<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Love of History &#187; Ancient</title>
	<atom:link href="http://loveofhistory.com/category/ancient/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://loveofhistory.com</link>
	<description>A historical perspective of current events</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2020 15:32:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Morality of Money in Ancient Greece and Rome</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/morality-of-money-in-ancient-greece-and-rome/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/morality-of-money-in-ancient-greece-and-rome/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2020 15:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greece]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rome]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How many times have you used terms loaded with moral judgement when you mention money? How many of you think that money is ‘evil’ or that debt is ‘disgraceful’? How many of you watched Benefits Street in 2014 and argued with disdain that you would never end up in this position? For those of you who do not watch tv, Benefits Street was a documentary series broadcast in Channel 4. It showed benefits claimants committing crimes, thieving and cheating. It was so successful (despite the opposition) that it continued in a variety of forms, e.g. Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole in Channel 5 and The Great British Benefits Handout again in Channel 5. The moralising comments the series received are short of extraordinary in this day and age, when we kind of understand how economics work. For the past few years, I listened in utter amazement to people in the streets trying to justify the fact that they were disabled or homeless and consequently had to claim benefits in order to survive! The moral police was certainly in the corner overhearing the discussions and delivering profound judgements! This phenomenon is not new. In fact its existence can be traced back to the Greco-Roman world. Its roots are dug deeply into ancient philosophy. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.), moral philosophy is the part of philosophy which treats of the virtues and vices, the criteria of right and wrong, the formation of virtuous character and the like.  In this post I would like to make a few hints on the moral principles that ancient Greeks and Romans were supposed to follow concerning the economy in general, and money specifically. These principles were established mainly by ancient Greek philosophers and were subsequently adopted by the Romans. An interest towards the morality of money can easily be seen in Aristotle’s Ethica Nicomachea or even Politika. In ancient Greek society, morality included not only principles regarding justice, autarkeia (independence of economic means), balance of needs and goods, but it also influenced the economic thoughts and the economic functions of the State and the people.  On the other side, politics (politike) formed constitutions based on these principles. Greeks and subsequently Romans combined morality, politics and economy in their thinking in order to achieve their ultimate aim: the welfare of the individual and of the society. Specifically, the influence of morality on the economy magnifies the economic results. It also enhances human happiness, since it balances the needs towards the available goods and it restricts the unnecessary accumulation of wealth. After all such immense wealth might lead the citizens to unjust actions. Or so the ancients thought, before Neoliberalism dominated all aspects of politics and economy at the end of the 20th century and beyond. Aristotle believed that virtues, and especially the virtue of justice (which is the ultimate principle of political economy) had to influence the behaviour of the state.  From this point of view, the virtues that define ‘arete’ (the ultimate virtue) may also define the economy. The conclusion of ancient Greek philosophy was that political, economical and ethical criteria should be in harmony with each other so that society and economy might not only survive but also flourish. The interconnection between these aspects could not be doubted as they all worked together towards the happiness of the individual. The Romans were the faithful followers of the Greeks, when it came to the main principles of the morality of money. Two major historiographical works from the first half of the third century AD contain valuable information on the subject: the Roman Histories of Dio Cassius and Herodian.  Both writers belonged to the educated urban classes; Dio was a senator and Herodian was a knight.  Effectively, they were both owners of substantial wealth and involved in the imperial politics of their time. Both held similar views about how humanity in general, and the emperor in particular, should behave, when it came to money. The historians give us a plethora of moral comments concerning the use of money by the emperor and his role in the welfare of the empire as well as the happiness of the individuals. They also attempt to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors and to ascribe different moral characteristics to each one of them. Monetary terminology tends to be loaded with moral afterthoughts that eventually would have influenced monetary policies. After all, which emperor would have liked to be judged and fall short of this judgement posthumously? For example, all emperors were severely criticised every time they were trying to find new ways to raise funds or raise taxes.  Some of their revenues were acceptable and honourable, while some others caused the condemnation of the historians (as well as the general public). The rulers probably had a clear idea of what was just and what was unjust revenue (dikaios kai adikos poros) (Dio 78.10.4). The use of the word ‘dikaios’ does not imply that the emperor was liable towards the law for his fiscal decisions. On the contrary, he was only restrained by the moral code of his era.  Herodian and Dio do not give us an exhaustive list of the regular revenues of the State or which of these were acceptable, but they make certain comments that show their approval of some and their disapproval of others.  Specifically, Dio Cassius seems to be in favour of the fiscal policy of certain emperors of the second century AD (the so called Adopted Emperors), such as Nerva, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and Pertinax.  It is significant that all of them reigned during the second century AD and not later, before the socio-economic and political crisis of the empire started.  Their main similarity is that they handled their own property as if it belonged to the Roman people, without concern for their own benefit.  For example, Nerva ‘when he run short of funds, he sold much wearing apparel and many vessels of silver and gold, besides furniture, both his own and that which belonged to the imperial residence, and many estates and houses &#8211; in fact everything except what was indispensable’ (Dio 68.2.1-3).  The same policy followed Marcus Aurelius who ‘exposed in the Forum all the heirlooms of the palace together with any ornaments that belonged to his wife, and urged any who so desired to buy them’ (Dio 72.fragments) while Pertinax ‘raised money as best he could from the statues, the arms, the horses, the furniture, and the favourites of Commodus’ (Dio 74.5.4); Trajan and Septimius Severus because the first ‘drained no ones blood’ (Dio 68.7.1) and the second ‘raised money from every source, except that he killed no one to get it’ (Dio 77.16.1). We should not assume that our historians condemned the use of money. On the contrary, they acknowledged the necessity and they declared that ‘money was the sinews of sovereignty’, although the imposition of taxes or other contributions could trigger the anger of the population.  On one hand they understood the practicalities related to money and the necessity of strict monetary policies. On the other hand, they did not hesitate to use morally loaded language to describe the financial actions of individual emperors. It’s not the money that the Romans were afraid of but its use. At the hands of the wrong people wealth could cause a lot of suffering to the citizens and damage to the state. During the first half of the third century, when Dio Cassius and Herodian lived, they had the opportunity to see with their own eyes the effects of the political and military anarchy that burdened the empire on the citizens. They witnessed the swift succession in the upper echelons of society following the demise of the emperors, one after another. And they probably felt the results also in their daily lives and the lives of their children; that is, if they survived the political machinations. Certainly such an experience would have led them to the scrutiny of the monetary policies with religious and moral tools. Their moralising comments have two aims: a) to explain the causes of the situation, and possibly b) to give subtle advice to the emperor, who was responsible for the financial policy of the State. Do not fool yourselves that their writing did not have the stamp of approval from the emperor that was leading the empire at the time. Otherwise, the historians would not have lived long enough to publish their works! They would not have criticised their own emperor directly, unless they had a death wish. The ideal ruler, whom they describe in their work, derives from the wisdom of ancient greek philosophers, such as Aristoteles. They emphasize on his benevolent role, which is attested in the way he balances revenues and expenditure without turning into unjust practices.  The emperor’s just and moderate administration would guarantee Common Benefit and, in turn, individual happiness.  We do not have any evidence that the emperors were aware of Aristotle, or the need for a benevolent role for them. What we do know is that the upper echelons of society (to which our historians belonged) would have subscribed to these ideals.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/morality-of-money-in-ancient-greece-and-rome/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agro-Business in the Roman World</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/agro-business-in-the-roman-world/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/agro-business-in-the-roman-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2019 10:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entrepreneurship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Farming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roman world]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3694</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Have you ever considered that business may not have been that different 2000 years ago? Oh well, they did not have computers, internet and the digital economy but they still had a buoyant property market, they were trading across the seas and the land, and they were pretty good at financial administration. After all, empires were not built on air but on solid armies, bureaucracies and land expansion exercises (imperialism). In the Roman World, the wealthiest citizens were focusing on the development of farming businesses. Several handbooks were written during the Republic and the Empire. These Agronomists followed the rich tradition of writers coming from the Greek times, such as Hesiod, Xenophon, Democritus of Abdera, even Aristotle. Even though the Roman writers followed the Greeks, they still managed to become better known and more widely revered than they predecessors. Their instructions became the ‘go to’ manual for Landowners across Europe for centuries to come. The most important works that survived until today are those of Cato, Columella, Varro, Virgil, Pliny and Palladius. Today we will focus on Cato the Elder’s farming manual, De Agricultura. This is &#8211; not surprisingly &#8211;  the eldest work of latin prose. It’s scope and importance emphasises on what actually mattered for the elite at the time and the manuscript dates from the second century BC, long before the Roman Empire reached the height of its power. In fact, long before Roman Emperors were ‘a thing’! Let us take a look on what Cato believed of Farming as business. Obviously he preferred it over Commerce and Banking, both of which may have brought profits.  However, the first was risky and the second was considered akin to usury and had the potential to confer upon the banker the title of ‘criminal’. As a result, the only moral and sensible option for the Roman Rich were to become farmers. So, how did they go about it? First and foremost they needed to buy vast expanses of land. Or, alternatively, acquire them through wars. The Romans spent several centuries expanding their lands through military advances. So, there was a lot to be had. Secondly, they needed to learn how to manage these vast expansions of land. And this is where the Agronomists entered the picture. Cato was willing to present his contemporaries with a wealth of advice on how to set up and run a farming business. I will include a few of these comments just to give you an idea of what was expected of a Roman farmer. As a rule, you should not be an Absentee Landowner. As the Master of the Household you should visit your farm often and upon arrival greet Lar (the Guardian/God/Ancestor of the Hearth). Always partner up with a God, just to be on the safe side. Once you pay your dues to Lar, it would be the right time to go around your property ON THE SAME DAY. Cato insists on this piece of advice and I suspect that the master would have liked to see how the farm is run on an average day and not after anticipating his visit. The element of surprise seems to be essential. Once the initial checks have been completed, the next day can be dedicated to analysing the statistics “how much of the work is finished, how much remains, whether what is done was done in time and there will be time to do the rest, and how it is with the wine, the grain and everything else singly.” It should not astonish us that analytics were used regularly in antiquity in order to run a business. The owner needed to know how far they are in the production cycle and when the crops would be ready for sale. The financial aspect would have taken even more time, because of its essential nature. After all, how else would they have known whether the business was profitable or even viable?And how would they have funded their elaborate lifestyles? Cato says on the matter: “You must check the figures for money and grain, check what is set aside for fodder, check the wine and oil figures &#8212; what is already sold, and the income from this, what is still to be produced, and what it will fetch &#8212; agree the difference and take charge of the agreed sum.” This is the end point (scope) of any business. Obviously, they did not have any double entry books (this was a much later invention) and they were lacking in cash flow projections. But they had an excellent understanding of basic finances and how numbers should be used for their advantage. As with every other business, delegation is a big part of running large organisations, including farms. The landowner probably had several farms that needed his attention. For each farm, he would have hired a manager to oversee the work on a daily basis. Even though the manager should have been a trusted employee (rarely a slave), this does not mean that he could waive his carte blanche and do whatever he wanted. Cato seemed to be very suspicious of the managers and insists on holding them accountable. He eloquently writes on the subject: “ When you have this straight, you can get down to calculating people and days’ work. If the work seems wanting the manager will say that he has done his best, slaves were sick, the weather was bad, slaves ran away or were requisitioned for public works: when he has put these and all his other arguments, bring him back to the calculation of workers and their work! If there was rainy weather, what work could have been done while it rained? &#8212; washing and pitching vats, cleaning farm buildings, shifting grain, shovelling dung, making a dung-heap, threshing grain, mending ropes and making new ones; the slaves could have been patching their own cloaks and hoods. On holidays they should have cleaned out blocked ditches, mended the public road, cut back hedges, dug the vegetable garden, cleared the meadow, cut sticks, pulled out brambles, husked the emmer, tidied up. While slaves were ill they ought not to have been given as much food.” It is astonishing the amount of detail he goes into. Just because the masters were wealthy, it did not mean they should not have intimate knowledge of shovelling dung, making heaps  of them, ordering the planting of the vegetable garden, or cutting sticks. Quite the opposite! Even the food portions for the slaves were important, if profit was to be had!   Once the details were understood, then it was important to put forward the right orders for buying equipment, for selling the products (vegetables, animals or slaves), and for contracting the workers. The orders should have been delivered both verbally as well as in writing, so that there was a clear chronological record of the decision making process. Back then, papyri would have been the means of accounts. Today its a laptop with elaborate software. In both cases the outcome would have been similar. The distillation of Catos’s wisdom (and probably his best advice) can be summarised in the following sentence “The master has to be a selling man, not a buying man.” This is the traditional advice of frugality and simplicity, where loans remained an anathema. In Cato’s advice to the manager (not the owner this time) he insists that: “He must lend to no one but ensure that the owner’s loans are repaid. He must have no loans out to anyone, of seed for sowing, food, wheat, wine or oil: there should be two or three households from whom he can ask necessities and to whom he can give, but no others. He must regularly make up accounts with the owner.” Although he does not moralise on the ‘evil’ of loans, he would not willingly accept such an agreement inflicted upon him, unless, of course, it is the owner that provides the loan All in all, the Romans did not put together elaborate business models based on debt and governmental grants. The clarity and minimalism of the economic and financial models at the time cannot be denied. Without trying to moralise on the topic, I would like to emphasise on the effectiveness of such an attitude. Today we are used to building large organisations based on loans, shares, use of derivatives. They grow fast and exponentially, they employ thousands of people and they go bust at the blink of an eye. We may enjoy the boosts as well as the busts of capitalism but I still appreciate the wisdom coming from the pre-industrial, pre-capitalist societies. Just for today, I intend to busk at the words of Cato and apply a bit more simplicity in my life! The texts come for Cato, De Agricultura, 2 and 5. (https://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/01aglibrary/010121cato/catofarmtext.htm)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/agro-business-in-the-roman-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Direct Democracy versus Representative Democracy. Ancient Athens versus Modern Britain</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/direct-democracy-versus-representative-democracy-ancient-athens-versus-modern-britain/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/direct-democracy-versus-representative-democracy-ancient-athens-versus-modern-britain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Oct 2019 15:23:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancient Athens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brexit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classical Athens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[direct democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[representative democracy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3666</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The impending Brexit caused a massive headache to UK citizens. I know that because my husband suffered a week long one immediately after the referendum! Today Brexit preoccupies most of the daily news. The one piece of news that attracted my attention recently is the existing debate on the value of Direct Democracy vs the value of Parliamentary Democracy. in relation to the Brexit referendum that took place more than 3 years ago. I also noticed that journalists and politicians who engage in these discussions fail to truly understand what political elements Direct Democracy involves. Elements that do not necessarily exist in British society. In order to clarify how Direct Democracy functions, I would like to go back in history; 2,500 years back.  My intention is to revisit Ancient Athens, the cradle of modern democracy. The archetype of Direct Democracy functioned there for several decades before it collapsed. How did the Athenians make it work; albeit for a comparatively short period of time? The Athenian democracy evolved over several decades. There was no single event that set it off and it certainly did not involve any referendums. During the 450s several constitutional changes had an impact on its final formation. In 457/6 chief magistracy was extended to another class of citizens. At the same time the importance of the chief magistrate (archon) was receding in front of the significance of the generals (strategoi). The generals were ten and could hold their post for years. Secondly, in 453/2 thirty travelling justices could decide on minor lawsuits. In 451 Perikles, the famous Athenian politician, put forward a law that limited Athenian citizenship to men who were born of an Athenian mother as well as an Athenian father (Aristotle, Pol., 26.4). The reason was that the number of citizens was increasing fast. The development of Athens as a hub of economic and political activity attracted many foreigners. These moves may have caused the consternation of the true Athenians who came from old and distinguished families. The law was enforced in 445 when Psammetichus (an Egyptian ruler) sent a gift of grain to Athens to be distributed to its citizens. A check of the Athenian records indicated that 10% of the citizen population were wrongly registered and they were immediately excluded from the distribution of grain (Plutarch, Perikles, 37.4). During the fifth century BC only Athenian males over 18 years of age and of Athenian descent owned land within the territory of the city. These could vote, they could participate in the government, while they joined the army. Foreigners (metics) could be awarded citizenship in exceptional circumstances for their services to the city. In Athens resided also large numbers of slaves, who did not have a right to citizenship. We do not have any information about their overall number but we do know that 20,000 of the slaves who worked in the mines of Lavrion deserted their post, when the Spartans entered Attica in 413 BC. (Thucydides, 27.5). Women and children were also excluded from voting. But how did the Direct Democracy system work in practice? A Council of Five Hundred  citizens prepared the decrees. These were voted by the Assembly, the gathering of all Athenian citizens. There were no political parties, no Labour and no Torys. The Assembly met four times a year, while the Council met daily; apart from the major religious holidays (and there were a LOT of them!) The Council publicised the agenda in advance of the meeting of the Assembly. Decisions were not taken instantly and sometimes the process could last for days. Unsurprisingly not all of the citizens attended the Assembly. The space was restricted and so was personal availability. In order to make things more efficient, citizens divided the state’s work in small boards of ten. None could be appointed in the same board in the future. For the system to work, all citizens should have held some post during their lifetimes. The citizens who did not participate in government or, in fact, voted regularly were considered idiotes (meaning privates/ and idiots). Evidently, the Athenians understood very well that in order for Direct Democracy to work they needed two essential elements. The first one was the existence of a large ruling body with executive powers. They preferred to rely on the judgement of a number of generals, instead of an individual archon. And this is why they provided a small salary to thirty traveling judges who would give their judgement across the Athenian territory (a territory that probably was no bigger than London, if we exclude the colonies). And this is why they elected a council of 500 citizens that would oversee the agenda on a daily basis. It looks as if all of the above bodies would supervise the everyday issues as they arose. Secondly, they understood that Direct Democracy cannot exist without the participation of a vast numbers of citizens. At the height of Athenian power, the citizen body did not exceed a few hundred thousand citizens. All of them were expected to take active part in the decisions of the state. The issues were probably not as complicated as they are today, so the average citizen could provide an educated opinion on the issues at hand. Even if not all of them were present simultaneously at the quarterly assembly, the vast majority of them would have been there at one point or another. Otherwise, they would have been shamed into doing so. Which brings us to the situation in the UK today. The recent constitutional debate focuses on the merit of Direct Democracy vs Representative Democracy. The majority of the interviews I overheard exalt the virtues of Direct Democracy. Most British people seem to believe that the decisions of the majority who vote directly on issues at hand are more valid than the decisions of their representatives. After all, the representatives are just a handful of people with personal and political agendas that may be in conflict with the interests of the majority. I will not talk here about the lack of a written constitution in Britain or the fact that only 650 parliamentarians represent more than 60 million of the population. These may cause multiple problems, even though such problems may be offset by the checks and balances of the democratic system. For many citizens it is a no brainer that their personal decision should be more valid than the decision of their elected representatives. And I am one of them. I do not believe that the MP of my constituency always have my best interests at heart. I know enough of party politics to despise the intra-party feuds and the impact they have to the country as a whole. A Direct Democracy that brings decision making to its roots would be ideal, from my perspective. However, is Direct Democracy achievable in modern Britain? Again, in my view, it would be an untenable situation! In Ancient Athens the population was probably around 300,000 people at the height of the empire. Only 30,000 out of those would have been eligible to vote and get involved in the affairs of the state. How could these numbers compare to the 63,000,000 people living today in Britain, of which 46,000,000 are the electorate? And how many people of these 46 million are actually actively involved in democratic activities, beyond voting every 4-5 years? Certainly, the utopia of a Direct Democratic System in the UK has been brought forward not because it is sustainable but because it serves the distorted logic of some Brexit supporters. These supporters claim that the 2016 referendum is the manifestation of the democratic will of the British citizens who exerted their democratic rights in a direct way. This is certainly true. They did exert their rights in a direct way but not within a System of Direct Democracy. Instead, they asserted their preference in a system of Representative Democracy. If the same people voted on the matter 4 times a year (as the Ancient Athenians did); if they took the matter in their hands and they negotiated directly with the EU (as the Ancient Athenians would have done); and if they participated in committees that would have prepared the departure of the country from the EU (as the Ancient Athenians would have done); then, they would have been able to claim that the results of their Direct Democracy should be upheld. The likelihood of the above, though, is slim. I do not keep my hopes high that the British people will become so interested in politics that they will get personally involved in state decisions. Until then, I would suggest that they listen critically to the debates surrounding them, so that they do not get fooled into taking any decisions against the interests of their country.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/direct-democracy-versus-representative-democracy-ancient-athens-versus-modern-britain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What do Vladimir Putin and Constantine the Great have in common?</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/what-do-vladimir-putin-and-constantine-the-great-have-in-common/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/what-do-vladimir-putin-and-constantine-the-great-have-in-common/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:22:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leaders in History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Byzantine empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classical tradition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constantine the Great]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Putin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roman empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3663</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the surface, there is no connection between today’s autocrat of Russia and the emperor of ancient Rome. A little bit of digging, though, reveals direct links between the two political figures; links that should not be ignored. As we are about to see, the study of classical traditions in New Russia and a comparison between the two figures is essential for the interpretation of modern politics. As you probably know, Vladimir Putin has been acting president, president and prime minister of Russia since the fall of Boris Yeltsin in 1999. Since then he ruled over the country with an iron fist, causing both consternation and admiration in almost equal measure, depending on which side you take. During his presidency, we testified to the consistent growth of the economy and the restoration of some of Russia’s previously help political and military power. But the recovery from the collapse of Communism has not been straightforward; in fact, it was long and arduous. Putin seems to have helped turn a corner in the constant decline we witnessed during the 1970s and 1980s; and, thus, spearheaded a new era in Russian politics. On the other hand, Constantine the Great is the celebrated emperor of the fourth century AD and Equal to the Apostles according to the Christian Church. His religious title is an acknowledgement of his outstanding services to the church as the ‘First Christian Emperor’. As for his political achievements, he will always be remember as the emperor that reunited the Roman empire and moved its capital to the little known eastern city of Byzantium, which was renamed into Constantinople. Some historians consider him the Founder of the Byzantine Empire. Similarly to Putin, he paid special emphasis to the restoration of the monetary economy and introduced the markets with the gold solidus, the coin that would be characterised as the ‘dollar of the Mediterranean’. The solidus circulated for many centuries in the regions surrounding the Corrupting Sea and empowered Roman emperors across the centuries. Before we move towards a comparison between the two ‘emperors’, it would be interesting to explore the possibility of direct links between them. I am well aware that they ‘reigned’ almost two millennia apart from each other. And yet, a series of direct connections cannot be ignored! The most intimate link they share is Byzantium itself. Constantinople, as the capital of the Roman empire, was seen as the “Second Rome”. The fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire in 1453 left a political vacuum in Eastern Europe. Ivan the III of Russia, who eventually took the title of Czar (Caesar), spotted the opportunity and jumped in it with both feet! He married Sophia Paleologos, the niece of Constantine IX, the last of the Roman emperors in order to put a claim on the Byzantine throne (whatever that may have meant at the time). By 1510, Moscow was already ‘sold’ to the public as the Third Rome. A panegyric written by the Russian monk Philotheos during that year proclaimed “Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom!” Despite the controversy, whether the Third Rome he refers to is the city of Moscow or the entirety of the Russian lands (Muscovy), the attempt to create a link to the fallen Roman empire is undeniable. Photo: Sophia Paleolog (Palaiologos). Forensic facial reconstruction by S.Nikitin, 1994 (https://fi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:S.paleolog_reconstruction01.jpg) Vladimir Putin is also keen to build on the pre-existing tradition. He clearly attempts to recreate the notion of the Third Rome! His propaganda machine aims at building cultural and political connections with the previous tsarist regimes as well as the Eastern Roman-Byzantine empire. I am guilty of watching several historical series produced in modern Russia that exemplify the continuation of the Roman empire into the Russian one. The most relevant I can think of is the dramatic series of Sophia, a historical drama about the aforementioned Sophia Palaiologina, the Grand Duchess of Moscow. Another relevant manifestation of the adoption of Roman traditions, is the usage of the Roman/ Byzantine double headed eagle on the Olympic Russian team’s hockey jerseys in the Vancouver 2010 and Sochi 2014 Games ( https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/nike-unveils-jerseys-for-2018-olympics-who-will-look-best-in-pyeongchang ). The Roman emperors used the single headed eagle. The double headed one became popular in culture only after the 10th century AD, while the Byzantine emperors adopted it in their symbolic language probably the following century. The two heads symbolised the rule of the empire over East and West, an aspiration that seems to be prevalent also in Russia. More importantly, the allusions to the Grand Tradition of the Byzantine Empire have been kept alive with the resurrection of the Russian Orthodox Church. This religious organisation, which has been persecuted under the Communist regime, now enjoys a special place in Putin’s political agenda.  Putin himself played an unquestionable role in the recent religious schism between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Constantinople (15 October 2018). The schism followed the decision of Constantinople to grant autocephaly (independence) to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. At this point, I would not like to go through the minutiae of the events. Suffice to say that given the explosive political and military situation between Moscow and Kiev, the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew assumed unprecedented importance in Russian politics. On 12 October 2018, Vladimir Putin, &#8220;held an operational meeting with the permanent members of the Security Council&#8221; that discussed &#8220;a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues, including the situation around the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine&#8220;, according to Putin&#8217;s press secretary Dmitry Peskov. On 31 January 2019, concerning Ukraine Putin gives a hand to the Moscow Patriarchate  &#8220;We have respected and will respect the independence of church affairs, especially in a neighbouring sovereign country. And yet we reserve the right to respond and do all we can to protect human rights, including the right to freedom of religion”. (Quotations and relevant references to be found in Wikipedia, “2018 Moscow &#8211; Constantinople Schism). Similarly, Constantine the Great was rather supportive of the developments of the early Christian Church. He lent his gravitas to stabilise its formation and survival. As early as February 313 in a meeting with Licinius in Milan the state assumed a neutral position and the emperors agreed to allow all citizens to follow their faith (including Christians) without persecuting them for their beliefs. Later the emperor presided in Christian Councils in order to influence the decisions of the Church. We know that he participated actively and supported regulations that, in turn, supported his own agenda. Eusebius in his Life of Constantine III.v-x describes Constantine’s presence in the council of Nicaea: “Constantine summoned a general synod, inviting the bishops in all parts with honorary letters to be present as soon as possible…From all the churches which had filled all Europe, Africa and Asia, those who held the chief place among the servants of God assembled at the same time…Present among the body were more than 250 bishops…After the entire synod had seated itself with seeming modesty, all at first fell silent, awaiting the coming of the emperor (Notice the building of the tension here). Soon one of those closest to the emperor, then a second and a third entered… And when the signal was given which announced the entry of the emperor, all rose, and finally he himself approached proceeding down the centre… dazzling the eyes of all with the splendour of his purple robe and sparkling with fiery rays, as it were, adorned for the occasion as he was with an extraordinary splendour of gold and jewels.” (N Lewis and M. Reinhold, Roman Civilisation, II, The Empire, pp. 580-1) Photo: Emperor Constantine I, presenting a model of the Constantinople basilica Hagia Sophia to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Detail of the southwestern entrance mosaic in Hagia Sophia (Istanbul, Turkey). (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constantine_I_Hagia_Sophia.jpg) Frankly, I do not expect Vladimir Putin to enter one of the Russian Church’s meeting with equal splendour. In fact, I do not expect him to enter one at all. After all, his style seems to be one that celebrates simplicity and frugality over extravagance and luxury. His wealth was estimated in 2017 to less than 150000 dollars in cash plus a modest flat in Saint Petersburg. Nevertheless, his influence is probably keenly felt and his help is probably eagerly sought out. His aim is the acquisition of power instead of wealth. Another area, where the two emperors differ the most, is their approach to succession. Vladimir Putin has two daughters from his marriage to Lyudmila Shkrebneva but none of them seem to play a prominent role in Russian political life. His views of the restoration of Russian monarchy do not seem to include hereditary succession. On the other hand, the story of Constantine the Great makes a fascinating read. He kept a very firm grip of power by creating a solid hereditary system. After a power struggle that saw the execution of his son Crispus and his wife Fausta, the empire was eventually divided among his other three sons from Fausta, Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans. Even though Putin and Constantine differed in dynastic politics, they were very similar in their tactics to hold on to power. As I already mentioned, Constantine the Great and Equal to the Apostles did not hesitate to execute his eldest son Crispus, and later his wife Fausta (by throwing her in overheated baths!). There are conflicting theories about the reasons behind their deaths. However, there is no doubt in my mind that they were both part of the political games of power in the Roman Empire. Similarly, in the past few years there have been several scandals, gruesome murders, and alleged suicides associated with Putin’s regime strive for power. Who can forget the spy games in the UK that saw the death of Russian spies and British civilians from poisonous materials in the city of Salisbury? It looks like absolute power can only be sustained, if an expected level of violence is inflicted; whether this happened in antiquity or the 21st century. Of course, I do not believe that Putin tries to copy Constantine the Great! And I seriously doubt that he would insist that Russia becomes the inheritor of the Byzantine Empire. These is a tactic that the Tsars followed several centuries ago. However, there is a distinct possibility that  manipulates the connection with the Eastern Roman Empire and its potent symbols for personal political gain. The gamers of power across time and space find such symbolic connections very useful. *The image has been borrowed from this site http://shoebat.com/2015/10/01/make-no-mistake-about-it-russias-invasion-of-syria-is-a-holy-christian-crusade-done-to-protect-christianity-russia-is-truly-a-christian-nation-and-may-god-aid-her-in-the-war-against-evil-and-isl/)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/what-do-vladimir-putin-and-constantine-the-great-have-in-common/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A comparison of the economic crisis of Greece in the 3rd century AD and today</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/a-comparison-of-the-economic-crisis-of-greece-in-the-3rd-century-ad-and-today/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/a-comparison-of-the-economic-crisis-of-greece-in-the-3rd-century-ad-and-today/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greek default]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greek economic crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roman Greece]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[third century economic crisis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3629</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#160; When I published my monograph on the Roman Monetary System in 2012 I was accused that I did not tackle adequately the third century crisis. This was the most long lasting crisis in the Roman Empire that eventually led to an entirely new political, economic and social system in Late Antiquity. When I published my monograph on the Roman Monetary System in 2012 I was accused that I did not tackle adequately the third century crisis. This was the most long lasting crisis in the Roman Empire that eventually led to an entirely new political, economic and social system in Late Antiquity. The reason I did not present my views in full was because I was planning another monograph. Regrettably, I have not had the chance to finish it, since I decided to leave academia and pursuit a different path in life. As I keep writing my love of history blog, it would be a good idea to present briefly my views on the topic. These views changed slightly in view of the economic crisis Greece is facing for the past few years. I hope you will excuse the fact that I will not be using any references and that the language will address the educated public and not my ex colleagues. The third century economic crisis has not been called a ‘crisis’ for more than a decade. The German scholars, especially, were very keen to rename it into ‘Transformation’. They insisted that we are just witnessing the political transformation, which led to economic and social changes. Or vice versa. One of the economic indicators, which proves this theory, are archaeological evidence, which indicate a proliferation of large villas. This is true! If you study excavation finds, especially in Greece, you realise that the Roman villas are increasing in size. Similarly, the surrounding buildings are multiplying. So, how is it possible that such a wealthy region is suffering from an economic crisis? On the other hand, we encounter a few inscriptions with complains about the authoritarian behaviour of the authorities. At the same time, the monetary system is collapsing and in many cases it is replaced with the exchange of bullion! By the end of the third century Diocletian is trying to tackle rampant inflation and moralises on the exorbitant prices. The third century situation is very similar to the Greek situation today. The ‘haircut’ (see default) of 2012 affected only marginally the Greek oligarchs. Statistics indicate that their tax contributions increased by 9%, while the tax contributions of the poor increased by 337%. At the same time, property prices dropped by 40% and building labour costs decreased at an equal rate. This is the best time to buy a large mansion or build a Roman villa! Wealthy individuals and foreign companies have been scooping up entire neighbourhoods in the middle of Athens. The Greek population has been complaining about the corruption of Greek authorities for some time now. The oligarchs own the media and have substantial influence in the Greek government. For years they managed to secure lucrative contracts, avoid taxation and, thus, cause the downfall of my country. The voices of the people are loud and clear. They may not come through official channels but you can hear them in the streets and in social media (facebook seems to be a national pastime). They resemble the Roman Greeks who during the third century complain to the imperial authorities… in vain. As for the monetary system… well… where do I start! Roman Greece did not have its own system. The region was fully embedded into the Roman monetary system and used the silver and gold coins issued in Rome. There was some leeway with small change. Local cities could issue bronze coinage for the daily needs of the inhabitants. This coinage did not have a massive impact on the overall system, since it was exchanged at Roman imperial rates. On the whole, money monopoly belonged to the central imperial authorities. Similarly, modern Greece uses the euro, which is issued in the Central Bank of Europe. Monetary sovereignty is a thing of the past. I am currently close to believing that also national sovereignty has been lost in the pursuit of … prosperity and economic convergence. European authorities control liquidity, ‘benefactions’ (European Regional Growth Fund), minting, exchange rates. They have full control of the money monopoly. Greece needs to follow central directives and obey central rules. Which is ok, as long as there is a a central political agenda. But there is no such thing! Greece is sacrificed in the altar of Euro Survival. Similarly, Roman Greece was sacrificed in the altar of the political and military aspirations of the 26 emperors who ruled over a 50 year period! Roman Greece as modern Greece are both suffering from the inherent deficiencies of the central monetary system. In the Roman period the continuous debasement caused the collapse of the denarius. In Europe the political disparity between North and South is causing the instability of the euro and threatens economic prosperity. I cannot help but mention one major difference between the two periods. By the end of the third century inflation plagued the markets. In 2015 Greece is suffering from deflation. As an economist I understand very well that deflationary tendencies last longer and cause deeper depressions. In both cases the vast majority of the population suffers. The rich become fewer and richer, while the poor (or middle class) become poorer. I cannot blame the Romans for what happened to third century Greece. After all, Greece has been really Roman for almost 5 centuries. I do blame the Roman emperors, though, for having total disregard for the need of the population and for pursuing their own ambitions. I can blame the Europeans, though, for how they treat the Greeks. 10 million human beings at the heart of Europe are closer than ever to default! Suicides are increasing at a rate of 40% per year. 30% of the population is below the poverty line. 60% of our youth is unemployed. 35,000 medical consultants left Greece. Over 200,000 people emigrated, 180,000 of which are university graduates. 3 buses caught fire in the last 2 months, because of the lack of maintenance. Cancer patients are left untreated. Children go to school starving. Where does it end? Although we do not have similar statistics for the Roman empire, I believe that there is some scope for comparison. In both cases, the gap between the rich and the poor widened. In both cases, the population suffered.  I am sure some future historians will call the current Greek crisis a ‘Transformation’. It sure as hell does not feel like one! &#160;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/a-comparison-of-the-economic-crisis-of-greece-in-the-3rd-century-ad-and-today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The boldest reformers in the Roman Empire: Diocletian and Constantine</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/the-boldest-reformers-in-the-roman-empire-diocletian-and-constantine/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/the-boldest-reformers-in-the-roman-empire-diocletian-and-constantine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:28:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancient history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roman history]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3602</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#160; By the end of the third century AD the Roman Empire has been through 100 years of civil wars, plagues barbaric attacks and Persian invasions that run down the economy and weakened the State.  Although the inhabitants of the Empire lived for years now in conditions of physical danger and economic instability, they never tried to question the decisions of the emperors and they never tried to rebel against the central authorities.  The need for reforms, though, at least in the administrative section became acute both to the upper and the lower classes.  The opportunity came with the rise to the throne of Diocletian, an Illyrian with Greek origins. As soon Diocletian had the power, he attempted to change the empire he was ruling over.  Until then, a single emperor was responsible for the administration of the vast area around the Mediterranean Sea. The task, though, proved to be daunting.  Especially, when the barbaric tribes invaded the Northern provinces or when the Persian tried to conquer Syria.  Diocletian, therefore, decided to recruit additional help, and for the first time in history he appointed a co-emperor.  At Milan in 285 he adopted as his son one of his Illyrian comrades in arms, Maximian, giving him the rank of Caesar. And the next year he promoted him in Augustus, the highest imperial title.  Next, Diocletian kept for himself the Greek East, while he assigned to Maximian the Latin West.  Although the empire remained one political unity, in fact, there were imposed two administrative systems. In 293 Diocletian went a step ahead and proclaimed another two Caesars, one for each Augustus.  Maximian’s Caesar became Constantius, while Diocletian’s Caesar was Galerius.  These Caesars were subject to the Augusti, even if they could take their own military and political decisions within the area of their jurisdiction.  This system of the four emperors has since been called the Tetrarchy.  In fact, it simply applied the familiar practice of putting two junior emperors to the existing diarchy. The successful operation of the new administration allowed the emperors to relax and enjoy the fruits of their efforts. On the twentieth anniversary of Diocletian’s accession to the throne the emperor became seriously ill.  Although he recovered his health, in 305 he decided to abdicate and he persuaded his co-emperor to follow the same course of action.  Their joined abdication allowed Galerius to become Augustus of the East and Constantius to become Augustus of the West. Subsequently, Severan was selected Caesar for the West and Maximin Caesar of the East (both of which were friends of Galerius). Having two Augusti and two Ceasars was a source of strength for the empire, as long as they could co-operate and respect their respective obligations and privileges. However, in this case, tensions appeared almost at once. And these tensions led to the break out of a civil war. The ultimate winner of the continuous battles was Constantine, the son of Constantius and his divorced wife Helene, an innkeeper’s daughter with a &#8216;reputation&#8217; (only much later she was proclaimed a saint and equal to the apostles). Soon Constantine managed to become the ruler of Europe, while the provinces of Asia Minor and Syria remained under the governance of his co-emperor Licinius.  The battle against Maxentius that gave him the right to rule over the western provinces took place near Rome in 312.  It was here that he experienced his famous vision, described by Eusebius: “…a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven…He said that at about midday, when the sun was beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription Conquer By This. He himself was struck with amazement and his whole army also.” Constantine interpreted the vision as the favour of the Christian God. And reinforced by his new faith he marched against the opponents and won the battle.  An ancient historian, Lactantius, provides us with another version of the same event: “Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the ‘heavenly sign’ to be delineated on the shields of the soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shield the letter X combined with the letter P, thus the cipher of Christ.” In any case, the victory not only made Constantine the absolute ruler of the entire Europe but it also marked his conversion to Christianity.  In January 313 he met with Licinius in Milan and they both agreed to grant Christianity full recognition throughout the Empire. “I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, resolved to secure respect and reverence for the Deity, grant to Christians and to all others the right freely to follow whatever form of worship they please, that whatsoever Divinity dwells in heaven may be favourable to us and to all those under our authority”. Constantine, though, seemed to have been a Christian emperor in the wrong part of the Empire, since the Christians were more numerous in the East. When Licinius turned against the Christians of Thrace, Constantine considered it an excellent opportunity to interfere and win for himself the other half of the Roman Empire.  This war ended with the victory of Constantine and the execution of Licinius (although he was promised immunity if he surrendered). In 324 Constantine was the sole ruler of a vast empire. One of his first decisions was the foundation of a new city on the shores of Bosporus, in the place an old Greek city-state called Byzantium.  The new city was named Constantinople, after the emperor’s name, and was destined to become the new capital of the empire.  One of the considerations for such a decision was probably the strategic position of the city.  If someone attacked from the west, then the inhabitants could have retreated in Asia Minor. If he attacked from the east, then they would have retreated to Europe.  It is evident that Constantine gave particular emphasis to the security of the eastern part of the empire.  Until then, the capital, Rome, was placed exactly in the centre of the Empire, since it was equidistant from the Atlantic and from Mesopotamia.  The move of the capital to the East condemned in the long run the western provinces to the continuous barbaric attacks.   A second reason for the foundation of Constantinople was that the emperor needed to distance himself from the old pagan capital.  The new official religion, Christianity, needed to be hosted in a new capital. Constantinople itself became the new symbol of the Christian world.  And Constantine set himself the borders of the city.  The story goes that one fine morning the people saw him walking, tracing out the line of the walls with his spear.  When someone commented that the city is becoming too big, the emperor answered that “I shall continue until he who walks ahead of me bids me to stop”.  Thus the divine foundation of Constantinople was established in the minds and the hearts of its inhabitants.  The capital later was adorned with churches, palaces, a hippodrome and thousands of statues stolen from other Roman cities.  In addition, his mother brought from Jerusalem the True Cross. According to tradition, she distinguished it from the ones used for the two thieves by laying it on a dying woman, who was miraculously restored to health. The reign of Constantine, though, was a problematic one.  Fierce theological debates commenced throughout the empire with regard to the nature of Christ.  On one hand, Arius of Alexandria preached that Jesus Christ was not co-eternal and of the same substance as the Father.  But God had created him as his instrument for the salvation of the world.  Thus, the Son was subordinate to the Father.  On the other hand, the opposition claimed that Christ was of one substance with the Father.  The emperor became actively involved in this debate but without success. He even called for the First Ecumenic synod that took place in the city of Nicaea in 324, in which he presided.  The synod temporarily solved the problem by declaring Arianism a heresy. Christ supposedly was of the same substance and equal to the Father (although this clause could be interpreted in many different ways).  Nevertheless, the emperor did not keep a constant mind, despite his name.  Only four years after the synod, the mother and half-sister of Constantine persuaded him to recall Arius from exile and allow him to settle in Egypt.  The inhabitants of Egypt, though, as well as their archbishop would have none of it. Riots broke out in the region that soon went out of control.  In the meantime, the hermit Great Saint Anthony left the Egytpian desert at the age of 86 and sided with the Orthodox faction.  The upheaval was such that the emperor had no solution but to invite Arius to Constantinople for a further investigation on his beliefs.  During this inquiry  “Arius , made bold by the protection of his followers, engaged in light-hearted and foolish conversation, until he was suddenly compelled by a call of nature retire; and immediately, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst and gave up the ghost”. Although Constantine was involved in serious theological matters, he has not been officially baptized as a Christian.  And with good reason!  In the course of his life he committed enough murders that would have sent him to hell for an eternity.  Among his victims were his first born son and heir, Crispus, and his second wife.  The later was either stubbed or suffocated by steam in one of the public baths.  That is probably one of the reasons for Constantine to be baptized only a few months before his death.  When the baptism was completed, “he arrayed himself in imperial vestments white and radiant as light, and lay himself down on a couch of the purest white, refusing ever to clothe himself in purple again.”  Finally, after the reign of 31 years he died in 22 May 337.  His was buried in the completed church of the Hole Apostles.  This way he laid claim to the title “Equal to the Apostles’ that he carries until today. &#160;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/the-boldest-reformers-in-the-roman-empire-diocletian-and-constantine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The power of the Roman state in the cities of Northern Turkey. The coin evidence</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/the-power-of-the-roman-state-in-the-cities-of-northern-turkey-the-coin-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/the-power-of-the-roman-state-in-the-cities-of-northern-turkey-the-coin-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:05:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancient coins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancient history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancient money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[archaeology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greek coins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[historian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[identification of coins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[love of history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monetary history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numismatic consultancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numismatist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prices of coins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roman coins]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3586</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pontus and Paflagonian Coinage in the Late Republic and the Early Empire Already before the annexation of northern Asia Minor by the Romans, the cities of Pontus (around 12 of them) produced their own bronze currencies, which circulated throughout the region. Most of the types on these coins include Mithridatic connotations based on the association of the royal line with the God Dionysus. During the period immediately before the Roman annexation (85-65 BC), we observe a profusion of 12 different types. The main mint was the city of Amisus, while smaller mints were established in the cities of Cabeira, Chabacta and Comana. This proliferation of types and coins was significantly curtailed when the Roman presence started influencing all aspects of life in the region. The city of Amisus, which previously dominated the production of bronze coinage, now issues only very few coins; these on the obverse employ civic types (Apollo), while on the reverse we notice a combination of civic and state ideological notions (the personifications of Amisus and Roma standing side by side). At the same time, two other cities decided to undertake the task of producing their own currencies. One of these was the city of Amastris, which produced in the past also Mithridatic coins. Amastris chose to issue bronze coins by the name of Papirius Carbo in 60 BC as well as a series of bronzes (with Tyche) during the Pompeian era (64/63 BC). These were followed by a few issues minted in the 40s, 30s and 20s, which bear the Head of Tyche on the obverse and the inscription AMASTREWS and crossed torches within wreath on the reverse. The second city that ventured into the minting of coinage under the Romans was the colony of Sinope. During the Roman Republic this city seems to have been the most important mint in the Pontic region. It was founded as a colony by Caesar in 45 BC, which is also the most likely date of its first Roman coins. The civic authorities chose a combination of civic and state types to be employed on the obverse and the reverse of the coins. Specifically, on the obverse we encounter the heads of Tyche (civic) or Ceres (civic) or the laureate head of Caesar (state). On the reverse, we notice the presence of sacrificial implements (civic/ state), crescent above plough (state), clasped hands holding cornucopia (civic) or a bare head (unknown). On the whole, the following charts demonstrate the predominace of civic types in the case of the obverse types of all cities and the reverse types of Amastris. On the other hand, we observe the predominance of a combination of state with civic themes especially in the cases of the reverse types of Amisus and Sinope. &#160; With regard to the Julio Claudian period, the cities that continue the production of local coinages are Sinope, which remains that stronger mint, and Amisus, while Comana resumes production during the reign of Caligula. Sinope introduces issues that on the obverse bear heads of females and males (civic), heads belonging to members of the imperial family (state) and the God Sol (civic). On the obverses, we find the recurring type of a plough or ploughing (state), cornucopia and globe (state), depictions of members of the imperial family (state), a vase (civic), Tyche (civic), inscriptions in wreath (state), Capricorn and globe (state) and the Dioscuri (civic). On the obverse of the coins of Amisus we notice a combination of state and civic types (although some of them cannot be clearly defined). Specifically, there are the heads of members of the imperial family (state), Athena (civic), Hermes (civic). Also on the reverse, we find the common theme of Amisus and Roma (civic/ state), Nike (state), Athena (civic), members of the imperial family (state), Dikaiosyne (civic), owl (civic), star (civic) and AMISOS in wreath (civic). In Comana, the obverses include the heads of unknown people, while on the reverse we find club in wreath or bust with club (civic), a theme with obvious allusions to the worship of Hercules.  On the whole, we may conclude that the proliferation of civic themes that we observed on the obverse of Republican coins is gradually coming to an end. On the other hand, the state themes dominate the issues of the colony of Sinope, while civic themes are more popular in Comana and Amisus. &#160; The most surprising results are the patterns emerging from the analysis of the obverse types, which were usually chosen to advertise the political authority that guaranteed the value of the coins.  In the Pontic cities the obverses of issues carried local civic as well as Roman state types.  The most likely explanation for this was that the colonial authorities immediately acknowledged the religious authority of the local city gods, and in this respect grafted the new political institutions of the colony onto the Hellenistic religious infrastructure.  This limited the potential clash between the newcomers and the indigenous populations to the secular field, while at the same time opening up an area in which common religious beliefs could develop in the future. This mixed pattern seems typical of the late republican period before the clear-cut imperial ideology of the Augustan age became more popular in the provinces. The obverse types used to bear mainly portraits of the emperor or of other members of the imperial family, exemplifying the authority that eventually legitimized provincial currencies.  State themes are also heavily dominant in the reverse types. It is apparent that the choice of types and legends used by most of the colonies during the Julio-Claudian period suggests that their citizens identified themselves strongly with the collective Roman State.  They emphasized their attachment to the imperial household and to the newly forged ideology of Augustan victory, peace and prosperity.  In some cases, local civic types are commonly used.  The cities proclaimed the extent to which they had become assimilated into the fabric of ‘Greek’ civic culture. Each city thus established its own individual character within the spectrum of different civic constitutions.  The representation of state themes would distinguish the urban centers from the rest of the cities, while the representation of local themes would distinguish them from each other.  The establishment of differences rather than similarities helped to create particular combinations of state and civic identity in the individual cities.  &#160; &#160; &#160;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/the-power-of-the-roman-state-in-the-cities-of-northern-turkey-the-coin-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The grave of Alexander the Great has NOT been found</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/the-grave-of-alexander-the-great-has-not-been-found/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/the-grave-of-alexander-the-great-has-not-been-found/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2014 12:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alexander the great]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hellenistic history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the grave of alexander the great]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3474</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I follow with great interest the excavations in Amphipolis (Macedonia), where a monumental grave has been found. As everyone else, I am more than eager to see what is hiding behind the massive walls! So far, several theories regarding the ownership of the grave were brought forward. The most popular among them used to be that Roxanne, the wife of Alexander the Great, and their son may have been buried there. After all, they were murdered in the region! The proponents of this theory failed to explain how a murdered would-be-king and his mother would have enjoyed such honours. In any case, a few days ago aspiring historians turned their attention to a more lucrative source of amusement. They suggested that the grave belonged to Alexander the Great! Such status of ridicule is not unknown in the archaeological community, as this is not the first time someone claimed that s/he discovered the body of the greatest man in western history.  Highly unlikely, though, for the grave to be found in northern Greece. According to the ancient sources, Ptolemy II Philadelphos (293-246 BC) brought Alexander’s body from Memphis to Alexandria. The move was a highly political one. The king was connected to the city of Alexandria as its Ktistes (builder). Ktistes are known to have been worshiped in antiquity across the Greek world. The body of the man who built the city of Alexandria would have been the religious focal point for the development of a new cult. There is a possibility that he was interred in an area within the city, called Sema, which was still in existence in the 3rd century AD. The physical proximity of Alexander’s body to the administrative centre of the Ptolemies, the Greek rulers of Egypt, was crucial for the legalisation of the new dynasty. The Ptolemies repeatedly tried to connect themselves to the Greek king in order to justify their political power. I seriously doubt they would have allowed his transportation outside the kingdom of Egypt. Ancient sources suggest that several personalities visited his grave in Alexandria, and saw  his gold sarcophagus. Rumour has it that this sarcophagus was, in fact, replaced by a glass one during the reign of Ptolemy IX (116-107, 87-81 BC). Augustus himself, the first Roman emperor, visited the grave after his victory at Actium, according to Dio Cassius (51), a historian and administrative official of the third century AD. This story may be anecdotal but it still indicates the strong ancient belief that the grave was in Alexandria.  Other emperors who may have visited the tomb were Caligula, Septimius Severus and Caracalla.  For a description of the tomb two centuries after the death of Alexander, you may want to read Diodorus Siculus at 18.26.3; 28.2-4. The evidence is clear but some archaeologists and so-called historians insist every few year that the grave of Alexander the Great has been found&#8230; in another location. Have you ever wondered why? There are probably several reasons for such bold statements. The most important one is obviously the instant fame someone gets, when s/he is connected to Alexander. As the Ptolemies did in the Hellenistic period, modern ‘historians’ are trying to bank on the status of the king to promote their careers/ fame/ notoriety. They are well aware that the public is not interested in the excavations of commoners. So, they focus on big names. In the case of Amphipolis, though, the ridiculous of the situation is multiplied. The chief archaeologist of the excavation, Katerina Peristeri, clearly stated that in all likelihood a general (or more) was interred in the tomb. A professional archaeologist of her calibre clearly recognises the importance of the monument and how it should be interpreted. So what is all the commotion about? On one hand the media, in their quest to sell more advertising space, are creating an unprecedented hype. And, in the process, they are willing to believe anyone who offers them what they want to hear! The media circus, though, is not nearly as sinister as the implications from the highly political visit by the Greek Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras. When Samaras decided to be photographed close to the monument, he knew that he was sending a powerful message to the Greek people (and possibly also to our neighbours). He was saying ‘Macedonia is Greek. Alexander the Great is Greek. And he is buried right here in Amphipolis.’ The politicisation of the grave is nothing new for Greek Archaeology. The discipline has been used since the 19th century as a tool of propaganda for the newly formed national Greek state. Archaeologists and historians were used (and abused) by politicians, so that they become the beacons of Greekness. Antonis Samaras is no different. His visit at Amphipolis was not just a photo opportunity, it was a clear message that he is the defender of the Greek state and its province, Macedonia.  The national character of the grave became immediately apparent to the Greek public. The worship of the Macedonian king, though, (n some cases) took unexpected turns. I am referring to the photoshoped image of the grave with the Inscription PAOK. PAOK is the local football team at Thessaloniki. I found this photograph oddly appropriate for what the grave and the team symbolise in the minds of northern Greeks. After all, football matches have always exhibited elements of nationalistic ideologies across the world. The photo at the title has been photoshoped and may be found here http://www.pappaspost.com/digital-prankster-fun-big-archaeological-find-greece/ &#160;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/the-grave-of-alexander-the-great-has-not-been-found/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What was more important, the Classical or the Hellenistic era?</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/what-was-more-important-the-classical-or-the-hellenistic-era/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/what-was-more-important-the-classical-or-the-hellenistic-era/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a comparison of classical and hellenistic history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[continuity and change in ancient history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[how did the hellenistic kingdoms change history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[was the classical era important]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[was the hellenistic era important]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3066</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For some scholars, the Hellenistic period is considered as a period of decadence or degeneration when compared to the brilliance of the Greek Classical Era. Without a doubt, the Hellenistic times were the beginning of a new status quo. However it was closely connected to its preceded time period. The Classical period is known as the best time of the Ancient Greek antiquity, the most impressive era; being so significant itself that it cast a serious influence to all western civilization. More particularly, Athens became the intellectual centre of the ancient world -literature, philosophy, sciences, arts, architecture- all were at their prime. As Starr (1983:275) quotes &#8221;the potentialities of Hellenic culture were gathered together at this time in a great, many-sided outburst.&#8221; The less numerous Greeks were unified against the enormous Persian Empire and they managed to defeat it. Athens and Sparta came into collision as a result of their developing power and need of imposition to each other.” Henceforth, the Hellenistic period is considered less important and less worth-mentioning. It did not present the impressive characteristics the Classical period presented; however that does not make Hellenistic times less significant. It was a period of abrupt changes that altered everything that preceded it to its foundations. Yet, these changes did not cut off the Hellenistic Period from the Classical Period or vice versa. The changes that took place were seen to be the evolutionary step between the two historical periods and contributed to the continuity of Classical Times through the Hellenistic Times. Elements like religion, philosophy or literature changed their perspectives during Hellenistic years but used the starting material of Classical Times. For example, according to Bugh(2006:16) “Alexander married two princesses of the Achaemenid royalty and around 90 of his Companions took brides from the Iranian nobility. That could be viewed as a continuation of traditional Argead policy, which saw marriages as a means of consolidation; Alexander’s own mother Olympias came from the royalty of neighboring Molossia.” Another example can refer to the well-known Greek city-states or poleis. Their physical and social entity continued to exist throughout the Hellenistic period. In older poleis, the element of continuity between Classical and Hellenistic times is strong (Bugh, 2006:54). Therefore, the progress of the era when it comes to what I have previously referred to should not be taken as decay or as the end of the classical period. The innovations that appeared during the Hellenistic period do not paint the picture of degeneration; contrariwise they paint the picture of evolution by using all the meritorious material from the Classical period and transforming it into what today is known as Hellenistic. The two historical periods were at a constant interaction, with Hellenistic period evolving the Classical elements. The change in peoples&#8217; perception and understanding of the world, the different and multiple incentives resulted in that evolution. The Hellenistic period being different and totally unlike to its preceded historical period should not constitute a decadence but a continuation. What I am trying to prove is the continuity of the historical periods and especially that of Hellenistic Times succeeding the Classical Times. The Hellenistic era is fascinating to itself with arts, exploration, literature, theatre, architecture, music, mathematics, philosophy and science being spread deep into the Near East. The Greek civilization reached places that Greeks were never heard of. Every part of the Classical Period that constituted civilization, during the Hellenistic Period continued to evolve. It would be wrong and unrealistic for the historical period that Alexander the Great inaugurated to be regarded as less historically important. Each historical period reflects the way its people were handling and confronting every aspect of their life. During Hellenistic Times people took the magnificent outburst of Classical Times and evolved into what today composes the Hellenistic civilization. It would be prejudiced and one-sided if we were just following the idea that the Classical Times were the prime and the Hellenistic times were the decay of it. They are two distinguished periods, each of which has something else to contribute, however they are not unconnected. On the contrary they are close related by means that the Hellenistic Times continue the evolution of the Classical times, expressed through a different point of view. By Alexia Michalaki BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bugh R. Glenn. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge University Press. Starr G. Chester. 1983. A history of the ancient world. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/what-was-more-important-the-classical-or-the-hellenistic-era/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The licentiousness of the Greek colonists of Sybaris</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/the-licentiousness-of-the-greek-colonists-of-sybaris/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/the-licentiousness-of-the-greek-colonists-of-sybaris/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:19:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancient history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Archaic Greece]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greek colonies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[licentiousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[southern Italy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sybaris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wealth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=2989</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By the end of the 8th century BC the Greeks had already colonised large parts of Sicily and Southern Italy. The reason behind such an expansion was undoubtedly profit: they were probably looking for new agricultural lands, trading ports and metals. Some of these colonies became very rich as they were exporting large quantities of agricultural produce back to mainland Greece. The outcome was the breeding of a new aristocracy in the colonised cities. The new aristocrats were rich and ambitious as money was flowing liberally into their pockets. One of the most important examples in history is that of Sybaris, a city in Southern Italy. Sybaris was renowned for its wealth and love of luxuries in antiquity. In fact, it became an iconic city of Southern Italian wealth. Atheneus, a Hellenistic writer, in his Deipnosophistae, describes the excessively luxurious lifestyle of the Sybarites. He says: “The Sybarites used to wear also garments made of Milesian wool [Miletus was a city in Asia Minor], from which there arose a great friendship between the two cities, as Timaeus relates. For of the inhabitants of Italy, the Sybarites gave the preference to the Etruscans, and of foreigners to the Ionians, because they were devoted to luxury. But the cavalry of the Sybarites, being in number more than five thousand, used to go in procession with saffron-coloured robes over their breastplates; and in the summer their younger men used to go away to the caves of the Nymphs of the river Lusias, and live there in all kinds of luxury. And whenever the rich men of that country left the city for the country, although they always travelled in chariots, still they used to consume three days in a day&#8217;s journey. And some of the roads which led to their villas in the country were covered with awnings all over; and a great many of them had cellars near the sea, into which their wine was brought by canals from the country, and some of it was then sold out of the district, but some was brought into the city in boats. They also celebrate in public numbers of feasts; and they honour those who display great magnificence on such occasions with golden crowns, and they proclaim their names at the public sacrifices and games; announcing not only their general goodwill towards the city, but also the great magnificence which they had displayed in the feasts. And on these occasions they even crown those cooks who have served up the most exquisite dishes. And among the Sybarites there were found baths in which, while they lay down, they were steamed with warm vapours. And they were the first people who introduced the custom of bringing chamber-pots to banquets. But laughing at those who left their countries to travel in foreign lands, they themselves used to boast that they had grown old without ever having crossed the bridges which led over their frontier rivers.” (Translation, C.D. Yonge (1854) http://www.attalus.org/old/athenaeus12a.html) OK, Atheneus may have been exaggerating. The account seems to have been designed to cause the reaction of the audience. I am not certain, though, what kind of a reaction would that be? Jealousy, disgust, awe, surprise? Maybe all of the above. In any case, the narrative probably includes historical elements of truth. There is no doubt in my mind that the Greek colonies achieved unprecedented wealth, due to their superior geographical position, trading connections and political stability. They must have used large parts of this wealth in status objects and other consumer products that would announce to the world the superiority of the city.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/the-licentiousness-of-the-greek-colonists-of-sybaris/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
