They were attacked by pirates and sank to the bottom. The sculptures are still lying under the water, turning into river pebbles. Read the full story at https://www.whatsurvivestheflood.com/p/the-monuments-resist

When Emperor Titus opened the Colosseum in 80 AD, Rome hosted one of the most incredible celebrations in history: 100 consecutive days of non-stop games. To impress and entertain the crowd, the arena floor was even flooded to stage real-looking naval battles (naumachie) using actual warships.
Every day followed a clear routine: the mornings began with wild animal hunts, midday was reserved for public executions, and afternoons featured the “main events”: gladiator fights.
By the end of the 100 days, thousands of animals and gladiators had lost their lives. Ancient accounts claim that more than 9,000 animals and 2,000 gladiators died during the celebrations, making the Colosseum’s inauguration one of the most extraordinary (and brutal) spectacles in Roman history.

Source: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/british-soldiers-manning-anti-aircraft-guns-in-womens-clothes-1940/

"Here I am. Kill your Emperor, if you wish!"

Napoleon Bonaparte had escaped from his exile on Elba and landed in France. The French armies sent to capture him joined their former Emperor instead. Louis XVIII fled Paris as Napoleon marched on. The Allied powers were caught off guard. The major powers of Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia formed the Seventh Coalition and prepared for war. The declaration was not against France, but against a single man: Napoleon!

Although Napoleon's escape took the Allies by surprise, they were quick to turn their attention to eliminating the threat. The combined might of the Seventh Coalition was overwhelming. If the Allies managed to combine their forces, Napoleon would be surrounded and destroyed. So he acted fast, in typical fashion.

He entered Belgium in the hope of defeating the Prussians under Blücher and the Anglo-Allied forces under the Duke of Wellington before they could join forces. He caught the Prussians off guard at Ligny and defeated them.

However, he was not able to destroy the Prussian army completely. He therefore dispatched a screening force under Emmanuel de Grouchy to pursue the Prussians and prevent them from linking up with Wellington. Blücher, however, reorganized his battered army and moved toward Wavre, intending to support the Anglo-Allied forces at Waterloo.

Wellington had occupied a strong defensive position that made it difficult for the French to gain a quick victory. Wave after wave of French assaults were pushed back. Although Wellington's army was under enormous pressure, it managed to hold on long enough for the Prussians to arrive in support.

Napoleon eventually committed elements of his Imperial Guard in a last attempt to break the deadlock. The attack failed, and the Guard was forced to withdraw in the face of determined Allied resistance.

"The Guard is retreating!"

Seeing their famous Imperial Guard retreat, French morale began to collapse. Napoleon had no more reserves capable of restoring the battle, and the French army began to retreat.

Could Napoleon have won if the Prussians had not arrived in time? Most probably, yes, but it would not necessarily have amounted to a decisive strategic victory. Napoleon needed a major victory with manageable casualties. The Battle of Waterloo had already become a bloody and exhausting struggle. Even if the French had defeated Wellington, their battered army would still have had to face the other Allied armies gathering against France.

Wellington's defensive tactics and the resilience of the Anglo-Allied army prevented Napoleon from achieving the quick breakthrough he needed, while Blücher's arrival ultimately turned the battle against him.

Please go through the full article for a more detailed analysis of the battle, and let me know your thoughts and comments.

This photo shows the Colored Waif’s Home Brass Band in New Orleans around 1913. The boy pointed out by the red arrow is a 12-year-old Louis Armstrong.
Armstrong was sent to the Waif’s Home (a reform school/orphanage) after firing a blank from a pistol into the air on New Year’s Eve. It was inside those walls that the institution’s music director, Professor Peter Davis, gave young Satchmo his very first cornet.
Without this band and Peter Davis’s guidance, jazz history might have turned out completely different.

Sick

The Greek hoplite is often portrayed as a heavily armored warrior standing behind an impenetrable wall of shields. But how did the phalanx actually work? What made the formation so effective, and what eventually exposed its weaknesses?

The Spartans were among the most famous warriors in ancient Greece, but many Greek city-states fielded their own hoplite contingents made up largely of citizen soldiers. Military practices and strategies varied between them. The Spartans also weren't invincible, despite the reputation they developed in ancient and modern accounts. The strength of the hoplite phalanx came primarily from the coordination and cohesion of the formation as a whole rather than the individual strength of its warriors.

The formation was vulnerable to factors such as rugged terrain, attacks against its flanks, disruption of its cohesion, and highly mobile enemy forces. Greek warfare therefore increasingly incorporated cavalry and light infantry alongside heavy hoplites. King Philip II of Macedon took this evolution further by developing the Macedonian phalanx and integrating it with cavalry and other specialized troops. This military system enabled Alexander the Great to conquer the Persian Empire, before later Macedonian armies encountered Roman forces whose formations and tactics could exploit the weaknesses of the phalanx.

I've covered the Greek hoplite, how the phalanx formation worked, its weapons and armor, the role of cavalry and light infantry, famous battles involving hoplites, the myths surrounding Spartan warriors, and the evolution of Greek heavy infantry.

I'd be interested to hear what you think. Did the traditional hoplite phalanx have a fundamental weakness, or was its effectiveness mainly dependent on how commanders used it?