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?92

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.

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?38

The year 1776 was one of the most consequential in American history, marking the birth of a new nation. Yet amid the debates and battles, everyday life continued — and with it, the business of deciding what to wear.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?170

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.

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.

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?34

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.

Credit: © Heritage Images—Hulton Fine Art Collection/Getty Images

The Presentation

In especially extravagant medieval courts, cooks could stage dramatic food reveals. Some cookbooks from the era describe making pies to release live birds when cut open. The birds were not actually baked alive; instead, cooks would prepare the pie shell separately and add live birds just before serving, creating a chaotic fluttering when the crust was cut open.

Peacock was also served for spectacle. The bird was carefully prepared so the skin and feathers were removed before cooking, then reattached after roasting to create a dramatic, lifelike presentation when served. While the meat itself was not especially prized, the visual effect made it a centerpiece of the feast.

The Cutlery

Dining customs at medieval feasts also looked different from modern formal meals: Forks were considered sinful and were not commonly used in much of medieval Europe, so people instead ate with just knives, spoons, and of course, their hands. Diners also shared cups and platters, while thick slices of stale bread called trenchers were often used as plates that could also be employed to sop up leftover liquids (or, on occasion, given to the poor after the meal).

Contrary to popular myth — and, thankfully, given how hands-on this dining experience was — hygiene was not ignored. Wealthy guests often washed their hands before meals using bowls of scented water brought around by servants. While it was done to be practical, it was also yet another sign of excess, getting at the medieval feast’s core idea of flexing one’s status and demonstrating abundance in a world where luxury was rare.

Credit: © Culture Club—Hulton Archive/Getty Images

The Entertainment

A medieval feast could stretch on for hours, so food was only part of the event. Between courses, guests might watch musicians, acrobats, or jesters. Some noble courts employed entertainers full time, a few of whom became quite famous. One of the best known was Roland the Farter, a 12th-century English court performer employed by King Henry II. Roland reportedly even earned land and other privileges in exchange for performing “one jump, one whistle, and one fart” at every Christmas banquet.

Credit: © Heritage Images—Hulton Archive/Getty Images

The Crowd

Not everyone at a medieval feast was there simply to eat. These gatherings were usually tied to major occasions such as weddings, religious festivals, diplomatic visits, or military victories. More than a meal, a feast was a public performance of status and relationships, bringing together the people a household wanted to honor, impress, negotiate with, or wield power over.

Guests could include a wide mix of people depending on the scale of the feast: Nobles, knights, clergy, wealthy merchants, and visiting dignitaries were likely on the list. Alongside them, dozens or even hundreds of servants, cooks, musicians, and entertainers worked to prepare, serve, and stage the event.

Credit: © Culture Club—Hulton Fine Art Collection/Getty Images

The Seating

Seating at a medieval feast was highly structured and tightly controlled. The most important guests sat at the high table, usually placed at the front of the hall on a raised platform known as a dais. From there, the host and honored visitors could be seen by everyone in the room. Below them, lower-ranking attendees such as knights, lesser nobles, or household officials were seated farther away according to status.

Interestingly, salt placement on the tables reinforced the feast’s hierarchy. Expensive imported salt was often placed near elite diners, which is where historians believe the phrase “above the salt” may have originated.

Why Americans Spell English Words Differently

Noah Webster portrait — Credit: © Buyenlarge—Archive Photos/Getty Images

Author Kristina Wright

June 17, 2026

Love it?52

If you’ve ever wondered why Americans write “color” and “organize” while the British opt for “colour” and “organise,” you’re not alone. These subtle spelling differences are the result of migration, printing technology, colonial history, and the actions of one very determined man with strong opinions about simplicity.

What we now casually call American English is actually a snapshot of a centuries-long argument over how the language should look on the page — and who gets to decide.

At the center (or centre) of it all is a question about whether spelling should reflect tradition and history or prioritize clarity and efficiency. English has spent hundreds of years wobbling between those two ideas, and the Atlantic divide made the contrast easier to see.

Credit: © adoc-photos—Corbis Historical/Getty Images

English Was a Spelling Free-for-All

English was a variable language long before anyone started debating American versus British spelling. It grew out of a mix of Germanic roots, Norse influence, and a heavy dose of Old French. That combination meant there was never a single unified system of spelling to begin with — just overlapping habits that varied by region, social class, and individual writers.

When printing arrived in the 15th century, it played a major role in gradually standardizing English spelling, though not in a fully consistent or centralized way. Early printers often drew on existing manuscript traditions and regional conventions, so variation persisted for some time. Many spellings were also influenced by French, which shaped English vocabulary and orthography after the Norman Conquest in 1066.

By the time English spread to North America in the 17th century, spelling was still relatively inconsistent, with multiple accepted forms often existing for the same word. This variation was common in both Britain and the American colonies, where spelling conventions had not yet been fully standardized and education systems were still developing.

The Man Who Dropped the “U”

In the United States, the push for spelling changes is closely tied to Noah Webster, a lexicographer who believed English was often overly complicated and still too closely tied to British elite culture. For Webster, how words were spelled reflected ideas about identity, education, and independence.

His goal was to make American English more logical and phonetic. In his American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), he promoted reforms that removed what he saw as unnecessary letters and inconsistencies. That’s where American spellings such as “splendor” (instead of “splendour”) and “fiber” (instead of “fibre”) began to take hold in a systematic way. Webster also favored spellings such as “realize,” reflecting the word’s Greek-derived “-ize” ending and his preference for consistent spelling patterns. “Realize” eventually became standard in American English even as “realise” became more common in British English.

Webster’s influence went beyond individual word choices. He helped push a broader philosophy that English in America should be simpler and more efficient, even if that meant breaking from British tradition. Some of his more extreme ideas — including radically respelling “tongue” as “tung” — never caught on, but the core of his system stuck and became embedded in American culture.

Credit: © UniversalImagesGroup—Universal History Archive/Getty Images

Why Britain Kept the Old Spellings

While Webster was promoting spelling reform in the United States, British English was consolidating its own standards in a different way. Rather than simplifying spelling, it leaned toward preserving established forms, especially those reinforced by influential works such as Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755).

Johnson’s dictionary defined around 80% of English vocabulary at the time. He also helped standardize many spellings that reflected French influence and historical usage, even when they weren’t the most efficient or phonetic options. For example, he reinforced spellings such as “colour,” “honour,” and “centre,” which preserved their historical and French-derived roots rather than adopting simplified alternatives. As British publishing and education systems grew more formalized, these spellings became standardized and resistant to change.

Over time, this created a language divide. British English generally favored (or should we say “favoured”) forms such as “realise,” “neighbour,” and “theatre,” while American English standardized these spellings as “realize,” “neighbor,” and “theater.” The split in ideologies slowly took hold through schools, newspapers, and books until it became normal for each side of the Atlantic to assume its own version was simply correct English.

Credit: © London Stereoscopic Company—Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Spot the Differences

Once you start noticing patterns, the differences between American and British spelling become surprisingly predictable. One of the most common changes involves words ending in “-our” in British English, which typically drop the “u” in American spellings. So “colour” becomes “color” and “labour” becomes “labor.” The pronunciation generally doesn’t change with the spelling; only the written form shifts.

There are also subtle differences in doubled consonants. British English tends to double letters in certain words — such as “travelling” and “cancelled” — while American English usually keeps them single, as in “traveling” and “canceled.”

Not every spelling difference follows a neat pattern, though. Some are simply historical outliers that developed independently over time. British English uses forms such as “cheque,” “grey,” “manoeuvre,” “pyjamas,” and “tyre,” while American English prefers “check,” “gray,” “maneuver,” “pajamas,” and “tire.” Unlike the more predictable differences, these words don’t belong to a single spelling rule. Instead, they reflect a mix of French influence, older English spellings, publishing conventions, and regional preferences that became standardized.

A Tale of Two Englishes

In the United States, simplified spelling became associated with ideas of practicality and national identity, helping distinguish American English from its British origins. Over time, forms such as “color,” “center,” and “realize” came to feel distinctly American — part of a broader pattern of linguistic independence that valued efficiency.

In Britain and other English-speaking countries, traditional spellings often signal continuity with historical usage and literary heritage. Neither approach is more correct than the other — they’re parallel systems that evolved under different pressures and priorities. At the end of the day, both versions illustrate the same language shifting, adapting, and carrying its history from one generation to the next.

When Did People Stop Eating With Their Hands?

Antique spoons and forks — Credit: © API—Gamma-Rapho/Getty Images

Author Bess Lovejoy

June 15, 2026

Love it?39

Eating utensils can feel ancient and inevitable, as though humans have always gathered around tables set with forks, knives, and spoons. But for a long time, that wasn’t the case at all. Forks — today’s cutlery MVP — were once rare, controversial, and even mocked as unmanly. For most of human history (and in many parts of the world today), eating with your hands was normal.

The shift away from hands-on eating in the West didn’t happen all at once. Instead, it unfolded gradually over centuries, shaped by changing dining customs, new utensils, and evolving ideas about etiquette.

Credit: © PHAS—Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Spoons and Knives Came First

Humans have used eating tools for tens of thousands of years. Prehistoric people likely scooped liquids with shells, hollowed wood, or animal horns, while sharpened stones and bones helped cut food when needed. Spoons are especially ancient: The Anglo-Saxon word spon referred to a chip of wood, while Greek and Latin words for “spoon” were derived from the word “cochlea,” a type of spiral shell, suggesting what some early versions of the utensil may have looked like. Ancient Egyptians employed spoons carved from wood, ivory, and gold.

Knives, meanwhile, served many purposes beyond dining. In both ancient and medieval societies, they were tools, weapons, and eating utensils all at once. Guests often carried personal knives to meals, especially in medieval Europe.

But even with those tools available, most food was still eaten directly with the hands in ancient and medieval Europe. The Romans, for instance, reclined on couches while dining and used their fingers for much of the meal. Forks were virtually unknown at Roman tables, and spoons were used mainly for liquids or soft foods.

In the Middle Ages, bread acted as its own utensil. Europeans of the era generally ate meat and vegetables off thick rounds of stale bread called trenchers (think early bread bowls). Some sources suggest the trenchers were given to the poor after the meal.

Credit: © DEA / G. DAGLI ORTI—De Agostini/Getty Images

The Fork Had an Image Problem

Of all the eating utensils, forks had perhaps the most difficult path to acceptance. Although two-pronged forks existed in ancient Greece and Rome, they were mostly cooking tools used to handle hot food. Smaller forks for eating first spread among wealthy elites in the Byzantine Empire and the Middle East.

One of the most famous European fork controversies took place in Venice in 1004. Maria Argyropoulina, a Byzantine noblewoman marrying into a Venetian family, reportedly used delicate golden forks at her wedding feast. According to later accounts, scandalized Venetians considered the utensil decadent and unnatural. One critic supposedly complained that God had already provided humans with “natural forks” — fingers. When Maria died of the plague a few years later, some religious figures interpreted her death as punishment for vanity.

Even centuries later, forks retained an air of pretension in parts of Europe. In Renaissance Italy, they slowly gained popularity among the wealthy, and Catherine de’ Medici helped introduce fashionable fork use to France after marrying the future King Henry II in 1533. But elsewhere, many diners remained skeptical.

Around the early 1600s, English traveler Thomas Coryat returned from Italy enthusiastically describing forks he had encountered abroad. His friends mocked him relentlessly, nicknaming him “Furcifer” (Latin for “fork-bearer”). To many English people, forks seemed fussy, foreign, and faintly effeminate. That reputation lingered for a surprisingly long time. Some historians note that British sailors were still refusing to use forks around 1900 because they considered them unmanly.

Every Man His Own Fork

Medieval meals were deeply communal: People shared dishes, serving vessels, and sometimes knives or spoons. But beginning around the 17th century, European dining gradually became more formal and more individualized. Guests increasingly received their own plates, cutlery, and designated place settings.

As etiquette grew more elaborate, forks became increasingly useful — and increasingly expected. By the 18th century, forks were making inroads with wealthy Europeans, and by the 19th century, eating with your hands at formal meals was considered improper except for a few approved foods (such as bread or olives).

Victorian culture then took dining etiquette to remarkable extremes. Wealthy households accumulated specialized utensils for nearly every imaginable dish: fish knives, asparagus tongs, snail forks, tomato servers, and chocolate muddlers, to name just a few. Some upper-class cutlery sets approached 100 separate pieces.

But since then, flatware sets have been shrinking. Modern diners use far fewer utensils than their Victorian predecessors, partly because elaborate formal dining has declined — and partly because few people want to polish dozens of specialty forks.

Most of the World Never Stopped Eating With Their Hands

Even as forks became standard in Europe and North America, many cultures continued eating with hands or chopsticks. Chopsticks had already been used in China for thousands of years before forks became widespread in the West. Originally developed for cooking, they later became everyday eating tools across East Asia.

Meanwhile, in India, Sri Lanka, parts of the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere, eating with the hands remains both ordinary and highly sophisticated. Different regions developed their own techniques and etiquette around handling food properly — from shaping rice with the fingertips to avoiding the use of the left hand (which is associated with bathroom use in some parts of the world).

And even in the modern West, people never entirely abandoned eating with their hands. Pizza, burgers, tacos, sandwiches, french fries, and fried chicken are all commonly eaten without utensils. In other words, some of the world’s most popular foods still rely on the oldest eating tools humans have ever had: what’s on the end of our arms.

Who Was the Funniest Founding Father?

Benjamin Franklin, circa 1770 — Credit: © Kean Collection—Archive Photos/Getty Images

Author Kristina Wright

June 15, 2026

Love it?94

If you picture America’s Founding Fathers as solemn men with stern faces and powdered wigs, you’re getting only half the story. In reality, these figures spent much of their lives writing impassioned letters, arguing politics, insulting rivals, exaggerating grievances, and trying to outwit one another in prose.

Humor naturally slipped into their writing, sometimes intentionally and sometimes because sarcasm can be easily employed against those who annoy us. Thomas Jefferson once argued that “ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

George Washington, for one, was known to occasionally speak his mind through dry humor. In one instance, he attended a military banquet after the Revolutionary War where elaborate silver cups were presented. After learning that the man who designed the cups had since become a Quaker minister — and knowing that Quakers preferred a plain and simple style that was closer to his own taste — Washington reportedly remarked that he wished the craftsman “had been a Quaker preacher before he made the cups.”

John Adams, meanwhile, had no problem turning his irritations and aggravations into witty insults. Describing Benjamin Franklin in a 1783 letter, Adams complained that Franklin’s “whole life has been one continued insult to good manners and to decency.”

The jab was meant as criticism, but it also sounds suspiciously like admiration. Because, while many of the founders could occasionally land a sharp line, it was Benjamin Franklin who added humor to nearly everything he wrote.

Credit: © History and Art Collection/Alamy

Ben Franklin’s Mischievous Side

Franklin’s public image often emphasizes the brilliant inventor with the kite, bifocals, and lightning rod. Less attention goes to the fact that he enjoyed provoking people almost as much as he enjoyed experimenting.

That personality quirk first appeared when he was a young man in Boston, working as an apprentice in his brother’s Boston printing shop. When his brother refused to publish his writing in the newspaper, Franklin invented a fictional middle-aged widow named Mrs. Silence Dogood and slipped essays with her name on them under the door at night so they would be printed.

The Silence Dogood letters were witty and mildly scandalous by colonial standards. In one letter, Mrs. Dogood described Harvard graduates returning home “as great Blockheads as ever, only more proud and self-conceited.” Readers loved the widow’s sharp observations — some men even reportedly proposed marriage to the imaginary woman — and Franklin delighted in using invented characters to say things he could not safely say as himself.

Credit: © Hulton Archive—Archive Photos/Getty Images

Franklin Was a Gifted Satirist

One of Franklin’s most famous comic pieces is the essay now known as “Fart Proudly,” written while he was living in France. People who know Franklin only as the grandfatherly statesman are often startled to discover that he once composed an elaborate satirical proposal encouraging scientists to find a way to make human flatulence smell pleasant.

What makes the piece genuinely funny even now is that Franklin never breaks character. Intended for “He that is conscious of a Stink in his breeches,” the essay is written in the polished, rational tone of Enlightenment-era science. He discusses the matter as though he were proposing a perfectly respectable improvement for humanity, recommending research into foods and powders capable of rendering “wind as agreeable as perfume.”

Franklin returned to the same strategy in other satirical writings, including the essay “Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One,” where he adopts the voice of a straight-faced political adviser in order to critique the British government. His “advice” is deliberately counterproductive in ways that mirror bad governance, such as multiplying unnecessary offices, rewarding inefficiency, and encouraging public debt. The effect is cumulative and the humor depends on the same principle as “Fart Proudly” — the more convincingly serious the voice, the more absurd the conclusion becomes.

Credit: © MPI—Archive Photos/Getty Images

“Poor Richard” Made Franklin’s Humor Famous

If Franklin had done nothing except publish Poor Richard’s Almanack, he would still rank among the most widely read writers of colonial America. First issued in 1732 under the pseudonym Richard Saunders, the almanac combined weather predictions, practical advice, and short sayings designed to be repeated easily in everyday conversation.

The most enduring of these proverbs survive because they often share wisdom in the form of a joke. Franklin turned moral observations into memorable, humorous lines in sayings such as, “He that lies down with dogs shall rise up with fleas,” “Fish and visitors smell in three days,” and “Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”

He also borrowed freely from older sources, then refined the ideas to make them uniquely his own. That process helped the sayings survive, but it also reflects his broader approach to communication. Franklin wrote for readers who would repeat his lines at tables, in taverns, and in conversation, shaping his prose for ease of recall and circulation rather than literary preservation. That timeless quality may be why he endures as the funniest of the Founding Fathers — some of his humor is as relevant today as it was when he observed in 1789, “In this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes.”

What America Looked Like in 1776, in 5 Images

The Streets of Philadelphia

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

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

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

Americans at War

How the Other Half Lived

The American Home

Indigenous Culture

How Americans Dressed in 1776

Men: Silk Waistcoats and Buckskin Breeches

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

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

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

Women: Petticoats, Gowns, and Stays

Children: Dressed Like Miniature Adults

Why Doesn’t America Use the Metric System?

Where the Metric System Came From

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

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

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

The U.S. Almost Went Metric

But America Does Use the Metric System

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

What Americans Ate in 1776

A Melting Pot of Ingredients

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

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

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

Protein, Colonial Style

Daily Bread

Spice Was Nice

What’s for Dessert?

5 Ways Julius Caesar Changed the World

His Death Triggered the Rise of the Roman Empire

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

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

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

He Spread Roman Influence Throughout Europe

He Introduced the 365-Day Calendar

He Changed Political Strategy

He Inspired a Shakespeare Play

6 Surprising Facts About Attila and the Huns

No One Knows Where the Huns Came From

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

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

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

They Once Launched an Invasion to Win Attila Another Wife

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

The Huns Only Lost One Battle During Attila’s Reign

Attila Bore No Relation to Genghis Khan

Attila’s Empire Fell Apart Soon After His Death

What People Really Ate at Medieval Feasts

The Food

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

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

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

The Presentation

The Cutlery