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

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How many times have you used terms loaded with moral judgement when you mention money? How many of you think that money is ‘evil’ or that debt is ‘disgraceful’? How many of you watched Benefits Street in 2014 and argued with disdain that you would never end up in this position? For those of you who do not watch tv, Benefits Street was a documentary series broadcast in Channel 4. It showed benefits claimants committing crimes, thieving and cheating. It was so successful (despite the opposition) that it continued in a variety of forms, e.g. Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole in Channel 5 and The Great British Benefits Handout again in Channel 5. The moralising comments the series received are short of extraordinary in this day and age, when we kind of understand how economics work. For the past few years, I listened in utter amazement to people in the streets trying to justify the fact that they were disabled or homeless and consequently had to claim benefits in order to survive! The moral police was certainly in the corner overhearing the discussions and delivering profound judgements! This phenomenon is not new. In fact its existence can be traced back to the Greco-Roman world. Its roots are dug deeply into ancient philosophy. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.), moral philosophy is the part of philosophy which treats of the virtues and vices, the criteria of right and wrong, the formation of virtuous character and the like.  In this post I would like to make a few hints on the moral principles that ancient Greeks and Romans were supposed to follow concerning the economy in general, and money specifically. These principles were established mainly by ancient Greek philosophers and were subsequently adopted by the Romans. An interest towards the morality of money can easily be seen in Aristotle’s Ethica Nicomachea or even Politika. In ancient Greek society, morality included not only principles regarding justice, autarkeia (independence of economic means), balance of needs and goods, but it also influenced the economic thoughts and the economic functions of the State and the people.  On the other side, politics (politike) formed constitutions based on these principles. Greeks and subsequently Romans combined morality, politics and economy in their thinking in order to achieve their ultimate aim: the welfare of the individual and of the society. Specifically, the influence of morality on the economy magnifies the economic results. It also enhances human happiness, since it balances the needs towards the available goods and it restricts the unnecessary accumulation of wealth. After all such immense wealth might lead the citizens to unjust actions. Or so the ancients thought, before Neoliberalism dominated all aspects of politics and economy at the end of the 20th century and beyond. Aristotle believed that virtues, and especially the virtue of justice (which is the ultimate principle of political economy) had to influence the behaviour of the state.  From this point of view, the virtues that define ‘arete’ (the ultimate virtue) may also define the economy. The conclusion of ancient Greek philosophy was that political, economical and ethical criteria should be in harmony with each other so that society and economy might not only survive but also flourish. The interconnection between these aspects could not be doubted as they all worked together towards the happiness of the individual. The Romans were the faithful followers of the Greeks, when it came to the main principles of the morality of money. Two major historiographical works from the first half of the third century AD contain valuable information on the subject: the Roman Histories of Dio Cassius and Herodian.  Both writers belonged to the educated urban classes; Dio was a senator and Herodian was a knight.  Effectively, they were both owners of substantial wealth and involved in the imperial politics of their time. Both held similar views about how humanity in general, and the emperor in particular, should behave, when it came to money. The historians give us a plethora of moral comments concerning the use of money by the emperor and his role in the welfare of the empire as well as the happiness of the individuals. They also attempt to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors and to ascribe different moral characteristics to each one of them. Monetary terminology tends to be loaded with moral afterthoughts that eventually would have influenced monetary policies. After all, which emperor would have liked to be judged and fall short of this judgement posthumously? For example, all emperors were severely criticised every time they were trying to find new ways to raise funds or raise taxes.  Some of their revenues were acceptable and honourable, while some others caused the condemnation of the historians (as well as the general public). The rulers probably had a clear idea of what was just and what was unjust revenue (dikaios kai adikos poros) (Dio 78.10.4). The use of the word ‘dikaios’ does not imply that the emperor was liable towards the law for his fiscal decisions. On the contrary, he was only restrained by the moral code of his era.  Herodian and Dio do not give us an exhaustive list of the regular revenues of the State or which of these were acceptable, but they make certain comments that show their approval of some and their disapproval of others.  Specifically, Dio Cassius seems to be in favour of the fiscal policy of certain emperors of the second century AD (the so called Adopted Emperors), such as Nerva, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and Pertinax.  It is significant that all of them reigned during the second century AD and not later, before the socio-economic and political crisis of the empire started.  Their main similarity is that they handled their own property as if it belonged to the Roman people, without concern for their own benefit.  For example, Nerva ‘when he run short of funds, he sold much wearing apparel and many vessels of silver and gold, besides furniture, both his own and that which belonged to the imperial residence, and many estates and houses &#8211; in fact everything except what was indispensable’ (Dio 68.2.1-3).  The same policy followed Marcus Aurelius who ‘exposed in the Forum all the heirlooms of the palace together with any ornaments that belonged to his wife, and urged any who so desired to buy them’ (Dio 72.fragments) while Pertinax ‘raised money as best he could from the statues, the arms, the horses, the furniture, and the favourites of Commodus’ (Dio 74.5.4); Trajan and Septimius Severus because the first ‘drained no ones blood’ (Dio 68.7.1) and the second ‘raised money from every source, except that he killed no one to get it’ (Dio 77.16.1). We should not assume that our historians condemned the use of money. On the contrary, they acknowledged the necessity and they declared that ‘money was the sinews of sovereignty’, although the imposition of taxes or other contributions could trigger the anger of the population.  On one hand they understood the practicalities related to money and the necessity of strict monetary policies. On the other hand, they did not hesitate to use morally loaded language to describe the financial actions of individual emperors. It’s not the money that the Romans were afraid of but its use. At the hands of the wrong people wealth could cause a lot of suffering to the citizens and damage to the state. During the first half of the third century, when Dio Cassius and Herodian lived, they had the opportunity to see with their own eyes the effects of the political and military anarchy that burdened the empire on the citizens. They witnessed the swift succession in the upper echelons of society following the demise of the emperors, one after another. And they probably felt the results also in their daily lives and the lives of their children; that is, if they survived the political machinations. Certainly such an experience would have led them to the scrutiny of the monetary policies with religious and moral tools. Their moralising comments have two aims: a) to explain the causes of the situation, and possibly b) to give subtle advice to the emperor, who was responsible for the financial policy of the State. Do not fool yourselves that their writing did not have the stamp of approval from the emperor that was leading the empire at the time. Otherwise, the historians would not have lived long enough to publish their works! They would not have criticised their own emperor directly, unless they had a death wish. The ideal ruler, whom they describe in their work, derives from the wisdom of ancient greek philosophers, such as Aristoteles. They emphasize on his benevolent role, which is attested in the way he balances revenues and expenditure without turning into unjust practices.  The emperor’s just and moderate administration would guarantee Common Benefit and, in turn, individual happiness.  We do not have any evidence that the emperors were aware of Aristotle, or the need for a benevolent role for them. What we do know is that the upper echelons of society (to which our historians belonged) would have subscribed to these ideals.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/morality-of-money-in-ancient-greece-and-rome/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#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>The American School of Archaeology in Corinth</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/the-american-school-of-archaeology-in-corinth/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/the-american-school-of-archaeology-in-corinth/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Nov 2019 15:43:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Archaeology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[archaeology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colonisation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corinth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greece]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3704</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently a few photographs appeared in the Facebook page of the American School of Archaeology at Athens. They were photographs of the diaries of the first American archaeologists who excavated Ancient Greek Corinth. The excavations started at the end of the nineteenth century in 1896 and by now we have diaries that cover this year until 2007. Specifically, there are 1116 excavation diaries (digitalised) of around 200 pages each. This is a wealth of information for modern archaeologists of ancient Corinth as well as historians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As you probably already know, Corinth was one of the most significant cities in the ancient Greco-Roman world. It played pivotal role in the Peloponnesian war, in the Macedonian wars, and later, in the establishment of Roman power and the gradual colonisation of Greece. The decision of the Americans to undertake the excavations of such an important city, which was so close to Athens, was not an accidental (or incidental) one. It was part of the modern attempts by the Great Western Powers to culturally colonise Greece after the foundation of the Modern Greek State in the early nineteenth century; a Greece that may have been poor in money and power but was certainly wealthy in tradition and history. So wealthy, that it influenced the western civilisation as a whole. A similar process of cultural colonisation was followed also in the centre of nineteenth and twentieth century Athens. Yiannis Hamilakis describes it eloquently in his article “Double Colonization: The Story of the Excavations of the Athenian Agora (1924-1931)” in Hesperia  82:1 (2013). Through the clashes between evicted residents and the archaeologists who excavated the Athenian Agora, he analyses a complex process of double colonisation: the colonisation of Greece by the ideals of Hellenism and the colonisation of the specific locality by modern archaeology. As you read the article, it is intriguing to watch the diplomatic games unfolding in the shadow of the $250.000 dollars that the Rockefeller Foundation donated for the excavations. As the Americans demanded undivided loyalty from the Greeks in their vision of the Athenian Agora, animosity against the project seemed to become deeper. The excavations eventually became the National project of two countries, Greece as well as the United States of America. It also became the battleground of nationalist ideologies for people (Greeks as well as Americans) who claimed to be descendants of the ancient Greeks. The only losers in this process were the poor displaced residents of the area. It looks like the excavations at Corinth were not marred by similar dramatic developments. Still, they were used in the forging of two disparate national identities, the Greek one and the American one. Consequently, the importance of the archaeological investigations remains significant for the study of the ancient and the modern world alike. This importance was acknowledged in the US in 1932, when the benefactor Ada Small More donated a substantial amount of money towards the building of the modern museum in Corinth. Almost two decades later &#8211; in 1950 &#8211; the same benefactor arranged the expansion of the museum, which desperately needed to host the new findings. The visitor today can attest to the glory of the ancient city, when she or he sees the Roman agora, the temples, the baths. I mention the Roman buildings because very few Greek monuments survived the animosity of the Roman conquerors that levelled the city in 146 BC. Even so, we can still see Apollo’s temple from the 6th century BC; the temple was known to the second century AD travellers Pausanias and Plutarch who describe it for the benefit of future generations. The site attracts around 200,000 tourists a year, even if it is off the main track of known antiquities. And, as if tourists were not enough, the archaeological site is used for the training of new students of archaeology. If you ever visit Ancient Corinth during the summer, you will see them toiling under the scorching sun! Currently the archaeological site is far away from the city of Corinth. I have been lost more than once trying to find it, while using only the ambiguous signs. GPS technology, since then, made my life infinitely easier, though not as interesting. But what would the site have looked like more than a century ago? You can imagine the few American archaeologists -predominately from affluent families &#8211; that descended upon the rural countryside at the end of the nineteenth century. At that time, people were poor farmers that barely survived after hard winters. The archaeologists brought plenty of money with them, which they used either to rent the fields or buy them outright. The farmers traded their agricultural activities for archaeological ones. The Americans would have hired at least 100 people at a time to dig the area. They received a substantial salary that allowed them to leave their fields and their crops for the duration of the excavations. And if one of the locals wanted to ask “What did the Americans do for us?” (apart from colonising the area and buying off the land and its people)… well… they actually brought sanitation in the area. In this region people suffered chronically from malaria and typhus. The Americans attempted to close the open wells, and purified the water with chlorine. They also re-routed the waters in order to drain the swamp. Despite local suspicions, they managed to enhance the life of the people in the region. The archaeological diaries of Corinth may sound tedious for the non-expert but they hide historical truths about the ancient Corinthians as well as the modern ones. At this point, I would not like to bore you with details related to the stratigraphy, the note taking, or the description of the artefacts. For more information on those, visit the following article by Meropi Kokkini here https://www.lifo.gr/articles/archaeology_articles/251926/selides-apo-ta-imerologia-ton-amerikanon-arxaiologon-poy-eskapsan-stin-korintho . Sorry, it is in Greek but for those who are determined Google Translate can do miracles! I would urge you, though, to take a closer look at the photos with the amazing material coming straight from the past.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/the-american-school-of-archaeology-in-corinth/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>Agro-Business in the Roman World</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/agro-business-in-the-roman-world/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/agro-business-in-the-roman-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2019 10:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ancient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entrepreneurship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Farming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roman world]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3694</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Have you ever considered that business may not have been that different 2000 years ago? Oh well, they did not have computers, internet and the digital economy but they still had a buoyant property market, they were trading across the seas and the land, and they were pretty good at financial administration. After all, empires were not built on air but on solid armies, bureaucracies and land expansion exercises (imperialism). In the Roman World, the wealthiest citizens were focusing on the development of farming businesses. Several handbooks were written during the Republic and the Empire. These Agronomists followed the rich tradition of writers coming from the Greek times, such as Hesiod, Xenophon, Democritus of Abdera, even Aristotle. Even though the Roman writers followed the Greeks, they still managed to become better known and more widely revered than they predecessors. Their instructions became the ‘go to’ manual for Landowners across Europe for centuries to come. The most important works that survived until today are those of Cato, Columella, Varro, Virgil, Pliny and Palladius. Today we will focus on Cato the Elder’s farming manual, De Agricultura. This is &#8211; not surprisingly &#8211;  the eldest work of latin prose. It’s scope and importance emphasises on what actually mattered for the elite at the time and the manuscript dates from the second century BC, long before the Roman Empire reached the height of its power. In fact, long before Roman Emperors were ‘a thing’! Let us take a look on what Cato believed of Farming as business. Obviously he preferred it over Commerce and Banking, both of which may have brought profits.  However, the first was risky and the second was considered akin to usury and had the potential to confer upon the banker the title of ‘criminal’. As a result, the only moral and sensible option for the Roman Rich were to become farmers. So, how did they go about it? First and foremost they needed to buy vast expanses of land. Or, alternatively, acquire them through wars. The Romans spent several centuries expanding their lands through military advances. So, there was a lot to be had. Secondly, they needed to learn how to manage these vast expansions of land. And this is where the Agronomists entered the picture. Cato was willing to present his contemporaries with a wealth of advice on how to set up and run a farming business. I will include a few of these comments just to give you an idea of what was expected of a Roman farmer. As a rule, you should not be an Absentee Landowner. As the Master of the Household you should visit your farm often and upon arrival greet Lar (the Guardian/God/Ancestor of the Hearth). Always partner up with a God, just to be on the safe side. Once you pay your dues to Lar, it would be the right time to go around your property ON THE SAME DAY. Cato insists on this piece of advice and I suspect that the master would have liked to see how the farm is run on an average day and not after anticipating his visit. The element of surprise seems to be essential. Once the initial checks have been completed, the next day can be dedicated to analysing the statistics “how much of the work is finished, how much remains, whether what is done was done in time and there will be time to do the rest, and how it is with the wine, the grain and everything else singly.” It should not astonish us that analytics were used regularly in antiquity in order to run a business. The owner needed to know how far they are in the production cycle and when the crops would be ready for sale. The financial aspect would have taken even more time, because of its essential nature. After all, how else would they have known whether the business was profitable or even viable?And how would they have funded their elaborate lifestyles? Cato says on the matter: “You must check the figures for money and grain, check what is set aside for fodder, check the wine and oil figures &#8212; what is already sold, and the income from this, what is still to be produced, and what it will fetch &#8212; agree the difference and take charge of the agreed sum.” This is the end point (scope) of any business. Obviously, they did not have any double entry books (this was a much later invention) and they were lacking in cash flow projections. But they had an excellent understanding of basic finances and how numbers should be used for their advantage. As with every other business, delegation is a big part of running large organisations, including farms. The landowner probably had several farms that needed his attention. For each farm, he would have hired a manager to oversee the work on a daily basis. Even though the manager should have been a trusted employee (rarely a slave), this does not mean that he could waive his carte blanche and do whatever he wanted. Cato seemed to be very suspicious of the managers and insists on holding them accountable. He eloquently writes on the subject: “ When you have this straight, you can get down to calculating people and days’ work. If the work seems wanting the manager will say that he has done his best, slaves were sick, the weather was bad, slaves ran away or were requisitioned for public works: when he has put these and all his other arguments, bring him back to the calculation of workers and their work! If there was rainy weather, what work could have been done while it rained? &#8212; washing and pitching vats, cleaning farm buildings, shifting grain, shovelling dung, making a dung-heap, threshing grain, mending ropes and making new ones; the slaves could have been patching their own cloaks and hoods. On holidays they should have cleaned out blocked ditches, mended the public road, cut back hedges, dug the vegetable garden, cleared the meadow, cut sticks, pulled out brambles, husked the emmer, tidied up. While slaves were ill they ought not to have been given as much food.” It is astonishing the amount of detail he goes into. Just because the masters were wealthy, it did not mean they should not have intimate knowledge of shovelling dung, making heaps  of them, ordering the planting of the vegetable garden, or cutting sticks. Quite the opposite! Even the food portions for the slaves were important, if profit was to be had!   Once the details were understood, then it was important to put forward the right orders for buying equipment, for selling the products (vegetables, animals or slaves), and for contracting the workers. The orders should have been delivered both verbally as well as in writing, so that there was a clear chronological record of the decision making process. Back then, papyri would have been the means of accounts. Today its a laptop with elaborate software. In both cases the outcome would have been similar. The distillation of Catos’s wisdom (and probably his best advice) can be summarised in the following sentence “The master has to be a selling man, not a buying man.” This is the traditional advice of frugality and simplicity, where loans remained an anathema. In Cato’s advice to the manager (not the owner this time) he insists that: “He must lend to no one but ensure that the owner’s loans are repaid. He must have no loans out to anyone, of seed for sowing, food, wheat, wine or oil: there should be two or three households from whom he can ask necessities and to whom he can give, but no others. He must regularly make up accounts with the owner.” Although he does not moralise on the ‘evil’ of loans, he would not willingly accept such an agreement inflicted upon him, unless, of course, it is the owner that provides the loan All in all, the Romans did not put together elaborate business models based on debt and governmental grants. The clarity and minimalism of the economic and financial models at the time cannot be denied. Without trying to moralise on the topic, I would like to emphasise on the effectiveness of such an attitude. Today we are used to building large organisations based on loans, shares, use of derivatives. They grow fast and exponentially, they employ thousands of people and they go bust at the blink of an eye. We may enjoy the boosts as well as the busts of capitalism but I still appreciate the wisdom coming from the pre-industrial, pre-capitalist societies. Just for today, I intend to busk at the words of Cato and apply a bit more simplicity in my life! The texts come for Cato, De Agricultura, 2 and 5. (https://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/01aglibrary/010121cato/catofarmtext.htm)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/agro-business-in-the-roman-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Memory and impression: A walk-through in the Peloponnese.</title>
		<link>http://loveofhistory.com/memory-and-impression-a-walk-through-in-the-peloponnese/</link>
		<comments>http://loveofhistory.com/memory-and-impression-a-walk-through-in-the-peloponnese/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2019 09:50:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[constantinakatsari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Coins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancient coins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greece]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofhistory.com/?p=3688</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tegea, 12–13 December 2019 The event is set to function as a herald of the temporary exhibition Memory and impression: A walk-through in the Peloponnese using ancient coins as a guide (to open in May 2020 at the Archaeological Museum of Tegea). The contributions to the Colloquium include perspectives by historians, numismatists, archaeologists, art historians, and so on, broadening the spectrum of the approaches and the information to be offered.  Organisers: KIKPE – Stassinopoulos-Viohalco Foundation – Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia Coordination: Yannis Stoyas, KIKPE Numismatic Collection, and Anna-Vasiliki Karapanagiotou, Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia Photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Greek_Silver_Stater_of_Corinth.jpg]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://loveofhistory.com/memory-and-impression-a-walk-through-in-the-peloponnese/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>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>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>
	</channel>
</rss>
