<?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; Opinions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://loveofhistory.com/category/opinions/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>Historian kills and mutilates his lover</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/historian-kills-and-mutilates-his-lover/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/historian-kills-and-mutilates-his-lover/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[french history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sokolov]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3699</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was shocked today to find out, in the morning news, that the Russian Professor Oleg Sokolov, a military historian of nineteenth century France, killed and mutilated his 24 year old lover. Apparently, the 63 year old professor entered a relationship with Anastasia Yeshchenko, while she was still his student. Everyone was aware of the couple and they felt they had nothing to hide. I suspect that the situation would have raised a few eyebrows as it developed under the gossipy ears of students and academics alike. However, the two lovers were not deterred. The professor and student co-authored several papers, while they were seen together in reenactment events. They were both dressed up in period costumes and, thus, Sokolov entertained his obsession with Napoleon. Sokolov was a respected academic with a long list of publications, a visiting professorship in Sorbonne and central place in Reenactments. Yeschenko was in the beginning of  her career, which was obviously boosted by the co-authorship of the articles. I will not enter here a much needed discussion about this type of relationships, which abound in academia, even if most of them have been driven underground in the UK. Instead, I will focus on the dreadful murder of the young girl by the celebrated professor. According to the BBC, Sokolov killed his lover during an argument. Then he cut off her head, arms and legs. The police found him drunk into a river, carrying a bag with the young woman&#8217;s hands. He was suffering from hypothermia and he was in shock. How do you explain the propensity to such extreme violence? I started wondering, if his obsession with Napoleon played any role. Evidently, the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in France was much more violent than modern society. Napoleon, at the beginning of his political-military career, seemed to be a supporter of Robespierre, the architect of The Terror in France. During the The Terror, the Revolution turned into an violent regime that saw the execution of thousands of Frenchmen and Frenchwomen. Robespierre himself thought that Liberty cannot be secured unless criminals lost their heads. And criminals were, of course, anyone who opposed the regime. Napoleon moved away from this type of violent politics within Paris but he did not move away from violence. He travelled across Europe, declaring war, organising military expeditions, and allowing hundreds of thousands of soldiers being killed or mutilated throughout his reign. Professor Sokolov, a renowned military historian, was intimately acquainted with the written and archaeological records of the era that probably provided elaborate descriptions of violent episodes. As he was such a fan of Napoleon, and as he enjoyed dressing up as the French emperor going into battle, we may assume that he identified a bit too closely with the historical figure. During a drunken fight with his lover, how much could he distinguish between reality and fantasy? How much was he imbued in historical distortions? I am not going to attempt reconstructing his psychological profile at the time of the murder. I would just like to comment that such a passion for history is bad for our health, if it is unchecked. The information in this article come from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50365124]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/historian-kills-and-mutilates-his-lover/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Post Augustum: NEW Roman Empire and Late Antiquity Journal</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/post-augustum-new-roman-empire-and-late-antiquity-journal/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/post-augustum-new-roman-empire-and-late-antiquity-journal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2019 08:54:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Late Antiquity Journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Post Augustum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roman empire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would like to bring to your attention a new platform, Post Augustum, which is dedicated to the history of the Mediterranean World during the first Christian centuries, edited by a team of historians who specialise in the period. The platform aims to provide a constant update with articles, research, book reviews, news form the Greek and International Academia, and quotes from original sources. The platform includes the Post Augustum Journal, which aims at promoting the study of the ancient world, especially the study of the Mediterranean in the first Christian centuries, and at attracting the attention of scholars, students and the general public with an interest in the field. It hosts original articles and book reviews, either in Greek or in English. It is an OPEN ACCESS Journal and it is published in electronic form annually. Very important role in the philosophy of Post Augustum plays the idea that the work of the historian has two aspects, namely historical research and continuous contact with modern society. On the basis of this approach, the editorial team of Post Augustum aims to promote original research and, at the same time, to reach a larger audience, establishing a scientifically valid and hospitable place of communication and conversation. Check the platform out here http://www.postaugustum.com/ &#160; &#160;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/post-augustum-new-roman-empire-and-late-antiquity-journal/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>Entrepreneurial Skills for Students in the Humanities</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/entrepreneurial-skills-for-students-in-the-humanities/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/entrepreneurial-skills-for-students-in-the-humanities/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 17:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entrepreneurial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entrepreneurship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university courses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3653</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When you move across academic circles, you notice a general discontent about the state of Higher Education. The complaints are shot from all quarters. The professors are lamenting the good old age when they had time for research. The lecturers are complaining about the burden of becoming jacks of all trades. The administrators feel like they are second class citizens in a university that still nurtures medieval hierarchies. And they all complain about the students who exhibit a newly acquired customer mentality. Of course, the students are the university’s customers. They pay for its infrastructure, professorial salaries, lecture halls and marketing campaigns. In return, they receive proof that they were trained in a specific sector. The proof is stamped by a university that may have a long standing reputation in national and international communities (or not). In effect, the university becomes the guarantee of the student’s knowledge. Despite the university’s attention to student experience, high quality knowledge and advanced learning systems, students remain unconvinced of its value. And with good reason! When they finish their studies, they expect to find a full time job that could pay for their basic expenses as well as the exorbitant loans they already acquired. Reality, though, does not meet their expectations. In most cases, they end up in unpaid internships or dead end part time jobs. They stay in this predicament until they gain enough work experience to start moving up the ladder or across different sectors. Why do universities fail to cater to the needs of their students and future employers? It is evident that they have the resources and the human potential to provide for what their customers want. And yet, they seem to react spasmodically and without a clear plan for the future. Surely, some of the brightest people I know (who are incidentally in academia) could come up with a path to change. In this case, I believe that the problem is emotional rather than intellectual. Change is the key word in this equation. The fear of change permeates large organisations and its institutionalised people. However, the fear of the unknown could cause unprecedented failures in moving ahead with the times. And this is exactly what academics and university administrators need to do. They have to recognise that we no longer live in the Industrial era. Instead, we are moving into a very disruptive phase of the Digital Revolution. Changes happen fast and alter radically the world as we know it. The revolution affects all aspects of our lives, both professionally and personally. In the business world some inspiring influencers already identified the need for change and they are taking steps to a different direction. One of the first measures they took, and should be noted by universities, is that they no longer hire graduates for their skills. Instead, they hire them for their attitude. In a fast changing world skills need to be updated continuously. As a matter of fact, slow paced research, in some disciplines, cannot keep up with developments in the real world. By the time journals and university presses go through the external readership, editing, and copy editing process, ‘innovative’ ideas are already obsolete. Similarly, the skills some students are taught no longer reflect what society needs by the time they leave university. The only solution to this problem is to focus on the student’s attitude, personality, the so called ‘soft’ skills (that are neither soft, nor insignificant). In the 21st century what we need is problem solving abilities, communication skills, creativity, team working, inspiring leadership and analytical tools. Of course, all of these can be found as separate elements in individual disciplines. However, no curriculum brought them together in a coherent lot. Even worse, neither students nor teachers fully understand how these can be identified and applied in real situations. As I was wondering along the paths of my ‘history oriented’ mind and the very real business world, I became aware of the power of entrepreneurship, not as a money making opportunity but as an attitude forming one. For the past three years I mentored hundreds of entrepreneurs. While I ‘supervised’ their projects, I noted how their cognitive and emotional skills developed. And I became truly and utterly surprised! I never expected that a simple business development exercise could bring about such life altering results. I became especially astonished when PhD students started describing my programs as ‘a life altering experience’ or ‘a crash course on real life survival skills’. So, I decided to dig a little bit deeper into the process I was following. This is when I realised that they showed their appreciation not for the knowledge I was disseminating but for the experience I allowed them to have. I obviously touched them at an emotional level and I helped them develop as people, not just as learning machines. This is, of course, one of the reasons I abandoned Economic History for the sake of Applied Entrepreneurship. I do not value theoretical models any less. I just value the application of knowledge a lot more than I used to. And so do my startup/ students. Based on my recent experiences, I took a massive leap. I created a series of virtual programs on entrepreneurship that can be used as part of University courses. The idea was that the students of individual departments or across a College can create their own products or services, so that they build around them a viable business. This does not mean that every one of them would become a business owner. Most probably they would just get the right entrepreneurial skills they need to find the job that they deserve. Such skills (to my mind) would certainly make them more employable. But then, I experienced the shock of my life. I expected that humanities departments, especially in history and philosophy, would be the first to take up the challenge. After all, their students end up in managerial positions and they are the most skilled to run their own business (due to the high quality of their analytical thinking). I was wrong. It was Computer Science, Maths, and Physics departments that showed the most interest. I requested advice on the reasons behind such a low interest in entrepreneurship exercises. I received a combination of answers but none of them seemed to be entirely convincing. Most of them cited the students’ indifference. Others commented on the conservative structure of their curriculum. To tell you the truth, they all sounded more like excuses rather than actual reasons. Is it possible that the Humanities devotees are less forward thinking that their Science counterparts? And yet, I can see clearly the need for a change in direction in the Humanities. Analysing the theoretical frameworks of Tacitus, or synthesising economic data in a coherent lot may be a good exercise in analytical thinking. However, it still does not bear a clear connection with the real world. The invaluable skills that humanities education provides can be highlighted only through the prism of relevant life experiences. And I will continue fighting across these lines. For those of you who are curious about what I am doing with my life after academia, check out my site http://startdoms.com . At this point in time, I am dedicated to entrepreneurship and its infinite potential for changing our world.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/entrepreneurial-skills-for-students-in-the-humanities/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>Reflections of a former academic</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/reflections-of-a-former-academic/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/reflections-of-a-former-academic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2015 06:57:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ivory tower]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[life after academia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3639</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week it is two years since I left academia. So, I thought it is the right time to reflect on the past year and the lessons I have learned. As you probably know, I left my full time academic post in September 2013 in order to pursuit a life of freedom. This may sound improbable, since universities supposedly guard intellectual freedom. Unfortunately, my experience in European institutions taught me that you can exercise this freedom only within the tight limits of the brand under which you operate. Since I am not the type to follow guidelines, obey orders, or comply to the dubious decisions of departmental hierarchies, I decided to create my own brand. For the past two year, I built a reputation online and in traditional media. I even wrote an ebook in an attempt to become better known to an entirely new public! Now I operate under my own banners. I am running two companies: 1) Startdoms (http://startdoms.com), a growth accelerator for startups, and 2) Ekonomia (http://ekonomiaconsultants.com), a growth accelerator for established businesses. So, what changed in my life during this time? Some areas certainly changed radically, while others remained unaltered, as it is to be expected. My main aim when I entered academia as well as the reason I left was Freedom. The freedom to define my own career, the freedom to follow my own program, the freedom to live in any country I want, the freedom to take care of my loved ones, the freedom to write what I want when I want it, the freedom to adhere to my own principles. Have I achieved all of the above? YES! I am now in the position to make my own choices regarding my career. I have the luxury to chose my clients and let go of the ones I am not happy with. In fact, I do not even consider them clients. They are my partners in business. We move together towards a common goal and I am more than happy to help them achieve it. I am the one who helps them set the strategy of the company, keeps them accountable to our targets and makes sure there is always ample funding to keep the growth on an upward trajectory. They rely on me for my knowledge and I rely on them for the implementation. I do not have to rely to just one customer, e.g. the university or the State for handouts. As I am creating multiple sources of income, if one of them does not work, I will always have the rest. This is not some neoliberal statement. It is the only way to survive during the digital revolution, where the means of production have changed and permanent employment is largely fictitious. I am also in command of my time. If one day I feel bored, if one of my kids is sick, if I want to spend my time throwing rocks at the sea, I can do it. I can decrease or increase my working hours at will. I can work from the UK or from Greece. In fact, I am still spending 3-4 months a year abroad. I can spend my time on twitter (which I love) or on writing my next book. The impact on my income is minimal, if not existent. While I was outside the ivory tower, I became aware also for grants I can use to get back into research. I may have not chosen to go down that route yet, but the potential is still there. I am currently looking for opportunities on a project I am interested in, innovation in business. As it happened in academia, I would not undertake such a commitment without adequate funding to cover for my time. Nothing changed there. There are, of course, self constraints in the life I am constructing. The constraints stem from the principles I set according to which I have to work and live. Now that I am running my own organisation I have increased responsibilities towards customers, partners, volunteers and employees. I will not shy away from these responsibilities. In fact, I relish the opportunity to be a true leader in an organisation whose values I truly believe in. They give meaning to my life and guidance to the people I work with. Although teaching is extremely important, altering the lives of the people around you in a hands-on manner feels much more rewarding. They acknowledge it in the most loving manner that could become more important than the financial rewards. It is also extremely fulfilling to feel appreciated for what you offer to the community. I realised that only recently when I was nominated and became a finalist for The Business Woman of the Year Award in Leicester! As I am developing a ‘career’ in business, I cannot claim that I left my university career completely behind. In fact, I am using what I have learned almost on a daily basis. All the years I spent in servitude serve me well in the life I am trying to build. I will not babble about critical thinking and learning how to read and write. I had these skills after I finished my BA, if not before. The first and most important skill is my knowledge of macroeconomics. I spent almost two decades in academia studying the history of macroeconomics. I have learned how to analyse and synthesise the big picture of politics and economics across time and space. I have delved into the study of the theory of macroeconomics and its significance in modern and ancient societies. And now I have the chance to implement this type knowledge. Businesses benefit from my perspective as I reconstruct for them the Big Picture within which they should be operating. I have the opportunity to breath new life into their Strategy and reform it through a global perspective. As I study an economic sector, I am able to analyse it in depth and position the company within it. Moreover, I can anticipate changes in governmental policies based on socioeconomic changes. I also use my connections with universities across Europe. Over the years I developed excellent relationships with several institutions. Even though, initially, I thought I should sever my ties with academia, I found out that my collaboration with academics and administrators is both profitable and rewarding. I rely on existing relationships to further my aims and help even more people in the process. While I was making radical changes in my life, I noticed that there are pockets of innovation within academia that would be stifled without outside help. So, I turned my focus towards them. My relationship with the university certainly changed but my aims of furthering knowledge remain unaltered after all. Last but not least, academia gave me some of the best lessons in personal growth. Throughout the years I have learned how to be patient and show exceptional tenacity in front of adversities. Let us not forget that the publication process is long, arduous and with uncertain results. Furthermore, the students taught me how to be more empathic and understand the needs of the people. This is an invaluable lesson in the life of the CEO, as the relationship with customers and partners should be neither cold nor distant. In addition, after I have witnessed the terrible management practices in academia, I made a conscientious effort never to repeat these mistakes. I trained myself to become an enlightened leader as opposed to ending up a petty manager. Whether I achieved it or not remains to be seen. I am not sure anyone will be reading this reflective piece. In fact, I probably have written it for myself as well as for others. Just in case, you are looking into leaving academia for a better life, I hope you will find it helpful.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/reflections-of-a-former-academic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</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>
	</channel>
</rss>
