Contrary to what many might think‚ the battlefields of Europe could be an immensely colorful place. Pennants and banners fluttered in the wind. Shields carrying colorful devices marked their wielders’ allegiance‚ as did the soldiers’ uniforms‚ from spearmen to the nobles.   From the late 15th to the early 17th century‚ the battlefields became even more colorful as German mercenaries took to the fields. With wide-brimmed hats sporting brightly dyed plumage‚ flashy linen garments‚ berets‚ baggy shirts‚ and multi-colored puffs and slashes‚ these soldiers were immediately noticeable. But it was not just their clothes that drew attention.   Although most commonly seen using the pike‚ they were most associated with the Zweih&;auml;nder‚ a magnificently huge sword that could be up to eight feet in length (although around six feet was most common). They were deadly soldiers‚ feared across all of Europe.   They were the Landsknechts.   Landsknechts: A Note on the Name The Battle of Pavia tapestry by Willem and Jan Dermoyen‚ after Bernard van Orley. Landsknechte can be seen on the far left battling against Swiss mercenaries. Source: Codart via Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte‚ Naples   The term Landsknecht is derived from Middle High German and Middle Low German. Knecht means “servant.” A Landsknecht is‚ therefore‚ a servant of the land. In its original context‚ it is difficult to see how this word would do the soldiers justice. It does not conjure up images of deadly fighters.   They did‚ however‚ go by other names. One of the most common terms for them was Doppels&;ouml;ldner‚ meaning “double-pay soldier‚” and sometimes their name was rendered as Lanzknecht‚ referencing the long pikes they would employ (Lanze means “lance”).   The Late 15th Century A woodcut of a Landsknecht by J&;ouml;rg Breu II (print-maker) and Jost de Negker (block-cutter) Source: British Museum‚ London   From 1474 to 1477‚ the Burgundian State entered a war with the Swiss Confederacy. Charles the Bold‚ the Duke of Burgundy‚ had a capable army that was well-trained and well-equipped. Despite this advantage‚ his forces were routinely beaten by Swiss militia. This was due to not only issues with morale but the effectiveness of Swiss mercenaries called Reisl&;auml;ufers‚ who wielded pikes and other polearms.   These weapons would come to dominate the battlefields of Europe for the next two centuries. Polearms‚ especially pikes‚ were employed in mass formations of phalanxes that virtually negated the effect of cavalry charges‚ which had been the superweapon of the medieval era. Commoners with long‚ pointy sticks were now more effective than knights.   Maximilian I by Albrecht D&;uuml;rer. Source: National Gallery of Art‚ Washington DC   In fact‚ the Reisl&;auml;ufers were so successful that it was likely one of them who killed Charles the Bold in combat. Remnants of the order still exist today‚ guarding the Vatican‚ and are known as the Swiss Guard.   After the war‚ Archduke Maximilian‚ who later became the Holy Roman Emperor‚ took control of Burgundian lands‚ which then became the target of French claims. Maximilian had been so impressed with the Swiss Reisl&;auml;ufers that he employed troops to fight in their formations and tactics. The army comprised levied Flemish soldiers who employed the square infantry formations combined with the wagon fort tactics popular among the Hussites. After defeating the French‚ however‚ the levied troops were released from their duty‚ and Maximilian found himself wanting a permanent force of soldiers that could fight in such an effective style. The Landsknechts were founded.   The Execution of the Guardian of Kufstein by Hans Burgkmair‚ from Der Weisskunig. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art‚ New York   In 1486‚ the first units of Landsknechts were raised. These early units did not have the brightly colored clothing for which the Landsknechts became known. In fact‚ one of these units was named the Black Guard and served for many decades after its founding.   Landsknecht troops were drawn mainly from poorer classes in society‚ although it was not uncommon for nobles to take up positions as officers. Maximilian recruited Reisl&;auml;ufers to train the Landsknechts‚ and with the capable leadership under Georg von Frundsberg‚ known as the “Father of the Landsknechts‚” the Landsknechts became a well-trained‚ formidable fighting unit.   In 1488‚ the first Landsknecht army was raised in Germany under the command of the Swabian League. Their first campaign was a complete success when they drove the Hungarians out of Austria. Realizing their value‚ the Landsknechts put a halt to the campaign‚ stopping Maximilian from completing his victory. They demanded better pay‚ and Maximilian acceded‚ turning them into a fully professional‚ permanent army.   The 16th Century A Landsknecht reenactor with a Zweih&;auml;nder. Source: Sew Not History   The Landsknechts quickly became a force with which to be reckoned. They solidified their reputation as effective soldiers during the siege of &;Auml;lvsborg Fortress in 1502 when‚ according to the journal of a Landsknecht individual‚ 1‚800 Landsknechts were attacked by 15‚000 Swedish farmers and the Landsknechts “struck most of them dead.”   The Landsknechts became the hated enemies of the Swiss Reisl&;auml;ufers‚ and they rarely took prisoners‚ instead opting to murder all Landsknechts that were captured. Of course‚ the Landsknechts returned the favor in kind. As mercenaries‚ they took the opportunity to fight against their enemies‚ even if it meant fighting for other traditional enemies. At the Battle of Novara in 1513‚ six thousand Landsknechts fought for the French against the Swiss‚ fielding an army of Reisl&;auml;ufers‚ and were defeated. The Swiss put them to the sword.   The Landsknechts would get the better of the Reisl&;auml;ufers twice at the battles of Marignano in 1515 and Bicocca in 1521. The following years witnessed the Landsknechts achieve many victories‚ fighting mainly for the Holy Roman Empire and Spain. This is not to say that these were their only employers. The Landsknechts fought for anyone who could hire them.   They enjoyed an unusually high status as footsoldiers‚ and they used their status as bargaining power‚ managing to argue for better pay and forcing situations on the battlefield in their favor. They were sometimes difficult to control and would force fights with the enemy in protracted sieges. This is not surprising‚ as their ranks were also filled with criminals and other unsavory and violently confident characters looking for glory and plunder. A Landsknecht costume. Source: steel-mastery.com   In 1527‚ the Holy Roman Empire under Charles V defeated the French while on a campaign in Italy. Lack of funds‚ however‚ meant that many troops who fought for the Holy Roman Empire did not get paid. This resulted in a mutiny of 34‚000 soldiers‚ 14‚000 of whom were Landsknechts. They showed their displeasure by marching on and sacking Rome.   In the following decades‚ the Landknechts came under harsh criticism by those who questioned their discipline. Their reputation as Europe’s most dreaded soldiers also suffered with the success of the Spanish tercios‚ who won incredible victories due to their training‚ tactics‚ and effective use of formations‚ which took into account technological innovations revolving around gunpowder.   In the latter half of the 16th century‚ the Holy Roman Empire sought more control over its armies by switching to a system that relied far less on mercenaries‚ and the Landsknechts found themselves being slowly diminished as a fighting force. Many veterans took up jobs as bodyguards‚ but this wasn’t enough to employ the mercenaries in the many thousands to which they had grown accustomed.   In the second half of the 16th century‚ a population explosion led to unemployment‚ and many people joined the Landsknechts‚ reducing wages. With the advent of more effective firearms‚ the tactics employed by the Landsknechts also became obsolete.   Their Uniforms A Landsknecht reenactor. Source: landsknecht.se   The Landsknechts were well-known for their brightly-colored‚ flashy clothing. According to legend‚ the trend in colorful clothing started in 1477 after a particularly bloody battle. With broken and slashed clothing that needed patching‚ they took random bits of cloth from their enemies’ uniforms and standards. The patchy but colorful look developed into asymmetric uniforms with deliberate slashes and puffs.   They were exempt from sumptuary laws and were thus not confined by the rules governing the style and color of their uniforms that were found in the rest of the armies in the employ of the Holy Roman Emperor.   On their head‚ they wore large berets‚ generally adorned with dyed ostrich feathers. On their upper body‚ they wore a baggy shirt made of linen with a collar of lace. Around their neck‚ they often wore chains and amulets. The most common design was a cross‚ although many symbols could be displayed.   An historical figure of a Landsknecht mercenary. Source: Museum of Ventura County / George S. Stuart Historical Figures   Thick doublets that would withstand wear and tear were worn. Any material of significant hardiness could be used‚ such as multi-layered linen or felt. Those wealthy enough could have the inside of the doublet lined with silk.   On their legs‚ they wore stockings laced up and attached to the bottom of the doublet. Over the stockings‚ they wore pantaloons of various colored strips of cloth‚ puffed and slashed like the sleeves of the doublet. Similarly‚ they were often asymmetrical.   Of note were the large codpieces that were worn. These were stuffed with cotton‚ straw‚ or any other similar substance. Sometimes‚ it was even used as a purse to store coins&;#33;   Leather shoes called “cow-muzzle” or “bear-paw” shoes were worn on the feet. They were square-toed‚ and even these items of clothing were decorated with slashes.   A Landsknecht reenactor. Source: landsknecht.se   When the Landsknechts took to the field‚ their enemies knew they were in for a hard fight. They had a reputation that was well-deserved and was matched by their ostentatious outfits.   They were brutal. They did not observe the rules of war in the same way the nobles did. They sacked towns and cities‚ pillaging the living and the dead in their quest for loot. Their lives were short‚ and they knew it.   Their legacy is certainly one that stands out‚ and their choice of clothing influenced Renaissance fashion as people took their cues from the famous flashy soldiers of Europe.

  The fur trade‚ particularly the capture of beaver pelts‚ had a huge influence on the development of parts of the future United States and Canada. Hundreds of men made their way to the New World in hopes of striking it rich in pursuit of raw products that would fuel the fashion industry in Europe. However‚ this was not without consequences. The development of this industry would have lasting impacts‚ one of the most notable of which was the Great Beaver Wars‚ a series of conflicts that spanned time and miles.   1. The Origins of the Fighting Lay in the Competitive Fur Trade A Beaver Wars Engraving. Source: Canadian History Ehx   The Great Beaver Wars began in approximately 1640‚ when the five tribes of the Haudenosaunee‚ also known as the Iroquois Confederacy‚ originally based in what would become New York‚ began a campaign to increase their territory. Their economy had become heavily dependent on fur trade‚ particularly beaver‚ with the British and Dutch. They were running out of pelts to supply their buyers with‚ having depleted the animals in their homeland. Eager to continue their profitable alliances‚ the Haudenosaunee used their might to expand north and westward into the territory of other Indigenous peoples and French colonial fur traders‚ thus igniting hostilities.   Color Plate with beavers. Source: Oregon Natural Desert Association   Traditional enemies of the Haudenosaunee banded together with the French in hopes that their combined strength would allow them to make a stand. Eventually‚ the fight would expand into the St. Lawrence Valley‚ Ottawa Valley‚ and towards the Ohio River Valley. The Haudenosaunee did not hesitate to forcefully relocate their rivals through violence‚ though retaliatory attacks would cause suffering on the part of the Haudenosaunee as well‚ as villages‚ crops‚ and lives would be lost in the years to come.   2. The Fighting was Intermittent but Lasted Over 60 Years A Canadian postage stamp commemorating the Great Peace‚ released in 2001. Source: Postage Stamp Guide   Though it began early in the seventeenth century‚ the fighting over beaver would not end until 1701‚ when the Treaty of Grande Paix‚ or the Great Peace of Montreal‚ was signed by the British‚ the French‚ the Haudenosaunee‚ and several other Indigenous tribes affected by the conflict.   Although the Great Beaver Wars technically lasted 61 years‚ the fighting was not constant during that time. The conflict ebbed and flowed‚ with periods of heavy battles and times of quiet tension. In total‚ historians consider the wars to be divided into five periods of conflict. The Treaty that ended the wars not only ended the fighting but allowed for peaceful‚ free trade between the French and Haudenosaunee. The French would be allowed to settle in Detroit‚ an important trading location‚ and the Haudenosaunee pledged to remain neutral in case of a future war between England and France (spoiler alert‚ they wouldn’t&;#33;).   3. The Wars Resulted in the Permanent Destruction of Several First Nations The Erie nation would be brought to extinction by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Source: HubPages   The war waged by the Haudenosaunee on behalf of their economy was incredibly destructive to the tribes that occupied the areas they wished to move into. These tribes were forced to move westward. They allied with existing tribes or became refugees hoping for kindness. In some cases‚ tribes would be eliminated entirely.   For example‚ in 1657‚ after repeated attacks‚ what remained of the Erie tribe was absorbed into the Haudenosaunee‚ never again to stand on its own as an independent nation. By the completion of the conflict‚ the Haudenosaunee would have successfully broken up every Indigenous group‚ both individual and allied‚ that directly surrounded their original homeland.   4. The Dutch Played a Role Flag of the Dutch East India Company. Source: Hot Core   Although the French and British are most commonly remembered as major European players in the fur trade‚ the Dutch were also active in the New World. Their location on the Hudson River in present-day New York put them in close proximity with the Haudenosaunee‚ with whom they built a trading relationship.   In turn‚ they‚ like the British‚ would provide the Haudenosaunee tribes with firearms that would then be used to evict other Indigenous tribes from valuable fur-hunting territory. In 1664‚ the British would take over the colony of New Netherland (New York) from the Dutch‚ essentially removing them from a primary role in the North American fur trade.   5. Jesuit Priests Prevented the Arming of French Indigenous Allies St. Ignatius of Loyola‚ founder of the Jesuits. Source: St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Parish   Jesuits‚ a distinct arm of the Catholic religion‚ were an influential component of society in parts of the early Americas. They were religious figures‚ but the importance of religion in European society meant that they also played a huge role in the creation of the infrastructure in colonial societies. Jesuits were prominent in the French aspects of the North American colonies and held influence among officials.   As the French built alliances among tribes like the Huron and Algonquin‚ they looked to begin arming their new partners‚ as the British and Dutch had with the Haudenosaunee. However‚ Jesuit priests warned against it‚ restricting the distribution of firearms only to Indigenous people who had converted to Christianity. They claimed that these individuals were more trustworthy and reliable‚ and military officials heeded their advice‚ reducing the number of weapons available to their Indigenous allies. Their concern for their counterparts’ religious beliefs seemed to outweigh the concern that their enemies may outgun them.   6. Refugees Flooded Wisconsin‚ Creating a Humanitarian Disaster Map of Wisconsin showing traditional Indigenous territories‚ nineteenth century. Source: Encyclopedia of Milwaukee   More than 20‚000 Indigenous refugees were pushed into the region that would become the state of Wisconsin as a result of the conflicts. This area was not large enough to support this number of people in addition to the people that occupied the area. Hunting and fishing grounds were scarce‚ as was living space. Epidemics and starvation were soon commonplace in the area‚ as was infighting and disunity. Many died as a result‚ and tribes who had once occupied the land shifted and divided to survive.   7. Beavers Were Believed to Have Mystical Powers Photograph of a beaver‚ Vlad G photo. Source: One Green Planet   Beaver fur was in demand due to its high demand in European high fashion at the time‚ mainly for men’s top hats. These top hats signified wealth and high class‚ and demanded respect. In addition‚ the unique characteristics of beaver hair made the hats water-resistant‚ a key feature in rainy Western Europe.   However‚ some wearers believed that beaver fur held mystical powers that could be transferred to the wearer. It was believed that oil from a beaver pelt rubbed in the hair could improve memory and that wearing a beaver hat could aid in hearing loss.   Different Indigenous cultures had traditional beliefs surrounding the beaver. For example‚ the Mi’kmaq‚ traditionally allied with the French‚ believed that consuming beaver bones would curse one never to be able to catch a beaver again.   8. A 14-Year-Old Girl Became a Hero A statue of Marie-Madeleine Jarret de Vercheres. Source: Vercheres Municipality   In 1692‚ a fourteen-year-old French girl became a hero to her town of Fort Vercheres when she joined in with the local men to defend against Haudenosaunee attacks. Marie-Madeleine Jarret de Vercheres helped fire cannons and guns at the attackers and signal reinforcements. A statue is now dedicated to her in Quebec‚ and she later would receive a pension from the French king.   9. The Great Beaver Wars Created Lakota Horse Culture The Custer Fight by Charles Marion Russell‚ 1903‚ features Lakota warriors on horseback. Source: Black Hills Visitor   The continuous expansion of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy resulted in the Lakota people being pushed westward from their original homelands on the Eastern side of the Mississippi River onto the Great Plains. Nomadic life on the plains required constant movement that was simplified with the introduction of the horse. The Lakota became adept horsemen as a result‚ using their mounts for hunting‚ traveling‚ carrying goods‚ and waging war.   Horses were present on the Great Plains already‚ descendants of Spanish horses brought to the Americas. As the next few centuries progressed‚ the Lakota would become legendary for their skills as horsemen‚ considered by many historians to be the best light cavalry in world history. By 1831‚ the Lakota were the dominant military force for hundreds of miles in any direction on the plains.   The image of a stoic Native American atop his steed would become an iconic stereotype in the minds of many as “wild west shows” traveled the country in the late eighteenth century‚ and Americans heard stories of the “Indian Wars” taking place in the west.   10. Three “-isms” Are At the Root of the Conflict A political cartoon illustrating the policy of Mercantilism by Philip Dorf. Source: History Vault   When it comes to the root causes of the Great Beaver Wars and many other conflicts of this time‚ there are many factors at play in addition to what lies on the surface. While the apparent cause of this conflict seems to be a desire to control the beaver trade‚ three political policies and beliefs that were held in regard by European powers at the time dictated these results: imperialism‚ colonialism‚ and mercantilism.   Imperialism is the desire or action of extending a country’s power‚ often through political‚ or in this case‚ economic‚ means.   Colonialism can help countries achieve imperialism in that it is the practice of exerting power over weaker peoples. In this case‚ the French‚ British‚ and Dutch used their power and wealth to put pressure on the Haudenosaunee‚ Algonquin‚ Huron‚ and other Indigenous tribes in the Americas.   Mercantilism went hand in hand with colonialism‚ with the final goal of creating a favorable trade balance. “Mother countries” would monopolize resources in a colony and use them to create marketable goods (or sell them raw) at home. In the end‚ countries hoped to export more than they were forced to import and therefore make more money.   These three policies can all be traced to a desire for wealth and power‚ and all created hostility‚ distrust‚ and conflict.

  The year 1603 marked the beginning of the Tokugawa Era in Japan‚ also known as the Edo Period. The era began as Japan secluded itself for over two centuries‚ becoming a mystery. Yet during this period of monumental change the country’s culture flourished like never before‚ with great developments taking place across the arts‚ business‚ and wider Japanese culture.   The End of Chaos Tokugawa Ieyasu – First Shogun of the Tokugawa Shogunate. Source: Japan Visitor   In 1600‚ Japan’s two biggest rivals‚ Tokugawa Ieyasu and Toyotomi Hideyoshi‚ clashed at Sekigahara. Tokugawa won‚ eliminating his opponents‚ becoming Shogun‚ and taking over the bakufu (military government). Japan now only had one government.    Tokugawa’s victory ended the Sengoku Era‚ or “Warring States” period‚ which originated in the 1460s. As the wars ended‚ the Tokugawa clan established themselves in Edo‚ later Tokyo‚ taking it as their capital by 1603. The Tokugawa Bakufu’s grip on power remained absolute until the 1860s with their brand of government. Tokugawa had cemented his reputation as one of Japan’s three “Great Unifiers.” Much of modern Japan formed under the Tokugawa rule from business‚ culture‚ and arts.    Transformation and Edicts Dutch and Chinese ships in Nagasaki. Source: The British Museum   The first changes the Tokugawa Bakufu wrought were strict control over foreign trade‚ a rigid class structure‚ religion‚ and even the noble class‚ or daimyo. The first significant edict came in 1612 banning Christianity‚ which the Bakufu feared would subvert a control over the population. The choices Japanese Christians faced numbered only two: conversion or martyrdom. The failed 1637 Shimabara Rebellion effectively ended Christianity in the Empire until 1873.   Next‚ the Bakufu subsequently enacted sakoku‚ or “closed country‚” in the 1630s. Foreign travel was banned‚ and trade restricted to ports like Nagasaki. Nearly all foreigners were expelled except the Dutch and Chinese; any others were considered trespassers‚ and those caught typically executed.   The Tokugawa Dynasty. Source: Honolulu Museum   The Bakufu rightly feared the daimyo‚ as these men wielded much power and money. To siphon these off‚ sankin kotai or alternate attendance policy became the norm. Daimyo were forced to build extravagant residences in Edo‚ where they lived for one year away from their domain. Their families remained as hostages in Edo when the daimyo traveled home. Also‚ each domain supplied soldiers to the Bakufu‚ placing an additional expense to strain the daimyo’s finances.   Post-1630s‚ the Bakufu enforced a strict class order of samurai‚ farmers‚ artisans‚ and merchants at the bottom. Officially‚ mobility between the classes became forbidden. Despite their bottom rung‚ merchants earned money from trade‚ which bought some relief. The new social system aimed to promote social and political order‚ but with the Bakufu’s hideously expensive sankin kotai system‚ many samurai fell into debt. In Edo Period Japan‚ only the merchants possessed cash to lend. By 1640‚ Japan’s isolation was complete‚ ending most external influences.   Genroku: Culture Achieved Interior View of a Kabuki Theatre by Utagawa Toyokuni I‚ 1793. Source: Brooklyn Museum‚ New York   Prosperity increased after the Bakufu’s seclusion policy‚ especially in big cities like Edo‚ Osaka‚ and Kyoto. This took time‚ but by the 1680s as 1688 to 1704 became known as the Genroku Era. This Era led to renowned developments in varied art forms such as kabuki theater‚ which poked fun at society‚ bunraku puppetry‚ and haiku poetry. Ukiyo-e‚ or woodblock prints‚ evolved too‚ later becoming world famous in the 19th century west. This art form displayed Japanese society‚ thoughts and impressions. Popular themes were nature and town life.    The most sampled ukiyo-e‚ even over a century later‚ is Hokusai’s Great Wave off Kanagawa. Though drawn after the Genroku Era’s high‚ this image still demonstrated Japanese thoughts and inspired many Impressionists. The Wave is seen as representing a change in society and increasing foreign contact with what disruptions could affect Japan. The Genroku Era’s influence lasted for years in insulated Japan.   Stability Means Success Fish Market. Source: National Diet Library   With Japan united‚ the Bakufu implemented trade policies and built roads to encourage trade. The economy grew‚ along with the population‚ agriculture‚ and literacy. Thus‚ the demand for entertainment escalated. The daimyo’s castles‚ already administrative centers‚ became towns where a rising middle merchant class and artisans settled along with manufacturing. Some of Japan’s biggest companies‚ like the Sumitomo Group and Mitsui‚ started during the Edo Period.   Foreign Influences The Tokugawa Shogunate. Source: Norwood College Library   The Tokugawa Bakufu’s official ban on foreigners did have cracks. Through Dutch traders at Nagasaki‚ books on botany‚ anatomy‚ technology‚ and science reached scholars‚ some even legally. By the early 1800s‚ even the Bakufu realized they needed Western knowledge. The official term for Western learning was “rangaku‚” or Dutch learning.   Cracks Appear Mutsuhito‚ The Meiji Emperor‚1873. Source: The Met Museum   Japan’s isolation lasted for nearly 250 years‚ with little trouble aside from some foreign probings or peasant rebellions. But by the 1850s‚ an economic decline‚ forced treaties under military threat‚ or political intrigue ended sakoku. Civil war broke out in 1868‚ sparking the Meiji Restoration and ending the Edo Period. Despite the seclusion‚ Japan’s economy and society benefitted‚ gaining breathing room from intrusive European powers.

  Conquering vast swathes of territory with the might of his Mongol hordes‚ Genghis Khan was a terrifying and brutal figure. He was also one of the most influential human beings in history‚ leaving a legacy not only of carnage and destruction but of law‚ order‚ and empire-building that would echo through the centuries.   His actions irrevocably changed the course of human history and helped shape civilization as it is today.   Often misunderstood and glossed over as just another barbarian‚ here are 15 remarkable facts about Genghis Khan.   1. His Birth was Regarded as Divine Genghis Khan‚ via BBC   Given the name Temujin after one of the enemies his father had conquered‚ Genghis Khan‚ as he later became known‚ was born under auspicious circumstances. A clot of blood in his hand signaled that there was an important spiritual connection to him. He was also said to have been of divine origin‚ with his first ancestor being a gray wolf.   2. He was to be Married at the Age of Nine Ankhnyam Ragchaa in Genghis Khan (2005)‚ via IMDb   When Temujin was just eight years old‚ his father‚ Yes&;uuml;gei‚ arranged a marriage between his son and B&;ouml;rte‚ the daughter of a powerful chieftain. Through this marriage‚ Yes&;uuml;gei would gain a powerful ally‚ but before the marriage could happen‚ Temujin would have to spend a significant amount of time in his future father-in-law’s household as part of B&;ouml;rte’s dowry. After delivering Temujin to his new home‚ Yes&;uuml;gei began the journey back. He‚ however‚ would not live much longer.   3. His Father was Poisoned by a Rival Clan   Temujin’s father‚ Yes&;uuml;gei‚ was poisoned when Temujin was just nine years old. While traveling home from the household of Dei Sechen‚ Temujin’s future father-in-law‚ he met up with Tatar travelers on the way. Unbeknownst to him‚ they recognized him as an old enemy and slipped poison into his food. It was not a fast-acting poison‚ and Yes&;uuml;gei made it home‚ although his condition had significantly deteriorated. He died shortly thereafter.   4. He Lived in Poverty   Genghis Khan and his hordes lived in yurts‚ portable tents still used in Mongolia to this day‚ via BBC   With his father dead‚ many leaders and soldiers abandoned the clan‚ and Temujin spent a portion of his childhood in dire poverty. His family was reduced to a simple hunter-gatherer lifestyle just to survive. They foraged for food‚ collecting roots and nuts while also fishing and hunting small game.   5. Genghis Khan Murdered his Half-Brother   During the time when his family was suffering from dire hardship after being abandoned by the clan‚ life was difficult and frustrating. He had fights with his half-brother Behter over who was the rightful heir of Yes&;uuml;gei. Temujin was the son of Yes&;uuml;gei’s chief wife‚ but Behter was two years older. This meant that Behter could marry Temujin’s mother‚ Hoelun‚ and become Temujin’s stepfather. The situation came to a head one day while fighting over hunting spoils. Temujin and his younger brother‚ Qasar‚ ambushed and killed Behter.   6. He was Taken Prisoner by One of His Father’s Former Allies Horse and rider on the Mongolian Steppe‚ via Kate Molleson/The Guardian   It is claimed that Temujin was held captive on more than one occasion. On one of these occasions‚ he was taken prisoner by the Tayichiud clan‚ which had been allied with his father before his death. Temujin escaped his confines and hid near the Onon River and then in the tent of a man named Sorkan-Shira‚ who had seen him but had decided not to raise the alarm. Sorkan-Shira sheltered Temujin for three days before helping the young boy escape.   7. He Married B&;ouml;rte when he was 15   When Temujin was powerful enough and had accrued a retinue of allies and his own camp‚ he returned to Dei Sechen and requested to marry the women to whom he had been betrothed. Dei Sechen was delighted to see Temujin‚ who he feared had been lost or killed. Dei Sechen immediately agreed to the marriage with B&;ouml;rte‚ and Temujin gained a powerful ally who helped him build up a force powerful enough to start carving out an empire.   8. He Built a Huge Empire Conquests of Genghis Khan and his heirs‚ via Encyclopaedia Britannica   By the time of his death in 1227‚ Genghis Khan’s empire covered roughly 4‚600‚000 square miles (12‚000‚000 square kilometers). Less than a century later‚ the size of the Mongol Empire was doubled‚ making it the largest contiguous empire and the second-biggest empire in history (the British Empire was bigger).   His empire covered parts of what are now China‚ Korea‚ Pakistan‚ Iran‚ Iraq‚ Turkey‚ Afghanistan‚ Moldova‚ Kazakhstan‚ Armenia‚ Georgia‚ Turkmenistan‚ Kuwait‚ Kyrgyzstan‚ Tajikistan‚ Uzbekistan‚ and a large portion of Russia.   9. He Committed Multiple Genocides A Mongol warrior‚ via William Cho / Business Insider   With brutal tactics that involved slaughtering entire cities if they did not surrender‚ Genghis Khan is responsible for the deaths of an estimated 40 million people. These genocides occurred mainly in China and northern Iran‚ but the scope of his killing was far and wide. Forty million people represented around 11% of the world population in the 13th century.   “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy‚ to drive him before you‚ to see his cities reduced to ashes‚ to see those who love him shrouded in tears‚ and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.” Genghis Khan   10. He Was Tolerant of Other Religions   At a time when religious intolerance was rife in Europe and the Crusades were underway in the Holy Land‚ Genghis Khan was practicing the exact opposite. He showed a keen interest in other religions and studied Islam‚ Christianity‚ Taoism‚ and Buddhism. Throughout his empire‚ he passed a law declaring religious freedom. Places of worship were even exempt from paying taxes.   11. He Promoted Ethnic Diversity in his Empire Statue of Genghis Khan by Zoljargal Nyambuu‚ via Smithsonian Magazine   The Mongols‚ being a nomadic people‚ were often ill-equipped to deal with the bureaucracy and other challenges that came with ruling a huge empire. The people he conquered often had skills that the Mongols lacked. Thus‚ Genghis Khan made a point of promoting ethnic diversity to make use of the skills that certain cultures possessed.   12. His Harem was Massive   Although only 44 wives and concubines are documented‚ it is estimated that Genghis Khan had over 400 women in total in his harem. Managing such a large harem was difficult. It was divided into four sub-harems called “ordos‚” and each wife or concubine had their own rank. Each ordo was ruled over by one of Genghis Khan’s four principal wives‚ who had the rank of khatun (great empress). The wives and concubines were housed in yurts‚ and Genghis Khan would visit several of them every night. As a result‚ he had an extraordinary number of children.   13. How He Died is Subject to Debate Painting of Genghis Khan‚ via the British Museum   There are many theories as to how Genghis Khan died‚ and nobody knows for sure how it happened. One theory is that he was thrown from his horse and died from his injuries. Another theory is that he died from pneumonia or malaria.   Others argue that he died in combat during his final battle with the Chinese. A popular theory‚ at least from the perspective of telling a great story‚ is that he was murdered by a Chinese princess as an act of revenge for him having killed her family and to stop him from raping her. She snuck into his tent at night and castrated him with a concealed dagger‚ and he died from his injuries.   14. His Descendants are His Biggest Legacy   Naturally‚ having such a big harem meant that Genghis Khan also had many children. He had 13 official children: eight boys and five girls. This‚ of course‚ does not represent the total number of children he fathered. Despite his large harem‚ tradition claims that he had a total of 120 children. This seems a conservative amount when one considers the genetic legacy of Genghis Khan‚ as proven by DNA testing today.   By examining genes in the Y-chromosome‚ it has been shown that 8% of men in the region of the former Mongolian Empire are direct descendants of Genghis Khan. This represents about 1 in 200 men worldwide.   15. Nobody Knows Where He’s Buried Mongolian people‚ via Smithsonian Institution Global   Upon his death‚ Genghis Khan was buried in an unmarked grave by his most trusted followers. To keep this location a secret‚ they murdered everyone in the path of the funeral procession. It is speculated that his burial place is on the Onon River near his birthplace in Mongolia.   Genghis Khan is a controversial figure. In Mongolia he is understandably revered as an iconic hero of the nation. There are many statues of him‚ and he appears on the banknotes of the Mongolian currency. He brought law‚ order‚ and civilization to his empire‚ but along with these came brutal genocides and misery for countless millions.   What cannot be argued is that‚ for good or ill‚ he was an important figure who changed the course of human history.

  During the Second World War‚ the campaign in North Africa was beset with difficulties. Both sides endured blistering heat‚ dust storms‚ and challenging terrain. The Germans’ main goal was to capture the Suez Canal‚ break into the Middle East‚ and gain access to vital oil fields to fuel the Axis forces’ continued success.   For the Allies‚ their mission was simple. They had to stop Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and his Afrika Korps from achieving their goal.   A previous engagement at El Alamein on the Egyptian coast had left the two armies in a stalemate‚ but the British and their allies had another chance‚ and they knew they had to make it count.   The Second Battle of El Alamein was a turning point and a deciding factor in who would ultimately win the war in North Africa.   The North African Campaign The Post Press front page for July 12‚ 1942. Source: Library of Congress   In September 1940‚ the Italians launched an invasion of Egypt from their colony of Libya. Despite achieving victory‚ the following months would see the Italians come to the brink of defeat as Allied forces under British command took the initiative. The Germans were forced to intervene. The Afrika Korps was created and sent to relieve their beleaguered allies. Command of this army was in the capable hands of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel‚ who would become known as the “The Desert Fox.”   With the Germans in control‚ the Axis forces achieved success‚ but this situation could not last indefinitely. In the Mediterranean‚ another war was being fought over the supply lines to Africa. With eventual British superiority in this area‚ the Afrika Korps and their Italian allies began to feel the effects. Not only were they suffering from a lack of munitions‚ But Hitler was far more concerned with the German situation on the Eastern Front‚ where the Battle of Stalingrad – the biggest battle in history – was being waged. Any and all help that could have gone to Rommel was being diverted to the German Sixth Army‚ desperately trying to save the German campaign against the Soviet Union.   General Bernard Montgomery. Source: National Army Museum UK   Rommel‚ however‚ was extremely competent and was able to use what he had to its full effect. At the Battle of Gazala (May 26 to June 21)‚ Axis forces pushed eastwards‚ threatening British control of the Suez Canal.   The British Eighth Army‚ tasked with halting the German advance‚ maneuvered into a favorable position and halted the advance near a small town on the coast west of Alexandria. However‚ the First Battle of El Alamein was far from conclusive and is considered by historians to be a stalemate. Axis and Allied forces continued to accrue reinforcements and munitions for further engagements.   With Axis supplies being constricted‚ time favored the Allies‚ so Rommel decided to attack first and seize the initiative. This came after a series of failed counterattacks by the Allied forces. The battles of Tell el Eisa (July 10‚ 1942)‚ Ruweisat Ridge (July 14–16‚ 1942)‚ and the Second Battle of Ruweisat Ridge (July 21–23‚ 1942) all showed promise but ultimately failed to break through the Axis lines due to poor communication and coordination.   General Bernard Montgomery. Source: Imperial War Museums UK   Among these failed British counterattacks‚ Lieutenant-General William Gott became the new commander of the British Eighth Army but was killed en route to his post. His position was filled by General Bernard Montgomery‚ while General Harold Alexander replaced General Claude Auchinleck as Commander-in-chief of Middle East Command.   The German attempt to break through the Allied lines followed. The Battle of Alam el Halfa (August 30 to September 5) was a defeat for the Axis forces‚ and they decided to fall back to their defensive line and strengthen their positions for the impending Allied attack.   Meanwhile‚ Erwin Rommel had become sick and had departed North Africa for rest at a sanatorium in Germany.   The Armies Italian officers at El Alamein in July 1942. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Axis army consisted of a total of 116‚000 German and Italian soldiers. They were joined by 557 tanks‚ 192 armored cars‚ around 800 aircraft‚ 552 artillery pieces‚ and several hundred anti-tank guns‚ possibly as many as a thousand.   The Allied forces had numerical superiority‚ with 195‚000 soldiers (possibly even more) drawn from Britain‚ India‚ Australia‚ New Zealand‚ South Africa‚ Greece‚ Free France‚ and local forces from Libya. They had twice the number of tanks‚ more than twice the number of armored cars‚ around 900 artillery pieces‚ and significantly more anti-tank guns than the Axis forces. In terms of aircraft‚ the numbers were similar‚ and the Allied forces were augmented by a small element from the United States.   The Battle Starts Field Marshal Erwin Rommel. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Axis positions were secured by natural features. To the north and on the left flank was the Mediterranean‚ while to the south and on the right flank lay the impassable Qattara Depression. A frontal assault was the only course of action for the Allied forces.   With two main directions of attack‚ Montgomery decided to focus on the Axis flanks‚ thus forcing the Axis center into a precarious position. The first phase of the battle‚ codenamed Operation Lightfoot‚ would involve infantry from XXX Corps attacking in the north and XIII Corps attacking in the south‚ clearing a path for the tanks of X Corps to break through the Axis lines.   The plan would be difficult and dangerous to implement‚ as the Axis forces had laid plenty of minefields‚ which the Germans nicknamed “the Devil’s Garden.” Clearing them and creating a corridor for attack would be a slow process. Only through this process‚ however‚ would Allied armor be able to penetrate the Axis defensive lines.   British troops advancing through the smoke and dust at El Alamein. Source: Wikimedia Commons   British armor‚ at this time‚ had yet to prove itself effective. Poor quality meant the principal tank of the British armed forces in the Western Desert Campaign‚ the A15 Crusader‚ was substandard and prone to overheating – a serious problem in the dust and heat of the desert. The British also spread tanks throughout its fighting units‚ intended to support infantry‚ while by contrast‚ the Germans used tanks en masse to achieve major breakthroughs through speed and firepower. The open desert was perfect for German tank tactics‚ and Rommel was a veteran of this kind of warfare.   The British enjoyed a superiority in the quantity of artillery and used this to their advantage. On the night of October 23/24‚ the Second Battle of El Alamein began with a massive bombardment‚ which began at 21:40 across the Axis front line. As the artillery bombardment rolled forward‚ sappers started their job of clearing pathways for the armored columns to follow. By the early hours of the morning‚ paths wide enough for tanks to pass single-file had been created‚ and the armor began to move. Dust kicked up by these armored columns‚ combined with the darkness of the night and Axis defensive fire‚ made it almost impossible to see.   Soldiers of the German Afrika Korps being taken prisoner. Source: Library of Congress   In some areas‚ the fighting was extremely bitter‚ and the South Africans‚ with heavy casualties‚ managed to capture the high ground‚ Miteirya Ridge‚ in the center-north of the Axis defensive line‚ thus providing a point of control over the right flank of the German forces in the north. The rest of the Allied forces‚ however‚ were having difficulty clearing paths. The minefields were deeper than expected‚ and progress slowed to a snail’s pace. The armored breakthrough had yet to materialize.   The Allies ground their way forward‚ and the fighting was intense. With the German command being shocked by the ferocity of the attacks‚ Rommel’s sick leave was canceled‚ and he was called back from Germany to retake his position at the head of the Axis forces at El Alamein.   Rommel Returns A British infantryman capturing a German tank at El Alamein. Source: National Army Museum‚ UK   Rommel arrived in North Africa on the evening of October 25. The course of the battle was‚ however‚ difficult to change‚ and there was not much he could do to rectify the situation. Nevertheless‚ his presence lifted the morale of German and Italian troops. Spirited German counterattacks threatened to upset the Allied advance. With casualties mounting‚ Montgomery ignored the advice of one of his subordinates to call off the attacks.   Confusion reigned supreme among the dust and smoke‚ and Allied forces were pressed into making mistakes‚ many becoming easy targets for the well-prepared Axis defenses.   Despite the Allied blunders‚ the Axis forces were in bad shape. They took heavy casualties‚ and the troops were on half rations. They also only had enough fuel to last a few more days. Tanks and artillery pieces were being lost far too quickly‚ and the Allied numerical superiority was growing even further with these losses.   Rommel launched a counterattack to the north and met with middling success. Meanwhile‚ an oil tanker representing the last hope of refueling the Axis forces was sunk. Rommel told his generals that as a result of this action‚ it would be impossible to disengage from the battle‚ as there was no fuel to pull off such a maneuver. The war for North Africa would be decided at El Alamein.   Despite sustaining significant casualties‚ the Allied forces pressed their attack‚ relying on attrition to erode the German and Italian defensive capabilities. In the days that followed‚ battles raged back and forth as assaults by both sides generated counterattacks and a growing casualty count. By November 1‚ Axis forces had no more than 90 tanks left‚ while the Allies had 800.   Operations at El Alamein from October 23 to November 1‚ 1942. Edward J. Krasnoborski‚ 1959. Source: abebooks.com   With the German forces stretched to breaking point‚ Montgomery saw the opportunity to break through the German defenses‚ and Operation Supercharge was carried out. Focusing on the northern flank of the Axis defensive line‚ the Allies led a huge assault‚ supported by hours of intense artillery and aerial bombardments to suppress the German defense and prepare the way for Allied infantry and tanks to break through.   Rommel informed Hitler that the German and Italian positions could not be held for lack of supplies. Hitler replied that Rommel was to hold his position at all costs.   The fighting was horrendous‚ and heavy casualties were inflicted on both sides. The Germans counterattacked but could not force any significant change in Allied movements. Fighting continued‚ and on November 4‚ the breakthrough the Allies were looking for was achieved. In the north‚ the British‚ flanked by New Zealanders and Australians‚ cracked the German defenses.   One of the variations of the logo of the German Afrika Korps commanded by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Montgomery claimed after the battle‚ “One of the proudest achievements of my career was to have commanded the 9th Australian Division. I could not have won the battle of El Alamein in twelve days without that magnificent 9th Australian Division.”   The contribution played by the Indians is also significant and often left out of retellings of the stories of World War II. At El Alamein‚ the 5th Indian Brigade was instrumental in driving a wedge into the German positions on November 3‚ allowing other Allied units‚ the 1st and 7th Armored Divisions‚ as well as the 2nd New Zealand Division‚ to advance and complete the breakthrough.   With the Axis forces forbidden from retreating‚ the bulk of the army was captured. The defeat would have been complete had Montgomery not been so cautious. Various mechanized elements of the Axis forces managed to escape westwards towards new defensive positions.   What the Allied Victory Meant Italian prisoners captured near El Alamein. Source: Library of Congress   For the Germans‚ the defeat was a disaster. The enormity of it was made even greater in the following months‚ as the Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk thrust thick nails into the coffin of Germany’s offensive potential. Without access to the oilfields in the Middle East‚ Germany would struggle throughout the rest of the war.   For the British‚ the victory signaled a massive turning point. It was the first major victory that altered the course of the war against Germany. For Britain‚ it was also a matter of honor. The Allied landings in French North Africa were due to take place in November. Operation Torch would be headed by American forces‚ and it was important that the British scored a major victory in order to prove to the Americans that Britain and its allies were capable of winning.   Winston Churchill famously said of the battle‚ “Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat.”   Casualties &; Losses Commonwealth war graves at El Alamein. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Axis losses amounted to up to 9‚000 dead and 15‚000 wounded‚ while upwards of 30‚000 were captured. In all‚ Germany and Italy lost more than half of the soldiers in the battle. Of major importance was the loss of armor. Of 527 tanks that took part in the battle‚ around 500 were destroyed or knocked out and irretrievable.   On the Allied side‚ casualties were similar. They lost 13‚560 killed‚ missing‚ or wounded‚ and between 300 to 500 tanks destroyed.   The Germans and Italians lost 254 artillery pieces‚ while the Allies lost 111. In the air‚ the losses were even. The Axis forces lost 84 aircraft‚ and the Allies lost 97.   The Battle of El Alamein was undoubtedly one of the major turning points in the war. In scale‚ it was dwarfed by the battles on the Eastern Front‚ but its significance cannot be overstated.

  On July 24‚ 1959‚ an American National Exhibition opened in Moscow. The Kitchen Debate between Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and American Vice President Richard Nixon represents the most well-known episode of the exhibition. As part of the cultural exchange between the two ideologically opposed powers‚ the exhibition featured pavilions filled with products from the American consumer industry‚ describing the daily lives of ordinary Americans. The encounter known as the Kitchen Debate occurred when the two leaders made an unscheduled stop at a model American kitchen‚ debating their countries’ socio-political aspirations.   Origins of the Kitchen Debate USSR Exhibition‚ New York City‚ 1959. Source: Socialist Exhibitions   The leader of the Soviet Union‚ Joseph Stalin‚ died on March 5‚ 1953. The end of Stalin’s rule brought both uncertainty and hope for a momentous change in Soviet Union-United States relations. The President of the United States‚ Dwight D. Eisenhower‚ trying to seize the opportunity‚ gave a speech to the American public on April 16‚ 1953. The speech‚ titled “The Chance for Peace‚” also known as the “Cross of Iron Speech‚” highlighted the humanitarian and financial cost of the Soviet-US rivalry. He stated:   “Every gun that is made‚ every warship launched‚ every rocket fired signifies‚ in the final sense‚ a theft from those who hunger and are not fed‚ those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers‚ the genius of its scientists‚ and the hopes of its children.”   Surprisingly‚ the speech was published in the Soviet newspaper Pravda the following day. Prospects for President Eisenhower’s reset with the Soviet Union were brought to life only after Nikita Khrushchev won the three-year power struggle for the Soviet leadership. Khrushchev had been in service for the Soviet Union for over 20 years‚ and his demonstrated loyalty to communism and Stalin himself allowed him to be among the high-ranking Soviet authorities.   With the key goal of consolidating and maintaining power‚ Nikita Khrushchev distanced himself from Stalin’s brutal policies upon becoming the new Soviet leader. In 1956‚ he introduced de-Stalinization policies‚ loosened the central control over media‚ art‚ and speech‚ and introduced a new foreign policy course‚ the Peaceful Co-existence of Nations. According to Khrushchev‚ the two superpowers could coexist peacefully despite their ideological differences. This shift in Soviet policies is known as the Khrushchev Thaw.   US and Soviet flags ripple on the front of the New York Coliseum as the Soviet exhibition opens‚ 1959. Source: Radio Free Europe   As part of the thawing relations between the two superpowers‚ in 1958‚ President Eisenhower and Premier Khrushchev signed the Cultural Agreement and agreed to organize a series of cultural exhibitions hosted in each country. The expos aimed to celebrate the different identities of the two powers and educate the nations about each country’s culture‚ which would ultimately lead to mutual understanding and the easing of the Cold War rivalry.   First‚ the United States hosted the Soviet exhibition in New York in June 1959. The Soviet authorities spent $12 million (about $126 million in 2023) to organize an expo in New York City’s Coliseum featuring industrial machines‚ a new railroad‚ a luxury airport‚ and the winners of the Space Race‚ Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2. Besides Soviet music‚ art‚ food‚ and fashion‚ the American public had the opportunity to explore a Soviet three-room apartment equipped with a traditional Russian kitchen and modern appliances.   Nikita Khrushchev and Richard Nixon by Elliott Erwitt‚ 1959. Source: Magnum Photos   However‚ American society was not impressed with the Soviet Exhibition‚ as it was all too apparent that no such luxury airport‚ high-tech railroad‚ or factory existed in the Soviet Union or could be enjoyed by an ordinary Soviet citizen. Many noted that the exhibition lacked personal interaction. According to The New York Times‚ one guest sarcastically remarked‚ “I missed seeing your typical Russian home (dump) and your labor camps (slave camps).” Another person wrote‚ “I think the main perspective of this Russian exhibit is to show the average American citizen how lucky he is to be an American.”   Just one month later‚ the United States organized the American National Exhibition in Moscow‚ aiming to embody everything advanced and better the United States could offer.   The American National Exhibition The American National Exhibition‚ 1959. Source: Library of Congress   In July 1959‚ the American National Exhibition opened in Moscow. Vice President Richard Nixon‚ accompanied by President Eisenhower’s younger brother Milton S. Eisenhower and about 80 American guides‚ traveled to the Soviet Union. Richard Nixon himself guided Nikita Khrushchev to the exhibit. It offered various displays of consumer goods and scientific and technological achievements‚ represented by more than 450 American companies like Kodak‚ Levi’s‚ Ford‚ General Motors‚ DixieCup‚ General Mills‚ IBM‚ and Disney. The Soviet citizens were also given the possibility to sample Pepsi-Cola and Betty Crocker desserts for the very first time.   The model of an American house‚ equipped with modern appliances such as a refrigerator‚ stove‚ and dishwasher‚ was where the famous debate‚ thus aptly referenced as the Kitchen Debate between Nixon and Khrushchev‚ took place. The meeting at a model house was part of a series of four meetings scheduled between the leaders during the exhibition‚ and reportedly‚ pressure started to build up during the first meeting in the Kremlin.   A woman demonstrates a model kitchen made for the exhibition‚ 1959. Source: Library of Congress   At the time‚ Khrushchev was frustrated with the United States Congress passing the Captive Nations Resolution. The resolution referred to the people of Eastern Europe as the “captive” nations controlled by the Soviet Union. Under the shadow of this resolution‚ Khrushchev openly criticized the new technological achievements of the United States. He ironically remarked‚ “Don’t you have a machine that puts food into the mouth and pushes it down&;#63;” and soon left the meeting‚ saying only‚ “Bye-bye.”   The second visit‚ planned in a television studio inside the exhibit‚ was also held under pressure. Each leader advocated for their respective ideologies. Khrushchev praised communism for building future generations and for its capability to achieve greater results in a short period of time. He remarked:   “This is what America is capable of‚ and how long has she existed&;#63; Three hundred years&;#63; One hundred fifty years of independence‚ and this is her level. We haven’t quite reached 42 years‚ and in another seven years‚ we’ll be at the level of America‚ and after that‚ we’ll go farther.”   The t&;ecirc;te-&;agrave;-t&;ecirc;te between Nikita Khrushchev and Richard Nixon eventually transformed into a competition of confronting ideologies and culminated during the third encounter‚ the Kitchen Debate.   The Kitchen Debate Photograph shows people looking at a refrigerator and kitchen equipment at a Soviet exhibit located next to the American National Exhibition in Moscow‚ 1959. Source: Library of Congress   Vice President Nixon guided Nikita Khrushchev to the exhibition before its public opening on July 14‚ 1959. When reaching the model kitchen‚ cut in half for better media coverage‚ the two leaders engaged in a friendly but heated debate regarding the merits of communism and capitalism.   The model kitchen was part of a $14‚000 (about $147‚000 in 2023) American house that an average American worker could afford to buy. The model house was specifically designed to portray Americans’ high standard of living‚ promoting the idea that in a capitalist world‚ people enjoyed better living conditions. The exhibition focused on consumer goods‚ like labor-saving modern appliances.   While touring the kitchen‚ Nixon proudly pointed to a dishwasher‚ declaring that the American way of life made women’s lives easier. Khrushchev answered‚ “Your capitalistic attitude toward women does not occur under Communism‚” implying that these technological developments were intended to trap women in their homes instead of liberating them.   After this remark‚ a heated discussion followed‚ comparing the durability of American homes to Soviet ones‚ discussing technical advancements and how they affect daily life‚ and generally debating American capitalist consumerism and Soviet communism.   Khrushchev and Nixon on TV at American exhibit‚ 1959. Source: Library of Congress   Vice President Nixon’s comments on individual freedom of choice serve as a clear example of the essence of this debate. He explained that the model homes were intended to spark people’s curiosity and allow them to choose the kind of home and lifestyle they wanted for themselves. In contrast to communism‚ the American government abstained from imposing a certain lifestyle and the consequent decisions. “We don’t have one decision made at the top by one government official. This is the difference.” Nixon said. Khrushchev replied‚ “On politics‚ we will never agree with you.”   The Kitchen Debate ended with Khrushchev telling Nixon‚ “You’re a lawyer for capitalism; I’m a lawyer for communism‚ let’s kiss.”   The Kitchen Debate was covered by three key American televisions. Even though Nixon and Khrushchev had previously agreed to broadcast the tours simultaneously in their respective countries on a later date‚ the American mass media did not adhere to this promise‚ as the news would lose its immediacy. The Soviet Union allowed the debate to be broadcast on Moscow Television only on July 27‚ 1959‚ late at night and modified according to Soviet censorship.   Results &; Legacy of the Kitchen Debate “We swore to our husbands‚ the men – heroes that we will forge weapons day and night‚ and fulfill the task to help the front‚” by Demyan Bedny‚ 1941. Source: Soviet Art   For Vice President Nixon‚ the encounter represented a possibility to outline the American high standard of living and the advancements it could offer under capitalist ideology. For Khrushchev‚ the Kitchen Debate was an opportunity to question these advancements and to illustrate the merits of communism. The debate could be viewed as a rare and tangible example of freedom of speech and expression at the height of the Cold War.   The exhibition did not bear the results the United States hoped for‚ however. In August 1959‚ Marietta Shaginian‚ a Soviet journalist from the Russian newspaper Izvestiia‚ published an article describing the perfect American kitchen as a “gilded cage‚” and “ideologically inappropriate.”   For the Soviets‚ the ideal American house did not assist women in self-realization but rather compensated the “professional housewife” as she could not find her place in the public arena. And the observation was not too far from the truth. American women were indeed limited in job choices and had opportunities to be employed in a care-oriented career field‚ as a teacher or secretary‚ for example. By 1960‚ only 36% of American women were employed.   President Dwight Eisenhower greeting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on the steps of Blair House‚ Washington DC during his visit to the United States‚ by Marion S Trikosko‚ 1959. Source: Library of Congress   On the contrary‚ the Soviet Union portrayed women not in a glamorous fashion but as a “personification of Soviet modernity.” This‚ too‚ was largely a part of Soviet propaganda; everyone was expected to participate in the labor force. In the Soviet Union‚ in 1967‚ women made up 41% of engineers‚ compared to 2% in the years following the creation of the Soviet Union in 1917. However‚ one thing the United States and the Soviet Union shared was the fact that the kitchen was still perceived as a woman’s responsibility.   The Kitchen Debate provided additional incentives for Khrushchev to intensify the “catch up and overtake America” strategy declared in 1957. He ordered the increase in production of refrigerators and vacuums‚ resulting in its rapid increase in every household‚ from 4% in 1960 to 11% in 1965 and 65% by 1975. Hence‚ in a way‚ the American National Exhibition indirectly contributed to the improved standard of living within Soviet households.   On the American side‚ the Kitchen debate raised Nixon’s prestige as a public statesman and greatly contributed to his efforts to receive a Republican presidential nomination the following year.   As TIME Magazine reported:   “Within what may be remembered as peacetime diplomacy’s most amazing 24 hours‚ Vice President Nixon became the most talked about‚ best-known‚ and most-effective (if anyone can be effective) Westerner to invade the USSR in years.”

  Throughout history‚ art looting from the victors has always been a sideline of war. Napoleon famously seized numerous cultural objects from the countries he conquered. Similarly‚ during World War II‚ the Nazis plundered the occupied European countries from their most valuable treasures. However‚ unlike Napoleon‚ the Third Reich justified its systematic seizure of cultural items with racial constructs. From 1940 in occupied France‚ the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR)‚ or Task Force of the Reichsleiter Rosenberg‚ oversaw the complex machine of art looting aimed to “scientifically” prove the existence of a “Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy.”   The (Ideological) Origins of the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg Photo of Alfred Rosenberg‚ ca. 1940. Source: Lebendiges Museum Online‚ Deutsches Historisches Museum   In 1933‚ Alfred H. Barr‚ the first director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York‚ witnessed the beginning of the process of Gleichschaltung (Nazification) of German culture. In Stuttgart‚ for example‚ Barr attended a speech at the local Kampfbund f&;uuml;r Deutsche Kultur (Combat League for German Culture): “It is a mistake to think that the national revolution is only political and economic. It is above all cultural.”   The director of the League further stated that “all the expressions of life spring from a specific blood … a specific race&;#33; … Art is not international.”   In 1930‚ Alfred Rosenberg‚ an early member of the Nazi party and the founder of the Combat League‚ had laid the foundation of the Third Reich’s cultural theories in Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhundert (The Myth of the Twentieth Century). In the book‚ Rosenberg expressed his firm belief in the irreconcilable dichotomy between the Aryan and Jewish “races‚” claiming that all Western culture had originated solely from the ancient German tribes. Thus‚ according to Rosenberg’s racial rhetoric‚ the modern Germans‚ the direct descendants of the Aryan Nordic race‚ were entitled to claim their cultural legacy. The book sold around one million copies and helped gain its author the status of party ideologue.   The 1940 edition of Alfred Rosenberg’s The Myth of the Twentieth Century. Source: Lebendiges Museum Online‚ Deutsches Historisches Museum   After Hitler became Chancellor‚ he appointed Rosenberg “Commissioner of the Führer for the Supervision of the Entire Intellectual and Ideological Schooling and Training of the NSDAP.” In the following years‚ Rosenberg expanded his office to transform it into an intricate network overseeing different fields of culture. Then‚ in 1938‚ after receiving Hitler’s approval‚ Rosenberg started to plan for the establishment of the Hoch Schule‚ a university-level educational center that would have trained the future elite of the Reich.   Among Rosenberg’s ambitious undertakings‚ collecting materials to “scientifically” prove the existence of an alleged “Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy‚” thus legitimizing the Reich’s racial policy‚ was a crucial objective. In March 1940‚ Rosenberg founded the Institut zur Erforschung der Judenfrage (Institute for Research on the Jewish Question) in Frankfurt to pursue his ideological project. In the summer of the same year‚ Germany’s invasion of France provided Rosenberg and his staff the opportunity to start gathering cultural and scientific material for the institute and the future Hoch Schule.   Before the War: Nazi Art Policy Visitors looking at works in the Degenerate Art Exhibition‚ 1937. Source: Deutsche Welle   In Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhundert‚ Rosenberg described the works of German Expressionists as “syphilitic‚ infantile and mestizo.” He was not the first Nazi party member to express his disdain for modern art. In 1928‚ in Art and Race‚ German architect Paul Schultze-Naumburg compared the works of modern artists with photos of people with disfigurements. While art movements like Expressionism‚ Dada‚ Surrealism‚ Cubism‚ and Fauvism thrived during the “Golden Years” of the Weimar Republic‚ the Nazis considered them “degenerate.” According to Hitler‚ modern art embodied those liberal and defeatist political forces that had “stabbed Germany in the back” after World War I.   Alfred Rosenberg opening an exhibition at the National Library in Berlin‚ 1934. Source: Lebendiges Museum Online‚ Deutsches Historisches Museum   After attempting to purge the German art world of “degenerate” artists‚ in 1937‚ the Nazi regime opted to hold their works up to public scorn with an itinerant Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) Exhibition that aimed to “offer a firsthand overview of the dreadful concluding chapter of those decades of cultural deterioration preceding the great change.”   The exhibition opened on July 19 in Munich and drew more than three million curious visitors. The previous day‚ dubbed “Day of German Art‚” Hitler had opened the Great German Art Exhibition in the newly-built Haus der Deutsche Kunst in Munich to glorify the works expressing the regime’s aesthetic and political goals.   The “purification” of German art left the Nazi leadership with the problem of what to do with the “degenerate” paintings and sculptures. To solve the conundrum‚ Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering proposed to sell the most valuable objects abroad. In March 1939‚ the works least likely to raise revenue for the Reich were burned during a drill in the headquarters of the Berlin Fire Department.   The Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg in Action: Libraries &; Archives Looting in France  Crates full of books and other documents confiscated by the ERR in a US depot after the war. Source: Yad Vashem   On June 14‚ 1940‚ German troops entered Paris. In the days after the occupation‚ several Reich agencies started to plunder libraries‚ archives‚ and private collections‚ especially those owned by Jews. Gestapo officials‚ for example‚ seized objects from Jewish-owned houses and places of business. The Devisenschutzkommando (Currency Control Unit) confiscated the contents of bank vaults of many Jews.   In the immediate weeks after the invasion‚ the ERR officials concentrated their efforts on plundering Jewish and Masonic libraries and archives. After receiving Hitler’s authorization‚ between the end of July and the beginning of August 1940‚ the ERR systematically looted the manuscripts and documents of the main Jewish collections in France‚ including those of the Alliance Isra&;eacute;lite Universelle‚ the &;Eacute;cole Rabbinique‚ and the F&;eacute;d&;eacute;ration des Soci&;eacute;t&;eacute;s Juives de France. In total‚ around 20 million documents were seized. It was the biggest looting operation in history.   Maurice Liber‚ Chief Rabbi and director of the Rabbinical School of France identifying manuscripts looted by the Nazis. Source: Yad Vashem   The books and documents confiscated by the ERR were not immediately destroyed. On the contrary‚ Rosenberg distributed them among the Reich’s research centers‚ such as the Central Library of the Hoch Schule in Berlin or the library of the Institute for Research of the Jewish Question. Once in Germany‚ the products of Jewish culture “would provide a basis for future intellectual study‚ as considered necessary for the political‚ ideological‚ and academic operations of both the NSDAP and the Hohe Schule.”   While the ultimate goal of the Nazi regime was the obliteration of the European Jews and their culture‚ Rosenberg (and Hitler) planned to “safeguard” the traces of Jewish intellectual life to turn them into ideological weapons in the Reich’s anti-Semitic propaganda.   The Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg &; Art Looting in France Paintings looted by the ERR displayed at Jeu de Paume. Source: Minist&;egrave;re de la Culture‚ France   Before the war‚ Paris was the capital of the European and international art world. Numerous artists‚ collectors‚ dealers‚ and art historians had convened in the French city. As the invading German army began its advance through the country‚ many artists and collectors‚ especially those of Jewish origins‚ tried to escape. Often‚ they were forced to leave behind their works and possessions.   Soon after the armistice‚ the German government demanded the restitution of all cultural objects of German origins previously seized by the French. Before the war‚ Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels had secretly sent art experts to France to inspect the country’s art collection and identify items Germany should claim. To this purpose‚ in 1939‚ two art historians published the three-hundred-page Memorandum and Lists of Art Looted by the French in the Rhineland in 1794.   A room at Jeu de Paume filled with artworks looted by the ERR. Source: Minist&;egrave;re de la Culture‚ France   In the fall of 1940‚ on Hermann Goering’s suggestion‚ the ERR also began to oversee the seizure of private Jewish-owned art collections. The main targets of the looting operation were renowned dealers and collectors‚ as well as members of the wealthy Rothschild family. In October 1940‚ the ERR began to store the seized items in the Jeu de Paume‚ a museum located in the Tuileries Gardens.   At Jeu de Paume‚ ERR officials carefully inventoried the objects by assigning them alphanumeric codes. After the war‚ these codes helped the Allies return the stolen artworks to their rightful owners. However‚ some items were never registered. Rose Valland‚ a French art curator who worked at Jeu de Paume‚ secretly recorded the looting operations and kept track of the fate of several items. The first shipments to Germany‚ for example‚ were sent to Neuschwanstein‚ Ludwig II’s Wagnerian castle in Bavaria. By 1944‚ Hitler ordered to move the most valuable items to the salt mines in Altaussee‚ Austria.   ERR file room in Neuschwanstein Castle‚ Bavaria‚ 1945. Source: National Archives   Hermann Goering‚ an avid art collector‚ frequently visited Jeu de Paume to choose some of the most valuable paintings for his collection at Carinhall‚ his country residence northeast of Berlin. Other artworks went to the F&;uuml;hrer‚ who intended to display them in the so-called Sonderauftrag Linz‚ a museum to be built after the war in his hometown of Linz‚ Austria. In July 1943‚ the ERR divided the “degenerate” art collected at Jeu de Paume into three categories in order to identify the objects suitable for trade or sale in Europe. The selected items were moved to a separate area. The ERR men destroyed the rest of the Jewish and modern paintings and burned them on July 27‚ 1943. The lost paintings were then labeled as vernichtet (destroyed) in the ERR’s registers.   To legitimize its looting‚ the German Reich conveniently stripped the French who had left their country before the invasion of their citizenship. As the Vichy government protested the ERR’s plunder‚ Gerhard Utikal‚ chief of operations of the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg‚ wrote a document justifying the ERR’s actions on racial arguments. The Germans‚ argued Utikal‚ had liberated France from the pernicious influence of Jews. In this sense‚ the “safeguarding” of Jewish property was only “a small indemnity for the great sacrifices of the Reich made for the people of Europe in their fight against Jewry.” Additionally‚ Utikal claimed that the Jews had unlawfully amassed their riches through corruption‚ thus robbing the Germans of their right to “having their proper share of the economic and cultural goods of the Universe.”   Looting Furniture: The ERR’s M&;ouml;bel-Aktion  Buying items looted from Jewish-owned houses. Source: Deutschlandfunk Kultur   In France (and the rest of the Western Front)‚ ERR officials did not limit their plundering operations to solely art collections and archives. In 1942‚ the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg launched the so-called M&;ouml;bel-Aktion (Furniture Operation). The new project‚ led by Baron Kurt von Behr‚ consisted of removing furniture from the houses of Jewish families who had managed to escape.   Starting in the Spring of 1941‚ the ERR men thoroughly stripped the former residences of French Jews of furniture‚ art objects‚ clothing‚ and mundane items‚ such as glasses‚ plates‚ and soap dishes. The most valuable spoils went to the repository in the Jeu de Paume‚ where the ERR officials labeled them with specific “M-A” codes. However‚ the names and addresses of their owners were omitted during the inventory. The victims of the looting could reclaim their belongings only with a so-called Certificat de non-appartenance &;agrave; la race juive‚ meaning a certificate proving their Aryan origins.   Initially‚ the furniture was sent to the German officers stationed on the Eastern Front. Rosenberg‚ who had become Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern territories‚ pointed out that‚ in the East‚ “living conditions were frightful and the possibilities of procurement so limited that practically nothing more can be purchased.” Toward the end of the war‚ when the Allies started advancing to Germany‚ the items looted by the ERR also went to German bombing victims. By August 1944‚ Rosenberg’s special task force “had raided 71‚619 dwellings‚ and shipped off more than 1‚079‚373 cubic meters of goods in 29‚436 railroad cars.”   The ERR on the Eastern Front: Looting in the Soviet Union A destroyed room at the Hermitage Museum during World War II. Source: Daily Art Magazine   When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941‚ the ERR became immediately operative on the new eastern front. Soon‚ Rosenberg’s officials began to plunder the Soviet state’s cultural and academic institutions‚ looking for research material useful for their anti-Bolshevik propaganda. The Communist government had nationalized the private art collections of wealthy Jews. During their looting operations‚ the ERR often competed with Heinrich Himmler’s Ahnenerbe (Ancestral Heritage)‚ a special branch of the SS devoted to archeological studies aiming to prove the superiority of the Aryan race.   On the eastern front‚ the campaign of plunder was less subtle than in France or Belgium. “​​Those whom we considered as our adversaries or opponents from the point of view of our conception of the world are different in the West from what they are in the East‚” explained Rosenberg during the Nuremberg trial‚ “in the West there were certain Jewish organizations and Masonic lodges‚ and in the East there was nothing more than the Communist Party.”   Rosenberg’s anti-Bolshevism was shared by Hitler‚ who planned to destroy St. Petersburg and Moscow and push the Slavs to Siberia in order to provide the Germans with their Lebensraum. As a result‚ throughout the Soviet Union‚ museums and houses of important cultural figures‚ such as Tolstoy‚ Pushkin‚ and Chekhov‚ were destroyed.   Alfred Rosenberg at the Nuremberg trials. Source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum‚ Washington DC   As the German army began to lose ground‚ the most valuable cultural items collected by the various Nazi offices were shipped to Germany for “safeguard.” In August 1944‚ Utikal issued a directive stating that “Reichsleiter Rosenberg had ruled that the most precious cultural riches of the Ostland could still be removed by his staff‚ insofar as this can be done without interfering with the interests of the fighting forces.” In the general chaos‚ however‚ many valuable items were lost.   In December 1945‚ American Colonel Robert G. Storey‚ addressing the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg trials‚ declared:   “​​[T]o obtain a full conception of the vastness of this looting program‚ it will be necessary to envision Europe as a treasure-house in which is stored the major portion of the artistic and literary product of two thousand years of Western civilization. It will further be necessary to envision the forcing of this treasure-house by a horde of vandals bent on systematically removing to the Reich these treasures‚ which are‚ in a sense‚ the heritage of all of us‚ to keep them there for the enjoyment and enlightenment of Germans alone.”   The International Military Tribunal sentenced Alfred Ronsengerb to death. The mastermind behind the ERR was hanged on October 16‚ 1946.

  In the 1950s‚ a quasi-psychoanalytical organization called the Sullivan Institute began to gain a following among the intellectuals and creatives of NYC. The Sullivanians argued that nuclear family and emotional attachments were destructive to human nature and encouraged communal living and free love. Among the first big names to fall for the Sullivanian theory was the art critic Clement Greenberg‚ who introduced to it dozens of artists‚ including Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner. Pollock died in a car crash less than a year after joining. Some cult experts and historians believe that the cult was at least partially responsible for his death.   The Troubled Life of Jackson Pollock Lee Krasner and Jackson Pollock. Source: Arthive   The world-famous Abstract Expressionist artist Jackson Pollock became the embodiment of the myth about the great male artist. A difficult character prone to addictions and violent outbursts who created something intellectually unavailable to the crowd‚ he turned into an archetypal character similar to Pablo Picasso. Pollock started to drink heavily as a teenager to cope with his anger‚ sadness‚ and social awkwardness. His father was also a violent alcoholic‚ and the childhood memories of his behavior left a deep mark on Pollock’s psyche. Neglected as a child‚ he never developed a sense of home and safety and carried the anxiety throughout his entire life.   Over the years‚ the issues became worse. Pollock started getting into fights in bars‚ harassed women‚ and broke glass with his bare hands‚ later mimicking his drip paintings with his blood on cafe tables. His marriage to another outstanding artist‚ Lee Krasner‚ did not help. While Krasner had to abandon her artistic pursuits to care for Pollock’s well-being and manage his career‚ she could not stop him from drinking. Several times‚ the couple’s friends suggested psychotherapy to them. According to some historians‚ one of these attempts contributed to his untimely death in 1956.   Harry Stack Sullivan: The Unwilling Founder of the Cult Cauldron‚ by Lee Krasner‚ 1956. Source: Sotheby’s   The Sullivanian therapy was named after the American psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan. Trained in a Freudian tradition‚ he expanded the theories he learned. In classical psychoanalysis‚ work focuses on the early stages of the patient’s life and their relationship to their parents. Sullivan insisted that mental development did not stop after reaching maturity and that exposure to other people affected one’s personality throughout their entire life. He assigned particular importance to the same-gender friendships that children form before puberty and argued that this practice of close relationships should continue in older age. He believed loneliness was the most painful of all emotions. He also believed loneliness was among the most important factors contributing to mental disorders.   Sullivan was known for applying his method to schizophrenia patients. Groups of people with confirmed diagnoses settled together in large apartments under medical supervision. Sullivan’s therapy showed considerable positive results. It was later applied to people with no severe mental disorders. Despite his association with the Sullivanian Institute and its destructive cult‚ Sullivan was never involved in it. He died in 1949‚ and the subsequent events were unrelated to him personally.   The Sullivanian Institute Saul B. Newton in the early 1990s. Source: Art Critique   The situation took a dramatically different turn in the 1950s after a previously unknown Saul B. Newton gained recognition. Discussing Newton’s origins and biography is a challenge in itself. Throughout his life‚ the man fabricated at least two versions of his biography‚ both widely different from reality. He claimed that he fought in the Spanish Civil War and got good at killing people‚ while in reality‚ he worked as a clerk loosely related to the involvement of American troops in the Spanish conflict.   Newton had no medical degree but worked as a clerk for several years at a psychiatric institution founded by Harry Stack Sullivan‚ where he was exposed to his theories. Newton felt inclined to continue Sullivan’s work in a way that would be beneficial not for the patients but for him. Newton compensated for his lack of formal education by marrying a licensed therapist Dr. Jane Pearce‚ with whom he would found his own institute and a branch of therapy.   Saul B. Newton took the core ideas of Sullivan and put them to extremes‚ distorting his original intentions. The concept of mental growth through exposure to others got a radical interpretation. Newton insisted that traditional families and monogamous unions were traps that limited the development of an individual. To maintain a healthy psyche‚ according to Newton‚ his patients had to abandon their families‚ live in communes‚ and practice polygamy‚ never sleeping with anyone more than once to avoid attachments.   The Destructive Practices of the Sullivanians A Sullivanian party‚ photo by Donna Warshaw. Source: Curbed   In general‚ the 1950s society demanded reinventing family roles and structures. Particularly‚ this demand was happening among the intellectual youth. It would later lead to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. However‚ Newton went much further than simply offering a chance for liberation. He turned his pseudo-medical practice into a full-blown cult with constant surveillance and control.   Newton and Pearce started by attracting young psychology students and inviting them to do internships at the new institute. These students‚ immersed in Newton’s ideology and controlled by him‚ would form the first generation of Sullivanian therapists. They started with weekly seances for those who felt discontent with society’s expectations and their life situation‚ mostly targeting young intellectuals from the same left-wing bohemian circles.   Porcelain‚ by Lee Krasner‚ 1955. Source: Sotheby’s   However‚ as the seances went on‚ the Sullivanian therapist gradually pushed the idea that more therapy was required to save the patient from mental illness and suicide. The patients were told that their parents‚ particularly their mothers‚ were responsible for their troubled emotional state and inability to feel happiness. Thus‚ the only solution was to sever all ties with one’s family and join other patients in a commune. Newton deliberately reinforced the idea of mothers being disgusted by their children‚ taking revenge for their ruined lives and bodies. If a prospective Sullivanian had children of their own‚ they were obliged to leave them in boarding schools or foster homes.   Soon‚ a Sullivanian patient moved into a communal apartment with other Sullivanians. Newton’s interpretation of Sullivan’s theory stated that no patient should be left alone for even a moment. Each commune member had a date book with them‚ which they filled with meetings‚ dates‚ and dinners. A good Sullivanian could not reject a demand for attention or sex from another Sullivanian‚ thus social connections quickly turned into something forced and traumatizing. Leaving the cult was nearly impossible. During mandatory weekly sessions‚ therapists convinced their patients they had nowhere else to go. They were made to think that they would essentially commit suicide after being left alone.   Artists at the Sullivan Institute Lee Krasner‚ Clement Greenberg‚ and Jackson Pollock. Source: Smithsonian Institution‚ Washington   As Sullivanian therapy emerged as a new and radical method‚ it started to attract the attention of New York intellectuals. Among the first ones was the famous art critic Clement Greenberg‚ the leading promoter of Abstract Expressionism. Greenberg‚ raised in a privileged middle-class family‚ had a troubled yet dependent relationship with his father and fell for the Sullivanian promise to transform his life. Gradually‚ he started inviting his friends and colleagues to therapy sessions. For creative classes in NYC‚ the appeal of Sullivanian therapy lay in an impulse to throw away social expectations and responsibilities‚ focusing on social life‚ fun‚ and artistic and intellectual self-expression.   At the time‚ Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner were going through yet another crisis. Under Krasner’s care‚ Pollock managed to stay sober from 1947 to 1951. This highly productive period in the artist’s life ended partially due to the involvement of Greenberg‚ who criticized Pollock’s sober works. In 1955‚ the relationship between the couple was as tense as ever. Pollock was constantly drunk‚ aggressive‚ and abusive‚ presenting a physical threat to Krasner. Greenberg suggested therapy and drove the couple to Dr. Jane Pearse. Krasner was unimpressed by the Sullivanian methods‚ but Pollock remained in therapy.   Untitled‚ by Jackson Pollock‚ 1944. Source: Sotheby’s   Both Pollock and Greenberg were lifelong alcoholics‚ albeit Greenbern was a more functional one and less prone to violence and outrageous behaviors. One of the particularly destructive features of the Sullivanian therapy was its encouraging attitude towards alcohol. The ‘therapists’ saw it as a fuel for creativity that allowed the patient to overcome their social anxiety. Thus‚ Pollock received an official pardon for his main issue.   Lee Krasner’s concerns about Pollock’s health essentially made her the villain in the story. Pearse convinced Pollock that a monogamous relationship limited his creative potential and suggested he would need to find someone else in order to grow. Thus‚ Pollock’s last remaining control mechanisms were demonstratively flung out of the window‚ resulting in an unstoppable drunken escapade.   Pollock did not spend too long in therapy. Less than a year later‚ he died in a car crash‚ killing his friend Edith Metzger and injuring Ruth Kligman‚ his lover at the time. According to Kligman’s testimony‚ drunk Pollock sped up to scare the women riding in the car but could not handle the car in his condition.   The Death of Jackson Pollock Was Not the Only Tragedy Alchemy‚ by Jackson Pollock‚ 1947. Source: Guggenheim Museum‚ New York   Despite the tragedy‚ Clement Greenberg remained a lifelong committed member of the group‚ praising its practices and beliefs. In the media‚ the death of Jackson Pollock was barely connected to his involvement with the Sullivanians. This aspect of his life was virtually unknown until the 2023 book The Sullivanians: Sex‚ Psychotherapy‚ and the Wild Life of an American Commune by Alexander Stille came out. Stille explored the long decades of Sullivanian existence and made an emphasis on their presence in the well-known artistic circles of the time. Although no Sullivanian directly forced Pollock to drive his car into a tree‚ his worsening condition was a direct result of ‘therapy’ which essentially led to the tragedy.   The Sullivanian cult existed until the death of Saul B. Newton in 1991. From that moment‚ hundreds of tragic stories started to come out. Apart from the enormous fortune accumulated by Newton from his patients‚ many reported cases of sexual abuse‚ violence‚ and brainwashing. For years‚ families attempted to reunite with their children and bring back their trust. Some Sullivanians who were forced to give their children away were never able to find them again.

  Byron’s death following a short illness in the spring of 1824 was the moment when a scandalous aristocratic British poet became a hero of a newly liberated Greece. The story of how Byron came to be in Messolonghi is an important chapter in the history of the Greek Revolution. Three years earlier‚ the Greeks had risen against the Ottoman Empire‚ and the situation was precarious when Byron arrived. A poet‚ no matter how famous‚ could never hope to solve Greece’s troubles‚ and Byron’s few months in revolutionary Greece brought few practical advantages. However‚ his presence and his death were not without meaning and ultimately aided Greece’s liberation.   Who Was Lord Byron&;#63; George Gordon Byron‚ Thomas Phillips‚ 1814. Source: artuk.org   Byron was 35 when he arrived in revolutionary Greece in late 1823. For more than ten years‚ he had been regarded as one of Britain’s greatest poets and most scandalous personalities.   Greece already loomed large in Byron’s story. In his youth‚ he had lived in Athens while touring the Mediterranean between 1809-1811. His travels in Portugal‚ Spain‚ Malta‚ Greece‚ and Ottoman Turkey became the source material for his first publishing triumph‚ Child Harold’s Pilgrimage‚ in 1812. The autobiographical poem made Byron’s name‚ and its Greek sections and further poems set in Athens and the Ottoman world fused Greece and Byron in the popular imagination.   Despite his success‚ rumors of scandals and debts made life in England unhappy on Byron’s return from the East. In 1816‚ he left‚ never to return. The next seven years saw Byron moving between Switzerland and Italy‚ often at the center of a small circle of equally remarkable and creative poets and writers such as Percy and Mary Shelley. It can be said that during these years‚ Greece was more of a concern for the Shelleys than Byron‚ but the country continued to feature in his poetry as the successor to Child Harold‚ Don Juan‚ began to appear from 1819 onwards.   Though a hedonistic and frivolous reputation became attached to him‚ Byron was also committed to the serious cause of liberty in its various manifestations. Before leaving Britain‚ he spoke out in favor of the Luddites‚ whose social protests were being roundly condemned as backward-looking sabotage. Constitutional movements in Spain and Italy both drew his support. The idea of Byron as a revolutionary should not be pushed too far. While championing radical causes‚ he remained an aristocrat‚ and Byron’s idea of reform would not have touched his class (Beaton‚ 2013).   “That Greece Might Still be Free” Child Harold’s Pilgrimage‚ Joseph Mallord William Turner‚ 1832. Source: Tate   In March 1821‚ armed groups across southern Greece began attacking Ottoman forces‚ starting the Greek Revolution. The Ottoman Empire had dominated the Balkans for four hundred years turning most of the Greek communities into subjects. As always‚ some subjects were able to make their peace with the empire and even work within it but‚ as Christians the Greeks remained among the subject peoples of the Muslim ruled empire and rebelled when the occasion arose.   The early 19th century saw a weakening of Ottoman rule and separatism in the provinces. While the Ottomans were on course to become the “sick man of Europe” other European powers were becoming more influential. The Greeks and other Ottoman subjects could look to the Great Powers; Russia‚ France‚ and Great Britain‚ and imagine them overcoming their oppressors. Along with the growing power of northern and western Europe came new ideas. The Enlightenment‚ the French Revolution‚ Liberalism‚ and Nationalism were all ideas born far from Greece. However‚ their impact was felt in the eastern Mediterranean.   Scenes of the Massacre on Chios‚ Eug&;egrave;ne Delacroix‚ 1824. Source: Mus&;eacute;e du Louvre   New ideas‚ centuries of oppression‚ local rebellions‚ and weakening central authority all combined in the 1820s to lead to the outbreak of the Greek Revolution. Around the Aegean Sea‚ Greeks rose but struggled to gain a lasting foothold outside of the areas where they formed a majority. Ottoman forces were largely overrun (except for several key fortresses) in the Peloponnese‚ Athens‚ central Greece‚ and the Aegean Islands in 1821/22. However‚ in Asia Minor‚ northern Greece‚ and the larger islands of Crete and Cyprus‚ the revolution would not take hold. Southern Greece was largely free‚ but most Greeks still lived under the Ottomans‚ and the liberated areas would need to defend themselves against the inevitable retaliation of the Sultan.   “We Are All Greeks”   Georgios Karaiskakis‚ Greek fighter‚ Christian Johann Georg Perlberg. Source: Philhellenism Museum   Though Byron had done as much as anyone to draw attention to Greece at the start of the 19th century‚ when the revolution began in 1821‚ his reaction was more muted than most (Beaton‚ 2013). In its early years‚ Byron did not show any public support for the cause. In contrast‚ people around Europe expressed such enthusiasm that the movement gained a name‚ Philhellenism.   Subject populations had previously rebelled against the Ottoman Empire‚ causing barely a stir in Europe. The Greek rebellion‚ however‚ caught the imagination. So much so that people with no connection to Greece felt compelled to support the cause and even to fight for it. Ancient Greece and Rome had been a staple of education and a maker of culture since at least the Renaissance. For many an adventurous dreamer‚ the idea that the Greeks of old had leaped out of their books and were fighting for freedom was simply too good a story to ignore.   The Europe of the 1820s was also full of former soldiers and revolutionaries of the Napoleonic Wars either desperate or bored by the conservative peace imposed on the continent by the Congress of Vienna. Largely on their own initiative‚ people left Britain‚ France‚ Germany‚ and elsewhere to join the Greek cause. Many of these lovers of Greece‚ Philhellenes‚ would end up disillusioned by their experiences. No living people could match the ideal of the ancient Greeks‚ which many dreams were based on. Instead of a gleaming civilization of marble‚ the Philhellenes found a poor‚ Ottoman backwater ravaged by a bitter war. For their part‚ the Greeks were suddenly expected to host and utilize a random assortment of Europeans who were often ignorant of the country and its people but assumed they knew best.   Most Philhellenes volunteered without the support of their home governments. Conservative Post-Napoleonic Europe was fearful of all revolutions and nervous that any intervention in the Ottoman Empire would disturb the balance of power. Still‚ the Philhellenes helped by turning the image of the Greek Revolution from an obscure uprising into a popular cause‚ and the eventual internationalization of the conflict would determine its outcome.   Byron and the London Greek Committee  Lord Byron Swears on the Tomb of M.Botsaris‚ Ludovic Lipparini‚ Venice. Source: National Historical Museum‚ Athens   It was the creation of a Philhellenic Committee in London that attached Byron to the Greek cause. The London Greek Committee‚ founded in March 1823 by the journalist Edward Blaquiere and the merchant John Bowring‚ aimed at promoting the Greek cause in Britain and gathering funds (St.Clair‚ 1972‚ p. 140). Aside from its one famous figure‚ the philosopher Jeremy Bentham who corresponded with the provisional Greek government‚ its other members were mostly MPs and writers described as on the left of the political spectrum of the day‚ and were used to supporting various popular causes around Europe (St.Clair‚ 1972‚ p. 146).   The Committee’s efforts to publicize the Greek cause and collect donations in Britain was of limited success‚ but a major boost came early on when Blaquiere recruited Byron. In hindsight‚ it seems inevitable that Byron‚ the supporter of liberal causes and lover of Greece‚ would take this decision‚ but until spring 1823‚ it was anything but. Byron had spent the years since 1821 caught up in the plots of Italian revolutionary societies. While the 1820s may have found him searching for a cause to join‚ he was considering options in Spain and South America.   Though seen as the quintessential Philhellene‚ Byron’s slowness to join the cause set him apart and perhaps made him a more useful supporter of Greece. No doubt he had his own dreams of what going to Greece could be and a personal desire to revisit the scene of his youthful travels‚ but‚ unlike many volunteers‚ his years of living in Greece at least brought some experience of the country and its people. This experience and the level-headedness not to be swept away on the wave of enthusiasm in 1821 meant that the London Greek Committee had found itself a thoughtful‚ relatively knowledgeable‚ and committed member.   Byron in Greece   Theodoros Kolokotronis‚ warlord‚ Krazeisen Karl‚ 1828. Source: National Gallery Alexandros Soutsos Museum   Supporting the Greek cause appeared a fairly straightforward matter from London. In Greece itself it was a rather more complicated affair.   There was a provisional government based on an advanced liberal constitution. However‚ in a country in the middle of a revolutionary war‚ this state existed largely on paper. The new political community the Greeks were creating was very much a work in progress. Therefore the Greece of 1823 was one riven by numerous and increasingly conflicting factions.   These factions can be broadly divided into two camps. There were those who favoured a strong centralized state based on those developing elsewhere in Europe. This view was especially associated with the Greeks‚ who had spent time outside the country before the revolution. Others essentially wished to maintain the Ottoman system in which local elites ruled their own regions‚ just without the Ottomans. The landed elites (the Primates) and the warlords (the Klephts) were often attached to this view which mirrored the world they had always inhabited and were deeply suspicious of those accumulating power at the center. Added to this mix were personal ambitions and local loyalties‚ and it ultimately proved impossible to prevent rounds of civil war in 1823 and 1824. This was the tense situation Byron was stepping into.   Having committed himself to the cause‚ Byron disregarded the option of supporting Greece from a distance and was instead determined to head to the front. He left Italy with a personal retinue‚ a few military and medical supplies‚ and his own funds. Like many Philhellenes‚ Byron and the London Committee had a vague aim of boosting Greek military capabilities by introducing artillery and a professional army but lacked the resources to fully implement this ambitious project.   Alexandros Mavrokordatos‚ Krazeisen Karl‚ 1827. Source: National Gallery Alexandros Soutsos Museum   The Greeks had already seen similar projects fail‚ and what they needed more than anything from Europe was funds to fight their war and international recognition. The renowned aristocratic poet and representative of a committee with access to London’s financial elite held out this prospect.   Byron’s first port of call in Greece was the British-governed Ionian Islands. Here‚ Byron paused to survey the complicated situation and assess how to operate in the dangerous waters of tense factional politics. He was quickly seen as the holder of the keys not only to his own substantial fortune but to the prospects of a loan arranged in London‚ which was being prepared. This gave Byron and the British Philhellenes some political leverage and after careful reflection‚ Byron decided to put his weight behind Alexandros Mavrokordatos. Previously head of the executive branch of the provisional government‚ before being sidelined by the warlords‚ Mavrokordatos was a representative of the western-orientated centralizing faction. To join Mavrokordatos‚ Byron headed to Messolonghi in autumn of 1823.   How Did Byron Die in Missolonghi&;#63;   The Reception of Lord Byron at Missolonghi‚ 1861‚ Theodoros Vryzakis. Source: The National Gallery Alexandros Soutsos Museum   Before Byron’s arrival‚ the coastal fishing town of Missolonghi in central Greece had escaped the romantic imagination. Instead of ruins and classical associations‚ it had a mosquito ridden lagoon. It had survived an Ottoman siege in 1822 and was threatened again in 1823.   One of Byron’s first acts was to fund a fleet to protect Missolonghi. The rumors of this fleet were enough to make the Ottomans withdraw. This would prove one of Byron’s only material contributions to the course of the war (Beaton‚ 2013).   When he landed at Missolonghi on 5th January 1824‚ Byron was accorded a hero’s welcome‚ but the situation soon turned sour‚ and the next few months brought a series of failed projects. An attempt to organize and pay a band of Greek soldiers to form the core of a force to take nearby Ottoman fortresses dissolved into arguments and mutiny. The relationship between Mavrokordatos and the local military commanders broke down almost to the point of conflict in March and April. The other schemes of the London Greek Committee to provide an artillery school and printing presses were equally limited.   Lord Byron on his Death-bed‚ Joseph Denis Odevaere‚ 1826. Source: Wikimedia Commons   So far Byron had supported these efforts with his own funds. While his individual initiatives had limited success‚ the British loan the Greeks pinned their hopes on had started to materialize. Byron’s presence in Greece had excited and reassured investors by helping to create the conditions for the first substantial financial support for the struggling country. In March‚ he was appointed one of two commissioners of the loan and the first payments were soon on the way.   Byron was dead before the funds arrived. After several months of effort in Missolonghi‚ which had seemingly produced little except disappointment and further tensions among the Greek factions‚ Byron’s health deteriorated in early April. On 9th April‚ he was caught in a heavy rainstorm while riding and came down with a fever. He had already suffered one round of illness in February‚ and while his fever seemed to improve‚ Byron and his companions were making plans to leave Missolonghi to recuperate (Beaton‚ 2013). When this proved impossible‚ Byron’s British doctors proposed another plan. Against his objections‚ they tried to cure the patient by bleeding. The bleeding of a weakened body seems to have been too much‚ and in the early evening of 19th April 1824‚ Byron died at the age of 36.   Lord Byron’s Legacy   Greece Crowning Lord Byron‚ Athens. Source: cultureisathens.gr   Byron’s time in Greece had been short and frustrating‚ but not without consequences or meaning. The greatest contribution he made was to associate his name and fame with the Greek struggle. One of the most famous men of his time‚ Byron not only joined the Greeks‚ but his death in the process of doing so was of significant symbolic value and mobilized renewed interest in the war. When Missolonghi‚ now firmly associated with Byron’s memory‚ finally fell to the Ottomans after a heroic resistance in 1826‚ intervention by the Great Powers followed in 1827 and guaranteed Greece’s freedom.   Byron’s decision to go to Greece‚ while ultimately costing him his life‚ turned him into the archetypal romantic hero. For Greece‚ his decision was a meaningful contribution when the fight for liberty hung in the balance.

  Standing atop a great hill in Granada‚ the Alhambra Palace remains one of the most magnificent structures in Spain today. Built between 1238 and 1358‚ the Palace was begun by Muhammad I Ibn al-Ahmar‚ the first emir of the Nasrid kingdom‚ and was used as a military fortress until the end of Muslim rule in 1492. With the Nasrids came the longest-reigning Muslim dynasty in the Iberian peninsula‚ branding the Alhambra with a unique cultural significance as it became one of the best-preserved palaces of the Islamic world.   Who Were the Nasrids‚ &; Who Was Muhammad I&;#63; Painting on the ceiling of the Hall of Kings (Alhambra)‚ 2018. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Rulers of the Emirate of Granada from 1230 to 1492‚ the Nasrid dynasty was not only the longest Muslim (Moorish) dynasty in the Iberian Peninsula but also the last. The Nasrids descended from the Arab Banu Khazraj tribe‚ a large Arab tribe based in Medina‚ who were also situated in Medina during the time of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad ibn Nasr I was the founder of this dynasty and one of his greatest legacies was the construction of the Alhambra Palace.   Succeeding the Umayyad Kingdom‚ the Nasrids enjoyed a reign that lasted over two centuries‚ ruling the southern historic city of Granada‚ along with the neighboring cities of Ja&;eacute;n‚ Almer&;iacute;a‚ and M&;aacute;laga. Although the famed “Golden Age” was very much dwindling by this point in Islamic rule due to threatening invading forces‚ among other factors‚ Granada remained a crucial military stronghold.   The beginning of Alhambra’s creation in 1238 was fueled by the desire to form a military stronghold in Granada. It rapidly became a crucial hallmark of Islamic civilization in Spain‚ watching over the city‚ protected by great mountains and acres of forest. Nasrid rule in Spain came to an end in 1492 with the Christian conquest by Catholic monarchs Ferdinand II and Isabel I‚ who shared a common desire to recapture territory from the Muslims. Upon launching a series of campaigns spanning an arduous ten years‚ Granada was surrendered in 1492. Despite the capture of Granada and the subsequent forced conversion of all Spanish Muslims to Christianity‚ today‚ Alhambra continues to serve as a significant surviving remnant of Spain’s lengthy Islamic rule.   Why Was the Alhambra Created&;#63;  The Reconquista (CE 722 – 1492). Source: Undevicesimus via Deviantart   By the arrival of the Nasrids‚ aggression from Christian threats‚ as well as growing division among Muslim leaders‚ had reached new heights. Therefore‚ it was imperative to establish a military base to fortify the last remaining kingdom.   As previously mentioned‚ Granada served as the ideal strategic location. The erection of the Palace began with Muhammad I’s exit from Jaen and the establishment of Granada as a military base. The city was far from the Kingdom of Castille’s border and had a direct coastal exit in case of emergency.   Exterior of Alhambra‚ 2008. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Many of the cities surrounding Jaen had previously been conquered by Ferdinand III of Castille‚ requiring Muhammad I to negotiate the surrender of Jaen to Ferdinand. This resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Jaen in 1246‚ which demanded that the Nasrids pay an annual tribute of one hundred and fifty thousand maravedis‚ as well as provide military assistance whenever required by Castille. Muhammad I signed the treaty to buy time for the creation and fortification of the Alhambra to strengthen Nasrid’s military and defense position.   Although it is commonly referred to as a single construction‚ the Alhambra is composed of numerous intricate structures and towers‚ all of which served their own unique purpose for the Nasrids. The fortress of the Alhambra was known as the Alcazaba‚ and it is one of the oldest parts of the palace. The early Nasrid emirs focused on fortifying the Alcazaba as its perimeter wall surrounded the Alhambra and was therefore vital in ensuring the protection and impassibility of the palace.   Amid mounting tensions between the Nasrid and Christian threats around Granada‚ it was more crucial than ever to guard Nasrid leaders and fortify the city.   How Did the Nasrids Make Use of the Alhambra&;#63;  Tile with the Heraldic device of the Nasrid kings‚ first third of 16th century. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art‚ New York   Within the Alhambra‚ the Alcazaba served as the main residence for Muhammad I and his guards. The outer wall had multiple gates for entrance: the gate of Justice (Bab al-Sharia)‚ the gate of Seven Floors (Bab al-GhudÅ«r)‚ the gate of Elvira (Bab-Ilbira)‚ the False Gate (Bab al-Faray). The main entrance to the fortress was through the Gate of Arms‚ while the rest of the Alhambra grounds was accessible by the Gate of Tahona.   The Alcazaba also features an area for the supply of basic requirements for the Nasrid military‚ which guarded the emirs. On the southern part of the fortress‚ numerous rooms and storage facilities were designed for junior guards. The rest of the army units were presumed to have camped outside the fortress due to limited space inside the Alcazaba. Anchoring the fortress were several towers‚ which remain the oldest in the Alhambra. These include the Watch Tower on the western side‚ the Tower of Homage‚ the Broken Tower‚ and the Shieldmaker’s Tower‚ all of which made up the defensive line on the Alcazaba wall.   Muhammad I ruled the Nasrid Kingdom for 18 years and was succeeded by his son‚ Muhammad II. Upon taking over the reign‚ he continued developing the city of Granada into a military center.   As well as being the most important military center for the Nasrids‚ the Alhambra was‚ at its core‚ a royal palace. While also designed with the intention of intimidating visitors‚ the Palace of Comares featured a colossal tower to overwhelm Christian threats. The Palace of the Lions‚ on the other hand‚ offered a magnificent display of ornate Nasrid art‚ making it one of the most culturally rich parts of the Alhambra.   When Did Al-Andalus Fall‚ And What Became of the Alhambra&;#63; Plate‚ late 14th‚ early 15th century. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art‚ New York   The Emirate of Granada had been the last Muslim state in Iberia for over two centuries by the time of the Granada War. After 700 years of Islamic rule‚ the Muslims lost Al-Andalus with the capture of Granada in 1492 by Ferdinand III‚ king of Castile. The Catholic monarchs of Spain‚ alongside the Castilian subjects‚ gathered military resources to conquer the kingdom and restore Christian rule.   The capture of Granada was the culmination of ten years of seasonal campaigns by Ferdinand and Isabel I‚ designed to incite internal conflict and gradual civil war in the city. Between 1482 and 1492‚ the Christians dedicated their resources to the struggle and were helped by instances of family feud among the Nasrids‚ which heightened internal division and inhibited the power of the kingdom.   Where did all this leave the Alhambra&;#63; The Palace was left entirely untouched throughout the long conquest. It is even said that the Moors gave up Granada without prolonged conflict to avoid the destruction of the Alhambra. Once conquered‚ it became a royal palace of the Spanish monarchy‚ and Isabella and Ferdinand took up residence there immediately.   They were the first Europeans to live in the Palace‚ followed by Charles V in 1526. Some renovation work took place to infuse the Palace with a Renaissance style‚ and in 1526‚ Charles I &; V even announced the construction of a new Renaissance palace to better represent the Holy Roman Emperor. However‚ the creation of the palace never saw the light of day.   What Does the Palace Mean to Muslims&;#63;    If we travel back in time to the birth of Muslim rule in Spain‚ which began with the Andalusian Umayyads (756-1031)‚ we will find ourselves in the famed Golden Age that marked a period of growth lasting two centuries.   Grenade‚ Alhambra‚ Porte d’Entr&;eacute;e de la Forteresse‚ 1860. Source: National Gallery of Art‚ Washington DC   During this time‚ the achievements of Muslims across many academic and artistic fields were acknowledged; the works of prominent scientists such as Abu Ma’shar al-Balkhi (787–886) and al-Biruni (973–1048) were celebrated. Although this period of intellectual prosperity was already past its heyday by the arrival of the Nasrid Empire‚ the Golden period remains a reminder of the rich cultural and historical significance of Granada under the Muslims.   Beyond the Golden Age‚ Alhambra remains one of the most impressive feats in Islamic architecture and is regarded as Spain’s most recognizable symbol of Islamic civilization. The art in the Alhambra continues to represent a fusion of cultures‚ containing rich influences from the Islamic world‚ Spanish culture‚ and neighboring Christian regions. The construction of the Palace of the Lions‚ in particular‚ is considered a significant part of Mohammed V’s legacy‚ as it showcases some of the most magnificent examples of Islamic art in the entire palace.   As the Alhambra Palace was initially designed as a military fortress encasing Granada‚ it is safe to say that it effectively carried out its purpose‚ intimidating Christian threats and protecting Nasrid leaders for over two hundred years. However‚ it also went beyond its intended design‚ becoming a palatine city of its own. The palace welcomes over two million people annually‚ and the site has become a museum to commemorate the wonders of Nasrid art.   Considered by many to be the magnum-opus of the Al-Andalus period‚ the Alhambra serves as a reminder of not only long-standing Muslim rule in Spain but also represents the zenith of the Nasrid era and its enduring cultural legacy.