Author: megneal

The Gift the Inventor of Mother's Day Wanted You To Give

6 Things Seniors Should Know About Travel Insurance Before Their Next Trip

Why Planting Flowers Can Help More Than Your Garden

8 Paws-itively Fascinating Facts About Man’s Best Friend

5 Historical Movies That Got It Wrong

Russell Crowe in “Gladiator,” 2000 — Credit: AJ Pics/ Alamy Stock Photo

Author Michael Nordine

June 26, 2026

Love it?87

Movies about history aren’t always known for their historical accuracy, which isn’t really a problem unless you’re basing all your knowledge of Napoleon on Napoleon. Some are especially egregious in their departures from the historical record, however, and the tension between fact and fiction can make for a confusing experience. Here are five historical movies that got the facts wrong.

For similar articles, subscribe to our sister brand Movie Brief, brought to you by our resident film critic Michael Nordine. You’ll receive a weekly review and recommendation of a new movie, whether in theaters or available to stream, as well as a list of 25 must-see movies when you first sign up.

Braveheart

Braveheart was a massive success, grossing $200 million and winning four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. If Most Historically Inaccurate Picture were a category, it would have won five. Mel Gibson’s 1995 epic about Scottish independence leader William Wallace is notorious for the many creative liberties it took, so much so that its Wikipedia article features an entire “historical inaccuracy” section with seven different subsections. For one thing, Wallace wasn’t born a poor farmer — he belonged to the lesser nobility — and the wife whose execution spurs his rebellion in the film might not have even existed.

John O’Farrell, author of An Utterly Impartial History of Britain, has cheekily observed that the film “couldn’t have been more off the mark if a plasticine dog was added to the cast and it was retitled William Wallace and Gromit.” Two other Gibson movies — The Patriot, in which he starred, and Apocalypto, which he directed — likewise have little historical basis.

Sponsored Content

The Gift the Inventor of Mother's Day Wanted You To Give

6 Things Seniors Should Know About Travel Insurance Before Their Next Trip

Why Planting Flowers Can Help More Than Your Garden

8 Paws-itively Fascinating Facts About Man’s Best Friend

Credit: Masheter Movie Archive/ Alamy Stock Photo

JFK

Oliver Stone has courted acclaim and controversy in equal measure throughout his more than 50-year career, with 1991’s JFK embodying both. Essentially a feature-length conspiracy theory — albeit a highly compelling one — about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the political thriller was described by Stone himself as a “counter-myth” to the Warren Commission’s official findings.

Critic Michael Parenti called JFK “the only movie in film history that was attacked, six months before it was released, in just about every major broadcast and print outlet” — attacks that were due to concerns over how Stone would treat this highly sensitive subject. Indeed, Stone told The New York Times prior to the film’s release, “I've taken dramatic license. It is not a true story per se.” The phrase “back and to the left” (referring to the position of Kennedy’s head) sits alongside Braveheart’s “Freedom!” as one of the decade’s most iconic movie lines, proof that historical accuracy isn’t a requirement for cultural relevance.

Gladiator

Make no mistake: Ridley Scott knows his historical epics aren’t historically accurate and doesn’t care at all. He’s called on historians who take issue with movies such as Napoleon to “get a life” and even posed an important question: “Excuse me, mate, were you there?” His 2000 film Gladiator, the only Best Picture winner directed by the Alien and Blade Runner helmer, plays fast and loose with its subject matter, including reversing the meaning of the famous thumbs-down gesture in gladiator battles. In ancient Rome, that would have meant to let a fallen opponent live, not to kill them. The movie’s version is a bit more cinematically compelling, but certainly not historically accurate.

Pocahontas

No one watches an animated Disney movie for a history lesson, but the problems with 1995’s Pocahontas are so foundational that they bear special mention. This includes the fact that her real name was Amonute, others called her Matoaka, and Pocahontas was only a nickname, as well as her age when the 27-year-old John Smith entered her life: just 10 or 11. There’s also no evidence behind the idea that the Powhatan woman and English settler were romantically involved or that she saved his life. Take away those three factors and you basically don’t have a movie left. “Colors of the Wind” is still pretty catchy, though.

10,000 BC

Roland Emmerich has made some great action movies, most notably Independence Day. But the 2008 film 10,000 BC isn’t considered one of his best. Its glaring historical inaccuracies aren’t the main reason it was so poorly received, but they’re pretty egregious all the same. Nearly all of its major elements, from woolly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers to pyramids and written language, are off by several thousand years in either direction.

Did Colonial Americans Sound British?

Pilgrims walking to church, 1620 — Credit: © Ann Ronan Pictures—Print Collector/Getty Images

Author Tony Dunnell

June 26, 2026

Love it?133

In the 17th century, the population of the American colonies was largely British, and English — while certainly not the only tongue spoken — became the predominant language throughout what is now the eastern U.S.

It raises the question: Did early Americans speak with a British accent? And did the likes of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Abigail Adams sound like King George III, William Wordsworth, and Jane Austen?

The answer is almost certainly no — but why? Here’s a look at when British and American accents began to diverge, resulting in distinct ways of speaking on either side of the Atlantic.

American English Is Born

Britain has always been, and still is, extraordinarily rich in accents, despite being about the same size as the state of Oregon. You only have to travel a few hours for the accent and often the dialect to change in very notable ways. Back in colonial times, as now, someone from London sounded quite different from a person from Yorkshire, Devon, or Liverpool — and accents were even more distinct among England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.

But as soon as settlers from different regions of Britain began landing in the American colonies and started mixing with each other more than they did back in Britain, something known as dialect leveling began to take place. Dialect leveling is a phenomenon that occurs when a variety of different ways of speaking come into contact with one another, and the features that are most common — including accent and pronunciation — tend to overtake others. The outcome is a leveling or smoothing out of differences, eliminating distinct regional or social linguistic elements and creating a more standardized form.

In America, the process was quick. Within a generation, Americans born in settlements such as Jamestown in the early 1600s were already speaking differently than their parents. And it wasn’t only the British mixing with one another. These early colonists came into contact with other European settlers speaking Dutch, Swedish, French, and Spanish, as well as Indigenous languages and, later, the languages of enslaved Africans — all of which contributed to the creation of early American English.

Sponsored Content

The Gift the Inventor of Mother's Day Wanted You To Give

6 Things Seniors Should Know About Travel Insurance Before Their Next Trip

Why Planting Flowers Can Help More Than Your Garden

8 Paws-itively Fascinating Facts About Man’s Best Friend

A Uniform Accent

It wasn’t too long before British visitors to America noticed the difference between their English and that of the colonists. These visitors from the Old World likely expected all kinds of accents to have developed, given the hodgepodge of dialects and languages involved. But instead, they were surprised by how uniform and standard the speech had become across the colonies, regardless of regional or class background.

As one visitor from England noted in 1770, “The colonists are composed of adventurers, not only from every district of Great Britain and Ireland, but from almost every other European government … Is it not therefore reasonable to suppose that the English language must be greatly corrupted by such a strange admixture of various nations? The reverse is however true. The language of the immediate descendants of such promiscuous ancestry is perfectly uniform, and unadulterated; nor has it borrowed any provincial, or national accent from its British or foreign parentage.”

What made this uniformity so striking was that it hadn’t been planned or imposed — it had emerged organically from the very linguistic chaos that could have prevented it. When settlers from different parts of Britain, Ireland, and continental Europe were thrown together in the same communities, the result wasn’t any one group’s accent transplanted to the New World. It was something new: a blended, democratized form of English.

So, rather than sounding like a muddled linguistic patchwork with a jumble of competing accents, early Americans had forged their own speech within a generation — and decades before independence.

Credit: © Universal History Archive—Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Brits Lose Their “R’s”

The story doesn’t end there. To get a more complete picture of the divergence between British and American accents, we need to look at what was taking place back in Britain at the time.

During the early colonial period and the American Revolution, English speakers on both sides of the Atlantic mostly spoke with a rhotic accent, meaning they pronounced the “r” in words such as “hard” and “farm.” But around the turn of the 19th century, non-rhotic speech, meaning not pronouncing the “r” (for example, “park the car” becomes “pahk the cah”), took off in southern England, particularly among the upper classes as a marker of social status.

This accent, now known as Received Pronunciation, spread across England through the aristocracy, and then through the armed forces and the civil service. But the same trend didn’t take hold in America, at least not among the majority of the population, which remained predominantly rhotic (Boston being a notable exception).

This, along with the ongoing dialect leveling, served to further distinguish the British and American ways of speaking. So, while it can be argued that Americans lost their British accents within a generation of the first colonists, it can also be argued that rather than losing an accent, they formed one all of their own. And both forms of English continued to evolve, giving us two distinct but intimately related ways of speaking.

What America Looked Like in 1776, in 5 Images

Ringing the state house bell, 1776 — Credit: © Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Author Tony Dunnell

June 25, 2026

Love it?91

The year 1776 is arguably the most pivotal year in American history. Most of us know the stories of the politics, the battles, and the major players who shaped the Revolution. But what was everyday life actually like for ordinary people living through it?

A clue can be found in the paintings and engravings by colonial artists. These centuries-old images provide a visual record that helps bring the world of 1776 into focus, painting a picture of city streets, family kitchens, Indigenous diplomacy, and a society on the cusp of becoming something entirely new.

Credit: © Stock Montage—Archive Photos/Getty Images

The Streets of Philadelphia

This colorized engraving of a colonial street scene captures daily life in one of the great American cities of the era, Philadelphia — although similar scenes would have played out in other major cities such as Boston and New York. In 1776, Philadelphia was the largest city in the colonies, home to around 30,000 to 40,000 people. Some of its streets were fully cobbled (a fairly recent improvement at the time), while many others were still dirt and gravel. Pedestrians moved along flat brick sidewalks, while horses, wagons, coaches, and chaise carriages clattered across the cobblestones and unpaved streets.

People of all classes shared the city streets in 1776. Well-dressed merchants and their wives strolled along the pavement, while laborers — dressed in shorter jackets and practical clothing — carried heavy loads in wheelbarrows. Children were also out on the streets, either accompanied by their parents or running free with their friends. Back then, children were typically dressed like miniature adults, as clothing designed specifically for kids had yet to become common.

Sponsored Content

The Gift the Inventor of Mother's Day Wanted You To Give

6 Things Seniors Should Know About Travel Insurance Before Their Next Trip

Why Planting Flowers Can Help More Than Your Garden

8 Paws-itively Fascinating Facts About Man’s Best Friend

Credit: Miscellaneous Items in High Demand/Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (LC-USZC4-4969)

Americans at War

By 1776, the American Revolutionary War was almost a year old and showing no signs of resolution. The colonies had been fighting since the first shots at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, when British redcoats clashed with provincial minutemen in violent skirmishes across the Province of Massachusetts Bay. The following summer, the Declaration of Independence was adopted, turning a rebellion into a full-fledged bid for nationhood.

The fight demanded sacrifices from every corner of colonial society, with women very much included. The painting above portrays the legend of Molly Pitcher, a woman who, according to popular myth, took charge of a cannon when her husband was wounded. Pitcher was not a real person but rather a composite of various valiant women who fought in the war.

In 1776 and up until the end of the war in 1783, the line between civilian and combatant was often blurred. Women across the colonies were deeply involved in the conflict from its earliest days. They ran farms and businesses while their husbands went to fight; organized boycotts of British goods; sewed uniforms; nursed the wounded; carried water and supplies to soldiers in the field; and sometimes engaged in espionage and fought in combat.

How the Other Half Lived

John Singleton Copley’s portrait of Philadelphians Thomas and Sarah Mifflin, painted just three years before 1776, is a particularly telling image of upper-class colonial life in the Revolutionary era. The Mifflins were Quakers — but very wealthy Quakers who were part of the colonial elite. Their clothing is relatively plain but highly luxurious, with Sarah wearing a gleaming fine silk gown and Thomas a fine woolen suit, while their home is furnished with fine imported fabrics and polished wooden furniture.

Sarah is depicted weaving on a portable loom, which may symbolize the couple’s support of the colonial boycott of English goods — symbolism somewhat undermined by her dress, which was almost certainly made of silk imported from Britain.

The American Home

This painting of a New England kitchen shows a fairly typical (if somewhat idealized) scene in an American home in 1776. A fireplace — large enough for the whole family to gather around — dominates the room, serving as the heart of the household and providing warmth and a place to cook. Rather than just being a place to prepare food, the kitchen often functioned as the workshop, nursery, and social center of domestic life. Women and children spent much of the day working in the kitchen, engaged in cooking, spinning, and preserving food, as well as making candles, soap, and cloth.

This painting depicts how cooking was done directly over the fire using iron pots and spits. Bread was baked in built-in ovens beside the hearth, and salted meat and dried herbs were hung from the rafters. In this painting you can also see people weaving on a loom, churning butter, and making bread — all common chores in 1776.

Credit: Popular Graphic Arts/Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (LC-DIG-ppmsca-15712)

Indigenous Culture

This engraving by the British artist John Raphael Smith, made sometime around 1776, depicts the Mohawk chief Thayendanegea, also called Joseph Brant, a leader of the Six Nations during the American Revolution — and an important British ally. The portrait is a reminder that colonial America was not a single, unified society, but a complex world of different peoples, cultures, and loyalties. And for Indigenous peoples, 1776 was a year not of liberation but of existential threat as settlers pushed into their land.

Thayendanegea traveled to London in 1776 and met with King George III, giving his support to the British monarch in return for certain assurances, including the resolution of land disputes. In the portrait we see how his style of dress is a combination of clashing cultures — part Mohawk, part European, part colonial — reflecting the complex position he occupied. It provides an important counterpoint to the triumphant narrative of American independence, serving as a reminder that 1776 looked very different depending on where you stood.

How Americans Dressed in 1776

Colonial American family — Credit: © Charles Phelps Cushing—ClassicStock/Getty Images

Author Tony Dunnell

June 25, 2026

Love it?37

Colonial Americans in 1776 lived in a society where clothing reflected more than just personal taste — it was also a sign of social class, occupation, and geography. And while fashion in the colonies was heavily influenced by Britain and other influential European countries, the realities of American life — particularly for working people and those on the frontier — meant that practicality often trumped trends, tradition, and elegance.

Here’s a look at how colonial Americans from all walks of life dressed during this pivotal year.

Men: Silk Waistcoats and Buckskin Breeches

For gentlemen of means in 1776, dressing well was a serious matter. The standard outfit consisted of a linen shirt worn close to the body, a waistcoat over the top, and a fitted coat with wide skirts that fell to the knee. Knee-length breeches, fastened with buckles, were worn with white stockings. Shoes, meanwhile, were normally made of black or brown leather, low cut, and adorned with decorative metal buckles — often highly polished — made of brass, cut steel, or silver.

White or gray powdered wigs were still somewhat fashionable among wealthy colonial men, especially those who clung to Old World fashion. But the peculiar practice was already beginning to decline by the time of the American Revolution, when people ditched wigs in favor of powdering their natural hair.

Middle- and even working-class men often dressed in a similar style to wealthier citizens of the era, and it wasn’t always easy to tell a man’s social standing just by the clothes he wore (at least not from a cursory glance).

However, the clothing worn by the average American would have been made of less luxurious materials than those of the wealthy, with an emphasis leaning more toward simplicity, affordability, practicality, and durability. Linen shirts, leather breeches (or loose trousers), sturdy boots, and a practical coat or jacket were the everyday uniform of farmers, craftsmen, and laborers.

On the frontier, meanwhile, buckskin was commonly used for various items of clothing. Made from tanned deer skins, it was a durable material that could be transformed into a wide range of clothing options, including breeches, leggings, shirts, coats, and moccasins.

Sponsored Content

The Gift the Inventor of Mother's Day Wanted You To Give

6 Things Seniors Should Know About Travel Insurance Before Their Next Trip

Why Planting Flowers Can Help More Than Your Garden

8 Paws-itively Fascinating Facts About Man’s Best Friend

Women: Petticoats, Gowns, and Stays

Women’s fashion in 1776 was based around structure and layers, especially among wealthy women who could afford a complete outfit. One of the most fundamental elements was a simple, base-layer linen undergarment — not dissimilar to a long shirt — called a shift. This was worn by nearly all women, regardless of class, and was one of the first items of clothing — along with stockings and garters — put on when dressing in the morning (which tended to be a very time-consuming process).

Next came the stay, a stiffened bodice similar to a corset, which was worn over the shift. Unlike later corsets, stays were designed not for waist reduction but rather to support the bust, force good posture, and provide the conical torso shape that was fashionable at the time. Stays were tight but reasonably comfortable and not nearly as restrictive as corsets — women could still work while wearing them.

Over the stays, women wore one or more petticoats — multiple petticoats (inner and outer) were a sign of status and also helped keep the wearer warm in cold weather. Over these went the gown, the centerpiece of a woman’s outfit. Gowns varied greatly in design and in the materials used. A wealthy woman might wear an elaborate gown made from silk, brocade, printed cotton, or fine wool, decorated with lace, ribbons, and embroidery.

In general, working-class women wore simpler versions of the same basic structure — shift, stay, petticoat, and gown. Linen was the fabric of choice for everyday wear, being relatively inexpensive, practical, breathable, and easy to wash. Colors tended to be muted, as the vivid synthetic dyes we know today had not yet been invented. In 1776, bright, intense colors were largely the preserve of the very wealthy.

Credit: © Print Collector—Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Children: Dressed Like Miniature Adults

Children in 1776 dressed much like small versions of their parents. Young boys and girls wore gowns or dresses until the age of around 6 or 7, with no real gender-based difference in style. But around age 8, children were given clothing that largely matched that of their parents. Boys were “breeched” — put into breeches for the first time — marking an important social milestone. And girls were given the same attire as their mothers, complete with shifts, stays, and gowns.

It was only in the late 18th and early 19th centuries that children’s wear began to gain its own styles and considerations. The idea that kids should dress like miniature adults started to wane, and children’s clothing increasingly began to be designed for comfort, convenience, and freedom of movement — which was likely a relief both for children and for the parents who had to dress them.

Why Doesn’t America Use the Metric System?

Standard meter, Paris, 1790s — Credit: © Universal History Archive—Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Author Bess Lovejoy

June 25, 2026

Love it?31

America’s relationship with measurement is not exactly as straight as a ruler. We buy soda in liters and milk in gallons. We run 5Ks but drive in miles. Weather forecasts use Fahrenheit, nutrition labels use grams, and rulers often list centimeters alongside inches, even if the “cm” side is frequently ignored.

To much of the world, this is puzzling, to say the least. Nearly every other country routinely uses the metric system, a method designed to make measurements easier to calculate and universally understandable. Meanwhile, Americans continue navigating a maze of feet, ounces, teaspoons, and miles that can feel less like a coherent plan than a series of historical accidents. The idiosyncrasy of the system is hinted at in its name: U.S. Customary Units. No grand logic here, the name seems to imply — we just use it because it’s always been so.

That’s not to say the U.S. hasn’t attempted a switch to the metric system, and indeed the current measurement mix is far from metric-free. So how did we get here?

Credit: © clu—DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images

Where the Metric System Came From

Before the metric system, measurements were often chaotic. Different regions — and sometimes different towns — around the world used their own units for weight, volume, and distance. In France alone, an estimated hundreds of thousands of local measurement units were in use before the late 18th century.

Scientists, merchants, and government officials found this deeply frustrating. During the French Revolution, reformers saw an opportunity to create something more rational: a universal measurement system based not on tradition, kings, or local customs, but on nature itself.

The result was the metric system. French scientists defined the meter as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along the meridian of longitude that passes through Paris. Other metric units followed from there. A liter, for example, represented the volume of a cube measuring 10 centimeters on each side.

Just as important, the entire system was decimal-based. Instead of awkward conversions — such as 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, or 5,280 feet in a mile — the metric system moved cleanly by powers of 10. To Enlightenment-era thinkers, the system represented reason in action.

France officially adopted the metric system in 1795. Other countries followed over the next century, especially as science, engineering, and global trade increasingly demanded standardized measurements. Today, only two countries — Myanmar and Liberia — are often listed as fellow metric holdouts alongside the U.S.

Sponsored Content

The Gift the Inventor of Mother's Day Wanted You To Give

6 Things Seniors Should Know About Travel Insurance Before Their Next Trip

Why Planting Flowers Can Help More Than Your Garden

8 Paws-itively Fascinating Facts About Man’s Best Friend

Credit: © Owen Franken—Corbis Historical/Getty Images

The U.S. Almost Went Metric

The United States was never as anti-metric as modern lore suggests. Thomas Jefferson, who helped establish the decimal-based U.S. currency system, was intrigued by metric ideas as early as the 1790s, when the U.S. was still using the customary system that came from Britain. The United States legalized the use of metric measurements in 1866, and in 1875 the nation became one of the original signers of the Treaty of the Meter, an international agreement that standardized measurement systems worldwide using the metric system.

But while scientists and government officials often favored the metric switch, everyday Americans largely stuck with the familiar system inherited from Britain.

Timing played a big role. By the time the metric system was spreading internationally during the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution had occurred, and the United States had already built much of its infrastructure around customary units. Factories used inch-based machinery. Railroads measured distances in miles. Construction relied on feet and inches. Workers were trained in the existing system, and manufacturers saw little reason to change. After all, switching over would have been enormously expensive and disruptive: Every machine, blueprint, road sign, measuring tool, and educational resource would need updating. (Other nations faced similar challenges, but many smaller countries had stronger economic incentives to switch, whereas the U.S. was big enough to go it alone.)

There were cultural objections, too. Some Americans viewed the metric system as suspiciously foreign and elitist. And so feet, miles, and pounds stayed in use for decades. During debates over metric conversion in the 1970s, opponents sometimes framed the system as an attack on American traditions and the country’s very independence.

That decade marked the closest the U.S. ever came to a full conversion. Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act in 1975, declaring a national policy of voluntary metric conversion and establishing a U.S. Metric Board to help coordinate the effort. Schools began teaching metric units more heavily, some highway signs briefly included kilometers, and many people assumed a nationwide switch was inevitable.

But the law made conversion voluntary, not mandatory, and without strong enforcement, momentum faded. President Ronald Reagan later abolished the U.S. Metric Board in 1982, and the grand metric transition quietly stalled.

Credit: © FPG—Archive Photos/Getty Images

But America Does Use the Metric System

Despite appearances, the metric system is woven deeply into American life — although it may sometimes be hard to find.

In 1988, Congress amended the 1975 act to declare the metric system the “preferred” system of weights and measures for trade and commerce. Scientists, doctors, and the military rely heavily on metric units. Prescription drugs are measured in milligrams. Beverage bottles are sold in liters. Many packaged foods display grams alongside ounces. Wine and distilled spirits have been sold in metric volumes since the 1980s. International manufacturing and engineering also depend heavily on metric specifications.

Even customary units themselves are technically defined through metric standards. Since 1893, the yard and pound have been officially linked to the meter and kilogram (so, for example, if a U.S. pound needed to be defined in a legal or scientific context, it’s 0.45359237 kilograms). The National Institute of Standards and Technology describes this as a kind of hidden metric foundation beneath American life. Above the surface, Americans still see feet, pounds, and gallons. Underneath, many of those measurements are tied directly to the International System of Units, or SI (the official name of the metric system).

Some experts argue that this means the U.S. is not “non-metric” at all — it’s simply somewhere along a continuum of metrification that all countries have taken part in (yes, even Myanmar and Liberia).

Credit: © Debrocke—ClassicStock/Getty Images

Why the U.S. Probably Won’t Fully Switch

At this point, a complete national conversion seems unlikely. Americans already understand the current mixed system well enough to function day to day, and most industries that truly need metric measurements already use them. For many people, the benefits of a total conversion simply don’t seem worth the cost and inconvenience.

Customary units also remain deeply embedded in American culture and language. People talk about “giving an inch” or “going the extra mile.” Recipes rely on cups and teaspoons. Even Americans who prefer metric often think about body temperature or weather in Fahrenheit instead of the metric unit Celsius.

Most Americans have become strangely comfortable with the chaos. The country already switches between systems constantly, often without noticing. Schoolchildren may learn both systems at once, depending on the item being discussed. The result is an awkward but functional hybrid.

It may not be elegant. But after more than two centuries of half-conversions, compromises, and coexistence, America’s mixed-up measurement culture appears to be here to stay.

What Americans Ate in 1776

Engraving of a colonial kitchen — Credit: © Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Author Bess Lovejoy

June 25, 2026

Love it?55

As America turns 250 years old, you’ll hear plenty about the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers, and the birth of a nation. But what was everyday life like for ordinary Americans? In 1776, the country looked, sounded, tasted, and felt very different from our own. Check your inbox every day until July 4 to find out what life was really like in the year the United States was born.

In 1776, the newly declared independent United States didn’t have a national cuisine. In fact, it barely had a national identity. A farmer in Massachusetts, a merchant in Philadelphia, and a rice planter in South Carolina might all consider themselves Americans, but they were unlikely to eat the exact same foods.

What they did share was a diet shaped by a remarkable mix of influences. Indigenous peoples introduced colonists to crops that thrived in North America. European settlers brought livestock, cooking techniques, and recipes from their homelands. Enslaved Africans contributed ingredients, agricultural knowledge, and culinary traditions that became foundational to Southern cooking. And trade routes connected the colonies to the Caribbean, Europe, and beyond, bringing sugar, spices, and other coveted goods.

The foods Americans ate in 1776 varied enormously from place to place and group to group, but many of the ingredients and traditions that would later define “American” cooking were already simmering the year the country was born.

A Melting Pot of Ingredients

The foods available to Americans in 1776 reflected nearly two centuries of cultural exchange. European colonists arrived with familiar ideas about what constituted a proper meal: bread, beer, meat, dairy products, and puddings. But adapting those traditions to North America required new ingredients and new techniques.

Perhaps no ingredient was more important than corn. Indigenous communities taught colonists how to cultivate the crop, which became a staple throughout much of the colonies. Cornmeal appeared in dishes such as hasty pudding — a thick porridge similar to polenta — and johnnycakes, simple griddle cakes that were popular from New England to the South.

Other Indigenous crops, including beans and squash, also became common ingredients. Together with corn, these foods helped sustain colonists and gradually worked their way into everyday cooking.

Meanwhile, enslaved Africans brought knowledge of ingredients that would leave a lasting mark on American foodways. In the South, cooks incorporated crops such as okra into soups and stews. Caribbean trade introduced sugar, molasses, rum, and spices, helping shape flavors that are still associated with American cuisine today.

Sponsored Content

The Gift the Inventor of Mother's Day Wanted You To Give

6 Things Seniors Should Know About Travel Insurance Before Their Next Trip

Why Planting Flowers Can Help More Than Your Garden

8 Paws-itively Fascinating Facts About Man’s Best Friend

Protein, Colonial Style

Most Americans in 1776 ate far less fresh meat than modern Americans do. Instead, preservation was essential. Salted pork, salted beef, and dried or salted fish provided reliable sources of protein throughout the year.

For many households, one of the most important dishes was pottage — a hearty stew that simmered for hours over the hearth. A pot might contain whatever ingredients were available: vegetables, grains, beans, and bits of meat or fish. Because ingredients could be added as supplies allowed, pottage was economical, filling, and adaptable.

Regional differences were significant. In New England, fish played a major role thanks to the region’s abundant coastline and thriving fisheries. Salt cod was both a staple food and an important export. Coastal residents also ate shellfish, including oysters and lobsters. Lobster was so plentiful that it was often considered food for poorer households rather than the luxury it is today.

Elsewhere, wild game frequently appeared on the table. Deer, rabbits, squirrels, waterfowl, and even passenger pigeons — once among the most abundant birds in North America — could be hunted for food. Wealthier Americans sometimes enjoyed more elaborate dishes, including turtle soup, which became fashionable in some cities and taverns.

Credit: © H. Armstrong Roberts—ClassicStock/Getty Images

Daily Bread

If there was one food that connected nearly every table in 1776, it was bread. In wheat-growing regions of the mid-Atlantic and South, families baked loaves similar to those eaten in Europe. In New England, however, wheat was harder to grow, so many households relied on “rye-and-Indian” bread, a dense loaf made from rye flour and cornmeal. Some loaves weighed several pounds and were intended to last for days.

Many meals were accompanied by beans, which stored well through the winter. In some regions, slow-cooked bean dishes became household staples, providing an inexpensive source of calories and protein.

Credit: © Michelle Lee Photography—iStock/Getty Images

Spice Was Nice

Modern diners often imagine colonial food as bland, but cooks in 1776 had access to a surprisingly broad range of seasonings. Black pepper was widely used, along with herbs such as marjoram and savory. Nutmeg and mace appeared in both savory and sweet dishes. Imported spices were expensive, but they were common enough to find their way into many cookbooks and household recipes.

Some seasonings that seem unusual today were entirely ordinary at the time. Rosewater, introduced to Europe centuries earlier through cultural exchanges with the Middle East, was a popular baking ingredient. Colonial cooks used it much the way modern bakers use vanilla extract, adding it to cakes, pies, and stewed fruit.

Lemon juice and lemon peel also appeared frequently in recipes, such as one heavily seasoned preparation for venison favored by Martha Washington. And nearly every dish carried a flavor that modern kitchens rarely produce: wood smoke. Since most cooking took place over open hearths, smoke subtly flavored everything from breads to stews.

Credit: © ClassicStock—Archive Photos/Getty Images

What’s for Dessert?

Dessert in 1776 was often less sugary than modern Americans might expect, but it could still be elaborate. Pies were common, especially when seasonal fruits such as apples were available. Puddings — a broad category that included everything from boiled grain dishes to rich desserts — appeared regularly on colonial tables. One favorite was syllabub, a frothy mixture of cream and alcohol that was often served at celebrations in special glasses.

Wealthier households sometimes prepared what was known as great cake, a predecessor to modern fruitcake. These dense cakes were packed with dried fruit, sugar, spices, and alcohol, which helped preserve them for long periods. Special occasions called for particularly extravagant versions that used dozens of eggs and pounds of butter.

Even as Americans fought for independence, they maintained a fondness for sweets whenever ingredients were available. Sugar, molasses, dried fruit, and imported spices transformed simple ingredients into festive treats for holidays, elections, weddings, and other celebrations.

5 Ways Julius Caesar Changed the World

Gaius Julius Caesar — Bettmann via Getty Images

Author Nicole Villeneuve

June 18, 2026

Love it?168

He may not have ruled the Roman Republic for very long, but Julius Caesar left behind a towering legacy. From his early days as a young aristocrat to his rise as a triumphant military leader, Caesar’s lofty aspirations, unrelenting conquests, and political reforms made him a revered leader. Almost as quickly as he ascended to unrivaled authority, he was dramatically assassinated, leading to civil upheaval and the demise of the Roman Republic — which ultimately heralded the start of the Roman Empire. Caesar remains respected for his strategic brilliance and studied for the far-reaching implications his actions had on Western civilization — including these five ways that Caesar’s life and legacy helped shape the world.

Photo credit: Leemage/ Corbis Historical via Getty Images

His Death Triggered the Rise of the Roman Empire

In 49 BCE, Caesar was a successful military general and popular political leader, having skillfully led the Roman army in Gaul for eight years. But his influence and growing power clashed with the Roman Senate’s desire to maintain power in the republic. Fearing Caesar’s aspirations as his governorship of Gaul came to an end, the Senate demanded he disband his legions and return to Rome on his own. Caesar instead famously crossed the Rubicon, leading his army across a small stream separating Italy from Gaul. The move violated Roman law and marked the beginning of a four-year civil war between Caesar’s forces and those of his former ally Pompey, from which Caesar emerged victorious.

When he returned to Rome in 46 BCE, Caesar became dictator of the republic. After two years and several more military victories, Caesar declared himself dictator perpetuo — dictator in perpetuity. This unprecedented authority effectively eroded the traditional checks and balances of the Roman Republic and spurred a group of senators to assassinate Caesar on March 15, 44 BCE. His death plunged Rome into further chaos; a power struggle among Caesar’s key supporters, most notably his adopted heir Octavian (later known as Augustus) culminated in the end of the Roman Republic and the eventual rise of Augustus as the first Roman emperor.

Sponsored Content

The Gift the Inventor of Mother's Day Wanted You To Give

6 Things Seniors Should Know About Travel Insurance Before Their Next Trip

Why Planting Flowers Can Help More Than Your Garden

8 Paws-itively Fascinating Facts About Man’s Best Friend

Photo credit: Roger Viollet Collection via Getty Images

He Spread Roman Influence Throughout Europe

Caesar's conquest of Gaul, consisting of modern-day France and Belgium, as well as parts of Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands, was crucial for spreading Roman influence throughout Europe. It added not only a substantial amount of land to Rome’s holdings, but also wealth.

In 55 BCE, the relentless Roman general led his first of two expeditions to Britain. While neither that nor the second trip the following year was successful at taking over the land, the expedition laid the foundation for Rome to eventually conquer much of the British Isles. These conquests weren’t just about land and riches — they were all part of Caesar's ultimate political ambitions. By increasing his military support and popularity with the people, Caesar set the stage for his pursuit of more power in Rome. As he conquered more regions, he integrated the republic’s legal and political systems and increased trade by expanding the network of roads leading in and out of Rome. The famous bridges Caesar built on the Rhine River during the Gallic Wars are just a few of many aqueducts ancient Rome is known for.

He Introduced the 365-Day Calendar

In 46 BCE, Caesar, advised by the Greek astronomer Sosigenes, reformed the Roman calendar. The traditional calendar was based on the phases of the moon and was often out of sync with the solar year. The new system, influenced by the Egyptian calendar, was based on calculations of a solar year of 365.25 days. The calendar was divided into 12 months, with an additional day added every four years to ensure the calendar stayed in line with the Earth’s orbit around the sun. The Julian calendar — named for its progenitor — was implemented on January 1, 45 BCE.

The calendar became the predominant timekeeping system in the Western world, but the calculations were just a little bit off — the solar year ran about 11 minutes shorter than expected. By 1582, the miscalculations had added up to a 10-day discrepancy. It was rectified by the Gregorian calendar, modified by Pope Gregory XIII and introduced in 1582, but the Julian calendar’s standardized method of measuring time continues to structure our lives to this day.

He Changed Political Strategy

Caesar’s political ambition and reforms had an enduring impact on political thought and practice in Rome and beyond. One of his most powerful strategies was cultivating support from common Roman citizens, as well as his army, as a means of gaining popularity that would bolster his rise to power.

After naming himself the republic’s dictator, he made a number of revolutionary political reforms: He supported redistributing land to go to veterans or to the poor, canceled debt and rent payments for a period of time, and planned a public library, to name a few. His populist approach worked. After his death, the Senate granted him divine status, making him the first historical Roman to achieve the status.

Photo credit: Icom Images/ Alamy Stock Photo

He Inspired a Shakespeare Play

Caesar was hailed as a master orator in his time, but he was also a celebrated author. His writing style, which was praised for its clarity and elegance, lives on in very few published works; his war memoirs, Commentarii De Bello Gallico (an account of the Gallic Wars) and Commentarii de Bello Civili (an account of Rome’s civil war), are the only surviving primary texts. His Gallic Wars account in particular is popular not only for its insight into Roman geographic and military history, but also as a beginner’s guide to learning Latin.

Of course, it isn’t just his own work that lives on: Caesar’s remarkable rule inspired one of the most famous works by one of history’s greatest playwrights. Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, is an enduring classroom and theatrical favorite, and remains a popular point of reference from which to explore one of history’s most influential rulers.

6 Surprising Facts About Attila and the Huns

Illustration of Attila the Hun — Photo credit: bauhaus1000/ DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

Author Michael Nordine

June 18, 2026

Love it?133

More than 1,500 years after his death, Attila the Hun remains one of the most fear-inducing figures in history. He and his nomadic empire spent decades terrorizing and conquering Europe on horseback, so much so that he’s still remembered all across the continent — sometimes with reverence, sometimes with hatred. But many details of his life are unclear, and some that have been reliably recorded aren’t as widely known as the apocryphal legends about him. Here are five such facts about Attila and his empire.

Photo credit: Tuul & Bruno Morandi/ The Image Bank via Getty Images

No One Knows Where the Huns Came From

The Huns were among the most feared people in the world, as well as some of the least understood. That’s exemplified by the fact that the tribe’s precise origins remain unknown to this day. They were nomads, after all, and while one popular theory posits that their roots can be traced back to the Xiongnu people of ancient Mongolia, it’s impossible to confirm. Even the etymology of the Huns’ name is disputed, with some historians ascribing it to the old Turkic word for “ferocious”; others thinking it comes from the Persian term hūnarā, meaning “skilled”; and others still of the belief that it’s derived from the Ongi River in Mongolia, which could possibly have been the Huns’ ancestral homeland.

Sponsored Content

The Gift the Inventor of Mother's Day Wanted You To Give

6 Things Seniors Should Know About Travel Insurance Before Their Next Trip

Why Planting Flowers Can Help More Than Your Garden

8 Paws-itively Fascinating Facts About Man’s Best Friend

Photo credit: mikroman6/ time via Getty Images

They Once Launched an Invasion to Win Attila Another Wife

Attila had many wives — the precise number is unknown — the last of whom was Ildico, whom he married just hours before dying of a nosebleed. His courtships weren’t all traditional, as you might imagine, and he even launched one of his many military campaigns for the explicit purpose of winning himself a wife. That would be Justa Grata Honoria, the sister of Roman Emperor Valentinian III, who was unhappy at having her own hand in marriage promised to a Roman senator and sought Attila’s help in getting out of said engagement. Because she sent him not only a letter but her ring, Attila interpreted her actions as not just a plea for help but a marriage proposal. He accepted this supposed proposal, demanding half of the Western Empire as his dowry. Valentinian was furious and had to be persuaded to merely exile Honoria rather than execute her.

Attila had been hoping to invade Roman territory for some time, and Honoria’s letter offered the pretext he needed. Although he was unsuccessful in winning her hand in marriage and never conquered Rome, it wasn’t due to defeat on the battlefield.

Photo credit: Kean Collection/ Archive Photos via Getty Images

Attila Almost Sacked Rome Until a Meeting With the Pope Changed His Mind

The Huns proved troublesome for all of Europe, but they especially disliked the Romans. Attila and his army invaded Italy in 452 CE, sacking cities such as Aquileia en route to Rome. Upon his arrival in the capital, three men were sent to negotiate with the Hunnish king: Gennadius Avienus, Memmius Aemilius Trygetius, and, most significantly, Pope Leo I. Though the details of their meeting are lost to history, what is known is that Attila immediately withdrew.
There are theories, of course. Some believe Attila was dissuaded by his own men, who reminded him that Visigothic King Alaric died shortly after sacking Rome 40 years earlier, while others contend that Attila was swayed by this speech from the pope:

"The people of Rome, once conquerors of the world, now kneel conquered. We pray for mercy and deliverance. O Attila, you could have no greater glory than to see suppliant at your feet this people before whom once all peoples and kings lay suppliant. You have subdued, O Attila, the whole circle of the lands granted to the Romans. Now we pray that you, who have conquered others, should conquer yourself. The people have felt your scourge. Now they would feel your mercy."

Whatever the case, Attila left Rome shortly after the meeting. Nearly 1,000 years later, their encounter became the subject of Raphael’s fresco “The Meeting of Leo the Great and Attila,” which was completed in 1514 and is now part of the Vatican’s collection.

Photo credit: Universal History Archive / Universal Images Group via Getty Images

The Huns Only Lost One Battle During Attila’s Reign

Attila’s military prowess is hard to overstate, as is the terror he inspired in his enemies. No statistic speaks to this quite like the fact that he suffered just one defeat as leader of the Huns, during the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains on June 20, 451 CE. With 200,000 soldiers at his back during the Huns’ invasion of Gaul, Attila wreaked so much havoc that General Flavius Aetius of Rome took the desperate measure of forming an alliance with King Theodoric I of the Visigoths. Only their combined forces were able to best Attila on the battlefield, though Theodoric did not survive — he was one of the “massive number of casualties,” which had the unexpected effect of making his forces fight even harder. “When first light arrived” the following morning, according to historian Paul K. Davis, “both sides were able to view the carnage of the previous day’s fighting and neither seemed eager to renew it.” Victory was short-lived, with both Attila and Aetius dying within the next three years — the latter at the hands of Roman Emperor Valentinian himself.

Photo credit: bauhaus1000/ DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

Attila Bore No Relation to Genghis Khan

A quick search of the two leaders’ names will result in any number of articles about their many differences, all of which stem from a tendency to conflate the two of them. It’s easy to understand why, as both led nomadic empires that terrorized Europe via brutal warfare and are either lionized or vilified depending on whom you ask. But they weren’t related in any way; in fact, Attila was born sometime around 406 CE and Genghis was not born until 1162 — more than 700 years after the former’s death. Genghis was ultimately much more successful as a conqueror, with his Mongol Empire becoming the largest contiguous land empire in history. Attila might not have been his ancestor, but he probably still would have been impressed by — and perhaps even a little envious of — Genghis’ skill at warfare.

Attila’s Empire Fell Apart Soon After His Death

Following Attila’s strange demise — reportedly due to a nosebleed on his wedding night — his empire was meant to be divided equally among his sons Dengizich, Ellac, and Ernakh. They couldn’t coexist peacefully, however — like father, like sons — and the civil war that followed allowed their vassals to rise up against them. The first was Ardaric, king of the Gepidae, who defeated the Huns at the Battle of Nedao in 454 CE. (Prior to this rebellion, Ardaric was “famed for his loyalty and wisdom” and Attila “prized him above all the other chieftains.”) Ellac was slain in that battle, and it’s thought that what remained of his brothers’ empire was gone within a year or two — the Huns aren’t mentioned in most historical sources after 469 CE.

What People Really Ate at Medieval Feasts

Grand banquet, 14th century — Credit: © Grafissimo—DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images

Author Nicole Villeneuve

June 17, 2026

Love it?33

If your main image of a feast in the Middle Ages is from a night at Medieval Times or your favorite medieval fantasy movie, you might picture giant turkey legs, goblets sloshing over, and bare hands streaked with remnants of rich foods. It’s indeed a vivid image — and it isn’t entirely wrong. But in reality, a medieval feast was less about indulgence for its own sake and more about performance.

The meal, parts of which could involve months of preparation, was elaborate and sophisticated. No details of the hours-long events were overlooked, because for nobles and wealthy households throughout Europe, a feast wasn’t just dinner; it was a carefully staged display of status. Here’s what a medieval feast actually included.

Credit: © Photo Josse/Leemage—Corbis Historical/Getty Images

The Food

The modern image of a medieval feast is not entirely unrealistic. There was indeed plenty of roasted meat, although turkey legs would not have been on the menu; the bird itself arrived in Europe after the Middle Ages, sometime after 1500. Wealthy medieval households instead often served venison, pork, mutton, and beef, as well as swan on occasion.

Medieval cooks loved combining sweet and savory flavors. Meat might be seasoned with cinnamon, saffron, cloves, ginger, or nutmeg, while sauces often included dried fruit, wine, vinegar, or even sugar, although at the time sugar remained a costly luxury spice rather than a pantry staple.

Despite popular stereotypes, vegetables were also abundant. Stews known as pottages were made with onions, herbs, cabbage, peas, or beans, and were common across all levels of society. Fish was also abundant at feasts. Medieval Christian fasting rules restricted meat consumption on many days a year, so eel, cod, herring, and pike became staples of even elite kitchens.

Sponsored Content

The Gift the Inventor of Mother's Day Wanted You To Give

6 Things Seniors Should Know About Travel Insurance Before Their Next Trip

Why Planting Flowers Can Help More Than Your Garden