubais, who was tasked with the role of overseeing the privatisation project, Yeltsin’s approach to transforming the Russian economy – a process that no one expected to be painless – was to deliver capitalism via economic ‘shock therapy’. This entailed the sudden release of price and currency controls. Though this approach was widely advocated by neoliberal economists and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), many felt that the transition should be more gradual.

Anatoly Chubais (right) with IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus in 1997

Image Credit: Vitaliy Saveliev / Виталий Савельев via Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons

Yeltsin’s oligarchy

In December 1991, price controls were lifted and Russia felt the first jolt of Yeltsin’s shock therapy. The country was plunged into a deep economic crisis. As a result, the soon-to-be oligarchs were able to take advantage of impoverished Russians and pay knockdown prices to amass huge quantities of privatisation scheme vouchers, which, lest we forget, were designed to deliver a distributed ownership model.

They were then able to use those vouchers to buy stocks in previously state-run firms, at extremely undervalued prices. Yeltsin’s accelerated privatisation process provided the first wave of Russian oligarchs with a golden opportunity to rapidly acquire controlling stakes in thousands of newly privatised companies. In effect, the ‘liberalisation’ of the Russian economy enabled a cabal of well-positioned insiders to become very rich, very quickly.

But that was only phase one. The transference of Russia’s most valuable state firms to the oligarchs carried on into the mid-1990s when a ‘Loans for Shares’ scheme was devised by the Yeltsin administration in an apparent act of collusion with some of the wealthiest oligarchs. At that point, the cash-strapped government needed to generate funds for Yeltsin’s 1996 re-election campaign and sought to secure multi-billion-dollar loans from the oligarchs in exchange for shares in numerous state-owned corporations.

Boris Yeltsin, the first President of the Russian Federation.

Image Credit: Пресс-служба Президента России via Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons

When, as was anticipated, the government defaulted on those loans, the oligarchs, who had also agreed to help Yeltsin win re-election, retained a controlling stake in many of Russia’s most profitable organisations. Once again, a handful of tycoons were able to take advantage of an increasingly compromised privatisation process and seize control of hugely profitable state enterprises – including steel, mining, shipping and oil companies.

The plan worked. With the backing of his increasingly powerful lenders, who by that point controlled large swathes of the media, Yeltsin won re-election. At that moment a new power structure was confirmed in Russia: Yeltsin had transitioned the country into a market economy, but it was a deeply corrupt, cronyish form of capitalism that concentrated power in the hands of a few extraordinarily wealthy oligarchs.

The Vikings are best remembered as fearsome warriors, but their longlasting legacy owes just as much to their seafaring aptitude. Both the Vikings’ ships and the skill with which they utilised them were key to the success of many of their exploits, from fishing and exploring the oceans to raiding.

Though Viking boats came in many shapes and sizes, the most iconic and effective Viking vessel was undoubtedly the longship. Long, narrow and flat, longships were fast, durable and capable of navigating both choppy seas and shallow rivers. They were also light enough to be carried over land.

It’s easy to characterise the Vikings as bloodthirsty reprobates rampaging across Europe, but the craft and innovation of the shipbuilding that enabled their conquests deserves recognition.

The fact that Leif Erikson led a Viking crew to North America in around 1,000 — 500 years before Christopher Columbus set foot on the New World — makes clear the Vikings’ remarkable maritime prowess and showcases the robustness of their boats. 

Here are 10 things you may not have known about the impressive longships.

1. Their design evolved over many years

Reenactment of the Viking landing at L’Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland, Canada, 2000

Image Credit: Joyce Hill, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

The design principles that led to the Viking longship can be traced back to the beginning of the Stone Age and the umiak, a large open skin boat used by Yupik and Inuit people as long as 2,500 years ago. 

2. Viking ships were clinker built

The so-called “clinker” method of ship construction is based on planks of timber, usually oak, being overlapped and nailed together. Spaces between planks were then filled with tarred wool and animal hair, ensuring a watertight ship.  

3. Longships were able to navigate in shallow waters

A shallow draft allowed navigation in waters as shallow as one metre and made beach landings possible. 

4. Their top speed was around 17 knots

Speed was variable from ship to ship but it’s thought that the quickest longships could achieve speeds of up to 17 knots in favourable conditions.

5. The boats were typically embellished with decorative head pieces

Skilfully carved animal heads often featured as figureheads at the front of longships. These heads – those of dragons and snakes were popular – were designed to provoke fear in the spirits of whichever land the Vikings were raiding.

6. Longships combined rowing power with wind propulsion

Typically equipped with rowing positions along their entire length, longships also utilised one big square sail, woven from wool. Steering came courtesy of a single steering oar at the back of the ship.

7. They were double-ended

Their symmetrical bow and stern design allowed longships to swiftly reverse without having to turn around. This was particularly handy when navigating icy conditions. 

8. Longship classifications were linked to rowing capacity

Skibladner ship on Unst

Image Credit: Unstphoto, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

The Karvi had 13 rowing benches while the Busse had up to 34 rowing positions.

9. The vessels were instrumental in enabling the Vikings to explore the globe

The breadth of the Vikings’ explorations was remarkable. From North America in the west to Central Asia in the east, the Viking Age is defined by geographically expansive exploration that wouldn’t have been possible without such advanced shipbuilding.

10. The longship design was hugely influential

The Vikings’ shipbuilding skills accompanied their extensive travels. Many of the longship’s characteristics were adopted by other cultures and continued to influence shipbuilding for centuries.