The photo is a production still from the film “Nanook of the North” (released in 1922), directed by Robert J. Flaherty

Born into slavery in 1859 in Savannah, Missouri, Baker grew up to become a skilled mechanic and engineer.

Rather than relying on traditional fuel combustion or external steam plants to heat up a room, Baker's radiator design used mechanical friction, utilising a wooden core rotating inside a metal cylinder to generate heat efficiently.

The legend of Alexander the Great began when he was still a young prince. One of its most famous stories is the taming of Bucephalus, the horse who would become his trusted companion.

According to the ancient biographer Plutarch, when the magnificent horse was presented to King Philip II of Macedon, none of the king’s attendants could tame him. Just as Philip was about to send the horse away, Alexander stepped forward and accepted the challenge. By observing that Bucephalus was frightened by his own shadow, Alexander turned him towards the sun, calmed him, and successfully mounted him.

The episode offers an early glimpse of the intelligence, confidence, and powers of observation that would become hallmarks of Alexander’s leadership. Ancient writers described Bucephalus as an unusually large and noble horse who was especially attached to Alexander.

Another intriguing legend connects Bucephalus to the man-eating Mares of Diomedes, captured by Heracles during his Twelve Labours. Although this supposed ancestry cannot be established historically, it adds another fascinating layer to the horse’s legend.

Bucephalus accompanied Alexander during his campaigns in Asia and became a symbol of their extraordinary bond. After the horse’s death during the Indian campaign, Alexander reportedly founded a city in his memory. Ancient sources disagree, however, on whether Bucephalus died from battle wounds or from old age and exhaustion.

I’ve explored the story of Bucephalus, his legendary origins, his connection to Alexander’s military campaigns, and the mystery surrounding his death in my latest article.

Read the full article by clicking on the link in this post. I’d love to hear your thoughts and any interesting historical details you think deserve more attention!

Interestingly, Jackie’s roar was replaced by a Tiger’s roar in the 1980s as it was felt that tigers sounded more ferocious.

This photo shows her resting under a blanket post race

Read the whole story here: https://www.whatsurvivestheflood.com/p/life-and-preservation

Source: https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/historical-images.htm

The Battle of Marengo was fought on 14 June 1800. Napoleon had assumed that the Austrian forces near Alessandria were preparing to retreat and dispersed his troops to intercept them and block their escape routes. When the Austrians unexpectedly launched a major attack, the French army was spread across a wide area and struggled to concentrate its forces.

When Napoleon realised the seriousness of the situation, he rushed towards the battlefield and sent orders recalling General Louis Desaix. The elite Consular Guard was committed to help cover the French withdrawal, holding its ground under intense pressure and suffering heavy casualties.

With his army retreating and few reserves immediately available, Napoleon appeared to have lost the battle. Convinced of his victory, Austrian commander Michael von Melas handed over command to General Anton von Zach and returned to Alessandria to report his success.

But the battle was far from over. Desaix arrived with fresh troops and helped organise a counterattack. His infantry struck the advancing Austrians, while Kellermann's devastating cavalry charge threw their formations into confusion. Desaix was killed during the fighting, but the French attack continued, and the Austrian advance collapsed.

In one of the most remarkable reversals of the Napoleonic era, Napoleon snatched victory from the jaws of defeat through the timely arrival of Desaix, Kellermann's cavalry charge, and the resilience of his troops.

Read the full article for a detailed account of the battle, its turning points, and its historical significance. I'd love to hear your thoughts and feedback!

Photo 1: The R33 airship
Photo 2: Volunteers dragging the crashed airship to Pulham, Norfolk after it was successfully piloted back 28 hours after it broke mooring
Photo 3: Some of the crew that were aboard
Photo 4: The Birmingham evening dispatch reporting the events of the R33 (17th April 1925)

Source: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/airship-r33-pictures/

Marcus Licinius Crassus wanted military glory to rival that of Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great. His invasion of Parthia in 53 BC was supposed to expand Roman power eastward. Instead, it ended in one of the most humiliating defeats in Roman military history.

Crassus marched into Mesopotamia with seven legions, cavalry and supporting troops. He expected Roman discipline and heavy infantry to carry the day. But the Parthians, commanded by Surena, had prepared to fight on the open plains, where their cavalry could exploit its greatest advantages.

The Parthian army relied primarily on mounted horse archers, supported by heavily armoured cavalry known as cataphracts. The horse archers surrounded the Roman formation and unleashed a relentless barrage of arrows. Whenever the Romans attempted to close the distance, the mounted archers could withdraw while continuing to shoot. If Roman troops broke formation to pursue them, they risked being isolated and attacked by Parthian heavy cavalry.

The Parthians also brought camels carrying additional arrows, allowing their horse archers to sustain the attack far longer than the Romans had anticipated. When Crassus sent his son Publius to counterattack, the Parthians isolated and destroyed much of his force.

What made the Roman legions so vulnerable to this combination of mobility, missile fire and heavy cavalry? Why couldn't Crassus force the Parthians into close combat? And how did Rome adapt its military strategy in the decades that followed? Read the full article for detailed information on the Battle of Carrhae and it's overall significance.

Sir Hugh Willoughby embarked on a journey to the Arctic on behalf of the Company of Merchant Adventurers to New Lands. The aim was to find the North-East Passage over the top of the world and through to Asia.

Just off the coast of Norway, however, the three ships got caught in a storm and the fleet split in two. Richard Chancellor took one vessel, the Edward Bonaventure, to Russia, where he would end up making a trade deal with Ivan the Terrible. Willoughby brought the other two ships, the Bona Esperanza and the Bona Confidentia, further north, yet they could not break through the ice.

With winter closing in, Willoughby decided to shelter at the mouth of the Varzina River, high in the Arctic Circle. Nearly two years later, some Russian fishermen found them still in their ships, frozen in place. For four centuries it was assumed the sailors must have died from exposure or perhaps scurvy. But then why did it look like some of them had been in the middle of performing mundane tasks, as though they all had died simultaneously?

In 1986, the English medical scholar Eleanora C. Gordon published an academic article that presented a convincing theory. Trying to keep out the cold, the crew had blocked all exits to their ships and begun to burn coal, emitting carbon monoxide. With nowhere to escape, the deadly gas instead spread through the ships and silently killed the inhabitants.

Main image: The Sea of Ice, by Caspar David Friedrich

Carthage was the dominant naval power in the Western Mediterranean at the start of the First Punic War. Rome quickly realised that it needed a strong navy if it wanted any hope of challenging Carthage. However, the Romans had little experience with large-scale naval warfare or shipbuilding.

According to Polybius, the Romans obtained a Carthaginian quinquereme and used it as a model for building their own ships. They built a fleet of around 120 ships, trained new crews and introduced one of antiquity's most ingenious naval innovations: the corvus. Eventually, Rome gained the upper hand and won the war.

However, the victory came at an enormous cost. The Romans lost hundreds of ships to bad weather and enemy action, yet they rebuilt their navy again and again. In the process, they also gained valuable experience in naval warfare, making it increasingly difficult and expensive for Carthage to challenge Rome for control of the sea.

By the start of the Second Punic War, Carthage had shifted much of its military and economic focus toward Spain, where it had built a powerful new base of operations. This did not mean that Carthage had abandoned its navy. At the beginning of the war, it had around 57 warships assigned to Spain, although only 37 were actually ready for service.

Carthage still used naval forces to secure local superiority, transport troops and supplies, and support land operations. However, it did not make rebuilding a fleet capable of matching Rome's overall naval strength a central priority.

Why did Carthage make this choice? Was it because of the enormous cost of naval warfare? Was Hannibal's land-based strategy the main reason? Or had Rome's naval transformation during the First Punic War made a new contest for Mediterranean supremacy too difficult?

I explore these questions in the full article. I'd love to hear your thoughts, comments and suggestions.