In late spring 1885, Métis and Canadian forces clashed in a series of battles in northern Saskatchewan, collectively known today as the Northwest Resistance. The standard Canadian historiography regarding these confrontations has, over the years, tended to attribute full blame to one man—Louis Riel. A perfect example is Tom Flanagan’s Louis ‘David’ Riel: Prophet of the New World, which portrays Riel as a rabble-rousing firebrand who pits a simple clan of erstwhile ‘half-breeds’ against the Dominion of Canada to fulfill his divine mission from God and his delusional quest for glory.1 By portraying Riel as a manipulator, this historiographical myth simultaneously discredits the Métis cause while painting the Canadian government as justified liberators whose rescue efforts free the young nation from the clutches of a megalomaniac.2 Although some evidence points to Riel’s mental instability, he did not drive the Métis to war in 1885. To understand why the Métis and Canada fought in 1885, one has to look beyond Riel at three underlying causes of the conflict. One, the Resistance took place at the height of colonialism, as such it was a product of the Canadian and global imperialism prevalent during that time. Two, Canada never adequately dealt with Métis land claims from the 1870 Manitoba Act, which frustrated the Métis to the point of picking up arms in 1885. Three, drastic economic change and hardship had swept the west and the Métis had no help from the federal government, which increased Métis frustration. Together these factors caused the Northwest Resistance to erupt. Understanding them helps debunk the myth that Riel was the master architect behind 1885.
Alexander the Great was famous for his military power and is a legendary figure in history.
Much of what we know about Alexander the Great is unreliable and steeped in myth; a lot of these mythologies were used by Alexander’s successors.
In the Kingdom of Thrace, during the reign of Lysimachus—a successor of Alexander the Great who lived from 361 BCE to 281 BCE—an interesting coin was issued. This coin, which featured the head of Alexander the Great with ram’s horns on either side of his crown, was issued in the ancient city of Parium, in the northwestern region of modern-day Turkey. The horns were the symbol of the Egyptian god Amun—or Zeus, who is often conflated with Amun—from whom Alexander claimed descent. Flanked with these godlike horns, Alexander attained the status of a deity.
Silver coin; left, front,, head of Alexander the Great wearing the horns of Zeus Ammon; right, back, seated Athena.
Silver coin; left, front,, head of Alexander the Great wearing the horns of Zeus Ammon; right, back, seated Athena.
Silver coin; left, front,, head of Alexander the Great wearing the horns of Zeus Ammon; right, back, seated Athena. Image credit: British Museum
Surprisingly, Alexander himself did not issue coins with his own image; his successors did. Why would his successors refer back to their deceased predecessor as they established new empires? The reason is that Alexander the Great was—and still is—a powerful symbol of power, military genius, and conquest, whether or not this description of him is historically accurate. His image, name, and legendary power remained resonant—and politically visible—long after his death.
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
2. Simon Bolivar
Ronald Reagan<span> addressed the nation and proposed that the United States develop new antimissile technology that would protect the United States from nuclear missile attacks. Reagan’s speech marked the beginning of what came to be known as the controversial Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).</span>
