What was the Cadaver Synod? The Cadaver Synod was the trial of the deceased pope, Formosus, in Rome in 897, demonstrating the level of corruption and politics that existed in the Roman Catholic church at the time.

The pope is the head of the Roman Catholic and resides in the Vatican City. Today, he is independent and can technically make decisions that are in the interest of the whole church. However, he still has to be elected in a conclave, where he will need the support of the majority of the other cardinals. That requires a lot of political skill. The pope is said to be chosen by God, but it is a political role, just like any other elected state leader. However, in times gone by, popes were far more controlled by different wealthy families or kings in Europe. This can be seen by the Western Schism, known as the “period of two popes”. Between 1378 and 1417, there was an elected pope in Rome, Urban VI, and a pope in Avignon, France, Pope Clement VII, who was supported by the French monarchy. Wealthy families have often used the popes for their own ends. In a time that was much more religious than today, it was important to have God on your side when embarking on a war, or some other campaign, and that made it useful to have your own pope. 

This corruption was the main reason why Martin Luther nailed his list of 95 theses to a church door and started what is now known as Protestantism. He was upset at the Roman Catholic church’s greed. They had slowly turned religion into a money-making machine, culminating in the selling of indulgences. These were certificates you could buy to reduce the amount of time you would spend in purgatory after death. Basically, a license to commit sin. The church had slowly evolved its doctrine to allow all of these schemes. Luther’s proclamations did help and the Council of Trent in 1545 was a chance for reform. There was still a lot of corruption and the Second Vatican Council in 1962 technically modernized the church. Today, it is the same as any other political organization, so there is some corruption, but they try to stamp it out.

The Cadaver Synod was an example of the violence and corruption that surrounded the papacy at this time. Between 896 and 904, when the Cadaver Synod took place, Rome went through a succession of popes and antipopes, with rival noble and political factions fighting for control. This period is often described as the dark age of the papacy. Popes could be made, unmade, exiled, imprisoned, or murdered, and many depended on the support of powerful Roman families. One of the most important of these families was the House of Theophylact, later connected with the Counts of Tusculum. Tusculum was about 24 km southeast of Rome, near modern Frascati, and only ruins remain today. The family’s power became especially important after 904, when Theophylact and his allies helped Sergius III become pope. Members of the family held important offices in Rome and, for much of the 10th century, they dominated the city and heavily influenced the papacy. At that time, popes were not chosen by the College of Cardinals in a conclave. Papal elections were local Roman political events involving clergy, nobles, soldiers, money, and sometimes imperial pressure. If one family controlled the city, the militia, and the money, it could have enormous influence over who became pope.

The Cadaver Synod grew out of a struggle between two factions. The Spoletan faction, led by Lambert of Spoleto, who controlled Rome, and the Carolingian faction, represented by Arnulf of Carinthia. Pope Formosus became pope in 891 and ruled until 896. He didn’t like the control the Spoletan family had over Rome, so he invited Arnulf of Carinthia to invade and free the city, becoming Holy Roman Emperor. Arnulf was successful, but he didn’t stay in Rome and soon returned to Carinthia. The Spoletans slowly regained control of the city. Pope Formosus died in 896 and he was replaced by Pope Boniface VI, who died two weeks later and was replaced by Pope Stephen VI.

Arnulf was no longer in Rome and was unable to protect Formosus’s faction by this point and Pope Stephen was loyal to the Spoletans. Stephen probably convened the Cadaver Synod to satisfy the Spoletan faction, destroy Formosus’s reputation, and weaken the Formosan faction. He had Pope Formosus’s body exhumed and it was put on trial. Formosus was accused of violating canon law, perjury, and illegally transferring from the bishopric of Porto to the bishopric of Rome. Obviously, the corpse could not defend itself and Formosus was found guilty. He was stripped of his papal clothes and the three fingers on his right hand he used for blessings were cut off. The body was then dressed in normal clothes, weighted, and thrown into the River Tiber. It washed up on the banks of the Tiber. This caused an uprising and Pope Stephen was strangled six months later. The pope that succeeded him, Pope Theodore II, had Formosus’s body buried in St. Peter’s Basilica in papal clothes again. And this is what I learned today.

Sources

https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/historpedia/home/religion-philosophy/the-cadaver-synod-a-tale-of-vengeance-lust-for-power-and-ecclesiastical-politics-fall-2012

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2039880/saints-and-sinners-triumphs-scandals-and-wars-of-the-papacy-2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Formosus

Photo by AXP Photography: https://www.pexels.com/photo/st-peter-s-basilica-statues-under-blue-sky-33008955/

The post #1713 What was the Cadaver Synod? appeared first on I Learned This Today.

Why do we use so many Latin abbreviations in English? These abbreviations didn’t begin as English, but were abbreviations used in Latin writing to save time. They gradually took on meanings of their own and entered the English language. Today, a lot of people (myself included) don’t know what the original Latin expression was or actually means. Let’s break this topic into two parts. Let’s look at some examples of abbreviations and what they mean, and then let’s look at why they became fixed in English.

There are many examples we could choose from. Let’s have a look at QED, a.m., p.m., PhD, MA, BA, RIP, etc., e.g., i.e., PS, AD, C., CV, et al., and re..

QED is quod erat demonstrandum and means “that which was to be demonstrated”. It is used after mathematical proofs, but these days it is often used to show that something has been proven.

A.m. and p.m. stand for ante meridiem and post meridiem. Meridiem means (medius) middle of the (dies) day, or noon. Ante means before and post means after. The Romans divided their day into halves on either side of noon and they started to abbreviate it to a.m. and p.m.

PhD, MA, and BA are all degrees you can earn from a university. PhD is Philosophiae Doctor (Doctor of Philosophy), MA is Magister Artium (Master of Arts), and BA (originally AB) is Artium Baccalaureus (Bachelor of Arts).

People think RIP stands for Rest In Peace, but it actually comes from the Latin requiescat in pace, which means the same thing, rather conveniently. It was first used on Christian gravestones in the 8^th century because the Latin phrase was too long.

Etc. is the shortened form of et cetera, which means and the other things. It was sometimes written as &c. because & came from the cursive form of et.

E.g. is exempli gratia and i.e. is id est. It can be difficult to tell them apart but e.g. means example given and i.e. means that is, or in other words. You use e.g. when you are giving examples of something and i.e. when you are clarifying or defining something.

PS comes from post scriptum, which means after the writing. AD is Anno Domini, which means in the year of our lord. That was first used in the 6^th century by a monk called Dionysius Exiguus. C. comes from circa, meaning about for a date. CV is curriculum vitae, which means course of life. Et al. comes from et alia, et alii, et aliae, depending on gender or number, and means and others. Re., as in what you sometimes use when you are writing the subject of an email, comes from in re, which means in the matter of.

So, why do we use these abbreviations? Well, as they are Latin expressions, we have to start with the Romans. Latin was the language of Rome and the language of government, law, education and almost everything official across the whole Roman Empire. When people wrote they naturally abbreviated sentences that they had to write often. They used these abbreviations in inscriptions, legal writing, and it became a huge system. When people wrote on parchment, they used all of the abbreviations they could to save parchment, ink, and time. After the western Roman Empire fell, this tradition carried on. Latin was still the working language of educated people across Europe in law, government, religion, medicine, official records, and many more. People still had to write by hand and parchment and ink were still expensive, so they carried on writing with abbreviations. By early medieval times, there were so many abbreviations and contractions that there were even guides available to explain them all.

As English slowly grew and eroded the hold of Latin, many words fell by the wayside, but the abbreviations stayed. They were easy to write, and people knew what they meant. Then the printing press was invented and a lot of these abbreviations were set into the language. Just as with parchment and ink, they saved space. As more time passed, they entered the English language. People knew what they meant and knew how to use them, but a lot of people didn’t remember the Latin they were abbreviating. Sometimes the abbreviation even took on English words, as with Rest In Peace.

These abbreviations stay in our language, like fossils of Latin left behind. And this is what I learned today.

Sources

https://guides.loc.gov/manuscript-facsimiles/deciphering-scribal-abbreviations?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/postscript?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/AD/309640?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_abbreviations

Photo by Pixabay: https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-holding-magnifying-glass-pointing-on-book-207681/

The post #1711 Why do we use so many Latin abbreviations in English? appeared first on I Learned This Today.

Was there anything the Germans could have done after D-Day? Not to win the war. Short of producing a working nuclear bomb, and probably not even then, there was no realistic way for Germany to secure victory after the Allies entered Europe on D-Day. What they could have done was make the Allied advance slower, make it more expensive, or possibly surrender earlier and save millions of lives.

The Allies landed in Normandy on June 6th, 1944. They had originally planned to land on June 5th, but bad weather pushed the invasion back by one day. About 160,000 troops crossed the Channel on the first day, and by the end of August, more than 2 million Allied troops had landed in France. The Germans could probably have made Allied casualties worse on D-Day if they had known exactly where the invasion was coming. If they had moved their armored reserves faster, and if Hitler had allowed his commanders more freedom, the fighting on the beaches and inland could have been even bloodier. However, there was probably no way for Germany to stop an Allied invasion of Europe forever. There was too much coastline to defend, and the Allies had too much control of the air and sea.

With hindsight, it is pretty safe to say that Germany’s chance of winning the war disappeared long before D-Day. One possible turning point was December 1941. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th, and a few days later Hitler declared war on the United States. At first, Hitler was pleased because he thought the USA would have to split its strength between Europe and Asia. He also believed Japan’s attack would give Germany more time to win in the Soviet Union. However, he seriously underestimated the economic power of the United States.

After the USA entered the war, it had to arm almost from zero. That took time, but once American industry switched to a war footing, it produced weapons, tanks, planes, ships, trucks, ammunition, and supplies on a scale Germany could not match. Germany was also already fighting the Soviet Union, and that war was eating up enormous numbers of soldiers, tanks, aircraft, and fuel. Germany might be able to replace one plane or tank for every several it lost, while the USA and the Soviet Union could keep producing more. So, once the Western Allies invaded France, Germany was being squeezed from both sides. What options did it have?

The option Hitler chose was to keep fighting in the hope that something would happen to turn the tide. This could be called the “head in the sand” option, although that is easier to say with hindsight. Some Germans may have believed that new weapons, a political split between the Allies, or exhaustion in Britain and America could still save them. Germany had developed the Me 262, one of the first jet fighters, and it was much faster than Allied aircraft. However, it arrived too late, there were not enough of them, fuel was short, pilots were short, and Allied bombing made production difficult. It could have made the air war more dangerous, but it could not have changed the outcome by itself. The same is true of Germany’s other “wonder weapons.” They were frightening, but they were not enough.

Germany could also have retreated more sensibly. After D-Day, German forces fought hard in Normandy, but Hitler repeatedly refused to allow proper withdrawals. A tactical retreat to a more defensible line, such as the Seine, might have saved more German soldiers, tanks, and equipment. It might also have slowed the Allied advance. However, it would not have solved Germany’s main problem. The Allies had air superiority, huge supplies, and more men arriving all the time. At the same time, the Soviet army was advancing from the east. A better retreat might have prolonged the war, but it probably would not have saved Germany.

Another option would have been to overthrow Hitler and try to negotiate. Some German officers did try to kill Hitler on July 20th, 1944, but the attempt failed. If Hitler had been removed and handed over, a new German government might have tried to make peace with Britain and America. However, that would have been extremely difficult. The Allies had already agreed to demand unconditional surrender, and the Soviet Union had suffered so much that Stalin was unlikely to accept a gentle peace. Germany had also committed crimes on such a huge scale that it is hard to imagine the Allies simply allowing it to keep conquered land. Still, a successful coup might have ended the war earlier and saved lives.

Probably the best option Germany had after D-Day, and certainly after the failure of the Ardennes Offensive in December 1944, was to surrender as soon as possible. This is not something Hitler would ever have considered, and it is said with hindsight, but an early surrender would have saved a huge number of people. The Allies would not have had to fight across the rest of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany. Many German cities would not have been destroyed. Many soldiers and civilians on all sides would have lived. Germany may or may not have received better terms, but fewer people would have died.

Once D-Day had succeeded, Germany was almost certainly defeated. It could still choose how long to keep fighting, where to retreat, and how many lives to waste, but it had very little realistic chance of victory. The best thing Germany could have done after D-Day was not to find a way to win. It was to find a way to stop. And this is what I learned today.

Sources

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/could-german-army-have-stopped-allied-victory-d-day-189012

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/second-world-war/d-day/the-german-response-to-d-day

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/could-have-germany-won-d-day.210629

Photo by Hub JACQU: https://www.pexels.com/photo/historic-normandy-bunker-with-artillery-cannon-29008792/

The post #1709 Was there anything the Germans could have done after D-Day? appeared first on I Learned This Today.

What was the first hotel chain? It depends how you look at it, but the first hotel chain was either Fred Harvey’s Harvey Houses or Ellsworth M. Statler’s Statler Hotels. Conrad Hilton’s hotels later became the first coast-to-coast hotel chain in the United States and one of the first major international hotel chains.

These days, if you want to travel anywhere and need to stay overnight, you will book into a hotel. If the town you are staying in is a decent size, you will have quite a lot of choice. There are apps that you can use to compare the prices of all the different hotels and find the best deal. You will be spoiled for choice. Things have not always been like this.

The word “hotel” comes from the French “hôtel,” which means a mansion or large house. This in turn came from “hostel,” which meant a place to lodge. The word was used to refer to a place to stay from around 1765 in English. It slowly replaced the word inn, which had been in use since about the 13^th century. The word hospital has the same route as hotel and early hospitals were places built for rest and recuperation.

People have needed somewhere to stay for thousands of years. If they were traveling through the countryside, they would sleep wherever they were and find their own food. If they were traveling through a settlement, such as traders usually did, then they would look for somewhere to stay. There were a lot of taverns that also doubled as inns in the ancient civilizations of Sumer and Babylonia. They probably didn’t have separate rooms, but would have put a cot down in the room that people were eating and drinking in. Often grain merchants would stay there and there are even laws to protect the customers from being cheated by the tavern-keepers.

The Greeks didn’t use inns, but relied strongly on hospitality and travelers would make a network of friends they could stay with. People would carry letters of introduction to other people’s friends so they would have somewhere to stay. The Romans had a larger empire and they had taverns and inns in many settlements. These inns continued after the fall of Rome and Medieval Europe had a network of inns all across it. Not a lot of people travelled outside their home villages, but for those that did, there was always somewhere to stay.

In Europe, in the mid 18^th century, some inns started to cater to richer clients. The Industrial Revolution was the first time people who were not royalty or nobles had wealth. When royalty and nobles travelled, they would stay at the houses of other royalty or nobles. The new class of wealthy people couldn’t do that, but they didn’t want to stay at regular inns. Lodging places to meet their needs appeared. These were places like Claridge’s in London (which was called the Royal Clarence when it first opened in 1768), and Astor House in New York City.

Towards the end of the 19^th century, more people had more money than ever before and people were suddenly able to travel. The railway had opened up huge swathes of Europe and the USA than ever before. The number of luxury hotels began to increase and they had rooms aimed at people staying just for a day or two and suites aimed at people staying longer. Some wealthy people even lived in hotels.

Most hotels were independently owned until 1908, when the very first hotel chain took off. Ellsworth M. Statler opened his first hotel in Buffalo in 1901. It had 2,084 rooms and was only supposed to last the duration of the Pan-American Exposition that was taking place at the time. He learned a lot from that, and in 1908 he built a permanent hotel in Buffalo New York that had 300 rooms. It had a bathroom for each room, which was a new concept. He had decided that he wasn’t going to compete with the luxury hotels, but he was going to offer clean, comfortable, and reasonably priced rooms for regular travelers. It was a hit. He used the profits and built another hotel in Detroit in 1915. This was also successful and he built more hotels in St Louis, Boston, New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Dallas, and Cleveland. Mean wealth was increasing, as was the ability to travel, and the model of affordable rooms his hotels used was successful everywhere he built a hotel. He started the idea of hotels that we still have today.

Once his success was obvious, other people started to build hotels too. Then, with the invention of airplanes and international travel, Conrad Hilton took his hotels international. Seeing a hotel name you recognized when you traveled abroad brought a level of security to people and the hotels were popular. Today it is impossible to count how many independent hotel chains there are, but there are the “big six” that own the most hotels. These are Marriott International, Hilton, IHG, Accor, Wyndham, and Hyatt. And this is what I learned today.

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statler_Hotels

https://www.britannica.com/topic/hotel#ref267723

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel

https://www.gethistories.com/p/a-history-of-hotels-part-1

https://www.etymonline.com/word/hotel

https://www.etymonline.com/word/inn

Photo by Clément Proust: https://www.pexels.com/photo/hilton-hotel-building-18372870/

The post #1706 What was the first hotel chain? appeared first on I Learned This Today.

What was the first arms race? To be honest, nobody knows, and this is probably not something we can ever know. Arms races are probably older than written history. Most likely, human civilization has been a trail of one arms race after another.

An arms race happens when two or more groups compete to make better weapons, better defenses, or larger military forces because they are afraid of falling behind each other. That means the first arms races were probably between neighboring settlements, long before anyone wrote anything down. Once people moved from hunter-gatherer lives to agriculture and permanent villages, they had things to protect: food stores, animals, water, homes, land, and people. If one group decided it was easier to take what another group had than to make or grow its own, the other group needed to defend itself. The first arms race was probably not between countries. It was probably between weapons and fortifications.

Early weapons would have been simple things: sticks, stones, clubs, bows, arrows, and spears. Flint arrowheads from tens of thousands of years ago have been found. They were probably used mostly for hunting animals, but anything that can kill an animal can also be used against people. To deal with that threat, early settlements built barriers. A fence of logs might have been enough for a small village, but as settlements grew, their defenses grew as well.

The walls of Jericho, built around 8000 BC, are one of the earliest famous examples of large defensive walls. They surrounded a Neolithic settlement and included stone walls and a tower. They are not proof of the very first arms race, but they show that very early communities were already putting enormous effort into protection. Once one settlement had a wall, another group needed a way to get over it, through it, or around it. That is the basic pattern of an arms race. Better walls led to better ways of attacking walls. Those led to higher, thicker, and stronger walls. Later, siege engines and catapults were made to defeat fortifications. That led to stronger castles. Then cannons were invented, and they changed the balance again. Eventually, airplanes made walls and castles almost useless as serious military defenses. That particular arms race was basically won by the attackers.

There was also an arms race between weapons and armor. People did not start with swords. Before metal weapons, they had stone knives, flint blades, spears, arrows, and clubs. Flint can be very sharp, but it is also brittle. A long sword made of flint would break too easily. Metal changed that. Some of the earliest known swords come from Arslantepe in modern Turkey, where archaeologists have found early metal weapons that suggest organized combat had become connected with power and status.

Once metal weapons appeared, armor had to improve as well. Early armor could be made from leather, cloth, wood, or layers of material that were good enough to stop some blows. Then bronze armor appeared, and later iron and steel armor. However, this was not a simple story of one material always being better than the last. Early iron was not automatically superior to bronze. One of iron’s great advantages was that iron ore was easier to find than the tin needed to make bronze. As ironworking improved, and especially as steel became more common, weapons became stronger and armor had to become heavier and better made.

This pattern continued for thousands of years. A better sword led to better armor. A better bow led to stronger shields and helmets. A stronger castle led to better siege weapons. Gunpowder led to guns and cannons, which made thick armor and high stone walls less useful. Then tanks were invented to protect soldiers from machine guns and artillery. Then anti-tank guns, mines, and missiles were invented to destroy tanks. Then tank armor became thicker and more advanced. Then weapons were designed to defeat that armor. And so on and so on.

The first “modern” arms race is often said to be the naval race between Britain and Germany before World War 1. It was not really the first arms race, but it was one of the clearest industrial arms races. Britain had the largest navy in the world, and naval power had helped Britain build and maintain its empire. Germany had unified in 1871 and, by the end of the 19th century, wanted to become a major world power as well. Germany’s Navy Bills of 1898 and 1900 began a massive naval expansion, and Britain saw this as a challenge.

The race became even more intense after Britain launched HMS Dreadnought in 1906. This ship was so powerful and so modern that it made many older battleships seem outdated almost overnight. Britain and Germany then competed to build more and better modern battleships. The race did not directly cause World War 1 by itself, but it increased suspicion and tension between the two countries. It also showed what a modern arms race looked like: industry, technology, money, fear, pride, and politics all pushing each other forward.

Then, at the end of World War 2, the USA used nuclear bombs, and a new arms race began. None of the previous weapons could compete with a nuclear bomb, so the new race was to build nuclear bombs, then bigger bombs, then more bombs, and then missiles that could deliver them across the world. Eventually, the USA and the Soviet Union reached the terrifying logic of mutually assured destruction. If one side launched its nuclear weapons, the other side could launch its own in return, and both sides would be destroyed. At that point, the purpose of the weapons was not really to use them. It was to make sure the other side was too afraid to use theirs.

Today, one of the newest arms races is artificial intelligence. It is not only a race between armies. It is also a race between companies and countries to build more powerful systems, control more advanced chips, develop better drones and autonomous weapons, and use AI before their rivals do. Military researchers are already studying autonomous weapon systems and AI-assisted decision-making in targeting, which shows that AI is becoming part of the future of warfare.

Of course, AI is only a weapon, but once a technology can give one side an advantage, it is very hard to stop it from becoming part of an arms race. Each side worries that if it slows down, the other side will pull ahead. That is the same pattern we saw with walls and siege engines, armor and swords, battleships and battleships, nuclear bombs and nuclear bombs.

So, what was the first arms race? We will never know. It probably happened before writing, before countries, and maybe even before cities. But the basic idea has never gone away. Someone builds a better weapon. Someone else builds a better defense. Then the first person builds something stronger. The tools change, but the fear stays the same. Maybe one day we will leave arms races behind and simply live in peace. Maybe. And this is what I learned today.

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_race

https://warhistory.org/article/early-fortifications

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age

https://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour1.htm

Photo by Anna Dub: https://www.pexels.com/photo/military-tank-on-a-road-5275919/

The post #1700 What was the first arms race? appeared first on I Learned This Today.

How did people first learn how to smelt metal? They probably learned through a gradual process of experimentation, observation, and learning from the results. Copper was the first metal to be smelted on a large scale, at least by around 5000 BC. The discovery of smelting is probably one of the most important discoveries of all time. It stands up there with fire, the wheel, and the printing press. It changed society on every level and led to the metal-using world we have today.

Smelting is the process of heating a metal ore to extract the metal inside. The word comes from an old Germanic word meaning to melt or make liquid. However, smelting is different from melting. Melting simply means turning a solid into a liquid. If a piece of copper is heated until it becomes liquid copper, that is melting. Smelting is different because it requires a chemical reaction. The ore is not already pure metal. The metal is locked inside a mineral, usually joined to oxygen, sulfur, carbon, or some other element. Smelting uses heat and chemistry to separate the metal from the rest of the rock.

These days, metal ore is mined by machines on an enormous scale. A metal ore is a naturally occurring rock or sediment that contains enough metal to make it worth extracting. Once the ore has been mined and separated, it is processed in huge industrial furnaces. It is difficult to visualize the amount of metal we use today. Iron ore is the most important metal ore because almost all of it goes into making steel. Bauxite is also extremely important because it is the main ore used to make aluminum. There are many other ores as well, but iron dominates modern metal production. That makes sense because iron is one of the most common elements in Earth’s crust, and steel is strong, useful, and relatively cheap.

Modern smelting is fast and efficient, but it didn’t start out that way. The process looks like magic, so how did people first learn to do it? The discovery of smelting probably wasn’t one single lucky accident. It was a long process of people trying things, noticing results, and slowly improving their methods.

People knew about some metals long before they learned how to smelt ore. Some metals exist in native form, which means they can be found naturally as metal. Gold, silver, and copper can all occur this way. Ancient people found these metals, polished them, and used them as ornaments. They also shaped them with stone hammers. Native copper, for example, can be hammered into beads, tools, or simple objects without needing to be smelted first.

It was not a huge step from hammering metal to realizing that heat made it easier to shape. People had already been using fire for thousands of years. They used fire for warmth, cooking, hardening wooden tools, and changing the properties of stone and clay. Trying heat on native metals was a logical step. They would have noticed that metal became softer when heated. Later, they would have found that some metals could be melted and poured into molds. This was a huge leap forward because it meant people could make more complicated shapes.

However, the heat of a normal campfire is not enough to smelt copper ore properly. It can soften some native metals, and under the right conditions it might melt small amounts of metal, but smelting ore takes more heat and more control. That took a few more steps, and those steps were a game changer.

One important step was pottery. People had been making bowls and utensils out of clay for a long time, but sun-dried clay is fragile. Fired clay is much stronger. The invention of kilns allowed people to reach higher temperatures and control fire more carefully. This was originally useful for pottery, but it also taught people how to build hotter and more controlled fires. Kilns also helped people make vessels strong enough to handle heat and, eventually, molten metal.

Another important clue was color. Some copper minerals are brightly colored. Malachite, for example, is green. Ancient people used colorful minerals for decoration and pigments, so they would have noticed stones like malachite. If green copper ore was heated in a hot enough fire with charcoal, something surprising could happen. The carbon from the charcoal could pull oxygen away from the copper mineral, leaving metallic copper behind. To someone seeing it for the first time, it must have seemed as though the rock had turned into metal.

That may have happened accidentally at first, perhaps when copper minerals were placed in a hot kiln or mixed with other materials. However, an accidental discovery is not the same as an invention. The real invention was learning how to repeat the process. People had to learn which rocks worked, how hot the fire needed to be, how much charcoal to use, how to keep air flowing, and how to separate the metal from the waste material. That took observation, memory, and repeated experiments.

This is probably why smelting developed gradually and in more than one place. It was not one person suddenly inventing metal. It was many people over many generations learning from fire, clay, stone, colored minerals, and native metals. Each discovery made the next one more likely. First came the use of native metals. Then came heating and hammering. Then melting and casting. Then, finally, the chemical step of extracting metal from ore.

Iron smelting came later because iron is harder to work with than copper. Iron ore needs higher temperatures and more difficult furnace conditions. Even when early smelters could make iron, it was not easy to melt in the way copper could be melted. That is why the Copper Age and Bronze Age came before the Iron Age.

Smelting changed everything. It allowed people to make stronger tools, better weapons, ornaments, trade goods, and eventually machines, buildings, wires, vehicles, and the modern world. It began with people staring into fires and wondering what would happen if they tried something new. And this is what I learned today.

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting

https://www.britannica.com/technology/hand-tool/Early-metals-and-smelting

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/10/all-tonnes-metals-ores-mined-in-one-year

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron

Photo by Willians Huerta: https://www.pexels.com/photo/industrial-metalwork-and-molten-steel-at-night-36398099/

The post #1693 How did people first learn how to smelt metal? appeared first on I Learned This Today.

How did the Allies keep D-Day a secret? The Allies kept D-Day secret through a mixture of deception, censorship, and need-to-know security.

D-Day was Tuesday, June 6th, 1944. The landings in Normandy were the beginning of the Allied return to Western Europe. The overall campaign was called Operation Overlord, and the naval invasion itself was called Operation Neptune. However, most people know the day simply as D-Day. On that day, about 156,000 Allied troops landed in Normandy by sea and air. They were supported by thousands of ships and aircraft. By the end of August, more than two million Allied troops had landed in France. Up until then, Germany had controlled much of Western Europe. D-Day was not the end of the war, but it was one of the most important steps toward the end.

“D-Day” has become synonymous with the attack on the beaches of Normandy, but the term itself is not special to that battle. The military uses D-Day for the day when an operation will begin, and H-Hour for the time it will start. This lets planners talk about events before they know the exact date and time. So, D-Day basically means “the day.” It just became attached to June 6th, 1944, because that invasion was so enormous and so important.

One of the many problems the Allies had was how to keep the attack a surprise. They needed overwhelming force, but they also needed the element of surprise. Even with superior numbers, attacking from the sea is extremely difficult. The Germans had built the Atlantic Wall, a long chain of defenses along the coast. They had bunkers, mines, barbed wire, artillery, and machine guns. The beaches had very little shelter, and getting men, vehicles, and equipment out of landing craft took time. If the Germans had known exactly where the Allies were coming, they could have concentrated more troops and weapons there. The invasion might still have happened, but it would have been far more costly.

This is why deception was so important. The overall deception plan was called Operation Bodyguard. Its goal was to hide the real target, Normandy, and make the Germans believe the main invasion would come somewhere else. The most important false target was the Pas-de-Calais, the narrowest point between Britain and France. From the German point of view, Calais made sense. It was close to Britain, it offered a short crossing, and it seemed like the obvious place for an invasion. The Allies wanted Hitler to believe that obvious answer was the correct one.

To convince the Germans, the Allies created a fake army group called the First United States Army Group, or FUSAG. It was supposedly based in southeast England, opposite Calais. It was also supposedly commanded by General George Patton, whom the Germans respected and expected to lead the invasion. This made the fake army more believable. The Allies used dummy tanks, fake aircraft, false landing craft, and fake camps to make it look as if a huge force was gathering there. They also created fake radio traffic between units that did not exist. To German intelligence listening from across the Channel, it sounded like a large army was preparing to move.

The Allies also used double agents. German spies in Britain had mostly been captured or turned, and they were used to send false information back to Germany. These agents leaked information carefully. If they lied too obviously, the Germans might stop trusting them. Instead, they mixed real information, harmless information, and false information together. This made the deception much more convincing. The Germans were led to believe that Normandy might be a diversion and that the real attack would come later at Calais.

This worked extremely well. Hitler and the German command kept many forces near Calais before the invasion, and even after D-Day they hesitated to move them. That delay mattered. Every hour and every day gave the Allies more time to land troops, bring in supplies, and expand the beachhead. The deception did not win the battle by itself, but it made the invasion much more likely to succeed.

The fake army was not the only way they kept D-Day secret. The real plans were known only to a select group of people, and everybody else worked on a need-to-know basis. If people only knew their own small part of the operation, they could not reveal the whole plan if they were captured or if information leaked. Troops were gathered in camps in southern England, but their movement was controlled. Mail was censored. Travel was restricted. Journalists were controlled. Civilians in some coastal areas were kept away from military preparations. It was obviously impossible to hide an entire invasion force completely, but the Allies could hide its exact destination and timing.

The weather also helped and nearly ruined the whole plan at the same time. The invasion was supposed to happen on June 5th, but bad weather forced a delay. The Germans did not expect an invasion in such poor conditions, and some commanders were away from their posts. When the weather improved just enough on June 6th, the Allies took the risk and launched the attack.

So, the Allies did not keep D-Day secret by hiding everything. That would have been impossible. They kept it secret by hiding the most important pieces and making the Germans look in the wrong direction. They made Normandy seem less important than it was. They made Calais seem more important than it was. They controlled information, used double agents, built a fake army, and only told people what they needed to know. The result was one of the most successful deception operations in military history. And this is what I learned today.

Sources

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/second-world-war/d-day/the-lies-and-deceptions-that-made-d-day-possible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fortitude

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord

https://www.history.com/articles/why-was-it-called-d-day

By Chief Photographer’s Mate (CPHoM) Robert F. Sargent – This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17040973

The post #1688 How did the Allies keep D-Day a secret? appeared first on I Learned This Today.

Why are British people called Limeys and Poms? British people are called Limeys because of the citrus juice British sailors drank to prevent scurvy, and they are probably called Poms because of Australian rhyming slang connected to the word immigrant.

There are many names for British people around the world. Some of them are affectionate and some of them are less so. Also, when people say “British” in this context, they often really mean English, rather than Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish. The two most famous terms are probably Limey, which is mostly used in the USA, and Pom, which is mostly used in Australia and New Zealand. Let’s look at where those two terms came from.

The term Limey comes from the practice of giving British sailors citrus juice to prevent scurvy. Scurvy was one of the great dangers of long sea voyages. It is caused by a lack of vitamin C. Without enough vitamin C, the body cannot make collagen properly, and that causes fatigue, swollen gums, joint pain, wounds that will not heal, bleeding, and eventually death. On long voyages, a ship could lose a huge number of its crew to scurvy.

People had known for a long time that fresh fruit and vegetables seemed to prevent scurvy, but they did not understand why. One of the first useful experiments was done by Sir James Lancaster in 1601. He commanded several ships and gave lemon juice to the crew of one of them. The men who received the lemon juice suffered far less from scurvy than the men on the other ships. However, the lesson was not immediately accepted by everyone.

A naval surgeon called James Lind carried out a more famous experiment in 1747 while he was on HMS Salisbury. He took twelve sailors who were suffering from scurvy and divided them into pairs. Each pair was given a different treatment. The pair who received oranges and lemons recovered most clearly. Lind had shown that citrus fruit could treat scurvy, although even after that, it took a long time for the British Navy to make citrus juice a regular part of life at sea.

When the Royal Navy finally did adopt citrus juice, it made an enormous difference. At first, lemon juice was commonly used, but later the Navy often used lime juice, partly because limes could be obtained from British colonies in the Caribbean. British sailors became associated with lime juice, and people began to call them “lime-juicers.” Over time, that was shortened to “Limeys.” The word originally referred to British sailors, but it later became a more general nickname for British people, especially in America.

The name Pom is more uncertain, but there is one explanation that has better evidence than the others. Pom, or Pommy, seems to come from pomegranate. That sounds strange at first, but the missing link is Australian rhyming slang. In Australia, immigrant was once turned into “Jimmy Grant,” because it rhymed. From there, the word seems to have moved toward “pomegranate” or “Pommy Grant,” and then it was shortened to Pom or Pommy. So, if this explanation is right, Pom is not really about pomegranates themselves. It is about wordplay.

There are other theories, but they are weaker. One theory says that English people were called pomegranates because they turned red in the Australian sun. That is possible as a folk explanation, but it is probably not the main origin. Another theory says that POM stood for “Prisoner of Mother England” or something similar, but there does not seem to be good evidence for that. It looks like one of those explanations people invented after the word already existed. Acronym explanations are often suspicious because many old slang words began in speech before anyone tried to explain them in writing.

Before Pom became common, new arrivals in Australia were sometimes called “new chums.” This meant people who had only recently arrived and did not yet understand life in Australia. The word chum originally came from chamber-fellow, meaning someone who shared a room. Over time, it came to mean a friend or companion. In Australia, a new chum was a newcomer, while an old chum was someone who had been there for longer.

British people have other nicknames as well. The French have called the British “les Rosbifs,” which means “the roast beefs.” This came from the stereotype that British people loved roast beef. In return, British people have called French people “frogs,” based on the stereotype that French people eat frog legs. These names are not especially kind, but they show how national nicknames often come from food, appearance, jokes, rivalry, or war.

That is what makes words like Limey and Pom interesting. They are not just random insults. They preserve little pieces of history. Limey carries the history of sailors, scurvy, long voyages, and the slow discovery that citrus fruit could save lives. Pom carries the history of migration, Australian slang, and the way a word can be twisted, rhymed, shortened, and passed around until almost nobody remembers where it came from. And this is what I learned today.

Sources

https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/why-do-americans-call-british-limeys-history-meaning

https://www.economist.com/asia/1997/05/22/those-whingeing-poms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy

Photo by Marwan Marwan: https://www.pexels.com/photo/fresh-limes-selection-at-a-market-stall-35867157/

The post #1677 Why are British people called Limeys and Poms? appeared first on I Learned This Today.

How did hinges evolve? The very first hinges were probably simple wooden or stone pivots, and they slowly evolved from there.

We probably don’t pay much attention to hinges, but we use them multiple times every day. Doors, cupboards, car doors, garage doors, and even the arms of glasses and sunglasses all have hinges. They are everywhere, but we rarely think about them. All of these are human-made hinges, but there are natural hinges as well. Many of the joints in the human body work like hinges. The wings of many insects move on hinge-like joints. Bivalves such as clams and mussels open and close their shells with a hinge. Even some proteins and other molecules have hinge-like sections that allow them to move.

The earliest places humans lived in were probably caves or simple structures made from branches, leaves, animal skins, and other natural materials. The entrance might have been covered with a hanging animal skin. There is no need for a hinge on something like that, but an animal skin is not very strong and is not going to keep much out. If people wanted more protection in a doorway, they needed to use something sturdier. That meant either carrying the barrier out of the way every time they wanted to go in and out, or finding a way to make it swing open and closed. That is where the hinge comes in.

The earliest hinges probably came from civilizations such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, and other early building cultures. They were not hinges in the modern sense. They were basically stone or wooden pivots. Instead of having a door that opened from one side, as is common today, the door could turn around a fixed point. The hinge was the pivot. A bowl-shaped socket could be carved into the floor, or placed where the pivot needed to be. The door had a peg or extension at the bottom that fit into the socket. When someone pushed the door, it rotated around this point.

This kind of pivot hinge could be used for heavy wooden or stone doors, but it had disadvantages. The two surfaces rubbed against each other every time the door moved, so friction slowly wore them down. Doors could also be pivoted from the edge. A socket at the bottom and another at the top, close to the wall, could hold the door in place and allow it to spin. Pivot doors still exist, but modern versions use much smoother materials and bearings, so they do not simply grind two rough surfaces together. The enormous bronze doors of the Pantheon in Rome are about 7.5 meters tall and still use a pivot system, although exactly how old every part of them is has been debated.

Another early form of hinge was the strap hinge. A simple version could be made from leather or another flexible material, and it could be used to hang a light door, gate, lid, or cover. When someone opened the door, the strap would bend and allow it to swing. This was easy to make, but it was not very strong, and it was not suitable for a heavy or secure door. The stronger version was the metal strap hinge. Metal straps could be fixed to the door and the frame, allowing the door to swing while also spreading the weight across a wider area.

The earliest metal hinges we know of were made in the ancient world, including bronze hinges from Egypt. They were much more durable than wood, stone, or leather, but they were also expensive. Metal had to be mined, smelted, shaped, and fitted by skilled workers. For ordinary people, a metal hinge was not a small thing. This is one reason hinges were used unevenly for a long time. Important buildings, temples, wealthy homes, and strong gates could have metal hinges, while poorer buildings often used simpler methods.

The Romans greatly improved hinge design and helped make hinges more common. At first, Roman builders often used pivot systems, especially for large doors. However, Roman metalworkers also made hinges that fastened to the door and the frame and used interlocking metal parts with a central pin. These are the earliest hinges that start to look like the hinges we use today. The Romans used them on doors, but they also used them on cupboards, cabinets, boxes, shutters, and even armor. Hinges were so important to Roman life that they even had a goddess connected with hinges and doorways: Cardea. Her name is linked to the Latin word cardo, meaning hinge or pivot.

The next major development came in the Middle Ages. Heavy doors on castles, churches, and cathedrals needed strong hinges, and the main material for those was iron, especially wrought iron. Medieval hinges were often long, flat straps that stretched far across the door. This was not only decorative. It also helped spread the weight of the door and stop the wood from warping or pulling away from the frame. On castles and churches, these hinges could be enormous. They were sometimes shaped into branches, scrolls, or other patterns, so the hinge became both a mechanical part and a piece of decoration.

The biggest change in the world of hinges came with the Industrial Revolution. Before that, hinges had to be made by hand, which made them slow and expensive to produce. Once factories could mass-produce metal parts, hinges became cheaper, more accurate, and more widely available. Cast iron and later steel hinges could be made in large numbers. It also became common to use three hinges on a door instead of two because this spread the weight more evenly and reduced the strain on each hinge.

Since then, the materials and designs have continued to change. Hinges can now be made from steel, stainless steel, brass, aluminum, plastic, or specialized alloys. Some are designed to be hidden inside furniture. Some close automatically. Some allow a door to open both ways. Some are built for tiny objects like glasses, and others are built for huge industrial doors, aircraft, ships, and bridges. The basic idea, though, has not changed very much. A hinge is still a way of connecting two things while allowing one of them to move in a controlled way. It is such a simple idea that nature invented versions of it long before humans did. We just copied the principle, improved the materials, and used it everywhere. And this is what I learned today.

Sources

https://www.traditionalbuilding.com/product-report/hinge-history

https://www.fritsjurgens.com/inspiration/blog/what-is-a-pivot-door

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-hinges-from-basic-fasteners-advanced-engineering-k1gjc

https://www.kronakoblenz.com/en/product-school/door-hinge-history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinge

Photo by Brett Sayles: https://www.pexels.com/photo/close-up-of-hinge-on-wooden-planks-17503605/

The post #1676 How did hinges evolve? appeared first on I Learned This Today.

Why did it take so long to invent the wheel? It took so long to invent the wheel because a wheel is not as intuitive as we might think.

It is probably safe to say that modern life would not function without the wheel. Wheels are everywhere, even down to tiny wheels inside the devices we use. It seems odd to think that there was a time when people didn’t know the value of wheels, but the wheel was invented surprisingly late. The earliest clear evidence for wheeled vehicles comes from around 3500 to 3400 BC. One problem with looking at something like the wheel with modern ideas is thinking that it is obvious. Round things roll and they can carry heavy loads. But it is not quite as simple as that. There are probably numerous things that we don’t have yet that will be invented by future generations. They will wonder how we could possibly have coped without them. We can cope because we don’t know what they are.

There were several reasons why the wheel wasn’t invented until so late. Let’s look at some of them. The first one is that there was simply not as much need for a wheel as we might imagine. Most people lived near their fields, and they did not need to carry large loads over long distances every day. Anything that did need to be carried could be carried by people or animals, dragged on a sledge, or moved by boat if there was water nearby. Round logs could be used to roll things on, but it was often just as easy to use a sledge. Large stones for monuments were moved with ropes, sledges, rollers, and sometimes water transport. There was no urgent need for a wheel in every society.

The second problem was that there were no real road networks at that time. Most people traveled on foot or by water. There were paths, and probably some wide tracks, but there were not many smooth roads. A wheel, especially an early wooden wheel, needs a fairly flat and firm surface to be useful. Too many bumps, stones, roots, or patches of mud, and a wheeled vehicle becomes less helpful. Roads may be a case of circular inventing. Wheels need roads, but roads are more useful once people have wheels. The two probably developed together.

The third problem was the axle system. A wheel by itself is not much use. You can put a heavy load on round logs and roll it, but the logs won’t stay under the load and someone has to keep moving them from the back to the front. To use wheels properly, they have to be attached to the load, and that means axles. The wheel and axle is the real invention. The axle has to be strong enough to carry the load, but smooth enough that the wheel can turn. The holes in the wheels have to be centered properly. The two wheels also have to be the same size, or the cart will constantly pull to one side. That is much more difficult than simply noticing that round things roll.

The fourth problem was carpentry. To make a working wheel, a person needs good woodworking skills and good tools. Early wheels were not thin bicycle-style wheels. They were heavy wooden disks or wooden planks fastened together. They had to be round, strong, and fitted closely to an axle. That kind of work needs careful cutting, drilling, shaping, and fastening. Stone tools can do some of this, but metal tools made the work much easier and more accurate. People may have carved logs into wheel and axle shapes earlier than this, but without good tools and careful carpentry, they could not make the system work well enough to be useful.

The fifth problem was animals. A wheeled cart is most useful when there is something strong enough to pull it. People can pull carts, but the biggest advantage comes when cattle, donkeys, or other animals can pull a heavy load. That means the society also needs domesticated animals, harnesses, yokes, and enough food to support those animals. A wheel is not just one invention. It is part of a whole system of farming, woodwork, animal power, roads, and trade.

The wheel is a fascinating invention because it took thousands of years to come into being, and then, once it appeared, it spread across large parts of Europe and western Asia in a relatively short period of time. Nobody knows exactly where the first transport wheels were invented. The evidence appears in several places at around the same time. Wheel tracks from Flintbek in northern Germany date to about 3400 BC, and one of the earliest images of a wheeled wagon appears on the Bronocice pot from modern-day Poland, dated to about 3500 to 3350 BC. There are also early signs of wheeled vehicles in Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. This means the invention may have happened in one place and spread very quickly, or it may have developed in several connected regions at nearly the same time.

There is also the potter’s wheel, which may have appeared before the transport wheel. A potter’s wheel does not have to carry weight across rough ground. It only has to spin in one place, so it is a slightly different problem. Some evidence suggests potter’s wheels appeared in Mesopotamia by around 3500 BC, and there are also claims for very early turning devices in southeastern Europe. The basic idea of a spinning disk may have existed before people worked out how to put wheels under a vehicle.

That is why the wheel took so long to invent. It was not because people were not clever enough to think of round objects. It was because a useful wheel needed other inventions around it. It needed an axle, roads or tracks, strong carpentry, draft animals, and a reason to move heavy things over land. Once all of those things came together, the wheel became one of the most important inventions in human history. And this is what I learned today.

Sources

https://gizmodo.com/why-did-it-take-so-long-to-invent-the-wheel-5891151 Photo by Jean-Paul Wettstein: https://www.pexels.com/photo/vintage-wooden-wagon-wheel-on-rustic-wall-36504413/

The post #1672 Why did it take so long to invent the wheel? appeared first on I Learned This Today.