<?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; Modern</title>
	<atom:link href="http://loveofhistory.com/category/modern/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>&#8220;Race of Aces&#8221;: A Review by Craig Martin</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/race-of-aces-a-review-by-craig-martin/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/race-of-aces-a-review-by-craig-martin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:39:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race of aces]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World War II]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3711</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John R Bruning&#8217;s Race of Aces is a fast-paced, exposé of the contest to become America&#8217;s top fighter ace. The result of over 30 years of research using a variety of primary and secondary sources including combat reports, unit and individual diaries and extensive interviews with survivors. The book is set in the Southwest Pacific Theatre of Operations (SWPA) following the fortunes of the pilots of the Fifth Air Force based initially in New Guinea. The dreadful conditions the pilots and their ground staff had to endure in New Guinea are evoked. They were not only fighting the Japanese but the high humidity, heat of the tropical climate and hazardous wildlife. American forces had been driven from the Philippines and were fighting for survival in New Guinea. The Japanese were in the ascendant with vastly more experienced pilots and better and more numerous aircraft. The Fifth Air Force commander General George Kenney needed a morale-boosting idea to incentivise his crews.  It came from Eric Rickenbacker, America&#8217;s leading fighter ace of WWI, whose idea it was to offer a case of bourbon for the first pilot to beat his score of 26 enemy aircraft destroyed. The book follows the story of how the pilot&#8217;s attempts to better his score would, over time, become almost as fierce a struggle as that against the Japanese. Bruning intricately follows the development of the race and the unexpected effects it had on the pilots, their colleagues and families. General Kenney knew the SWPA was a low priority theatre of operations at the end of a long and tenuous supply line. Bruning book shows how he used the power of the press and the resulting public interest in his pilots to try and obtain more pilots and planes. In 1942 with the Japanese threatening to push the Americans out of New Guinea General Kenney knew he and the Fifth Air Force needed two things to win the air war in the SWPA more pilots and a better fighter aircraft. The latter was the Twin engined Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the author gives an excellent overview of this aircraft, comparing it to both the then-current American and Japanese fighter planes. The P-38 was a fast hard-hitting aircraft and he needed the right pilots to fly it.  The core of the book is the human interest story revolving around General Kenney&#8217;s requirements for more pilots and their experiences in combat. The new pilots would ultimately compete for the honour of being &#8216;Ace of Ace&#8217;s&#8217;. Bruning explains how in WWII only 5% of fighter pilots became aces &#8211; that is they destroyed more than 5 enemy aircraft. However, these aces accounted for nearly 50% of all enemy aircraft claimed in air-to-air combat. This implies that a heavy burden of responsibility and duty fell on those few men. This was particularly true of the SWPA because of its lower priority compared to the European Theatre of Operations (ETO). General Kenney was forced to keep pilots and planes active for longer than normal. In practice this meant the pilots had to keep flying when they should have been granted leave, increasing combat fatigue and as the narrative shows causing additional stress that led to errors through their impaired judgement. It also meant that because of a lack of new aircraft and spare parts the ground crews had to cannibalise damaged aircraft to keep a few aircraft flying. This, in turn, resulted in the best pilots taking an ever-increasing share of combat flying. Bruning&#8217;s book is at its best as it describes the intense combat between the American and Japanese pilots. The pace and terror of combat are conveyed in a straight forward and clear manner. The need for the American pilots to maintain speed and height for &#8216;slash and dash&#8217; attacks and not engage in following and manoeuvring with their lighter and more nimble enemy is explained. The other golden rule of fighter combat was to look after your wingman, they would protect you whilst you engaged the enemy and vice versa. The problems and losses that came from not following these simple rules are demonstrated frequently in the combat narrative. Bruning&#8217;s book follows the trials and tribulations of such pilots as Richard Bong, Tommy McGuire, Neel Kearby, Charles MacDonald and Gerald Johnson. They fell into two categories Richard Bong, Tommy McGuire and Gerald Johnson were new recruits whilst Neel Kearby and Charles MacDonald were experienced pilots from the pre-war Army Air Corps. The eventual winner of the race and title of America&#8217;s top fighter ace of WWII was Richard Bong. Bruning follows this shy and naïve young pilot from his humble rural background to national hero. Bong was supposed to have been posted to the ETO  but minor misdemeanours resulted instead in his posting to the SWPA. He explains how these probably saved his life, his former colleagues suffered terribly against the Germans, whilst he had time to improve his understand of the P-38 flying characteristics before his eventual posting to the SWPA. This, combined with an instinctive hunter&#8217;s knack of sizing up his opponents quickly led to him gaining ace status. However, it also came with a poor reputation of putting himself first. Bruning relates how three of his wingmen were lost during his first combat tour, many of his colleagues blaming him for their deaths. He explains how Bong&#8217;s habit of internalising these and other loses inflicted on his unit caused deep resentment amongst them. Thanks to the publicity he received  Bong was eventual set home to recover from his combat fatigue and was involved in morale-boosting public relations duties. His second tour would see him beat Rickenbacker&#8217;s total but again Bruning relates how his determination to win the race would further alienate him from his fellow pilots. He details a mission led by Tommy McGuire involving four aircraft during which Bong sighted some Japanese aircraft and without informing the others he dived down to attack them. He would shoot down two but this breaking of formation and flying discipline should have seen him grounded. Instead, no sanctions were taken against by order of higher authorities. After reaching his eventual total of 40 Japanese aircraft destroyed he was awarded America&#8217;s top military honour the Medal of Honor and sent home for good. In February 1945 he married, his fame being so great they had to shut the doors to prevent the public from crashing it. He was again involved in more public relations work and became a test pilot. Bong was killed whilst testing a new jet aircraft and as Bruning shows his public profile meant it was immediately covered by the radio before his wife could be informed. Indeed his death made the front pages of most newspapers in America eclipsing in some the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Bruning contrasts Richard Bong with the experiences of Tommy McGuire the man who would finish second in the race of aces. McGuire was a brasher and more acerbic personal character but was arguably a better pilot and certainly the better leader. The book follows McGuire and his knack for getting into trouble with his acid tongue and manner of looking down on others alienating his fellow pilots. Yet it also relates how he became a better leader of his fellow pilots than Bong ever was. McGuire had an excellent reputation of husbanding new pilots and looking out for others. He frequently features in Bruning&#8217;s narrative diving down to help bomber or fighter pilots set upon by multiple Japanese fighters getting in between them to save the plane and its crew. The book also explains how Bong was favoured over him because Bong better fitted the propaganda image of the ideal American war hero.  This would even see McGuire grounded to prevent him from overtaking Bong&#8217;s score and later contributed in part to his death in combat trying to beat it. The third new recruit featured in the book was Gerald Johnson following through training and combat to be a friend to both Bong and McGuire. It shows him as a different character to both, indeed he combined the virtues of both with few of the vices of either. Johnson was another who excelled as a leader and is shown to have the foresight to ultimately pull back from the race refusing to let it cloud his professional and personal judgement. He would tragically die when he gave up his parachute to save the life of a passenger on a military transport flight to Japan Bruning features the story of two more mature pre-war Army Air Corps aviators who challenged the others for the title &#8216;Ace of Aces&#8217;. Neel Kearby was unusual in that he flew the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, this aircraft was a thoroughbred single-engine fighter which lacked the range of the P-38. The narrative relates how Kearby was determined to win the race and developed tactics to get the best out of his aircraft, winning America&#8217;s highest bravery award for a mission in which he destroyed six Japanese aircraft. This led to his being assigned to headquarters and mostly administrative duties but Kirby kept flying &#8216;off the books&#8217; combat missions and it was during one of these he was shot down and killed.  Charles MacDonald was another pre-war Army Air Corps pilot and ultimately the only one to survive WWII. The book again contrasts and compares McDonald not only with the newer wartime pilots but pointedly with Neel Kearby. A quiet and more reserved character than Kearby he became a good leader and excellent fighter pilot who would not put the race before his duties. MacDonald ended the war as the third-highest rank Army Air Force Fighter Ace and had a successful post-war military career. Bruning&#8217;s book features an interesting two chapters that feature America&#8217;s greatest pre-war aviator Charles Lindbergh. Due to his pre-war attitude towards Germany being pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic and non-interventionist Lindbergh remained a civilian. His views had brought him into conflict with president Franklin Roosevelt. Having surrendered his commission in the Army Air Force the president would not allow him to rejoin. The narrative relates how he came to be in the SWPA seeking knowledge of the war and the chance to fly combat missions. Lindbergh ingratiated himself with pilots of the Fifth Air Force whilst secretly writing in his diaries his distaste for what they had to say, this would much later cause controversy when published decades later. The contrast between the suave cultured Lindbergh who wanted for nothing and who never faced privations of actual combat and the hard-bitten combat fatigue pilots faced is exposed. Bruning here highlights the gap that invariably exists between those that fight and those that do not. Lindbergh is seen to take moral umbrage at his fellow American&#8217;s and what he thought was their total disregard for their opponents. He never questioned the way that the Japanese conducted themselves. In this, he failed to understand the basic truths of front line combat and particularly against an opponent like the Japanese. Lindbergh is shown to impose on his country for what was essential battlefield tourism even though the army warned that not all areas were safe. Then there was his desire to gain real combat experience against the Japanese an experience that had nearly fatal consequences for him. Taken on patrol he was bounced by Japanese fighters and in the ensuing confusion not only was he nearly shot down but he nearly shot at his own wingman. When higher authorities found out what had happen his flying activities were curtailed with Tommy McGuire ensuring he was well protected whilst flying on safe &#8216;milk run&#8217; missions. Bruning questions the legality when on one such mission he shot down an enemy aircraft as a civilian given Lindbergh&#8217;s comments about his fellow American&#8217;s attitude to combat. Bruning&#8217;s book shows how public adulation derived from their success at times intruded into their private lives and placed additional pressures on their families. It finishes with a summary terrible effects the race had on the various families, the Kearby family who lost their second and last son to the war; the tragedies of  Neel Kirby&#8217;s three sons in air crashes of. The widowing of young wives, several of whom made bad second marriages and the enduring pain from the loss of family and friends. In summary, Bruning excels in exposing the unintended consequences of a morale-boosting idea, it shows how humans, under extreme pressure, can and do make poor judgements. The race drove these men to surpass not only Rickenbacker but each other, which at times brought out the best and the worst in their characters. Fighting as they were, not only a fanatical and ruthless opponent under taxing conditions but also themselves in their drive to be the &#8216;Ace of Aces&#8217;.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/race-of-aces-a-review-by-craig-martin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Philhellenism at the Onset of the Greek Revolution</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/philhellenism-at-the-onset-of-the-greek-revolution/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/philhellenism-at-the-onset-of-the-greek-revolution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:36:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greece]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greek revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modern history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philhellenism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3684</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the first years of the Greek revolution the government of the major European governments had little sympathy for it.  Those governments’ subjects however often took a very different view.  Travellers had increasingly visited Greece when the Napoleonic wars had made the Italian Grand Tour impossible, and had written glowingly of their experiences.  The study of Latin and Greek was the mainstay of higher education.  Many saw the Greeks as representing Christianity embattled against Islam, and as the birthplace of Europe’s civilization resisting the barbarism of Asia.  Perhaps only in the foreign reactions to the Spanish civil war of the 1930s has there been such a sharp contrast between the cold abstention of governments and the passionate involvement of individuals. The shocks of the Napoleonic wars shaped the policies of the European powers in the following decades.  In November 1815 at the close of the Congress of Vienna the victors over Napoleon – Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia – signed a treaty continuing for twenty years their Quadruple Alliance, which was pledged to uphold by force the post-Napoleonic settlements in Europe.  Three years later France was added to the group making is a Quintuple Alliance.  To sustain the so-called concept of Europe, the powers were to meet at regular congresses ‘for the purpose of consulting upon their common interest and for the consideration of the measures most salutary for the maintenance of the peace of Europe’.  It was from the second of these congresses in 1821 that Tsar Alexander sent his uncompromising denunciation of Alexander Ipsilantis’ incursion into Moldavia and Wallachia. In time the Holly Alliance was endorsed by all Europe’s rulers except the Pope, the non-Christian sultan naturally, and Britain on the ostensible grounds that George III was incapable and the Prince Regent not yet the monarch.  The Holy Alliance was anathema to progressives.  As Shelley wrote in the preface to Hellas, in a passage which the cautious writer omitted from the first edition: ‘This is the age of the war of the oppressed against the oppressors, and every one of those ringleaders of the privileged gangs of murderers and swindlers, called Sovereigns, look to each other for aid against the common enemy, and suspend their mutual jealousies in the presence of a mightier fear.  Of this holy alliance all the despots of the earth are virtual members.” However, those who joined or endorsed the Holy Alliance were far from enthusiastic about it: Metternich dismissed it as ‘a high-sounding Nothing’, Talleyrand as ‘a ludicrous contract’.  Nevertheless the formation of the Holy Alliance seemed to signal a commitment by governments to act from religious principle rather than self-interest.  In theory this might mean that Greek appeals to altruism would win support from governments in the same way as from individuals.  But there was of course an inherent and disabling contradiction in the principles of the Holy Alliance when applied to the Greek situation:  the Alliance’s commitment to uphold the Christian religion meant support for the Greeks, but its commitment to uphold government meant support to the Sultan.  Thus in the Greek conflict the influence of the powers of Europe would inevitably spring from their own national interests, and the only hope for Greece was that these interests might come to coincide with her own. A number of foreigners took ship in 1921 to go and fight for the cause of Greek independence; among them ex-soldiers, murderers, intellectuals and aristocrats.  Marseilles was the pint of departure for most of the early philhellenes.  Eleven ships sailed from there between the outbreak of the revolution and the end of 1822, carrying in all some 360 volunteers, the largest contingents coming from the German states, France and Italy.  At the end of 1822 the French authorities closed the port to ships bound for Greece, perhaps because France was now following Meternich’s pro-legitimacy lines, or because reports of returning philhellenes showed that volunteers would only find misery, death and ingratitude.  But in the early days optimism and idealism run high.  Throughout France, the German states and Switzerland politicians, churchmen and university professors proclaimed the triple message that Europe owed its civilization to the ancient Greeks, that the modern Greeks were their descendants, and that Greece could be regenerated by driving out the Turks. The message appealed particularly to the idealistic young.  A youthful doctor in Manheim said that the call went through him like an electric shock.  A theology student in Prussia was excited by the idea of fighting were Epaminondas and Themistocles fell.  The other two main groups who rallied to the Greek cause were demobilized soldiers and political refugees, and many volunteers were both.  For example,  the Wuerttemberg count General Normann, who had fought both for and against the French in the Napoleonic wars and was thus not welcome in any army, led a motley German battalion to Greece from Marseilles in January 1822. Apart from those with an obvious motive for going to Greece – idealism, soldiering, exile – the philhellenes included a clutch of eccentrics: a Bavarian china manufacturer intending to set up a factory in Greece, an out-of-work French actor, a dancing master from Rostoc, and even a Spanish girl dressed as a man. Many of the volunteers were rich enough to pay for their own travel on the road to Marseilles and on the voyage to Greece.  But many others, especially the idealistic young depended on the goodwill of others and committees were therefore formed to raise money to help the volunteers on their way.  The most numerous were in democratic Switzerland, unaffected by great-power politics, where virtually every town had an active Greek society.  The most practical were in the German states.  Thus the enthusiastic young philhellenes on the way to Marseilles became a familiar sight on the roads to Europe. ‘In different parts of the country’, wrote an English traveler, ‘I met with numerous companies of young men on foot, with knapsacks at their backs, on their way to Marseilles, there to embark for Greece.  These parties appeared to be composed chiefly of young German recruits and runaway students, and from the boisterous enthusiasm which they generally manifested, it was my endeavour always to avoid them as much as possible.’ Associations to help the Greek cause were not restricted to the central parts of Europe, nor to raising money to help individual volunteers on their way.  Greek committees were established in Spain, France, England, Russia and America.  Their activities included raising subscriptions to help the Greeks directly by sending money or supplies, organizing relief for Greek refugees from the conflict, and pressing their governments to act on the Greeks’ behalf.  In Spain Madrid has a claim to have formed the very first Greek committee.  France was last in the field.  There was an early outpouring of French pamphlets supporting the Greek cause – over 30 in 1821-2 – but a specifically Greek committee was not established until February 1825 in Paris.  By then Greece had moved into the foreground of public and government concern, partly because of the profound impression made by the death of Byron, partly because the outcome of the war came to be more clearly seen as affecting France’s national interest. In England the question of support for Greece became entangled in domestic politics.  Its earliest expression was in October 1821 from Dr Lempriere, author of the famous classical dictionary, with an appeal for funds published in the Courier, normally a paper reflecting the views of Tory government.  But the Courier quickly abandoned the cause of the Greeks.  The editor ‘changed his note in a very few days when he found that [his sentiments] were unpalatable go our Government’.  The Tory government line was that neutrality meant not attempting to support the Greek cause with funds, men or equipment; a Tory philhellene was a contradiction in terms.  Canning, however, in 1822 took the view that private subscriptions could go hand in hand with official neutrality, so that England’s influence in Greece could be strengthened without jeopardizing the alliances of powers.  Thus in March 1823 the time was  ripe for the formation of the London Greek Committee, but even this was a reflection of domestic politics.  Out of nearly forty members of the parliament in the committee of 85 virtually all were Whigs, Radicals and Independents.  Another feature of the list was the number of Scottish and Irish names, suggesting that ‘perhaps philhellenism provided a kind of surrogate for nationalist motion which lacked expression at home’.  The London Greek Committee was, in short, a protest movement, and opposition to the government was the prime qualification for membership of it. In the United States Greece found an immediate champion in Edward Everett.  He was elected professor of Greek in Harvard and visited Greece.  In 1820 he became editor of the North American Review and in 1824 a member of Congress.    In 1821 Korais sent Everett the Greek appeal that ‘it is in your land that Liberty has fixed her abode’, so that ‘you will not assuredly imitate the culpable indifference or long ingratitude of the Europeans’.  At Everett’s instigation this appeal appeared in the newspapers.  There followed a cataract of pro-Greek articles in the press.  They praised Greek heroism, condemned Turkish atrocities while ignoring or explaining away Greek ones, and published local pro-Greek activities. These activities were many.  Some of the earliest Greeks sent provisions to Greece.  In 1821-2 Charleston sent fifty barrels of dried meat and Springfield sent flour, fish, meat and sugar.  Fund-raising associations sprang up most of them channeling thair contributions through the committee of New York.  By the end of 1824 the New York Committee alone had raised the equivalent of 8000 dollars ( a sum as large as all the subscriptions which the Greek Committees have been able to obtain in England for the past 18 months).  In Russia there was fervent and widespread sympathy for the Greeks, based not only on the usual grounds but also on Russia’s special debt to Greece as the bringer of Christianity to Russia.  Prince Alexander Golitsyn wrote of the desire ‘to help the sons of the country which fostered enlightment in Europe and to which Russia is even more obliged having borrowed from it the enlightment of faith, which firmly established the saving banner of the Gospels on the ruins of paganism’.  There was not incompatibility in Golitsyn’s position as both minister and philhellene since aid for the Greeks was government policy, but this aid was to be restricted to two purposes only: relief for Greek refugees from the conflict, and the ransoming of Greek captives who had been enslaved.  It was not part of the policy to send military supplies to Greece, and when on one occasion weapons on their way to Greece were intercepted they were sold and the money given to refugee relief. Golitsyn was the prime mover in raising funds for the Greeks.  In a government announcement of August 1821 he called for subscriptions to be made through the church in confidence that ‘pious Christians, in faith and love, will certainly lend a helping hand’.  Golitsyn also urged military governors to seek donations from the people of their regions, and civilian officials to approach the local merchants to participate in this ‘philanthropic work, which alone can bring eternal treasure and before which all the riches of the world are nothing’.  Large individual donations helped swell the Russian total.  Contributions came even from the peasants in remote rural communities, where donations of as little as ten kopeks were touchingly recorded.  Fund-raising did not slacken after an initial burst as happened elsewhere.  By the end of the decade Russia had raised several million roubles for the Greeks. The number of Greek refugees needing help was formidable.  Golitsyn in his first call for donations claimed that nearly 4000 reached Odessa in a single day.  A further 40.000 Greeks crossed into Russia from Moldavia and became the responsibility of the relief committee there.  Help was given not only in money but also in medical care, shelter, education and employment.  The second aim of Russian philhellenic activity was the ransoming of Greeks enslaved by the Turks, but this proved far more difficult than helping refugees.  The ransom effort began in the summer of 1822 and was prompted by the distressing reports of slaves taken after the Turkish destruction of Chios.  The initial came from the Greek clerics of Bessaravia.  Their object was ‘to save from the abyss of perdition as many Christians as providence will allow’.  The first estimate of the scale of the problem gave the number of captives as 100000 and the total ransom money needed as 500000 roubles, a sum that was in fact raised in the next 12 months.  This type of Philhellenism arising from the passions of a revolution did not last long. Political strife among the Greeks and the direct influence of the foreign powers diluted the pure ideals of excited foreigners. As the revolution dragged for most of the 1820s with its inevitable ups and downs, the exalted Philhellenic feelings turned into military and political feuds, struggle for monetary gains, power grabbing exercises. But this is another story altogether!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/philhellenism-at-the-onset-of-the-greek-revolution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eunuchs and Transsexuals and their political power</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/eunuchs-and-transsexuals-and-their-political-power/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/eunuchs-and-transsexuals-and-their-political-power/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:32:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Medieval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[byzantine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eunuchs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transsexuals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You probably already know that some transgender people chose to make a transition with the help of surgery in order to live life as transexuals. Sex re-assignment surgery or gender re-assignement surgery is a phenomenon of the 20th and the 21st century. The experience is fraught with dangers at the physical and the psychological level. There is no doubt, though, that it remains largely positive when the choice is made intentionally, after serious forethought and with the help of professionals. As sexual politics evolved rapidly the past few years, most of the debates we hear are about the rights of transgender people, their status in law and how well they are integrated into society. We do not hear about their change of gender in relation to political power. Unless, of course, we want to pay emphasis on the fact that their presence in the political arena is accepted or frowned upon. Suffice to say that in some countries their presence anywhere causes derision or hate actions at a great personal and social cost. I am more interested, though, in the position of transsexual people at the highest echelons of political power in the so called civilised countries of the West. How many MPs, MEPs or Ministers do you know that are transsexual? The answer is probably none as far as I am concerned. I am deeply concerned that this part of the population is not adequately represented where it matters. I am also concerned at the deep socio political transitions that happened the last few centuries, which led to the exclusion of these people from the political arena. This was not always the case… Back in the Byzantine Empire (or Eastern Roman Empire, if you which to call it that) Eunuchs held prominent positions in the government. Eunuchs are the not the same as Transsexuals but they are the closest that I can think of in terms of sexual orientation. In the first instance, eunuchs may not have had a choice in changing their sex, while transsexual always have a choice to go or not got through the transition. Furthermore, women could not change their body in ancient or medieval times, while it is possible to do so today. I can think of several more differences. Even so, the similarities between the two groups of people are strong and remain valid. They all underwent physical changes that altered their sex. Byzantine law distinguished two kinds of eunuchs: the ektomiai or ektomoi, i.e. castrati, from whom a surgical operation had removed all means of procreation, and the spadones or thladiai (Nicet. 608), whom a constitutional defect or an illness had rendered incapable of procreation or impotent. Of course, the law referred exclusively to men, never to women. Unlike modern attempts to remove transexuals from the front office, eunuchs were numerous in Byzantium they were always sought after by the Byzantine emperors. They were considered a valuable gift. In the era of the empress Irene (797-802) eunuchs formed a veritable swarm in the Grand Palace. The laws, however, severely prohibited eunuchism. The early Roman emperors during the first and the second centuries AD prohibited this practice, at least within the boundaries of the empire. Justinian I punished the perpetrators and accomplices of the operation with the penalty of retaliation. If the condemned person survived, he was sent to the mines and his property was confiscated. In spite of all that, the practice of eunuchism did not disappear, since there was no prohibition against trading in eunuchs who came from foreign countries. Specifically, in the 5th century, Leo I (457-474) prohibited the sale of eunuchs of Roman nationality within the empire, but he had to allow the trade in eunuchs of foreign nationality (Code of Justinian IV 42.2: de eunuchis). In the end, a powerful order of eunuchs was formed in Constantinople. Special titles of nobility were created for them and certain responsibilities were reserved for them. They eventually came to exercise all public functions both in the palace and in the army. There are many reasons that explain the rulers&#8217; keen interest in eunuchs. First of all, it is almost certain that the all-powerful imperial women needed the service of numerous eunuchs. Moreover, once introduced to the imperial palace, the eunuchs quickly acquired a profound influence on the emperors and empresses who used them as advisors, or treated them as protégées. Eventually, some of them were seen as members of the imperial family. Once it was noticed that being a eunuch could bring fortune, power, and honour, parents consented to the castration of one of their children. Unlike the reaction of the modern Christian churches to transsexual, transgender, gay, lesbians etc, the Byzantine Church did not reject eunuchs from the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It included a large number of eunuch clergy, among them patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, and monks. This is definitely another sign of the power of eunuchs in that society. What is most surprising is the great number of eunuchs whom one encounters as generals and admirals throughout the history of Byzantium, especially after Justinian I. The reason for this is that the rulers found it prudent to entrust the chief command of their armies to eunuchs. Other more experienced generals would probably accompany these eunuchs during campaigns, but in subordinate roles. The reason for allowing eunuchs to lead the army was the fact that a castrated general could not have become a usurper to the throne. Throughout the Byzantine period individuals who could not procreate and give birth to an heir could not become emperors. It is evident that the role of eunuchs in the civilian hierarchy in Byzantium was even more important than their role in the army. Surrounded by a powerful aristocracy, which could have been a threat to the throne, the rulers preferred to employ eunuchs as their most trusted assistants. Of course, this is not the case in the 21st century. Western societies are profoundly democratic and there is no hereditary monarchy that needs to be protected from potential usurpers. The power dynamics have changed profoundly over the centuries and as such the reliance on Eunuchs or transexuals. Transsexuals are stripped of their power in the political sphere and I do not see how they can regain the illustrious positions they held in the distant past.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/eunuchs-and-transsexuals-and-their-political-power/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>Grexit and Brexit: The unholy connection</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/grexit-and-brexit-the-unholy-connection/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/grexit-and-brexit-the-unholy-connection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2016 06:04:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brexit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grexit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many of my British friends have been asking me lately “What is going on with Greece? The country is no longer in the news? Are things better?” At which point, I just want to scream! But, of course, I do not! I have been trained as an academic; hence, screaming should not be part of any sensible conversation. Yes, what is happening to Greece is preeminently sensible, and logical, and expected. The country is just completing Phase 1. Successfully! The New Left Government followed European rules almost to the letter and they brought about the eagerly anticipated result. Greek State assets have already been transferred or they are about to be transferred to foreign hands. The main beneficiaries seem to be Germany and China. Of course, this type of discrimination does not sit very well with the French but this was to be anticipated. All is well that ends well! So, we are successfully entering Phase 2 of the Grand Plan. This is the transfer of private properties to foreign hands. In this case, I expect that the distribution will be fairer. Although some of the private properties will be confiscated by German Funds, I expect that large chunks will fall in the hands of French, British, American and other private organisations. As I am always in firm opposition of any discriminatory practices, I am over the moon about the result. The power of the Free Market will prevail. While the Greeks started receiving final notices on their homes, an interesting hiccup temporarily stopped the process. No, the Greeks have not rebelled. And they are not likely to do so for several reasons I could explain in another post. Instead, the British went out of their way to save Greece. No, Cameron is not the new Winston Churchill, although posthumously we may also declare him our great benefactor. He is responsible, though, for setting up the British Referendum in July. So, how can the British Referendum save Greece? Well, in absolute truth it cannot. In the bigger scheme of things most Greeks will lose their homes over the next couple of years. However, it can stall the process for about a month or so. There seems to be an agreement among several parties in the European Union that all negotiations with Greece should be halted until the Referendum is over and done with. As Phase 2 is about to be implemented, there is a general expectation that things can get nasty in the European South. If the press picks up on the mess (yet, again) the British public may get scared. If Europe can treat this way one of its members, why should the British Public vote to remain in the Union? Why should they jeopardise their own future within a less than democratic Europe? The Germans, the French and the British government agreed (alleluia!)  that they should keep a low profile with regard to the Greek Issue. For now. After the end of June we should expect an explosion of news! For the past few weeks individual members of the European Union started implying that the Greek Debt may be reduced. I have a feeling that this will happen only after the private properties pass into the hands of foreign investment funds, a couple of years down the road. At that point, they will need to start boosting the economy, so that the funds can reap some profits. So, my prediction is that in July we will have a bit more of the drama we faced last year. Whoever mentioned a haircut of the Greek Debt will retract and they will start applying more pressure for more taxes on private assets. More exciting times to come!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/grexit-and-brexit-the-unholy-connection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Greek Austerity or Greek Default?</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/greek-austerity-or-greek-default/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/greek-austerity-or-greek-default/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greek crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greek default]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greek referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[troika]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3634</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Greece, a country with the longest democratic tradition in the world, announced a referendum. The Greek people are called to decide, whether they accept a new austerity program or not. The decision is a difficult one, not least because most of the population does not hold a PhD in economics. Well I do! And I can assure you that I also find the longwinded documents perplexing. Let me see what evidence I have in my hands. The new austerity measures follow the same recipe that created the Greek crisis as we know it today. Specifically, Public debt reached 175% of the GDP. Bearing in mind that 99% is the psychological point before an increased risk of default, the number is astonishing. The debt reached 320 million EUR. So, each Greek citizen should pay back 32,000 EUR. Unfortunately, more 30% of the Greek population live below the poverty line. Even 32 EUR would be a large amount. Public deficit was reduced. The numbers indicate a 20% adjustment! Public servants were reduced by 30%! Salaries were reduced by 37%! Pensions were reduced by 48%! Unemployment reached 27%, while it is around 60% for young people! On the whole, the economy contracted by 27%. A similar contraction was achieved during the Second World War, when 10% of the Greek population died of hunger! The destruction of the Greek economy is almost complete. In view of this situation, the EU, ECB and IMF decided that they should finish the job they started. So, they recommended more of the same austerity measures. Among them, admittedly, there are some measures that will foster a competitive economy. For example, a decrease in bureaucratic process is badly needed! There is no doubt that the Greek economy is in need of reforms; reforms that should have taken place in the last three years. Clientelism needed to be eradicated. The oligarch needed to lose their power. And so forth. Unfortunately, previous governments that profited from the status quo did not take the necessary decisions. And they left us with an economy that contracted by 27%, instead of the predicted 5-10%. The necessary reforms, though, should not involve further cuts in pensions. After all, the Highest Administrative Court of Greece declared this practice unconstitutional, since the pensioners have already paid their contributions. Salaries have already been squeezed to the point that the average household has cut down the consumption of food by about 20%! General taxes that affect businesses reached almost 70%. Existing property taxes ruined what was left of the middle classes. I can go on and on but I will spare you the pain! After all, it does not matter what numbers say. Numbers can be presented in contradictory ways to achieve contradictory results. Statistics can be manipulated to create one or another effect. The technical reports we are asked to vote on are nothing but a fiction of numbers that may or may prove to be true. They are based on fictitious projections on how the Greek economy will perform! Well, it is not the first time the IMF made a deadly mistake! I will tell you also another secret. Economics is more akin to astrology than science! Economists are called to predict the future. So, they study different parameters and they come up with educated guesses. If one parameter is missing, the prediction collapses like a tower of cards. In the Greek case, many parameters were not included. These involved primarily but not exclusively the psyche of the Greek people, consumerist behaviours, the political cultural and many others. Of course, such parameters can not always be quantified; a fact that the technical groups prefer to ignore.  This is one of the main problems we face in macroeconomics. We may worship neoclassical or institutional economics but we do not take into account the more important behavioural economics. I will not go into the theoretical details of how this impacts modern economic decision making. Suffice to say that the same measures should not be applied in every situation. Each country is different, economically, politically, geopolitically, culturally, traditionally, environmentally etc. So, where do we go from here? We obviously have to take a very difficult decision. I have already taken mine, based on the evidence I have at hand. Let me explain how I reached that decision. You never know, it may help people clarify their own thinking. First of all, I am convinced that a YES in the referendum will be as catastrophic for the Greek economy, as previous decisions were, for all the reasons I outlined. Same measures will only bring similar outcomes. The current economic policies failed and should not be re-implemented at all costs. We cannot afford more impoverishment, especially if this kind of situation continues for the next two decades or so. What happens, though, if we vote NO? The Troika, individual European countries, the world is warning Greeks that a default and a Grexit will follow. Of course, nobody can be certain that this is the only outcome. After all, who can really predict the future? Especially since the outcome will not be just the result of economic policies; instead, it will be the combination of political aspirations, geopolitical decisions, national ideologies and conflicting power struggles within the European Union. Based on the evidence I have in my hands, I could predict how a radical left Greek government would react in a possible NO. First of all, they would not leave the euro and certainly not Europe. For as long as they are part of the current institutional European system, they have certain advantages (as well as disadvantages). Hence, their steps will be very careful. And yet, they will still have to face a possible default. I know I am oversimplifying the situation but defaults are usually divided in ‘structured’ and ‘unstructured’ ones. Such a structured default took place in Greece in 2012. Of course, they did not call it as such. Instead, they preferred to call it a ‘haircut’ in order to avoid the harsh reaction of the markets. This type of default took place with the full consent of the creditors. Unfortunately, it was of limited nature. At that point, it should have ‘cut’ at least 70% of the debt. It didn’t, with disastrous results. After a NO vote negotiations will start that will determine the nature of the next default; either structured with the consent of the EU, ECB and IMF (these are the creditors today), or unstructured without their consent. I would assume that the European Union would not like to rock the boat too much. We are literally travelling in unchartered waters today. A false move can bring down several European parties. And yet, stupidity reigns, as recent negotiations with the Greek government indicated. And I cannot exclude the possibility of an unstructured default. Even such a default will not happen overnight. Bear in mind that this is a process. We will not wake up one morning being bankrupt. The results of a possible default, especially if it is unstructured, should be divided into short, medium and long term ones. This way we will understand better what awaits us and for how long. To be absolutely clear, I have the Argentinean model in my mind, because it was the latest state bankruptcy that assimilates the Greek one. After all, the Argentineans also had their currency pegged to the dollar, in a similar fashion as we use the euros. There are, of course, differences. Among them the scale of the Argentinean economy is much larger than the tiny Greek one, while their currency was freed from the dollar almost immediately. Following the Argentinean example, we should expect a steep contraction of the Greek economy as a whole in the first six months. Economists estimate it to another 10% on top of the 27% we already experienced. This is actually better than I thought. If we vote yes and we accept the new program, the contraction of the economy will probably reach another 5-6%. What does this mean for the people? I think that capital controls are unavoidable. The government may restrict withdrawals from the bank to 300 euros per week, that is 1200 euros a month. To tell you the truth, I know very few people who make 1200 euros a month. I even know a lot less people who have any money in the bank! So, I do not think that the measure will affect the majority of the population. Problems, though, will arise in the energy sector, food and medication. I think that we import 40% (if I remember correctly) of our energy consumption mostly from Bulgaria and Turkey. If credit is altogether cut, we should expect power cuts that will affect up to 40% of our day. Our habits in terms of cooking, reading, watching tv etc. will have to change. Similarly, gasoline and gas will be affected. We also import a large amount of our foodstuff. I am afraid I do not have the statistics for that. I suspect that some items will altogether eclipse from the markets. My biggest fear have always been that chocolate will be found nowhere! The existing government despite entering harsh negotiations has not taken any measures to increase local production. I suspect that part of this reason was because it did not want to upset the Central Agricultural Policies of Europe.  Food consumption will be reduced, the black market will flourish and Greek people will suffer. Rationing is expected. We will face the same situation with medications. I suspect that the lowest incomes will be hit the hardest as they will not be able to find medicines in the local market. I have friends who already stocked up in antibiotics and painkillers for the kids… just in case. However, I suspect that these may be found and bought from online pharmacies. The humanitarian crisis will become more pronounced in the cases of cancer patients. It will be very difficult to treat them on Greek soil. When this situation is realised a large package for help will be voted in the European Union. Unfortunately, we will have to rely on external help to face the problems creditors as well as previous Greek governments created. The help will be substantial and short lived. I cannot possibly believe that the EU will face a humanitarian crisis of these proportions in the heart of Europe without reacting. Such an omission would trigger social unrest and geopolitical shifts that would be best avoided. These short lived effects will last around 6-8 months. Then we will notice a stability in the system. The country will start recuperating slowly but steadily. The people will settle in a new normal, the budget will become more balanced (although now we are very close to primary surplus), more jobs will be created, stability will start attracting foreign investment. This will be 1-2 year period, depending on the mood of the Greek population. If they keep positive, they will recuperate faster. The true growth will come afterwards. Two years beyond the default may see growth of around 8%! Greece has not seen such growth since for ever. The economy will be vastly more competitive, entrepreneurship will be modus vivendi with a lot more businesses opening up, the power of the state will be reduced and, hopefully, the oligarchs will lose part of their hold on political affairs. No we will not leave Europe! Only sick minds can suggest such an outcome. And it is highly unlikely that we will leave NATO. Greece is a very small country of people with loud voices but no real power. It would be best for everyone, if we kept our existing alliances. We have been part of European processes since the 1950s. We officially joined the European Community in 1981 (the same year as Ireland did). Traditionally, we are very much part of Europe, long before we adopted the same coin. I cannot say the same about keeping the euro, though. In fact, I am not even sure the euro will survive this pan-European crisis. There is certainly strong political will from the vast majority of the countries to keep it in place. For now! However, if austerity in Europe continues, the people may start voting for the ‘wrong’ governments. I am looking forward to see how the Podemos in Spain will fare in the next elections, for example. No matter how loudly some Greek parties shout for keeping the Euro, I am not entirely certain this is feasible. If Europe decides to ‘punish’ the Greek government and decreases the liquidity of the banks, SYRIZA will be left only with one option. If there is a default of any kind, euros will stop flowing into the country. In fact, they stopped flowing almost a year ago. The government will have to issue IOUs. Effectively, this is additional credit. Legally speaking, it is not currency. So they do not break any European laws. So, Greece will remain in the Eurozone. In my opinion, staying the eurozone in the long run is not a good idea. The competitiveness of the Greek economy does not lie in the deflationary policies the Troika imposed in the past 5 years. I have already stated that these policies failed. The only way forward is to create, or rather recreate, our own coin. This coin may be the drachma or something else. We should not expect it, though, to happen overnight. It will be long process before we see the ATMs in Greece spitting out drachmas. Do you remember how long it took before we adopted the euro? We are probably looking into a similar process. So, now that I have a fair idea of what is going to happen, I need to take a decision. My decision will be based not on what is best for me today but what is best for my children in the future. I am fully aware that in the short run myself, my family and my wealth will suffer if we vote NO. In the long run, though, the Greek economy will grow. My children will be able to live, study and work in the most beautiful country in the world. Or at least, they will have the choice to do so. For these reasons, as an economist and as a Greek I recommend NO for the impending referendum. I am voting for Hope! Image: http://en.protothema.gr/sps-timeline-of-the-greek-crisis-see-statistics/]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/greek-austerity-or-greek-default/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</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>Greek pride and national sovereignty</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/greek-pride-and-natinal-sovereignty/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/greek-pride-and-natinal-sovereignty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancient history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greek history]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3605</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the first time in many years that I am proud to be Greek. Last week, my people voted for an anti-austerity party that promised to restructure the welfare state in Greece. Syriza seemingly belongs to the radical left wing. In fact it is conglomeration of left and centre political parties that have one common denominator: they despise the Troika and its economic measures that impoverished the people. Yesterday, the minister of finance, Varoufakis, made it clear that the new government will no longer continue on the same destructive path. The path that led its middle class homeless in the streets, and its children starving. There is a new hope for Greece but the predominant feeling is that of national pride. I have been following these expressions of pride in numerous social media, newspapers, blogs etc. Most Greek citizens treat Varoufakis as a modern hero! They ask for autographs, while I am sure he has his own groupies! It is the first time a minister of finance receives the unadulterated adoration of the public! The people are proud for his stance, as if they were the ones who stood in front of the camera and shouted F_CK THE TROIKA. Pride has always been the determinant feeling in the construction of a national identity. Patriotism inspired the soldiers, citizens and other forces that fought for the creation of new nations. It was assisted by flags and other symbols that represented freedom, equality or other similar ideals. For the Greeks, pride is directly connected with its past. Let us not forget the manufactured ideological connection of the modern Greek State with its ancient past. After the revolution of 1821, the Greeks, their ruling Bavarians and many other nations started spreading the myth of ancient Greece. The ancient Greek city states suddenly were treated as a united country that faced off the barbaric Persians, in a common fight for freedom, democracy and equality! The most powerful symbol that encompasses &#8216;what Greece is all about&#8217; is none other than the Acropolis. It is situated on the Holy Rock (as it is referred to), in the centre of its most famous (not to say notorious) democratic ancient city-state, Athens. It represents also the modern Greek psyche. It is featured in tourist literature, exhibitions, postcards, souvenirs, logos and anywhere else you can think of. During the lethal economic crisis, the Acropolis resumed two conflicting symbolic roles. The roles of resistance and desperation. You probably heard of the story of Manolis Glezos, one of the two teenagers who removed the German Nazi flag from the acropolis during the Nazi occupation (Second World War). Back then, the symbolic gesture caused the hope and pride of the local population to rise. Today Manolis Glezos is revered more than ever. Despite his advanced age, he is one of the key members of the radical left (Syriza) and a member of the European parliament. The party that was voted to bring hope back to Greece. During the recession, in some cases, both hope and pride disappeared. The Acropolis became once more the &#8216;normal&#8217; place for suicides and other acts of desperation. The Holy Rock became tainted! The &#8216;miasma&#8217; spread to the rest of the country. The people went around with hunched backs, bowing in front of the inevitable loss of sovereignty. Until these elections! My people finally voted for hope. The hope for true democracy has returned. The hope for true national sovereignty is becoming stronger. The hope to create our own destiny is becoming vital for our very existence. The prime minister tied together all of the above through one symbolic move. A move that, for a change, did not involve the Acropolis directly. After he was sworn into government, he visited Kaisariani to leave a few flowers in remembrance of the victims of German Occupation (Second World War). The Nazi forces shot several Greeks in this area. Syriza is a supporter of a political movement that demands Germany to pay back all of the Second World Debt to Greece, including the money it &#8216;borrowed&#8217;. This debt was abolished after the War, in order to suppress further enmity between European nations. Paying homage to the victims of German nazism at Kaisariani and asking for war reparations is pivotal in the 21st century fight against neoliberalism. Germany has become an anti-national symbol that garners all of the Greek forces under one flag. Varoufakis suddenly became the person/ symbol who said NO to the destructive forces. National pride surged and the people are celebrating their newfound freedom, and hope. Everyone is aware that the road will be long, bumpy, and full of obstacles. I am sure, though, that pride will sustain those who are directly involved into the fight for national sovereignty. It is not the first time that the Greeks become the people who defend ideals such as independence, equality, social welfare. The sense of patriotism and pride helped in the past, as it will help now.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/greek-pride-and-natinal-sovereignty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</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>
	</channel>
</rss>
