By Peter Konieczny
Let us begin with a tale of two kings, both of whom were taken prisoner in battle. They were both Scottish kings, taken in attempts to invade England. While the accounts of their capture are interesting in themselves, this article is more interested in what happened after they were captured.
The first Scottish king to be captured was William the Lion, a young and brash ruler from the twelfth century. It was relatively early in his rule when he fought against King Henry II of England, as part of a coalition that included Henry’s eldest son and the French. In 1174 William led an army south into England and laid siege to Alnwick. However, an English force under one of Henry’s lieutenants was able to surprise the Scots, and in a reckless charge William was unhorsed and captured. When word reached Henry of this victory, the English king sent orders to his lieutenant for William to be sent to him, adding in threats of punishment if this was not carried out immediately. The Scottish king was ultimately transported to Normandy, and he would remain in captivity for several months before having to pay a large ransom and acknowledge Henry as his feudal superior to gain his release.
In 1346 another Scottish army invaded England, this time led by King David II. King Edward III had already left England for the Continent in order to fight the French as part of the Hundred Years’ War, so it might have seemed to David that northern England was a vulnerable target. However, an English force met him at the Battle of Neville’s Cross, and the Scots were routed. King David, having been badly wounded by two arrow shots to his face, tried to retreat, but he was pursued. John de Coupland, a squire from Northumberland, was able to find David as he hid underneath a bridge. They had a fight and David managed to knock out two of Coupland’s teeth. In the end, the squire captured the king.
Queen Philippa was not too far away from the battle, and when she heard that the Scottish king had been captured, she ordered Coupland to bring the captive to her. The squire refused – instead he had David locked away in a castle and then travelled himself, first to Dover, then across the sea to Calais, where he met with Edward III. He was able to negotiate a deal with the English king in which he received a new title, a payment of £500 a year for the rest of his life for the prisoner, and another £100 annually so he could serve the king with 20 men-at-arms. Only then did Coupland, now an extremely rich man, return back to England and hand over David to his queen.
What is so odd about these cases is that one would probably think that they should not have happened in that order. The English monarchy of the fourteenth century was much stronger than its twelfth-century counterpart. Yet we have a situation where Henry II demanded (and got) an important captive delivered to him immediately, while Edward III had to make a deal with a low-ranking nobleman to get his man.
To better understand what was happening we need to explore the role of English kings in the treatment of prisoners of war, in particular the Anglo-Norman and Angevin rulers from William I to Henry III. It reveals that these kings had quite a lot of power over any captives, but they also had a lot of responsibility to help their own soldiers if they had been taken prisoner.
Handing over to the kingIn short, the rule was that any enemy soldier that was captured during wartime was supposed to be handed over to the king. This would be more than just the high-ranking captives, for chroniclers speak of how even the lowliest crossbowmen would become the king’s prisoners – and often these would be in quite large numbers. This can be seen at the Battle of Tinchebray, in 1106, where Henry I defeated and captured his brother Robert Curthose. In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury following the victory, the English ruler explained that all the prisoners were delivered into his hands, numbering them at 400 knights and 1,000 footmen. The chronicler Orderic Vitalis added that Henry’s only trouble in getting these captives came not from his own men, but from his Breton allies, who were unwilling to surrender Count William of Mortain, but eventually they did concede the prisoner to the king.
Henry II’s war with his sons, the French, and the Scots, in 1173 and 1174, also saw the English monarch gaining huge numbers of prisoners. Among Henry’s triumphs was the capture of Dol-de-Bretagne, which brought with it 81 important captives. Robert of Torigni notes that “the king distributed them among his castles, where they were committed to prison, but some of them he kept near to himself.” When the war was finished, Henry had netted over a thousand prisoners of war.
VIDEO
Of course, some captives could figure out ways to get themselves released before they were delivered to the king. Bribing their initial captors was always an option, but other methods could be used as well. In 1138, fighting around the city of Bath led to the capture of a prominent soldier named Geoffrey Talbot. But soon after he was imprisoned, Geoffrey’s kinsmen managed to seize the Bishop of Bath and forced him to release Geoffrey in exchange for his own freedom. When King Stephen arrived in Bath to take custody of the prisoner, he was outraged to learn that Geoffrey got away, and even threatened to strip the bishop of his office. The king was eventually mollified when he learned the bishop’s life was in danger, and as Stephen’s biographer wrote in the Gesta Stephani, “there is no obligation on him… to give his own life in exchange for another’s.”
In another dramatic episode, William of Grandcourt was fighting on the side of Henry I at the Battle of Bourgthéroulde in 1124, where he captured the Count of Evreux. William knew that the count would suffer a long imprisonment or worse fate if he was turned over to the English king. Therefore, in the words of the chronicler Orderic Vitalis, “out of human compassion [he] took pity on a man of such great valour” and released him. Moreover, to avoid the punishment he would have received from King Henry, William also decided to accompany the count into exile in France.
Deciding your fateOnce the prisoners were delivered to the king, we can see what rules the rulers had to follow in treating them. One might expect that the dictates of chivalry would make sure that prisoners of war were to be well treated while in captivity and could pay a ransom to arrange for their release. This was not the reality between the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, for English kings were free to impose very harsh punishments on their prisoners. They could face exile, mutilation, imprisonment for life, or even death, although these sterner punishments were usually only reserved for those who rebelled against the monarchy. These punishments were also far more common during the reigns of William the Conqueror and his two sons than they were with later kings. William I would often remove the hands or eyes of captured rebels, while his son William Rufus had William of Eu blinded and castrated for his disloyalty, and Eu’s steward was hanged as well. Orderic Vitalis wrote that the prisoners of Henry I often “died in his fetters, and could neither gain release through kinship or noble birth, nor ransom themselves with money.”
A group of knights leads a prisoner on foot in this page from an early twelfth-century edition of Pruden- tius’s Conflict Of The Soul, which was probably created in St. Albans – British Library, BL Cotton MS Titus D XVI fol. 02vWhile it would be very rare for a king to actually execute a high-ranking nobleman, the chronicles from this period do record several instances where less valuable captives would be executed. One story about Richard I has him learning that one of his Welsh contingents had been destroyed in France and responding by ordering three French captives thrown off a cliff, and then blinding fifteen others. The French king Philip Augustus reciprocated with some of his English captives. Later on, in the year 1224, Henry III fought a bitter siege against the castle of Bedford. When the garrison surrendered, the king had most of these men hanged.
Why did these monarchs believe that they had the power to impose such harsh punishments, and why were medieval chroniclers, who usually detested such practices when done by counts or knights, willing to accept it when kings did them? The answer lies with medieval notions of royal justice, where a king had a sacred duty to enforce peace and curb violence by any means necessary. Furthermore, severe punishments would also be seen as a deterrent, done to prevent others from even entertaining rebellious thoughts.
A good illustration of this notion comes after the Battle of Bourgthéroulde, where Henry I decided to blind three of the important men captured in the fight. Charles the Good, Count of Flanders, was with Henry when he made these judgements, and he objected to the king, believing that it was wrong to punish knights in this fashion. The English king replied that two of these prisoners were his liegemen and that they had betrayed him by going to war against him, therefore deserving a punishment of mutilation. As for the third captive, Luke of La Barre, he had previously mocked Henry with scurrilous songs, and by blinding this man, he would force him to give up this practice and serve as an example for others who might think to ridicule a king.
VIDEO
Those kings who did not impose harsh punishments could find themselves criticized by chroniclers, as happened to King Stephen. After he captured a castle of rebellious troops in the early part of his reign, Henry of Huntingdon remarked that the king “did not execute punishment on those who had betrayed him. For if he had done so at that time, there would not have been so many castles held against him later.”
There were more practical reasons for kings to impose severe punishments. In times of war, the threat of death or torture towards an important prisoner could be used to make other gains. One typical practice was for a monarch to force a captive nobleman to surrender his castles to the king. Often the prisoner would be brought to just outside a castle, where he would be tortured or prepared for execution unless the garrison surrendered. King Stephen was perhaps the most notorious practitioner of this method, but William Rufus and John were both able to gain the surrender of key castles by threatening to kill or mutilate their captive owners.
Although monarchs could impose harsh punishments on these prisoners, in many cases they were also willing to act in a more magnanimous fashion. Henry I, for example, showed leniency towards Waleran de Beaumont, Count of Meulan, who was also captured at Bourgthéroulde: he was kept imprisoned for five years, but after he was released the king also restored to him much of his land and power. Waleran, in fact, would go on to become an important part of Henry’s royal household and was said to have become a good friend of the king.
Kindness was sometimes extended to less important prisoners as well. In 1097 William Rufus arrived at a castle where a large number of prisoners of war were being held. As they heard William approaching, the captives shouted out for the king to help them. William did just that, not only releasing them from their cells, but also giving them a good meal and allowing the captives to walk where they pleased inside the castle. When some of William’s followers objected to this leniency, pointing out that a prisoner might easily escape this way, the king rebuked them for their severity.
Imprisoned by the kingOnce an English monarch had the prisoners and had decided to hold them in captivity, he was faced with the problem of where to keep them. As seen before, the king might have hundreds of prisoners of war in his custody at any one time, and they all needed to be accommodated. Government records reveal that prisoners were usually split up into small groups and sent to various places throughout the kingdom, where they would be in the custody of lords and nobles. This can be considered as another feudal service that vassals owed to their English rulers: they were expected to care for and guard prisoners of war, as well as hostages and other captives.
A good example of this movement of prisoners of war can be seen in the Pipe Rolls following King John’s victory at Mirebeau in 1202. While the king took his defeated nephew Arthur to Falaise in Normandy, many of the other prisoners were shipped across the English Channel to Portsmouth. From there, the records show that the captives were sent to various places in England, including London, York, Lancaster, Corfe, Wallingford, Sherburn, Nottingham, Doncaster, and Newcastle. It would be preferable for the king not to have too many prisoners kept in any one place, since problems could arise, such as at Corfe, where the Mirebeau captives overpowered their guards and took control of the castle for a brief period of time.
Matthew Paris depicts the prisoners hanged by Henry III after the Siege of Bedford Castle in 1224 – Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 016II fol. 64rThose who had to take care of and guard these prisoners could expect at least some compensation from the king. Hubert de Burgh received £4 from John for having to handle several Mirebeau prisoners. Government documents also show that many payments were made for transporting captives from place to place, and even for the costs of iron chains.
One might suspect that these guards could get somewhat careless in their duties, or were tempted by bribes, which allowed for prisoners to escape. English monarchs were not pleased to lose their prisoners if this happened, and they exacted harsh punishments on negligent jailors. The huge debt of £2,200 owed by William de Mandeville to Henry I in 1101 was probably due to when William was in command of the Tower of London and allowed one of his important captives to slide down a rope from a tower window and escape.
Another irresponsible jailor was Robert de Ros. In 1196 he had one of his charges, an important French prisoner, escape, leading to Richard I fining him £800. The sergeant that Robert had watching the prisoner, and who may have been complicit in the escape, was executed. Robert apparently did not learn his lesson, however, since eleven years later he was punished with a £200 fine for losing more captives.
The king helps his menIf these English kings had such strong rights to take prisoners of war for themselves, what kind of trade-off was there for the rest of the army, the people who did the actual capturing? It was the knowledge that these kings also had a responsibility to make sure their own men would be freed if captured, either through prisoner exchanges or by paying for their ransoms.
It was not just that kings had a duty to their men to help free them from captivity. These were the same nobles and knights that they needed to fight their wars, so it was often imperative that kings made sure they would be quickly freed from enemy prisons. Moreover, knowing that their king would come to their aid was a good way of ensuring their continued loyalty. When Prince Louis of France invaded England in 1216, the government of Henry III sent a letter to a castle garrison holding out against the French, encouraging them not to give up and promising them that any reasonable ransom would be paid if they were forced to capitulate.
Those kings who did not live up this standard could quickly lose the support of their followers. For example, when one of King Stephen’s counts switched sides to support the Angevins, he did so because, according to Orderic Vitalis, “he had recently had cause to be angry with the king, because he had sought his help over the release of his nephew and got no satisfaction through him.”
There are several recorded instances of prisoner exchanges taking place, either as part of a truce or through a peace agreement. The first known exchange took place in 1098 between William Rufus and the Count of Anjou, where both sides released their prisoners. In 1120 Henry I and French king Louis VI set free all their captive knights. The war between Henry II and his sons ended in 1175 with a prisoner exchange that involved more than 1,000 captives. Richard I and another French monarch, Philip Augustus, included prisoner exchanges during truces on two occasions, the first in 1194 and then again in 1197. Finally, when the regents for Henry III made peace with the French prince Louis after the battles of Lincoln and Sandwich in 1215, the agreement included a clause for all prisoners to be released, including those taken at the two battles.
These prisoner exchanges not only involved the captives held by the kings themselves, but even those held by their supporters. Understandably, some nobles did not want to go along with these deals if they held their own valuable prisoners, and they could often get their own way if the monarchy was not strong. The negotiations for a prisoner exchange between the forces of King Stephen and Robert, Earl of Gloucester, were scuttled by Stephen’s followers, because, according to William of Malmesbury, they did not want to give up their own captives and suffer “any loss of money to themselves.”
Even after an agreement was made, it might be difficult for English kings to have their vassals comply with the terms. When Prince Louis reached the French throne as Louis VIII in 1223, he was still complaining that many of his own men who were supposed to have been freed years earlier were still being kept in English dungeons until they paid a heavy ransom. Records from Henry III’s government reveal that they were sending out letters to the English nobility, demanding the release of French prisoners, but getting mixed results.
The other method used by kings to free their own followers was to pay for ransoms. Some chroniclers recorded this practice, such as when Roger of Wendover reported that Richard I paid over £2,000 in 1196 to free the garrison of a castle that had surrendered to the French. Stronger evidence that this was happening can be seen in the government documents found in the reigns of John and Henry III. Money was given out by these kings, ranging from large payments such £1,000 each for the ransoms of Roger de Lacy and the son of William Briewerre, to smaller amounts including 100 shillings paid to the wife of John de Talemund, so that she could free her husband from the French. These payments sometimes came in the form of a loan, but they would usually have these debts soon pardoned by the Crown.
VIDEO
A new way of doing thingsIf we move forward to the reign of Edward III (1327-77), when England was again at war with Scotland and France, we see something very different when it comes to the treatment of prisoners of war. There are no more reports of huge numbers of captives being handed to these kings, or of Edward inflicting executions or other brutal punishments on them. We do see him making deals with his soldiers where they would be paid handsomely in exchange for turning over an important captive. As for the vast bulk of men captured in warfare, it seems as if they would belong to the men who took them, and they would have had to pay ransoms to these captors for their freedom.
Meanwhile, despite their being many more surviving governmental records from the fourteenth century than we see in previous times, there is hardly any mention of English kings helping their soldiers when they were taken prisoner. No exchanges were arranged, nor was any money sent to pay for ransoms. An English soldier who happened to be captured in France or Scotland was largely on his own.
Why this change? A likely reason was that around the reign of Edward I armies grew significantly in size, from hundreds to tens of thousands. Many of these troops had little personal loyalty to the king and were taking part in campaigns for money. They were also largely expendable, as a longbowman or even a knight could be much more easily replaced than his twelfth-century counterpart.
For Edward III and other English kings of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, there would have been little incentive to hold anyone but the most important captives. It would be a relief for them not to worry about the fate of their own men, or to have to put their considerations into play when negotiating peace agreements and truces.
As for the men who fought under the English king, there was risk and reward in this new system. If they were successful in their battles and sieges – and this was more likely than not for England in the fourteenth century – they could profit quite well by taking their own captives. Some men, like John de Coupland, became incredibly wealthy by capturing the right opponent. Meanwhile, others would see their fortunes ruined if they fell into an enemy’s hands, and they could spend years in prison before they or their families could raise the money to ransom themselves.
The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries would also see writers and soldiers addressing the topic of prisoners of war and their treatment, much of which advocated fair rules on how this was to be done. This was a huge change, for only a few generations earlier the treatment of these captives was largely determined by the king and his whims.
Peter Konieczny is Editor of Medievalists.net
Further Readings:
Rémy Ambühl, Prisoners of War in the Hundred Years War: Ransom Culture in the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press, 2013)
Andy King, “‘Then a great misfortune befell them’: the laws of war on surrender and the killing of prisoners on the battlefield in the Hundred Years War,” Journal of Medieval History, 43.1 (2017), 106-117
Matthew Strickland, War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy, 1066– 1217 (Cambridge University Press, 1996)
This article was first published in Medieval Warfare magazine. Click here to buy the issue.
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the greatest human achievements in the past five decades?
This is the greatest accomplishment of humanity in the last 50 years. It allows us to communicate with incredible speed and accuracy over vast distances. This is without doubt, the most significant technological innovation in human history.
The internet is a network of tubes that connects the world. These tubes are made from fiber optic cables. Each cable can transmit information at speeds of up to 10 gigabits each second, which is more that 1 million times faster than the average broadband connection.
This technology allows us share ideas, knowledge, or culture around the world. This technology has made it possible to access any information immediately, instead of having to physically travel to another place.
It is also the reason for amazing advancements in medicine and science. Scientists can sequence genomes in fractions of the time it took twenty years ago.
A technological breakthrough has allowed researchers to create complex biological simulations in real-time. This is a breakthrough in our ability to understand the causes of diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and cancer.
These breakthroughs can potentially save millions.
There are downsides to this amazing technology. We have become increasingly dependent on the internet in recent years for our daily activities. This reliance has led to several problems, including cyberbullying, online scams, and identity theft.
But the biggest problem may lie ahead. As more people depend on the internet for their daily lives, the likelihood of a global data collapse is rising dramatically.
As our dependence on the internet grows, so does our vulnerability to its failures. Businesses will experience a drop in productivity of billions of USD if the internet goes offline for even a moment. Our financial transactions, our health records and government communications will all be compromised.
We're already seeing early signs of what might happen if the internet fails. Remember Hurricane Sandy? It was a storm that knocked out electricity to many homes, businesses and buildings in the eastern United States. Within days hackers were exploiting the internet outage in order to steal credit-card numbers.
Many devices are connected to the internet within your own home. Your fridge can order food from Amazon. Your car can monitor traffic conditions and schedule service appointments. Your lights can be turned off remotely. All these things are possible thanks to microprocessors embedded in them. This allows them to communicate via the internet with each other.
When Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast, these microprocessors could not transmit data across their networks. This caused cars to stop and start, fridges to order food, and lights not turn on. It created chaos and confusion during an emergency.
It could happen again during a national emergency such as a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or other similar situations. Imagine how difficult would it be for police officers respond to crimes and medical emergencies. Without computers, how would hospitals manage patient care? What about communication between citizens & government agencies?
Good news is, infrastructure exists to stop such an unfortunate event from happening. The infrastructure to support hurricanes is already in place, including water treatment facilities and power plants. But, these systems aren’t built to withstand the complete loss of electricity caused by large-scale cyberattacks.
For example, if hackers managed to take over a nuclear plant, they could shut down the facility within seconds. They could also cause panic by contaminating the water supply.
Even though the infrastructure exists, the real question is whether we will ever take the time to build resilience into our system.
Two scientists at MIT published a 2005 paper titled, "A Failure Model in Cloud Computing." This paper described a future with no single point to fail. Instead, every device has multiple points of failure. Instead of losing your phone's battery, you might lose your entire device. Both your phone and computer will need to be repaired.
We have relied on only a handful of key components in the past to keep us safe, such as telephone lines and electrical grids. As more people embrace cloud-based computing, more of their lives are online. We're relying on technologies without much testing under real-world conditions. And now that we're doing that, we need to ensure that those technologies are resilient enough to handle disasters like hurricanes or massive cyberattacks.
This is why I am so excited about the work of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST works with industry experts to create standards that will help us build resilience into our technology. These standards will ensure that everything functions seamlessly online. Our phones can still function even when the power goes off. Our refrigerators still order us dinner. Our traffic reports continue to tell us the roads are clear.
And by ensuring our devices can communicate, we'll be better prepared for any event.
What are the Top 5 Most Important Innovations in Human History.
Fire is the greatest human invention. Fire changed our relationship with nature forever. It allowed us to cook food and stay warm in freezing weather. It also enabled us to control light, heat and electricity.
The fire allowed us to create tools, weaponry, and even cities.
Fire gave us humans the ability to be more intelligent. We could communicate better, learn faster, travel further, and communicate better.
Shortly after, the inventions of writing, printing, gunpowder, and printing followed. This made information easier to share.
These technological advancements brought social changes. For safety, comfort, and protection, people began to live together.
Humans began to form larger communities, eventually becoming nations. This led eventually to the development laws, government, and religions.
Finally, access to medicine and sanitation was possible. These advancements led to the rise in the middle class.
All of these inventions created a space where humanity could flourish. Humanity had finally made its way out from the cave.
Technology continues its revolution in today's world. Technology is constantly evolving to make our lives easier, safer, more convenient.
We have made great strides, but we still face many challenges. One of these is climate change.
The burning of fossil fuels is what causes climate change. Burning coal, oil, and gas release carbon dioxide into the air.
Carbon dioxide traps heat near Earth’s surface, increasing temperatures.
This causes glaciers to melt, which then leads to sea level rises. Coral reefs die as the oceans heat up.
This renders the coast uninhabitable.
Millions of people are now forced to move. Many countries have declared a war on climate change.
Despite all this, it is impossible to stop developing new technologies. Why not? We won't be able to survive if we do.
What is the greatest scientific achievement?
We have made great strides since the day we discovered how fire can be harnessed for heat. There are still areas to improve.
Scientists who have an idea and work towards making it a reality have made some of the greatest scientific discoveries. Science is often driven by curiosity.
Sometimes it takes more then curiosity to achieve a breakthrough. Sometimes you need to have a goal. A vision. Something to aim for.
The greatest scientific accomplishments have been made by those who pursue an idea relentlessly.
They would look for ways to turn their ideas into reality, even if those realities weren't entirely clear at the time.
It means taking chances, thinking big and learning from your mistakes.
The most important lesson is that it doesn't matter whether you succeed or fail. All that matters most is that you tried.
It is important to find a way that you can keep going, despite failures, criticism, rejection, or setbacks. If you persevere, you will eventually achieve success.
Don't stress about the outcome. Keep doing good work.
What were some of the major inventions made in the early days of humanity's history?
Think about the most important invention in history. Imagine that an inventor created a device that would allow us to do the exact same thing for more people.
What would it look to be like? How could we make it better? Could it truly change the world? How would you go about it if you had the opportunity to create such a device?
These questions will help determine where innovation starts.
Innovation is the ability or capability to solve problems in innovative and useful ways. Innovation is key to solving any problem. Innovation means creating something entirely new.
Now let's look at the difference in invention and innovation. The act of inventing something new is known as invention. Innovation is when something is improved upon. The wheel, for example, was created long before it was made possible by the invention of the bicycle.
Both inventions and innovations require imagination and creativity. They also require different skills. An innovator can see what others cannot. They can spot problems, think outside their box, and discover solutions.
An investor can envision possibilities. Investors can transform a concept into a reality. They are able understand and explain their ideas to others so they can be followed.
Innovation requires imagination. It requires being creative. You must be open to trying something new.
An investor should be willing to think outside the box. To get out of their comfort zones. To challenge themselves to find unique solutions.
A good inventor understands that the best solution isn't always the easiest. Finding the right question can sometimes be the most difficult part of the process.
However, an inventor is not only interested in solving a problem. They want improvements on something. They want it to be better.
Consider these two options when thinking about your next invention.
- Or, you can create something entirely new.
- It is possible to improve on something already existing.
If you choose to improve, you should know that the first step is defining a problem. Next, find out if anyone else has solved the problem.
Sometimes, the problem you are trying solving is no longer relevant due to its evolution over time. This is called obsolescence.
Another reason innovation fails is market saturation. There are too many products on the market for consumers to choose from. So, the demand for a product is low.
You should therefore focus your efforts on niche markets and industries. These are areas of growth.
However, remember that the market may not yet be ready for your product. That is why you need to test your idea. Please test it out. See if people want it.
Also, be sure to evaluate whether the idea is worth your time. Does it really have any merit? Is it going to improve on something that works?
You need to get out your comfort zone to invent. Push yourself to think differently. It would be great if you were open to learning more about the subject.
Experimentation is a must. It would be great if you make mistakes along the journey.
The only way to discover what is possible is to fail. Failure will teach success.
What is the greatest human achievement?
A great achievement is when you make a difference and when you do something that changes the world for the better. It's when you create something new and different that isn't available before.
Great achievement isn't measured by how much money you made or how many people you helped, it's measured by how much impact you had on the world.
It is not the ones that we discover answers that are the greatest achievements. We already know the answer. However, the most important achievements are those that alter the way we see life. That changed our perspective.
Because they are slow and quiet, great achievements often seem small. They may seem insignificant at the time. They will be remembered later, even though they may not seem important at the time.
There are two types: lasting greatness and fading greatness. Greatness that lasts for generations is created by making something people love and treasure over time.
This is why many people admire great accomplishments anonymously.
But great achievements fade away quickly. If someone tells you about them, you might not believe them. This is because your brain has conditioned you to think of greatness only as temporary.
It's easy for greatness to fade away, so it's easy not to see its importance. Therefore, great achievements are rare. And only a few people ever achieve them.
Which invention has done the most damage to the earth?
The best inventions allow us to live more comfortably. Some inventions can cause great harm.
One such invention is the internal combustion engine. This invention was a key to the industrial revolution, and has made our lives much easier. But, fossil fuels can also produce carbon dioxide which can contribute to global warming.
Another invention is the laser. This device can destroy objects from miles away. It can also cause blindness or burns that can lead to death.
The atomic bomb is another example. This weapon can explode and wipe out entire cities.
Inventions are amazing because they make life easier. However, there are times when they can harm us too. These harmful inventions include nuclear weapons, lasers, internal combustion engines, and atomic bombs.
Statistics
- In their seminal 1967 paper in, Sarich and Wilson estimated the divergence time of humans and apes as four to five million years ago, Science Progress in DNA sequencing, specifically mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (en.wikipedia.org)
- dating of two H.nalediteeth, to 253+82−70 ka, for an estimated age of the fossils of 253+82−17 ka. (en.wikipedia.org)
- This migration out of Africa is estimated to have begun about 70–50,000 years BP, and modern humans subsequently spread globally, replacing earlier hominins either through competition or hybridization. (en.wikipedia.org)
- Retrieved April 26, 2015. Sequence differences from the human genome were confirmed to be ∼1% in areas that can be precisely aligned, representing ∼35 million single base-pair differences. (en.wikipedia.org)
- Also proposed as Homo sapiens heidelbergensis or Homo sapiens paleohungaricus.[208]H. rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium[edit]H. rhodesiensis, estimated to be 300,000–125,000 years old. (en.wikipedia.org)
External Links
doi.org
- Evolutionary Biology: The Hybrid Origin of "Modern Humans".
- ScienceDirect: Mosaic humans, a hybrid species
nature.com
nytimes.com
- Grappling With The Cost Of Saving Earth’s Ozone (Published in 1990)
- For Evolving Brains: A 'Paleo" Diet of Carbs. The New York Times
twitter.com
How To
Which are the ten best inventions of all time?
There are more inventions than 10,000 each year. That's hundreds of thousands per decade.
These are just some of the ideas we've come across.
The following list does not contain all inventions for patent protection.
This includes inventions which have been patented and not published.
These are some examples of inventions that have been published, but not protected by patents:
- Existing technologies can be used in new ways (e.g. to improve the efficiency of existing processes).
- Improvements in manufacturing techniques (e.g., improved casting, molding and extruding methods, forming, machining etc.
- The application of technology in novel ways (e.g. the use of a computer to solve problems that were previously solved by humans)
Here are the U.S. Patent Office's Top 10 Most Inventions.
- Sewing Machine - Elias Howe
- Refrigerator - Charles F. Lindberg
- Stove - Richard Cobden & John Richardson
- Alexander Graham Bell Telephone
- Radio - Guglielmo Marconi
- Television - Philo Farnsworth
- Nikola Tesla Electric Motor
- Airplane - Samuel Pierpont Langley
- James Watt Steam Engine
- Computers - Alan Turing
Did you miss our previous article...
https://lessonsbeyondthestory.com/history-of-man/writing-and-the-mongol-empire
