HistoryExtra Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast 2026-10-22T14:01:03.000Z https://www.historyextra.com/content-classification/qa/feed/atom Jonny Wilkes <![CDATA[Malaria once ravaged Britain. Could it come back?]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/general-history/malaria-once-ravaged-britain-could-it-come-back/ 2026-10-22T14:01:03.000Z 2026-10-22T14:00:22.000Z According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), there were 263 million cases of malaria and 597,000 deaths around the world in 2023. The life-threatening disease, spread by infected mosquito bites, is most associated with sub-Saharan Africa, but it used to be a scourge in the UK.
From the 15th to 19th centuries, the marshland areas of southeast England, the Fens and up the Yorkshire coast were ravaged by malaria, although under names like ‘marsh fever’ and ‘ague’. Spread by the Anopheles mosquito, it came with high levels of mortality. Parishes in marshland areas in the 1600s and 1700s recorded deaths rates from ague at between 60 and 80 per 1,000 people, or two or three times as much as non-marshland parishes.
This was also a time when people believed in the miasma theory, which claimed that diseases spread through foul-smelling air. So, even though it is extremely rare for malaria to be passed from person to person, there was a fear that once someone came down with ague, the whole community could be in danger.
How widespread was malaria and what were the cures?
Ague was so prevalent that it merited mentions in literature throughout the centuries, from Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales to Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. William Shakespeare referred to the disease in a number of his plays, including Julius Caesar, Macbeth and The Tempest. In King Lear, he even coined the term, “ague-proof”.
Not only the poor living on marshland perished, either, since malaria could be found along the length of the River Thames, bringing it to the capital of London. James VI and I contracted the disease as his health finally failed in 1625, and Oliver Cromwell succumbed to malaria in 1658.
Common remedies included opium and alcohol, although they didn’t prove to be overly effective. The treatment of malaria truly improved with the introduction of quinine, found in the bark of the cinchona trees of South America. It was called Jesuit’s Bark, as it had been brought to Europe by Jesuit missionaries.
This association with Catholics, however, meant that physicians in Protestant England were initially reluctant to administer the medicine. After its first use in England, attributed to Robert Brady in 1660, quinine grew in popularity after being used to treat Charles II.
Why did malaria die out in the UK?
Malaria gradually died out in England, helped by better healthcare, sanitation and housing, along with the drainage of marshlands. Larger livestock populations may have also distracted mosquitoes from biting humans, too.
The disease remained a threat until the 20th century, though. The last outbreak in the UK occurred in the years after the First World War, when British soldiers serving in the Balkans, where malaria was endemic, fell ill in huge numbers. When they were brought back to the UK for recuperation, especially to areas with lots of mosquitoes, such as the Isle of Sheppey in Kent, the infection spread quickly.
It is thought that there were nearly 500 cases between 1917 and 1921, although this paled in comparison to the Spanish Flu that wreaked havoc in Europe at the same time.
Could malaria return?
The last indigenous case of malaria in the UK came in the 1950s, and by 1975 WHO declared the eradication of the disease in Europe.
While highly unlikely to be endemic once more, scientists have suggested that climate change and the volume of traffic with areas where malaria remains a serious risk could bring new types of mosquitoes to the UK.
]]> Jonny Wilkes <![CDATA[Would you eat an Egyptian mummy? Here's why the Victorians did exactly that]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/would-you-eat-an-egyptian-mummy-heres-why-the-victorians-did-exactly-that/ 2026-10-20T10:31:03.000Z 2026-10-20T10:30:29.000Z In the Victorian age, the mummified remains taken from ancient Egyptian tombs had multiple purposes beyond historical and scientific study. While some mummies went on public display in museums and exhibitions, others were bought to be the main attraction at special ‘unwrapping parties’ where the bandages would be removed for the entertainment of the guests.
That’s perhaps the most respectful option. Mummies could be used as fuels on the railways, ballast on ships and fertiliser in the fields; they were mulched to make paper and ground up to make a special type of paint, called Mummy Brown. This was a favourite of the pre-Raphaelites, but still available to buy well into the 20th century.
And yes, the Victorians did think that eating mummies was a good idea, believing the ancient remains had medical benefits. That said, they did not come up with the idea themselves; the morbid practice began in the Middle Ages.
Why did Europeans start eating mummies?
At the time of the crusades, Europeans travelled to the Holy Land in large numbers and started hearing about mumiya, a tar-like substance that occurred naturally in parts of modern-day Iran and known throughout Persia for its healing qualities.
Through misunderstandings and poor translations, the belief spread among Europeans that mūmiyā referred instead to the similar substance found on mummified bodies, used in the embalming process. The meaning continued to evolve until it meant the actual bodies themselves. The name ‘mummy’ comes from mūmiyā.
- Read more | Is the mummy's curse real? False tales about ancient Egyptian mummies (plus some true ones)
How did mummia work?
Ground-up mummies, or mummia, therefore became medicine in medieval Europe. It could be added to tinctures or to alcohol and swallowed, or rubbed onto the skin of the patient.
Such was the belief in its curative powers that mummia was said to cure a host of ailments, injuries and diseases, from bruising and nosebleeds to epilepsy and syphilis. It was a painkiller, blood thinner, anti-inflammatory and menstrual aid.
According to this medical cannibalism, the part of the mummified body consumed related to the issue – for instance, the skull would be needed to treat headaches – and by ingesting the powdered mummy a person would imbibe the spirit and strength of the deceased person.
How popular was medical cannibalism?
The demand for mummia led to widespread tomb raiding in Egypt to ensure there were enough mummies being sent to Europe. When this was not enough to meet demand, enterprising graverobbers began digging up fresher bodies and treating them as best they could in order to pass them off as millennia-old mummies.
In 1564, a French royal physician named Guy de la Fontaine examined dozens of mummies being sold by a dealer in Alexandria only to find that they were recently executed criminals or slaves.
In fact, a whole area of medicine flourished promoting the consumption of fresh body parts, arguing that it had more healthy nutrients and stronger vitality than the desiccated bones of ancient Egyptians. It became customary for people to stand underneath the scaffold of an execution and try and catch the blood with the intention of drinking it.
- Read more | The Victorians were facing a population crisis, until this ‘obscene’ invention turned out to be the solution
When did people stop eating mummies?
Medical cannibalism reached its peak in the 16th and 17th centuries, widely prescribed by doctors and used by the likes of Francis I of France and Charles II of England. But while it did fade away as medical understanding grew, as well as a deeper respect for archaeological artefacts, the practice did find a new audience in the Victorians, at a time of Egyptomania sparked by Napoleon’s campaign to Egypt and the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.
Not everyone approved of how mummies were being used, however. The artist Edward Burne-Jones, on discovering that his tube of Mummy Brown actually contained real mummy, insisted on giving his paint a proper burial. But mummia remained on the price list of a German pharmaceutical company until 1924.
]]> Jonny Wilkes <![CDATA[This medieval king ruled a vast empire and inspired the pope. He also didn't exist]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/this-medieval-king-ruled-a-vast-empire-and-inspired-the-pope-he-also-didnt-exist/ 2026-10-18T10:31:03.000Z 2026-10-18T10:30:11.000Z In 1145, the German bishop Otto of Freising published his influential work of history and philosophy, the Chronica, in which he mentioned a Christian ruler of a domain far to the east. This priest-king had defeated the Muslims in battle and set out to capture Jerusalem, but had been unable to cross his army over the Tigris River.
This is the first-known written reference to Prester John, a significant figure in medieval Europe, despite the fact that he never existed.
The myth behind the man
Twenty years later, in 1165, a letter appeared at the court of the Byzantine emperor purporting to be from the mysterious man, the “supreme ruler of the three Indies”. In the lengthy missive, he introduced himself: “I, Prester John, am lord of lords and surpass, in all riches which are under the heaven, in virtue and in power, all the kings of the wide world.”
He was a devout Christian who served as both king and religious leader (the word ‘prester’ means priest) of a vast empire where 72 kingdoms lived in peace and all crime and vice had been eliminated. Riches abounded, with rivers literally flowing with precious gems, and mythical creatures such as the phoenix and cyclopes thrived.
Not only did the letter promise a Christian paradise on Earth that could be explored, but also the ally that Western Europe so badly needed to fight the Muslim forces in the crusades.
Why did people believe Prester John was real?
The letter was a fake written by a still-unknown author, yet it was widely circulated. Soon, the name and reputation of Prester John spread across Europe with many having no problem in considering him to be completely genuine. Pope Alexander III even sent an envoy to attempt to deliver a letter to this imperious king to the east.
Europeans had long believed that there had to be Christian kingdoms in the east, and not without reason. There were indeed huge Christian communities across Asia; it was thought that Prester John – who claimed to be a descendent of one of the Magi, the three wise men who visited Christ at his birth – may have belonged to a sect called Nestorianism.
Limited knowledge of geography beyond the Islamic world meant that Europeans simply did not know who lived there and what they were like, so why could there not be a Christian ruler of a vast empire? There were enough kernels of truth on which to grow Prester John’s image too: there were indeed non-Muslim peoples making their presence known in Europe, namely the Mongols.
Perhaps the most important factor in why Prester John’s existence was not questioned too strongly was that Europeans wanted to believe in him. They wanted to hold onto the possibility of an ally that would change the course of the crusades, to be evoked whenever the need was greatest.
Following the disaster of the Fifth Crusade, Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Ptolemais, wrote to the pope with words of optimism, explaining how the Muslims had been attacked by David, King of India and a descendent of Prester John. Historians have speculated that this account might have been inspired by Genghis Khan.
The move to Ethiopia
The story of Prester John inspired many travellers and missionaries over the years to head into the unknown and locate his near-magical kingdom, thought for some time to be in India. By the time Marco Polo went on his travels in the late 13th century nothing had been found, but he still referenced Prester John as a real figure in the region.
As it became increasingly clear, however, that there was no Christian empire of the size and power related in Prester John’s letter, the story shifted to place the king in Africa instead, specifically in Ethiopia, where a Christian community had existed since the fourth century.
From the 14th century, embassies from Ethiopia travelled to Italy and established a presence in Rome, and Europeans quickly jumped to the conclusion that their leader must be Prester John. Tales emerged of how his land contained the source of the Nile and he had the power to divert its course and wreak havoc in Egypt.
The Portuguese committed huge resources to their exploration of Africa – which led to Vaso da Gama’s world-changing voyage to India around the Cape of Good Hope from 1497-99 – fuelled in no small part by the aim of finding Prester John once and for all. They did find a Christian ruler in Ethiopia, but it was clear that this was not the all-powerful, fabulously wealthy king of the legend.
While belief in Prester John diminished, this mythical king had a very real legacy: it was the desire to find his empire that helped light the fires of European exploration in Asia and Africa.
]]> Jonny Wilkes <![CDATA[It was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World – so why was it destroyed three times?]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/ancient-greece/it-was-the-one-of-the-seven-wonders-of-the-ancient-world-so-why-was-it-destroyed-three-times/ 2026-10-15T21:43:49.000Z 2026-10-14T10:30:17.000Z When ancient travellers of the Mediterranean Rim came up with their lists of must-see architectural marvels, which would be collated into the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, a landmark that always made the cut was the Temple of Artemis.
One such traveller, the second-century BC poet Antipater of Sidon, went so far as to say: “I have set eyes on the wall of lofty Babylon on which is a road for chariots, and the statue of Zeus by the Alpheus, and the Hanging Gardens, and the colossus of the Sun, and the huge labour of the high pyramids, and the vast tomb of Mausolus but when I saw the house of Artemis that mounted to the clouds, those other marvels lost their brilliancy, and I said, ‘Lo, apart from Olympus, the Sun never looked on aught so grand’.”
At its grandest, the Temple of Artemis, or Artemesium, loomed over the landscape of Ephesus, in modern-day Selcuk, Turkey, at nearly double the size of the Parthenon in Athens. A total of 127 columns ran in two rows along all four sides, many adorned with works of art depicting scenes from Greek mythology, and an inner chamber at the centre houses a statue of the goddess Artemis.
Who was Artemis?
Artemis was the Greek goddess of the hunt and wild animals, as well as chastity and childbirth. The twin sister of Apollo, she was typically represented as a youthful maiden carrying a bow and arrow and wearing a short tunic so that she could run during her hunts in the forests.
At Ephesus, however, Artemis was worshipped more for her role in childbirth and her depiction differed from the typical Greek image as it contained elements from other cultures. More of a maternal figure, her statue in the great temple had oval objects all over the torso, thought to represent breasts or eggs as a symbol of fertility.
- Read more | This ancient goddess commanded a Wonder of the World – but why did she have thirty breasts?
How many temples were there?
Long before Antipater of Sidon looked upon the wondrous structure that was the Temple of Artemis in the second century BC, the site had already seen two earlier attempts at a temple. The first went back to the eighth century BC, established by the Amazons, according to legend, before being damaged in a flood.
Around 550 BC, Croesus, King of Lydia and conqueror of Ephesus, ordered the construction of a great temple out of marble to honour Artemis. Designed and built by the architect Chersiphron and his son Metagenes, this would become the model of Ionic temples across the Hellenistic world.
This second temple may well have been the version that ended up on the list of Seven Wonders, were it not for a man named Herostratus. In 356 BC, he burned it down for no reason other than his desire to be famous. He got his wish, but at the cost of his life.
Traditionally, Herostratus’s destruction of the temple took place on the same day as the birth of Alexander the Great. It was even said that Artemis had become distracted by the historic event and so did not see the fire until it was too late. As a man, Alexander visited Ephesus and offered to pay for the rebuilding of the temple, but he was declined. The Ephesians argued that it would not be right for one god to give such a gift to another.
When was the final destruction of the temple?
Instead, they themselves paid to have the third, and most impressive, version of the Temple of Artemis built. It stood for some 600 years before the final destruction came at the hands of East Germanic Goths in the third century. The temple fell into disuse until its official closure with the Christian persecution of pagan beliefs.
Lost for centuries, the ruins of the temple were discovered in 1869 by British archaeologist John Turtle Wood. Further excavations began in 1904 under David George Hogarth. Today, the only part of the temple still standing is a single, reconstructed column.
]]> Jonny Wilkes <![CDATA[Victorian London's poop explosion: why even Queen Victoria couldn't escape the stench]]> https://www.historyextra.com/membership/victorian-londons-poop-explosion-why-even-queen-victoria-couldnt-escape-the-stench/ 2026-10-12T10:31:04.000Z 2026-10-12T10:30:16.000Z The River Thames has long been a major artery of London, used for transportation and trade with ships constantly moving up and down delivering and picking up people and goods. But at the same time that it helped build the British capital into a bustling metropolis, and the very centre of a global empire, it was also used as a dumping ground for waste.
Whether the chemicals from the factories, animal parts from abattoirs, or household sewage, much of the city’s effluent ended up in the river. By the turn of the 19th century, the state of the Thames was dire. What’s more, it was the source of London’s drinking water, allowing diseases to wreak havoc. There were three cholera epidemics between 1832 and 1854.
- Read more | What did Victorians do with their poo? The battle over the 19th-century excrement explosion
To make matters worse, the population rose rapidly to beyond 2.5 million by 1850. And even the introduction of the more-hygienic water closets exacerbated the problem as flushing toilets meant there was more sewer water flowing into the river. The antiquated system of small sewers and cesspits was overwhelmed.
Newspapers clamoured for change, with illustrated papers like Punch personifying the river into a disgusting old man called Father Thames. Scientists and engineers drew up plans of how to deal with London’s sewage problem, but still nothing was done. A desperate Michael Faraday warned that a single “hot season” would give the people of London “sad proof of the folly of our carelessness”.
The summer of stink
Faraday’s warning came true in 1858. An unusually hot summer, with temperature rising over 30°C, saw the river levels drop, which left the filth to bake in the sun. The odour became unbearable.
“Gentility of speech is at an end – it stinks, and whoso once inhales the stink can never forget it and can count himself lucky if he lives to remember it,” read the London City Press.
Queen Victoria herself attempted a river cruise, hoping that the bouquet of flowers she held would be enough to mask the stench, only to give up after a few minutes and demand the boat be returned to shore.
Being next to the Thames became nearly impossible. At the time, it was believed that diseases spread through foul air, or miasma, so for Londoners to get a whiff of the Thames during the Great Stink was not only deeply unpleasant but a risk to life.
Cutting through the red tape
One group of people especially affected were politicians, since the newly built Palace of Westminster, home to the British parliament, sat on the riverbank. They ordered tons of lime to be poured into the Thames and for the curtains to be doused with chloride of lime to mask the smell, but to no effect. Committee rooms had to be abandoned and there were serious talks of moving Parliament to another city, such as Oxford.
It turned out that political action could be swift when the politicians were faced with the problem themselves. In just 18 days, MPs passed a bill authorising £3 million to deal with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer Benjamin Disraeli described as “a Stygian pool, reeking with ineffable and intolerable horrors”.
Joseph Bazalgette, hero of the capital
The Metropolitan Board of Works was tasked with building a new sewer system for the city, led by chief engineer Joseph Bazalgette. He had been trying for years to implement his plans for improved sanitation; now, he was the mastermind behind an ambitious vision.
Bazalgette ripped up London to build a network of interconnecting sewers that led to the river, but joined major sewers running parallel with it. The waste would be diverted to pumping stations – some, like Crossness and Abbey Mills, were architectural marvels themselves – and away downstream.
The project changed the very look of the city, most notably with the addition of embankments. These concealed the sewers and narrowed the river, making it less likely that filth in the water could collect. Completed in 1875, it took more than 318 million bricks to realise Bazalgette’s vision.
The smell improved, the water became clearer and cases of disease dropped. There was another cholera epidemic, but only in the part of London not yet connected to Bazalgette’s network. Such was the success of the new sewer system that London still relies on it to this day.
]]> HistoryExtra <![CDATA[After the Romans left, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived. What was the difference?]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/angles-saxons-and-jutes/ 2026-07-07T14:02:21.000Z 2026-07-07T07:15:43.000Z The answer here is still hotly disputed. It was the Venerable Bede (who died in 735), writing 250 years after the events he describes, who first claimed that Roman Britain fell to invasion by Angles, Saxons and Jutes from the North Sea coastlines of Germany and Denmark.
Victorian writers considered it perfectly acceptable to trace physical or ‘racial’ distinctions between those of ‘Jutish’ descent still living in Kent set against the Saxon or Angle peasantry of the west and north. Even today, some modern authorities claim to confirm Bede’s tripartite scheme using archaeological evidence, in particular the minor variations in the types of brooches and cremation urns found in early Anglo-Saxon burial sites.
Others argue that Bede was imposing fictitious order upon a far more chaotic ethnographic reality. The strange legal customs of medieval Kent, for example, might denote Jutish influence. They might just as easily be Roman survivals or suggest the influence of northern France.
Like the ‘tribes’ of North American ‘Indians’, the Germanic peoples were not ‘racially’ homogenous. Status and success in war were far more significant than race, with the Angles apparently commanding the highest status of all. In the 590s, the supposedly Jutish king Æthelbert of Kent was addressed by the pope as ‘King of the Angles’. But for this ‘keeping up with the Angles’, England today might be known not as England but as Saxland or Jutland.
Answered by: Nick Vincent, professor of history at the University of East Anglia
]]> Jonny Wilkes <![CDATA[Why was Mozart obsessed with poo?]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/general-history/why-was-mozart-obsessed-with-poo/ 2024-08-31T07:15:03.000Z 2024-08-31T07:14:56.000Z To watch the 1984 movie Amadeus, with a star turn from Tom Hulce as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the immature, lewd, debauched young man on screen – complete with American accent and obnoxious laugh – must be nothing like the real Salzburg-born composer.
Yet Mozart – the same mind that penned some of the most exquisite compositions in history – had a partiality for the puerile. Around 1782, he wrote a bouncy little piece titled Leck mic him Arsch, which literally means ‘lick me in the arse’ and can be understood in English as ‘kiss my arse’.
His private correspondence reveals a surprisingly infantile sense of humour, especially when it came to all things scatological.
Across dozens of letters to friends and family, from his parents to his wife, Mozart filled pages with comments and jokes about poo, offering describing vivid scenes.
For his cousin, and possible love interest, Maria Anna Thekla Mozart, Mozart wrote the vulgar verse:
“Well, I wish you good night, but first,
Shit in your bed and make it burst.
Sleep soundly, my love,
Into your mouth your arse you’ll shove.”
In a letter to Maria Anna dated 5 November 1777, he gets things going with, “I shit on your nose, so it runs down your chin,” before seemingly getting distracted and saying, “Oh my ass burns like fire! What on earth is the meaning of this! – maybe muck wants to come out?”
The letter ends with Mozart relating something that happened while writing. Picking up a bad smell he believed to be coming from outside, he kept going to the window to see where it was coming from, but could not place it. “Finally My Mama says to me: I bet you let one go? – I don’t think so, Mama. Yes, yes, I’m quite certain,” he wrote. “I put it to the test, stick my finger in my ass, then put it to my nose, and – there is the proof! Mama was right!”
Far from offended, his cousin gleefully maintained her correspondence and even filled her own letters with scatological and sexual humour.
Why was Mozart obsessed with poo?
So, how could the composer of the Requiem, Jupiter Symphony and Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, get such a jolly out of poo?
Jokes about bums, farts and poo have a historical precedence – appearing in the likes of Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare – and were enjoying something of a resurgence in the 18th century, particularly in Germany. Perhaps the overt obscenity acted as an antidote to the rigidity and decorum of high society.
More from us
HistoryExtra members can explore this topic further with exclusive content from our archives
Not a HistoryExtra member? Explore our latest membership offers
It is also worth noting that the quotes above should be placed in context: from start to finish, Mozart’s letters were rife with word play, made-up phrases, and provocative asides. The scatology was simply a part of that.
Over the years, psychological or medical disorders have been mooted, from Tourette’s to arrested development (as a wunderkind composing by the age of five, his childhood was spent on a tour Europe performing for royals). These have been widely dismissed, however.
The true reason for his fondness of scatology continues to puzzle today, but – in true Occam’s razor fashion – could it come down to something simple: he found poo funny? But that has proven to be hard to accept for some fans of his musical genius, given the attempts to hide or censor his filth-ridden letters.
Toilets through time
Member exclusive | What was it like to do your business in a Roman communal toilet? Why was the devil thought to lurk in medieval privies? And did constipation turn Henry VIII into a tyrant? In this four-part mini-series, David Musgrove heads down the u-bend in the company of leading historical experts to see what we can learn from the most universal of all experiences: going to the loo.
Listen to all episodes now
]]> HistoryExtra <![CDATA[What is Greek life?]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/general-history/what-is-greek-life/ 2024-08-30T20:33:02.000Z 2024-08-30T20:33:02.000Z The term ‘Greek life’ has little to do with ancient Greece or its long history – so forget about the temples and city states, the philosophers and warriors, the mythologies and experimental theatre.
The organisations it refers to can be found across the Atlantic on the university campuses of North America – although the first of those has only been around for 250 years, rather than 2,500.
What is ‘Greek life’ at American universities?
‘Greek life’ is the collective term for US university fraternities and sororities, the social organisations that are a mainstay of hundreds of campuses and a staple of all college movies, from Animal House to Monsters University.
Fraternities (usually men only) and sororities (women) have exclusive memberships, their own rules and traditions, and a degree of secrecy to those who are not ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’.
Ostensibly social groups, they give members – once they’ve got in, through the application process of being a ‘rush’ and then a ‘pledge’ – a sense of identity and community. They also provide excellent opportunities for networking that can be advantageous later in life. In 2007, around 85 per cent of Fortune 500 CEOs are Greek life alumni.
Despite a 2023 YouGov poll showing that only seven per cent of American men and six per cent of women have been part of the Greek life, the impact of fraternities and sororities on society has been huge. Countless notable figures in all fields – from politicians to actors – went through the system.
How are Greek societies named?
Adding to the allure of the fraternities and sororities is the sense of mystery and history created by their names, which are made up of letters from the Greek alphabet. This goes back to the very origins of Greek life.
What was the first Greek fraternity?
The first fraternity was Phi Beta Kappa, which was formed in 1776 (in the same year as the Declaration of Independence founded the United States itself) at the College of William & Mary in Virginia.
The inaugural president, John Heath, was proficient in ancient languages and came up with a Greek motto, translated as “love of learning is the guide of life”, the initials of which formed the club’s name.
Within a few years, Phi Beta Kappa had expanded to have chapters at Harvard and Yale. When other similar organisations were established, Greek was kept to associate them with the intellectual and cultural highs of that ancient civilisation. When knowledge of the language decreased, the letters came to give the impression that these fraternities were themselves ancient, mysterious and special.
To date, Phi Beta Kappa alumni includes 17 US presidents (like Teddy Roosevelt and Bill Clinton), dozens of Supreme Court justices and Nobel laureates, artists, activists and business moguls. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is a brother.
What was the first Greek sorority?
The question of which sorority has the honour of being the first is debated. The first to be called as such was Gamma Phi Beta, formed at Syracuse University, New York, in 1874, but there has been a women’s society at Wesleyan Female College, Georgia, since 1851, which became Alpha Delta Pi.
More from us
HistoryExtra members can explore this topic further with exclusive content from our archives
- <How did the American Revolution begin?
- How did the American Revolution begin?
Not a HistoryExtra member? Explore our latest membership offers
]]> Danny Bird <![CDATA[Where does the term ‘champagne socialist’ come from?]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/champagne-socialist-meaning-origin/ 2024-08-23T16:29:43.000Z 2024-08-25T08:27:09.000Z What is a champagne socialist?
The term 'champagne socialist', often used pejoratively, refers to the perceived hypocrisy of liberal middle-class people who advocate for socialist ideals while continuing to enjoy their own affluent lifestyles.
Since its conception more than a century ago, champagne socialism has been an enduring, if unofficial, part of politics in Britain and around the world.
When was the term champagne socialist coined?
The pharse champagne socialist first appeared in the 1906 novel Blind Alleys by the American author George Cary Eggleston, in which one of the characters contrasts the so-called “beer socialist” – referencing the preferred beverage of the working class – to the “champagne socialist” in the middle class.
This, Eggleston elucidates, is someone who “wants everybody to be equal upon the higher plane that suits him, utterly ignoring the fact that there is not enough champagne, green turtle and truffles to go round”.
- Read more | Who invented champagne?
The novel sought to emphasise the gulf between the comfort of bourgeois life and the everyday hardships faced by the working class.
The beer socialist is someone who “wants everybody to come down to his low standards of living”. Egglestone questioned the sincerity of those who, despite their privilege, champion economic and social equality.
How has the term champagne socialist been used in political history?
It could be expected that any accusations of hypocrisy when it comes to middle-class socialism would be coming chiefly from the political right. Yet some of the most vociferous attacks of champagne socialism have emanated from left-wing voices.
A notable example is Ramsay MacDonald, the first Labour prime minister of the United Kingdom. He would be called a traitor to his party’s egalitarian principles throughout his time in office, with critics lambasting his hobnobbing with the British elite.
In 1931, with the economy reeling from the aftershocks of the Wall Street Crash two years earlier and the subsequent Great Depression, MacDonald formed the National Government.
This was a coalition of the major political parties, but dominated by the Conservatives, so was immediately seen by many on the left as a betrayal of the organised labour movement. MacDonald was even expelled from his own party.
More recently, supporters of New Labour – led by Tony Blair in the 1990s and 2000s – faced similar accusations. Critics of Blair, Gordon Brown and their allies pointed to their middle-class backgrounds, their courting of the ‘Cool Britannia’ campaign (a pop-culture-heavy celebration of all things British), and their perceived compromises on traditional Labour values, as the embodiment of champagne socialism.
Has the term champagne socialist been used outside Britain?
Variations of champagne socialism have existed in many nations around the world. In the 1980s, the term gauche caviar (left caviar) became particularly popular in France as an attack on their president François Mitterrand, for what his political enemies saw as his duplicity.
In New Zealand and Australia, the preferred insult was for a time ‘chardonnay socialist’. But the implicit meaning of such insults has been expanded beyond socialism to expose hypocrisy among all progressive strains of thought. So in the United States, for example, one of the equivalent terms became ‘limousine liberal’.
Other caricatures have emerged, from experts in their ‘ivory towers’ to the ‘luvvies’ of the ‘metropolitan liberal elite’.
All have come to disparage a social caste regarded as being at the top of society who make vaguely egalitarian signals from their life of luxury inside gated communities, far removed from the experiences of ordinary people.
Is champagne socialism always used negatively?
Opponents of socialism have long relished pointing out that certain individuals on the left have enjoyed comfortable lives. Friedrich Engels – friend and sponsor of Karl Marx, and co-author of The Communist Manifesto – came from a wealthy family that owned factories, after all.
Nevertheless, the label has occasionally been embraced by those on the left who reject the notion that socialism should aspire to a minimalist and austere existence. Returning to Blind Alleys, why should they give up the green turtle and truffles? Rather, they point out that their egalitarian beliefs stem from a desire to ensure that everybody is able to enjoy the finer things in life.
- Read next | Why do we smash champagne bottles against new ships?
]]> Danny Bird <![CDATA[Why decimation was the most unfair punishment in the Roman Army]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/roman/decimation-roman-punishment-real/ 2024-09-09T15:11:48.000Z 2024-08-24T07:47:49.000Z In order to keep the ruthless war machine that was the Roman army going, discipline was paramount. Penalising severe offences, such as desertion and mutiny, required a particularly brutal form of punishment – that was decimation.
What was the Roman punishment decimation?
Coming from the Latin for ‘removal of a tenth’, decimation involved the selection and execution of every tenth man in a group of soldiers.
What’s more, the man chosen would be put to death by his own comrades. This punished, deterred and restored order within the ranks in one vicious swoop.
Speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast, historian Adrian Goldsworthy addressed the common misconception that decimation indicated a near-apocalyptic event where most people would die. Indeed, that is how the word is generally used today.
Rather, says Goldsworthy, “decimation meant executing one in ten, not executing 90 per cent and leaving 10 per cent alive… it [was] not crippling as a rule.”
How did decimation work in practice?
The punishment of decimation began by rallying the troops, whereupon the military tribune would present the accused before a general. Following a public reprimand detailing the offences, the names of all the solders were placed into a receptacle, such as a helmet.
A certain number of names were drawn, often every tenth soldier, and the unlucky selectees would be executed. This grim lottery underscored the randomness of the punishment, and so instilled fear into the surviving soldiers.
“Punishment in the Roman world is seen as something that’s designed to be public, symbolic, to deter others,” says Goldsworthy.
“That’s why you throw people to the lions in the arenas – so they die slowly and unpleasantly and very visibly. The army worked under the same principle.”
The Roman army’s reputation as one of history’s most rigorously organised and trained military forces can be attributed, in part, to its disciplinary measures.
History’s greatest cities
Member exclusive | In this HistoryExtra podcast series, travel journalist and history fan Paul Bloomfield virtually roams the streets and sites of great metropolises in the company of a series of expert historian guides – including Rome!
Listen to all episodes now
What offences could lead to decimation?
Decimation was an extreme punishment for the most serious transgressions, such as cowardice, insubordination, desertion and mutiny.
The mere threat of decimation was designed to ensure that soldiers adhered to military discipline. They would come to understand that any misconduct could lead to severe consequences, regardless of rank or even role in the transgression, for themselves and for their comrades.
What is the earliest Roman account of decimation?
One of the earliest-known cases of decimation dates back to 471 BC. According to the Roman historian Livy, an army under the command of the consul Appius Claudius Sabinus Inregillensis retreated from the battlefield.
Outraged, he had the first deserters flogged and decapitated, then decimated every tenth man to serve as a stark warning.
What is the most famous use of decimation?
Perhaps the most famous instance occurred during the slave uprising led by gladiator-turned-slave Spartacus, known as the Third Servile War (73 to 71 BC).
After failing to crush the rebellion, the Roman general, Marcus Licinius Crassus, had his legions decimated.
Decades later, Mark Antony is also known to have given orders for his legions to be decimated.
Was decimation a common punishment?
Despite its effectiveness in inspiring fear and maintaining discipline, the use of decimation was not common practice.
The psychological toll on soldiers, forced to kill their comrades, would have tested morale.
When did decimation fall out of favour?
The last time decimation was used by the Romans occurred under Diocletian, who ruled as emperor from AD 284 to 305.
Following the Roman empire’s conversion to Christianity, the seeds of which were sown with the edict of Milan in AD 313, the punishment gradually declined as more humane ideas came into vogue.
Has decimation been used since the Romans?
The principle of randomly selecting wayward soldiers for execution has a long history in Europe. It was notably used by the Holy Roman Empire during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-48).
As recently as the 20th century, it was deployed by the French and Italian armies during the First World War. It has been said that the chief of staff of the Italian Army, General Luigi Cadorna, executed more than 750 men under his command for cowardice.
Another shocking example took place during the Finnish Civil War of 1918 when nationalist White Guards executed about 90 leftist Red Guard prisoners in Varkaus. This became commonly known as the ‘Lottery of Huruslahti’.
Caesar: Death of a Dictator
Member exclusive | On the Ides of March 44 BC, the most famous Roman in history was murdered. Julius Caesar's assassination transformed Rome forever, and the image of his bloody toga has haunted monarchs and tyrants ever since.
Listen to all episodes now
]]>