#Historical Analysis

[incorrectsmashbrosquotes]

Look, as much as I love celebrating Caesar’s death as the next Tumblrina, there’s an element to this that I think we need to address. About Caesar, about his assassination, about our reaction to it.

It didn’t work.

Killing Julius Caesar didn’t stop Rome from becoming an Empire. If anything it expedited the process. Because all the assassination did was turn Caesar into a martyr for his family and followers to turn into a standard to rally behind. The Republic fell, the Empire rose, and Caesar’s Assassination was the tipping point of it all.

In fact, there’s evidence Caesar had knowledge of the planned Assassination and went anyway, knowing what his death would turn him into. But why?

Fascists don’t get turned on by their followers when they die. They get turned on when they look weak.

By the time of his death, Caesar was sick. There’s evidence that he was incontinent and beginning to have mental problems. All in all, things that made him look weak.

I can’t say what would have happened in Brutus and the Senate had stayed their hand, but history would not have turned out the same way. Certainly, Caesar would not have been turned into a martyr with his assassination. If his followers had seen Caesar as he was, a shambling, dying, sick old man, would that have turned them on him? I can’t say.

The assassination of Julius Caesar isn’t a happy event, it’s a cautionary tale. I’m not saying this to ruin our Ides of March celebration, but I feel it needs to be said. Make Dictators look weak, and then stab them.

[alwaysbewoke]

“The American Revolution was not revolutionary.” Since the colonial rebellion maintained the same slavery, wealth inequity, and power of White elites it had under Britain, was it just another war?

x

[asksythe]

The real-life Wei Wuxian and Jiang Cheng - A tale of two brothers

I’ve been asked this before when talking about topics such as Qiongqi beast and its symbolism in Wei Wuxian’s death, the various hints that Wei Wuxian might be long lost royal, the historical background behind the Yin tiger tally, and why the tiger symbol seemingly being bad juju for Wuxian. 

It’s all connected, of course, through a historical basis. I have some free time today, so let’s get! 

Meet Wei Wuji, also known as Lord Xinling, the second Prince of Wei Kingdom (circa 2nd century BCE), the first person in recorded history to handle a Tiger Tally, and very very likely to be the real-life basis for Wei Wuxian. 

How very likely? Well, there’s no word of god, of course. But I’ll just let the facts speak for themselves, and you be the judge. 

1. Let’s start with names:

Wei Wuji 魏無忌

Wei Wuxian 魏无羡

Wei 魏 = Wei 魏. An exact match. As a matter of fact, Wei Wuji’s Wei kingdom is the first kingdom to bear this Wei name in recorded history. 

Wu 無 is the traditional form of Wu 无. In the Japanese, Taiwanese, and traditional Mandarin versions, Wei Wuxian is also written with this Wu 無. 

The original meaning of Ji is ‘envy, hatred’ in ancient times (as per the Kangxi dictionary and the original text of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms). In modern times, the meaning of Ji has morphed to represent ‘fear, avoid’ more than ‘envy’ and ‘hatred. 

The meaning of Xian is envy in both ancient and modern times. 

So Wei Wuxian is effectively an alternate way to write Wei Wuji. 

2. The life and death of Wei Wuji and the first Tiger Tally recorded in history:

a. Genius second son, a friend of many, the brightest 4th Young Master:

Wei Wuji was born the second son of King Wei Zhao and the second prince of the Wei Kingdom. He had an elder half-brother: Wei Anli, crown prince and, afterward, King of the Wei Kingdom. 

Despite being the younger brother and not the heir to the throne, Wei Wuji eclipsed his elder brother in talent, courage, military and political acumen, and sheer popularity. 

Wei Wuji was also unique among his period peers for being very open-minded when it came to castes. He lived during the warring state period, during which there existed an extremely strict caste system where the lower and slave castes didn’t even count as humans and could be executed for silly things like being in the presence of their higher caste masters and ‘tainting the air’ they breathed. Not only did Wei Wuji give no thought to this caste system, he would often go out of his way to listen to the lower castes and treat them with respect as if they were of the same caste. 

In one legend (Sima Qian Historical Records, circa 135 BCE), Wei Wuji walked away from a banquet raised in his name to go sit and talk to an old, wise prison guard (Hou Ying). He would then invite this prison guard to his banquet with the highest of honor, even giving the guard his seat (noble seat) and driving the chariot in his place. When other noble banquet guests protested this lowly guard’s presence by vilifying the old prison guard for not knowing his place, Wei Wuji stood up for him and gave him the highest of toasts, thus silencing the guests.   

In another legend, Wei Wuji hosted over 3000 guests in his princely fiefdom. He famously declared that so long as a person had ambitions and a will to do good in his heart, then Wei Wuji would receive him in his hall as a guest and friend regardless of what caste he was or from where he came.

For this, Wei Wuji was known as Lord Xinling and held the loyalty of many in his own brother’s kingdom.

He was one of the Four Gongzi of the Warring State Period (lit. Four Young Masters, Four Noblemen, Four Princes. During this period, Gong was a distinct noble class comparable to Duke. So this can also be understood as the Four Dukes). He was seen as the brightest among the Four. 

b. The tale of the first Tiger Tally in recorded history: 

Sima Qian Historical Records told the tale of the first Tiger Tally as such. It was a time of chaos where the strong trampled the weak, and big countries gobbled up small ones. Wei Kingdom was one of the seven strongest of the time. This meant that their position was precarious. 

Around this time, Wei Wuji’s elder brother, Wei Anli, had ascended the throne and adopted a policy of avoidance. Despite the ferocious fighting, the political struggles, and the easily foreseeable threats, Wei Anli was of the thought that if he did nothing and just closed his door, then trouble wouldn’t come knocking at his door. 

But this was not so. In 260 BC, the state of Qin (of Qin Shi Huang, yes) besieged the state of Zhao and captured the King of Zhao (who was related to the Wei through marriage). Zhao sent for Wei’s help. But King Wei Anli didn’t want to be Qin’s next target, and so refused to send aid. 

This was where the Wei brother’s opinions diverged. Wei Wuji saw that Qin was growing unchecked in power, and if not stopped, then Wei would be next on the chopping block anyway. So not only was Wei politically and morally responsible, but from a long-term strategic standpoint, Wei must respond if they didn’t want Qin to grow too strong and eventually be invaded and absorbed into Qin itself. 

The only problem: Wei Wuji had no right to make this decision. And regardless of his insistence and explanation to his elder brother, Wei Anli would not be moved. Meanwhile, the state of Zhao sent ever more desperate pleas for help (from the Wei’s sister who was Zhao Queen at the time no less). 

Pressured from all sides and with no alternative, Wei Wuji made a decision that would go down as a first in history. He would steal the Tiger Tally from his King’s hand, commandeer the army, and ride to answer Zhao’s pleas for help himself. 

This would eventually become the historical example of military brilliance that required the usurpation of the immediate superior. Wei Wuji’s own name would go down in history as brilliance that eclipsed his station. 

I’ve written on the tiger tally before. So I won’t write more about this now. 

To summarize things, Wei Wuji’s plan worked. Zhao was saved. But at the cost of a rift between brothers. After lifting the siege, Wei Wuji stayed in Zhao for ten years. 

He would only go back to Wei Kingdom when Wei was besieged by Qin in purported retaliation, bringing with him the 3000 guests that stayed loyal to him and went to Zhao for help. Wei Wuji successfully lifted the siege of Wei and the two brothers reunited after a decade of not seeing each other. They cried and embraced one another. Wei Anli made Wei Wuji the Grand General of Wei, and he then took over the safeguarding of Wei against the onslaught of Qin. 

c. The tale of two brothers. Or, as the Chinese say, the King has no brothers. The King has no equal. Fool is he who dares think himself the King’s brother and equal. 

Despite the fact that the brothers reunited, this tale does not end well. 

Wei Wuji was a brilliant general and a ferocious warrior. But more than that, his reputation far eclipsed his elder brother the King. Ever since they were young, Wei Anli had had to suffer being under the shadow of his little brother, despite his being the heir and then King. 

Wei Wuji not only successfully repelled Qin, but he also started making a plan to counterattack and nyx Qin Empire before it could take shape. Because his reputation was such that countless warriors and scholars answered his call to arms. Five other kingdoms also answered his request for an alliance.

The King of Qin was deathly afraid of Wei Wuji. Violence did not work, so the Qin King attempted the other way: through schemes and manipulation. The Qin King sent enormous fortunes and gifts to Wei Anli under the guise of normalizing relations between the two kingdoms and potential peace. Along with his gifts, he would send people, spies of all ranks and castes, to infiltrate Wei Anli’s court and territory. These spies would continuously do things to increase the friction and gap between the two brothers. 

Some of them would falsely congratulate Wei Wuji for having ascended to the throne. 

Some more would treat Wei Wuji with more deference than Wei Anli. 

Some would then whisper into Wei Anli’s ears: “Prince Wei was away from his own Kingdom for 10 years. And yet when he calls, thousands in Wei Kingdom answer him. Why is it him and not you, the King? Do your people only know Wei Wuji and not Wei Anli. Are you sure it’s still you who is the King? He should know his place!”    

Wei Anli… fell for their tactics. So he demoted Wei Wuji and effectively isolated him from the court. He would then give this position to someone else. So, of course, the plan to counterattack Qin with the 5 ally kingdoms fell apart miserably.

Wei Wuji was heartbroken by his own brother’s action. He descended into alcoholism and purportedly died from depression and failing health. In other words, he died from the betrayal of someone who saw as a brother but that same brother saw him not as a brother but as a rival and a carrier of problems. 

Wei Anli died in the same year as Wei Wuji, purportedly from illness. 

18 years later, just as Wei Wuji predicted, Wei Kingdom was conquered and subsumed by Qin. Qin would then go on to become the first true Empire in Chinese History. 

Wei Anli was not technically the last monarch of Wei. But it’s historically agreed that he’s the one who laid the foundation for the fall of Wei due to his suspicion of his own brother and removing the one person capable of turning the tide of Qin.  

So, I will leave this here for you to come to your own conclusion and come back another day for analysis on the parallels between history and story and a few other somewhat ironic anecdotes that I didn’t include here (Like the fact that between the 2 Wei brothers, it’s the real-life Jiang Cheng, Wei Anli, that was the gay one. How gay are we talking about? So gay he’s the origin of Chinese gay porn) 

[racefortheironthrone]

Any thoughts on the upcoming Napoleon movie?

I just came back from seeing it.

An English schoolboy's narrative of the life of Napoleon done by a particularly bad student.

[theartisticcrow]

THE EVE OF REVOLUTION: A "Short" Analysis of the UHC shooter situation and what this could mean for the future.

[Originally written on 13 December, 2024 by yours truly]

I find myself quite intrigued by the events that have occurred within the past couple of weeks. Brian Thompson, former CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot dead in New York city and the working class hasn’t been this happy since the sinking of the Titan submersible [EDIT: I was told that apparently this exact line was used in a negative way by some politician and I want to say that I wrote this line on my own as a joke and I had no idea that this happened. I am a part of the working class. I am a part of the people who are happy when bad people die. I wrote this line jokingly trying to be funny and I did not intend for it to sound like something out of a news headline].

I’ll give a brief explanation of what happened in case you don’t already know: Brian Thompson was the CEO of UnitedHealthcare—as was previously mentioned—an American-owned private company meant to provide health insurance to American citizens who found themselves in need of it. However, UnitedHealthcare has a long and excruciating history of denying several claims for insurance without practical reason despite the majority of claims coming from people who do need the insurance money to cover the costs of healthcare related services. Millions of citizens have suffered and died as a result of the company's greed and lack of regard for the good of the people. UnitedHealthcare is neither the only health insurance company to operate in such ways. It is simply one of many American companies corrupted with power and all of them are aware of how their actions affect the public, but they do not care because the money that lines their pockets is built purely off the anguish of innocent people. 

I have reason to believe that this is the start of something greater, but there’s a lot here that I need to explain before I get to that point, so I hope you like reading because this is going to be a bit long.

On 4 December, Brian Thompson was shot and killed on the pavement outside the New York Hilton Midtown building along West 54th Street at roughly 6:45 a.m. (EST). The suspect was identified on CCTV footage to be a young man in a hoodie which concealed most of his face aside from a joyful smile as he walked away. He then escaped by bicycle and evaded the police for three days before allegedly being arrested in a McDonald’s with several pieces of incriminating evidence in Altoona, Pennsylvania. During the time that police went searching for the shooter, they found a bag in Central Park believed to belong to the suspect that was filled with monopoly money (the fake currency from the capitalism board game) along with three bullet casings at the sight of the shooting that had written on them the words: Deny, Defend, Despose. Seeing as the police had no leads, they began requesting the help of the public, but were met with an interesting response that went something along the lines of ‘claim denied’. 

All across the world, the UHC shooter was quickly regarded as a hero. People began celebrating the death of Brian Thompson and began laughing in the faces of the government, police and news outlets alike. The media attempted to pose the assassination as a shocking and unexpected tragedy and the vast majority of the population could do all but take them seriously. The news spread like a wildfire across all internet platforms. Fan art began being posted online, a UHC shooter look-alike contest was held and every news article was filled with people in the comments merely laughing. Quite soon after the assassination, it was discovered that someone left a balloon at the sight of the shooting that depicted a graphic of a star with a smiley face and written in pink text, “CEO DOWN”. People began calling him The Claims Adjuster. He became viewed as the real life version of Robin Hood. People would turn on the news each morning to make sure he hadn’t been caught yet, expressing that they actually felt safer knowing that the shooter was still at large.

On 9 December, Luigi Mangione was arrested by local police in Pennsylvania and accused of killing Brian Thompson after an employee of the fast food joint he was sat in reported to police his location. However, there is no true confirmation that he is the real UHC shooter. He was arrested in a McDonald’s supposedly with several pieces of incriminating evidence including a gun and a three page explanation of his motives. The day after his arrest Luigi Mangione immediately accused the police of having planted the evidence. And despite police having offered reward money to anyone that gave them a reliable tip, the McDonald’s employee received not even a penny. The conditions of his arrest immediately presented themself as extremely suspicious. You’re telling me that the guy who carefully planned out and succeeded in the assassination of a corrupt health insurance CEO as well as escaping on a bicycle and evading authorities for several days was caught multiple days later in a McDonald’s with a gun and three pages explaining how and why he committed the crime? The chances of this being true are quite unlikely, especially considering the American police department’s notorious incompetency and a long history of corruption and lies. (All cops are bastards.) A far more realistic situation that would make more sense in the UHC shooter timeline is one in which the police either decided to or were given the order to arrest an innocent man that matched what was known of the shooter’s profile as closely as possible, planting fake evidence at the scene of the arrest and doing everything within their power to deny this man a fair defense in an attempt to shut down whatever hope and optimism has sprung up among the public, considering that if enough people realise how many other individuals feel the same of this situation and they possess the same spite and anger towards those in power, it could eventually lead to revolutionary tendencies. 

Along with this, there have already been several efforts made by the government to silence the voices of the opposition, in particular those who have openly threatened other health insurance companies and/or have worked to expose the corruption of some of those said companies. Such is the case with a woman in Florida, Brianna Boston who ended a phone call with her insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield—who had just denied her medical claim—by saying: “Delay, deny, despose. You people are next.” She was then arrested despite having no weapons, nor a criminal record of any kind and is being charged with a crime she did not truly commit.

A few news articles recently appeared describing Luigi Mangione as having an outburst outside of the court, however upon reviewing the footage it becomes clear that this is not what happened, rather the outburst came more from the police officer with a hand around Mangione’s neck and another officer that slammed Mangione into a wall after he had attempted to communicate “It’s completely unjust and an insult to the intelligence of the American people and their lived experience”. The government is already enforcing censorship upon the internet and citizens where they can, and the media is making every effort to sway the opinion of the American people by posing the assassination as something to be scared of. This is called fear mongering and it is quite prevalent in American politics (as well as Nazi Germany).

But regardless of every attempt the government and media makes to take control of the situation, they cannot control the sudden shift in American politics that has been prompted by the assassination of Brian Thompson. For the longest time—ever since the end of George Washington’s presidency, really—the politics in the United States have always been made out to be a conflict of the Left versus the Right. Democrats versus Conservatives. However, as of the past couple weeks it would seem as though the true conflict in American politics has been realised by more and more people. It has nothing to do with the different political groups that exist partially to keep the country divided and weak. The true enemy of the people is the privileged and wealthy elites. It is all the lower classes—regardless of their beliefs, religion or who they are as a person—versus the wealthy politicians, billionaires and corrupt CEOs that have come to believe the citizens are there to serve them rather than the other way ‘round as it truly should be. The people of America are slowly becoming more and more united by a similar motivation: Liberty, equality, fraternity. For far too long have these wealthy company executives and corrupt politicians sat upon a throne of blood and lies bought with the money stolen from innocent people, gorging themselves upon a feast of human suffering and wine made from the tears of children whose parents were killed in a bombing run funded by the US government for no other reason than profit and power. But little do these people know that terror does not reign. That term in of itself was also a lie, and they were so caught up in their own lies that they forgot they were just as frail and weak as every other human being that they slaughtered to get their way. To put it simply: Times are changing and so is the people’s tolerance. 

Of course, not everyone agrees. There are some who I have seen say that the death of Brian Thompson should not be celebrated. That to do so should be considered sick and twisted behaviour, but what the people saying this either do not realise or are choosing to fully disregard is the fact that Brian Thompson condemned thousands of people to death and made his entire fortune off of doing so. Some argue that now his children are without a father and that is a reason not to support it, but think of how many children have ended up without fathers, or mothers because he made the deliberate and knowing choice to deny them the insurance that could have saved their life? What about friends, family, parents who have lost their own children because of things that insurance refused to cover, deeming it unnecessary despite doctors making clear that nothing else is more important than the very thing that insurance is denying? Brian Thompson’s family will be fine. They live in a house built of blood and bone. Few people can afford even so much as a broom closet.

The media has referred to Brian Thompson’s assassination as ‘brutal’, ‘shocking’, and an act of ‘senseless violence’. They speak as though everyone could not see it coming, because they do not bother to acknowledge the inherent violence that the entire medical, insurance, and governing system is built upon. They spread propaganda and provide the richest country in the world with a major lack of proper education in an effort to keep the people from rising against them, however this fear and every attempt to prevent it from happening will be the very thing that has wrought it in the end. This assassination was not unprovoked, nor was it an overreaction. It was long overdue and truly a wonder that it didn’t happen sooner. If this were somewhere like France, people would be outraged. They would be setting fires in the streets and threatening to shit in the river. The reason this doesn’t happen in America is due to the country’s history.

America is rather young compared to other countries in say Europe, Asia or Africa. They fought a revolutionary war, but after that, the newly formed United States focused on taking over the rest of the land now known as modern day America. The early government was ruled by slave owners and racists. Their education system is underfunded, thus the people do not learn a good enough history. The country is built upon violence, war, nationalism, hatred and a people that have come to treat their political figures like gods. That is not to say other countries are not full of flaws, but I’m rather choosing to focus on the history of the United States and what led to the country’s current predicament and I’ll be using that historical knowledge to explain the true significance of the UHC shooter because it’s the start of something big and I’ve been saying it for years. 

American politics are inherently fascist. That part is obvious, but why? There are several factors throughout American history that come into play here, but I believe that a lot of it can be traced back to the American Revolutionary War and the creation of the country itself. Revolutions are prompted by many of the same and similar factors all throughout history. This can be observed in the American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Haitian Revolution, etcetera… However the American Revolution can be said to differ in a fair few ways. In particular, the American Revolution was prompted by a desire for separation from England and the issues it was causing for the colonies as well as the freedom to do what they wanted with the land across the sea, including expanding their territory West into lands that were already occupied by the native people. Keep in mind, this is one of several factors, but it is what can objectively be referred to as one of the major priorities/motivations in what led them to declare war. The Americans also throughout this part of history and all the way up to the present day saw the native people as inferior. This was a common theme within its politics and nationalistic ideologies that the country maintains today. The vast majority of the major revolutionary figures were slave owners. Come the time of the revolution, they made no efforts to bring a proper end to slavery. Many of them believed it wasn’t necessary. They started to form a new government and formed new laws. However, many parts of the American justice system possessed several flaws and several contradictions. Political corruption became prevalent fairly quickly. (Although that is not to say that any government is without corruption.) 

There is also the thing I mentioned earlier of how the United States has a strange habit of treating politicians like gods. Praising and worshipping at their feet like it’s a cult. Children must stand in their classrooms and pledge their life to a country that betrays them time and time again. This is known as America’s weird obsession with nationalism (a concept basically created by Napoleon). But what does the country owe them? What has the country ever done for them? America is the war country. There is a specific reason that it is often referred to as the American Revolutionary War, because the battle they fought is different from other revolutions in history. It was not the same kind of uprising as the French Revolution for example, which was the working class people fighting against the monarchy and taking over the government. The American Revolution functioned more like two countries fighting against each other rather than an uprising and take over of the government within one country. 

America often likes to proclaim itself as the ‘freest country in the world’, but I always have to call into question what that statement is actually referring to. Among the things the Americans fought for in their revolution is the freedom of expression, but the government is constantly fighting to strip away the rights of as many people as they can and turn the country into an authoritarian dictatorship. So it’s rather hypocritical, isn’t it? I ask once again: Freedom for whom, and to do what exactly? Freedom for white men to do what they like with whomever they please? Freedom for the police and military to kill anybody that they disagree with or don’t like for whatever reason? What about the freedom of having affordable housing, food, medical care and education? The monopoly game of a country run by clowns (derogatory) can’t even do that much. Politicians are supposed to serve and protect the people, not the other way around. Yet so often do I see people forget or completely disregard that fact. The education system is underfunded for a reason. 1984 by George Orwell is banned for a reason. The system is not flawed. It is working exactly as it was designed, keeping people divided and weak whilst also presenting them with the illusion of freedom as they set up every other citizen for failure. But that tactic is exactly what will bring its downfall. You can already see it happening. You can smell it in the air: the calm before the storm. It’s really not that hard to see so long as you know where to look.

The American people, in particular the political left, seem hesitant to get up and physically fight back. There is a hesitance there that results in them not defending their rights as ruthlessly as they should. The origins in this hesitance do lie partly in the American Revolutionary War and the particular major revolutionary figures in said war. The way the country was founded and slowly sculpted into what it is today. They wanted freedom, but for different reasons. They had different goals and motivations. Of course the country born from a war is going to do nothing but wage war. It’s just a matter of why so many of the people would rather sit around and wait for something to happen rather than doing something themselves? Why is it not the same in somewhere like France where the people are more than willing to break out into a riot at the slightest change to a law? While I already made a comparison to France as I explained the difference between a revolutionary war and a proper revolution, I’m going to talk about the French Revolution again and in a little more detail, because I believe there’s no better way to explain the problem with American politics and where said politics are heading than by talking about the most impactful revolution in history.

France is a country decidedly owned by the people with a government meant to serve the people whether the politicians like it or not. The French Revolution is arguably the most iconic revolution in history with an impact that has stretched across multiple centuries, and it’s my personal favourite historical event to study. Call me biased all you want, but that thirty page essay changed me in ways I still have yet to figure out and I might as well use this knowledge however I can. Of course, I can't start talking about my favourite historical event without starting with a disclaimer: Maximilien Robespierre was not a bloodthirsty dictator. That is a very common misconception made popular by Thermidorian and British propaganda, but it is not true. Any historian of the French Revolution worth their salt should be able to confirm this. Regardless, when most people think of the French Revolution, they think only of the Terror and a historically inaccurate depiction of Robespierre, but it is so much more than that. People who think only from this perspective are truly missing out on the bigger picture (as well as the autism). This revolution was fought by the citizens of France as they demolished an entire royal monarchy and fought for years to keep the country from collapsing under the intense pressure of having all of Europe declare war on them. 

I occasionally see people saying that the French Revolution failed, but if you’re the type of person to prioritise thorough research, you would know that this is not true. The French Revolution most certainly did not fail. It set the groundwork for the freedom and equality of the French people. During the Revolution, they got rid of slavery (until Napoleon came along), they legalised homosexuality, cut off the heads of several rich people and so much more. They established the National Assembly and the National Convention, and eventually the CSP (Committee of Public Safety, and that’s how I get confused whenever someone brings up Child Protection Services by its acronym). The Revolution succeeded in so many ways with its major failing being for the most part putting so many responsibilities on the shoulders of the individual members of the CSP and expecting them to be able to handle all of that. The French Revolution had a massive impact upon the world, changing it in so many different ways and it represents so many things that I could genuinely spend fifty pages talking about its historical significance and how it relates to the modern world, but I will keep things brief (for once) with a quick summary so that it’s at least somewhat comprehensible to those who doesn’t have my level of autism. 

The thing that sets the American Revolution apart from the French Revolution and explains in many ways the difference of politics lies in the ideas that drove each revolution. The Americans wanted ‘freedom’, sure, but the French wanted much more than just that. They strived for equality and a country that was not controlled purely by the monarchy and the church. By abolishing their monarchy—something that not even the Americans could do—they achieved a lot both in the short-term and long-term. The Revolution did not fail, even despite Napoleon, the Thermidorian Reaction and establishment of a constitutional monarchy just a few decades later. They killed their King, someone that held a position of power believed to be bestowed upon them by God, and they created a Republic. Such things were unheard of until now. This led to massive changes in society with the rise of the middle class. It redefined the concepts of governance, citizenship and human rights. The distribution of power was forever changed and the realisation that the French people could rise up against their own government, take down the monarchy and succeed is also what sparked the Haitian Revolution, as well as paving the way for the eventual elimination of several monarchies across the continent. It helped shape our modern day ideas of liberty and democratic rights and it unified the French people in a way that still affects the culture of France along with several other places. On top of that, it can also be said that the French Revolution set up the foundations for the rise of socialism and communism. The French Revolution succeeded in more ways than most people realise and it’s that fight for equality by the working class that has given France such an intense revolutionary spirit. To say that it was an overreaction to start burning stuff down when France’s government raised the retirement age by a couple of years is foolish, because that revolutionary spirit is the reason that the French have so many rights and America does not. 

And the only reason why people tell you that the French Revolution didn’t work or was a bad idea is because that then discourages other people from attempting any kind of their own revolt regardless of how corrupt and abusive the government becomes. So long as the public remains undereducated, they will be easier for the government to control.

That is also why I believe that history is the most important subject that you can learn in school. That’s also a part of why I’m saying all this. If you are able to understand the past, you can predict the future. Many of the same or similar factors are present before and during the beginning of every revolution. These factors often include, but are not limited to:

Inflation; a lack of affordable food and housing; increased violence; high levels of unemployment; social inequality; suppression of opposing voices; economic failure; increased class consciousness; underpaid workers; worker strikes; political protests; intentional election rigging; people no longer accepting the traditional powers of authority; rising popularity of radical ideologies; the collective realisation that several other individuals share the same opinion on a certain situation; increased risk and fear of death among the citizens; high taxes; a shift in politics that results in the people becoming less divided; increased focus on the real conflict being the privileged rich elites versus everyone else; politicians not keeping the promises of things they said they would do; decreased trust and approval of the government; stricter and more dictatorial laws; unlawful arrest of innocent citizens because of something they merely said (the government is becoming paranoid); lower classes becoming more and more fed up with the old regime; government debt; army/military joins the side of the people rather than the government; groups of people rebelling against the law; an ineffective government with politicians focusing on the wrong issues, ignoring the voices of the people and patting themselves on the back for nothing; politicians and government members are fighting amongst themselves and getting nothing done; political deadlock; more people speaking out against the government; the government is losing control over the people; the government is desperately trying to gain back control through the use of propaganda, fear mongering and taking advantage of media outlets; a general increased struggle to survive; mass frustration; riots and local uprisings; conflict between the old and new ways of governance; visible difference in wealth distribution; unifying motivations; and finally a prolonged period of economic and social development followed by a period of sharp reversal in which people fear that progress made is about to be stripped away and lost.

Does any of this sound familiar to you? Yeah, only after writing all this down in my draft did I realise that nearly every single cause of revolution can be applied as a true statement of the United States of America. Huh, what a funny and extremely specific coincidence that is. So what exactly am I suggesting here? Well, to essentially summarize everything that I have written thus far: We might just be on the verge of Revolution. I learned a while ago that once a country hits rock bottom, that’s when a revolution begins and based on the presidential election results, America is about to dive quite deep into the pits of Hell. But don’t worry, it’s not all doom and gloom. That’s why I’ve written this. So long as the individuals of the lower classes are able to stand united and fight for liberty, equality and dare I say fraternity, a greater change shall be able to be made. The choice of standing around and simply hoping that things will improve isn’t much of a choice anymore. There is no better time to take action than right now while we still have a fighting chance. This is not something to fear, but rather to look forward to and encourage. The American citizens combined together can greatly outweigh the government. Those wealthy politicians are not as powerful as they think they are. Their power lies in ensuring that the people remain divided and the recent events with the UHC shooter prove that there is indeed a chance to diminish that power. They are not immortal. Even the greatest empire eventually burned away. 

And while we can’t all be famous revolutionaries, that doesn’t mean that each person can’t help to bring the change we’ve needed for a long time. It starts small. It starts with taking care of our own communities and advocating for other people every chance we get. So long as we as a people remain united, there is little change we cannot bring. The Revolution has only just begun…

[heycarrots]

Great news, Black Sails Nation!

Reading Between the Lines Podcast is now available on YouTube with closed captioning!

All episodes are uploaded and live now! I’ve had quite a few people who are interested in the podcast, but are dealing with auditory processing issues or hearing impairment and still wanted to enjoy the discussions (the stories themselves are, of course, all readily available on AO3). It’s not a plain text transcription format, it’s still captions running at the speed of the episodes, but it’s a start!

I’ve been struggling with lack of available closed captioning with both Spotify and Apple Podcasts. YouTube has finally both solved that problem and opened up the podcast to a much wider audience.

Join us for stunning fan fiction, deep analytical and personal analysis and commentary on the series and fascinating and touching insights into each author’s personal journey with the show and their approach to the craft of writing.

For those of you who have been listening along with us since Episode One last year, thank you so much! I can never fully express how much your support means to me and how important this podcast is to me, personally.

Let’s dive right in!

[novelcain]

I meant like, the whole homophobia/transphobia thing, unless China was very accepting of enbys. Idk I don't really do history.

OOOOOOHHHH!!! Sorry I have a big dumb Skittle brain and am incapable of reading between the lines when it comes to nonverbal communication. 😅 Ok ok I did some research on this just now so I could give an accurate (as much as I can but I'm no expert for sure) answer.

And that answer is... it depends.

China has a very long history regarding sexually and its views of sex have shifted a LOT from one era to another. But for this post, we'll focus on the Tang Dynasty because that is the time period JTTW is set in (tho which time period of the Tang Dynasty is unclear)

So I'll start by saying that the Tang Dynasty was notoriously open about sex and sexual desires and homosexually was accepted in ancient but only in certain situations. Usually homosexuality or simply non-straight behavior was only accepted and allowed within the upper class. For example most if not all (I'm not too sure) Chinese emperors had several male lovers and they didn't hide it as it was often revered with great admiration.

NOW as far as gender orientation goes. This would HIGHLY depend on the person and their beliefs as during this period China was dominated by 2 religions Taoism and Buddhism.

Taoism was the official religion of the Tang Dynasty and states that nature is perfect as is and by proxy some believe that would mean they view transgenderism as a flaw of nature while most Taoists themselves do not view transgenderism negatively as the Tao is pretty unconcerned with identity and focuses on virtue and coming to accept things as they were born in nature. Therefore I think the only thing that would even remotely be said against transgenderism from a Taoist standpoint is that you shouldn't feel the need to change your body to reflect your mind. Conclusion: ancient Taoism would likely accept transgenderism so long as you don't pursue gender affirming surgery.

Now while the official religion of China at the time was Taoism, many emperors highly favored Buddhism and that can even be believed of the emperor described in JTTW.

That being said. Buddhism believes that the body is a cage that traps the spirit in suffering and should therefore be distanced from as much as possible. HOWEVER! The Buddha himself said that while you should try to separate yourself from the Earthly Realm one's body should be used as a tool of awakening, and given that awakening in to find Nirvana, one could argue that pursuing your gender identity is simply using your body to reflect your soul and therefore is good. But honestly Buddhists are pretty chill and as long as you ain't hurting anyone or anything I HIGHLY doubt a true Buddhist would care what you do so long as you live amicably. Conclusion: transgenderism would likely be cool with about 99% of Buddhists even in ancient China.

Overall conclusion: MOST people probably wouldn't care, though these are ancient times, so I'd really read the room before offering any info about being gender nonconforming or nonbinary. Having said that, the worst thing you'd have to do is pretend to be whatever gender you most closely resemble. But honestly I think a lot about how it'd be best to pretend to be a man when traveling as they are much less likely to be attacked, assaulted, or hate crimed.

So again, in situations like these you need to be flexible and willing to present as something you aren't. And while that can be hard, I feel like dying via whatever brutal death an extreme transphobe can think of is a lot harder. So if you play your cards right the most a nonbinary reader would get is probably some nasty comments and a few even nastier looks. Tho both could easily be corrected by Tripitaka explaining they shouldn't do that and that isn't what Buddhism believes if the person is a Buddhist and if that doesn't work or they aren't Buddhist then a few sharp glares from the Great Sage Equal to Heaven should be more than enough to get them to knock it the fuck off. Tho if you're good at talking people over to your side then they probably wouldn't even need to step in.

As for how the group would take it, I think they'd all accept it rather quickly after you explain what being enby is with maybe the exception of Bajie who just truly doesn't understand so you'd just have to explain the concept of other genders to him a few times.

I hope this answers your question at least somewhat 😊

[grants-blue-eyed-stare]

Me and the discord chat discovering symptoms of autism in Grant

We are not psychologists but we are autistic and relate to these shared traits. Many of these traits fall under DSM 5 categories for an autism diagnosis as well as trends experienced by autistic people. This is by no means an official diagnosis ofc!

Childhood Stories This is a good place to start. I'll rattle off a few stories. - Hyposensitivity to noise (DSM B4): Jesse Grant dared a friend to shoot a gun next to Ulysses who was absolutely unfazed. Ulysses' reaction can be called hyposensitivity as the sound didn't bother him as it did other children. It can even be argued that this hyposensitivity aided him in his future military career. - Taking instructions too literally (DSM A1): Ulysses' horror story about purchasing the colt "[My father says I am to offer you $20, then $22.50, and finally $25]" shows that he took Jesse's instructions very literally. Not fully understanding this social interaction can be interpreted as childhood naivety or an autistic trait. Keep in mind that Ulysses struggled with monetary deals throughout his entire life. - Outcast in childhood (DSM A3): Ulysses was bullied by others as a child and got the nickname "Useless Grant." Many autistic people have experienced bullying as a child because they are viewed as "different" and an "outsider." Other Traits - Special Interest (DSM B3): It is well known that Ulysses loved horses! Ulysses was basically a horse whisperer and was THE horse guy. His absolute obsession with them throughout his life is akin to special interests. - Sensory triggers (DSM B4): Ulysses was put off by meat that was less cooked and preferred it well-cooked. Having less coked meat was obviously a trigger that made him feel uncomfortable. Many autistic people have similar experiences and find it hard to eat particular foods. He also had his routine cucumber breakfast during the civil war. - Masking in front of strangers (DSM A1): Ulysses seemed quiet in front of strangers but was enthusiastic with his inner circle, as noted by Julia and other friends. In her memoirs, Julia recalled how different was with her versus with strangers. This is something introverts experience, but Julia's description is reminiscent of masking autism. - Empath (common trait not listed in DSM): Ulysses is famously an empath and known for his kindness! Being an empath is a common trait that autistic people experience. Notable instances of Ulysses's empathy was his fair treatment of civilians and soldiers during the Civil War and respectfulness during Confederate surrenders. - Strong sense of justice (common trait not listed in DSM): Ulysses always had a strong sense of justice, something many autistic people experience. Ulysses's sense of justice is particularly evident in his implementation of the 14th and 15th amendments to secure equal rights for African Americans. - Difficulty keeping a job (DSM B2): After his resignation from the army in the 1850s, Ulysses struggled to keep a job. Modern statistics show that people with autism have trouble with work. - Mate crimes (DSM A3): Ulysses seemed to willingly turn a blind eye to friends who took advantage of his positions, especially with money. Ulysses' reputation has been noticeably hurt by this, with notable examples being the Whisky Ring during his presidency and the failure of Grant & Ward due to Ward stealing all profits. Autistic people are more vulnerable to mate crimes due to their desire to make social connections. Taking Ulysses' empathetic nature into consideration, this is quite convincing to me! - Naïvety (DSM A3): Ulysses was very optimistic and trusting to a point of fault. His optimism led to him being taking advantage of in mate crimes. This is something many autistic people experience.

Have to add that there are also accounts of him having a unique stride as well as whittling a lot (stim w). Grant also was noted for never dressing fancy and usually wearing plain clothes that are kinda shabby, so it could be interpreted as a comfort thing.

Of course, we will probably never know for sure if Ulysses was autistic or not, but it sure is interesting to look at the data. I tried my best to connect these traits to the DSM 5. Remember I am not a psychologist but from my personal experience these traits made sense. Thanks for reading!

[visorforavisor]

I’ve been reading from The Teares of Ireland by James Cranford, which is a 1642 English comic about the 1641 rebellion in Ireland. obviously it’s complete propaganda and I sincerely doubt the veracity of most stories told in it, but there’s some absolute gems in here. I mean, really.

At one Mʳ Atkins houſe 7 Papiſtas brake in & beate out his braines, then riped upe his wife with Childe after they had rauiſhed her & Nero like vewed natures bed of conception then tooke they the Childe & ſacrificed it in the fire.

this is gruesome… if you believe they did it.

English Proteſtantas, ſtriped naked & turned into the mountaines, in the froſt, & ſnowe, whe:reof many hundreds are periſhed to death. & many liyinge dead in ditches & Savages upbraided them ſayinge now are ye wilde Iriſch as well as wee.

likewise. they perished to death, guys [/s]! and the worst thing the Irish could think of to say was… that these English Protestants were also Irish now? really, Cranford?

Drivinge Men Women & Children by hundreds vpon Briges & caſting them into Rivers, who drowned not were killed with poles & ſhot with muſkets

at this point I’d like to remind you that it was only in 1609 — not very long previously — that these same Catholics had been forced out of their homes and off their land in Ulster so that English Anglicans and Scottish Presbyterians could be moved in, in an effort to Anglicise and de-Gaelicise the nation of Ireland.

Mʳ FFordes houſe rifled; and to make her confeſſe where her mony lay, they tooke hot tonges clappinge them to the Soules of her feete & to the Palmes of her handes ſo tormented her that with the paine thereof ſhee died.

okay, so this one is also utterly ridiculous. but I am making a point here.

when I was reading these pieces — as well as the testimony of Elizabeth Price, an English woman, in June 1643 about the same rebellion — what really struck me was the similarity to Israeli propaganda about Palestinians. from Elizabeth Price:

shee often heard the Common sort of Rebells say, that when they had distroyed all the English in Ireland they would goe with an Army into England and destroy the English there

sounds a lot like Israeli claims that Palestine doesn’t want Israelis to exist. she also talks about how brutal the Catholics are in regard to religion:

hearing in Irish words answered and said Cuir do anim in diouall, which in English is Give or bequeath thy soule to the Divell, And at other tymes would say to the protestants (vpon their knees, begging with teares, that they might pray before their deaths) Why should yow pray for your soule is with the Divell already, And therevpon and with those words in their mowthes would slaughter and put them to death

firstly, what she means is “cuir d’anam i ndiabhal”. secondly, this once again reminds me of the propaganda of Israel as concerns the Palestinian people.

my point here, really, is that it was extremely clear to me upon reading these 1640s texts that the horrific details of the Irish rebels were made up. please have the same doubt about claims regarding Palestinians, things you hear from Israel. especially things that sound like they don’t have any evidence.

[silvandar]

Cw horror, historical politics

Excellent analysis of the cultures surrounding the writing of some classic scifi, and their impact on the storytelling.

This channel is about to become my obsession, i can feel it 😅

[memingursa]

He’s so fucking good at laying out basic fucking shit centrists and right wingers don’t get man

[subjects-of-the-king]

The Concept of Government Legitimacy in Greek Antiquity and the Modern World

An original essay of Lucas Del Rio

Note: This piece of mine references both the modern and ancient worlds. Dates in antiquity will always have BC attached. If there is no BC attached, then the date can be presumed to be AD. All references to events in the modern world are solely for the purpose of historical analysis and are not intended to support any political agenda.

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a series of international conflicts, both with and without bloodshed, have arisen over the issue of the right of governments to rule their people. After the Second World War, a push occurred against colonialism, which at least in theory was because states were increasingly expected to have a right to constitutional sovereignty. Similar to Latin America in the nineteenth century, local peoples in Africa and Asia began to grow more nationalistic and demanded the right to have governments that answered to their own subjects rather than being the subjects themselves of imperial powers. This dream would be shattered, however, by the conflicting interests of the United States and the Soviet Union, who both had their own ideas of what a legitimate government meant. Now government legitimacy was no longer derived primarily from popular sovereignty, but rather from the two opposing systems of government and economic structure demanded by the rival superpowers. Consent from the people, as well as the right of a nation to rule itself, grew irrelevant as the former colonies became battlegrounds of political ideology through proxy war and coup d’etat regardless of what their citizens actually wanted. Even with the dissolution of the Soviet Union more than thirty years ago, the major powers of the world have far from ceased operating in this manner. Some countries, such as Somaliland in northern Somalia, have fully functioning governments without any international recognition of sovereignty. Others, such as the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China, both claim the title of legitimacy over the other and both enjoy the recognition of certain other governments. Further still, some nations may try to undermine the status of another internationally, such as how the United States uses sanctions on Belarus, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.

One might assume that this recent history is only characteristic of the timeframe in which it occurred. With nationalism and the notion of universal human rights both being relatively new concepts, older history was indeed frequently dominated by empires, absolutism, and slavery. The idea that there was historically no consideration of government legitimacy could not be further from the truth, however. This topic has the potential to be studied in a myriad of times and places, but consider ancient Greece. Countless city-states were strewn across the country prior to the eventual finalization of the Roman conquest after the Battle of Corinth in 146 BC, and there was a lengthy political history in each of them before this annexation. Cities had different systems of governance, conquering cities installed puppet regimes in one another, and most importantly, there were standards for political legitimacy. In order to study the beginnings of the Greek political systems that would come to dominate her cities in the Classical (490 - 323 BC) and Hellenistic (323 - 30 BC) eras, the focus of research shall be on Athens in the Archaic Era (750 - 490 BC) and earlier.

The earliest surviving Hellenic writings that tell their history in an objective manner are the “Histories” of Herodotus. After spending as long as multiple decades traveling and writing about what was the known world to the Greeks in the fifth century BC, his finished text is arguably the best extant source on Archaic Greece, although little of it extends further back than the late seventh century BC. A crucial source for events before this is the “Chronicle” of Eusebius, a fourth century Christian scholar under Emperor Justinian the Great of the Byzantine Empire. In addition to more accepted facts, some of the contents of his “Chronicle” are clearly derived from legend, although folk tales can often help to decipher the history of a people. For this reason, the “Library” of Apollodorus the Grammarian, an Athenian scholar from the second century BC, is also useful. While the work had the explicit purpose of being a handbook to the ancient Greek beliefs about their deities, demigods, and other mythical figures, there is a great deal of purported information on the rulers of cities in the so-called heroic era, which when used with caution can allow it to serve as a sort of guide to Greece before it was chronicled by Herodotus and his successors. These three texts will therefore act as the main sources on the origins of Greek political structures.

The three better studied eras of ancient Greek history are preceded by the Aegean Bronze Age, a time period stretching from the first cities being founded on the archipelagos that surround the Greek mainland to the disappearance of the Mycenaean civilization, and the Greek Dark Ages, which last until official dates for Greek history are objectively established by the Olympic Games. As a side note, while historians generally simplify the dating by calling 750 BC the dawn of the Archaic Era, the first Olympiad was in 776 BC. In the Aegean Bronze Age, truly large cities emerged first on the island of Crete before being followed by those of the Mycenaeans on the mainland. Many historians have postulated that some later Greek legends were distant recollections of events in the Mycenaean era. This theory, one which deserves much greater study than it has received, is for the most part only applied to the Trojan War, although it has the potential to be used as a starting point for the study of the dawn of Greek politics. Greek legend, like those of many other cultures, had a flood myth in which Zeus attempted to wipe out the human race over anger about child sacrifice. Since the story of the Minotaur also involves child sacrifice of a sort, it seems very likely that the Greeks at one time may have had such a ritual practice. After all, the Greek hero Theseus, son of King Aegeus, overcame great odds against King Minos of Crete, interestingly the location where civilization had arisen first, when he slew his monster that had been living on the flesh of Athenian boys and girls.

If the Greeks truly did practice child sacrifice early on, then both of these stories appear to be a moral condemnation of it. In the case of the flood, it was Lycaon, King of Arcadia in the Peloponnese according to the Latin poet Ovid, who had sacrificed a boy to Zeus. Disgusted, the King of the gods of the Greeks was said to have executed the offending monarch with lightning before receiving the assistance of Poseidon and Triton to flood the world with the heaviest rains ever seen. No one would have a more legitimate claim to kingship than the one who ruled from Olympus, and he had the right to depose a much lesser leader for an obsolete, barbaric practice. To fulfill his goal, he requested help from other members of his family with their own realms. This would be followed by the suffering of many others. While Zeus and probably also Lycaon belong solely to myth, the story could represent child sacrifice surviving as a practice in the peripheral regions of Greece until the leaders of these areas were wiped out by their stronger foes. There is also the possibility that the child sacrifice is allegorical for a different practice of one or more kings, but it still demonstrates the mindset of the Greeks at the time. Given that King Minos also sacrificed children, however, it may be more than a mere allegory. 

Contemporary international relations also involve countries that are more powerful and more favorably viewed looking at weak and isolated countries as both primitive and backwards, then using this mindset to justify military or other action. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Middle East, where the United States views Islamic countries, albeit selectively, as foes who refuse to adapt to the modern world. An especially long-running example is Iran, where the Islamic Revolution of 1979 left the country as an adversary of the United States. Iran is condemned by the United States for its theocratic system of governance, a system that the United States sees as illegitimate. More recently, they have accused the Iranians of developing nuclear weapons, which the United States views with suspicion. Of course, most people in the world would agree that theocracy is obsolete in the twenty-first century and that continued nuclear proliferation, regardless of the country obtaining the weapons, is dangerous for people everywhere, just as they would be horrified by child sacrifice. At the same time, many would disagree with the practice of heavy economic sanctions and repeated military threats, which they might view as illegitimate means of diplomacy in the twenty-first century.

The story of Theseus and the Minotaur, as previously asserted, is also essentially about child sacrifice. Unlike King Lycaon, however, it is King Minos who is the powerful ruler subjecting Athens to his will, demanding human sacrificial tribute in a manner similar to the Aztecs. Theseus in this case is playing the role of revolutionary against an old custom. As this tale involves Crete as the location of the greatest power, it is probably that it represents earlier events, when child sacrifice was the norm and still practiced by the most important kings. Here Minos, therefore, is the illegitimate ruler because of his oppressive actions which unjustly interfere in the affairs of another sovereign state. In a twist, Theseus was said by the Athenians to have initiated upon his return the most important political development in Greek history, and arguably, if there is any truth to it, the world. Plutarch, in his work “Parallel Lives” about the greatest of the Greeks and Romans, writes “he promised government without a king” where “he should only be commander in war and guardian of the laws, while in all else everyone should be on an equal footing.” This, according to Plutarch, was “a democracy.”

There is one last notable development to this story, however, and it is that at least some of the Greeks telling it did not view this decision by Theseus favorably, including Plutarch. “He saw that a large part of the people were corrupted” writes Plutarch, who also adds that they “wished to be cajoled into service instead of doing silently what they were told to do.” For many Greeks, the democracy that had been won by the Athenian hero after he freed the city from Cretan subjugation was not the most legitimate system of government, as much of the international community would agree today, but rather the least. Even in the twenty-first century, this story has great relevance. Some highly autocratic leaders, especially in Africa, still try to discredit the concept of democracy by pointing to the failures of democracies that are otherwise similar to their own states by pointing out the failure of these governments to bring down corruption, crime, disorder, poverty, and reliance on foreign powers. The Latin American strongmen, juntas, and one-party states in countries such as Chile, Argentina, and Mexico used similar arguments in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and some would argue that the region has grown significantly more authoritarian in the last decade or so. Furthermore, like Theseus, leaders in modernity who attempt to initiate change by fighting imperial powers and establishing radical new systems of government are rarely successful. Communism is the most well-known example, although a similar issue can be seen in the African anticolonial revolutionaries of the 1960s, where newly democracy almost immediately collapsed in nearly every newly independent state and is yet to return to many. Unfortunately, both the terms “communist state” and “African state” have become heavily associated with tyranny, whether the generalization is fair or not.

Plutarch may provide a lengthy biography of Theseus, although Apollodorus discusses several other legendary Athenian kings, and Eusebius gives a simple yet thorough chronology. Apollodorus maintains that the different gods built cities that would be their respective site of worship, and the one built by Athena was Athens. Ogygus, according to Eusebius, was their first king, then “the Greeks relate that their great ancient flood happened in his reign” and “Attica remained without a king for 190 years.” There is no evidence, of course, that such a flood genuinely occurred, although the unknown event that mysteriously led to the crumbling of the Mycenaean civilization at the dawn of the Greek Dark Ages likely left governance in some parts of Greece in a state of limbo. It is therefore not unthinkable that central control in Athens could have broken down for almost two centuries, possibly with a multitude of warring factions all claiming the title of legitimate ruler while decrying the others as tyrants. “Tyrant” was a frequently used word in ancient Greece for a usurper of the government of a polis, especially one previously controlled by a “rightful” royal family and particularly in the Archaic Era. Its roots originate with the Lydian people of Asia Minor, whom Herodotus says were ruled by a dynasty descended from the Greek hero Heracles, better known today by his Latinized name Hercules, until they were overthrown by Gyges of the Mermnad dynasty. Using lengths of reign and other chronological dates provided by the celebrated Ionian historian, modern scholars have calculated the date of this seizure of power to have been 716 BC, or early in the Archaic Era of the neighboring land of the Greeks.

When the legitimacy of a regime is questioned in the modern world, the result can be the collapse of the central government. Oftentimes a military government ends up replacing a civilian one, or worse yet, central authority completely collapses into an ungovernable warlord state. Two Arab countries in North Africa are recent examples of the two situations. In 2011, the longtime dictators Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, in power since 1981, and Muammar al-Qaddafi of Libya, in power since 1969, were both expelled from power after mass demonstrations erupted into widespread street violence. Both leaders suddenly received condemnation from the international community, with Mubarak choosing to step down while Qaddafi was killed after risking a civil war that he lost. Egypt was celebrated for holding her first free and fair elections, but there was once again anger from both world leaders and the local population with the newly elected Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. A coup d’etat followed in 2013 with a minimum of international condemnation, Morsi would die under suspicious circumstances in 2019, and the country is now led by Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the military officer who deposed him. A far more dire situation has occurred in Libya, which quickly descended into a civil war with various opposing factions backed by several different foreign countries, including some of her African neighbors as well as the great powers of the world.

Tyranny was exceptionally common in the Greek Archaic Era before a transition towards more democracies and aristocracies as the Classical Era dawned. Herodotus writes heavily about the different tyrants, as his successor Thucydides does to a lesser extent. The author of the “History of the Peloponnesian War,” which chronicled the catastrophic violence between Athens and Sparta in the late fifth century BC, Thucydides is generally considered to have been the greatest historian of the Classical Era after Herodotus. Some modern scholars even prefer Thucydides as a writer because they feel his approach is less biased and that he more carefully vetted his sources. He writes that “the old form of government was hereditary monarchy with established rights and limitations” until “tyrannies were established in nearly all the cities.” Clearly Thucydides considers monarchy to be a more legitimate form of government. Today, military seizures of power are at the very least internationally condemned and often met with economic sanctions such as embargoes and asset freezes, showing that unconstitutional rule by juntas is now no longer seen as legitimate as it was during the Cold War and earlier. On the other hand, while the official international consensus is supposed to be that absolute monarchy is obsolete, powerful countries such as the United States continue to work closely with hereditary regimes such as Saudi Arabia. One reason given for the illegitimacy of military government is the squandering of economic resources, a sentiment shared by Thucydides when he says “for a long long the state of affairs everywhere in Hellas was such that nothing very remarkable could be done” and “cities were lacking in enterprise.”

According to Eusebius, following the reestablishment of monarchy in Athens by King Cecrops, who is also mentioned in the myths told by Apollodorus, the city was ruled by a series of seventeen kings. These kings, he says, belonged to the Erechtheid dynasty, who reigned for 450 years. As Athens transitioned from monarchy, the heads of government were the archons. The reason for this abandonment of monarchy by the Athenians is unclear, but there must have been forces in the city causing a different political system to be considered a more legitimate form of rule. Initially, the archons held power for life, and then his dates show that after 763 BC they began to be appointed for ten year terms. After 684 BC, these terms changed to one year. Just like in Athens, countries in the modern world grapple with the legitimacy of individual leaders based on the duration in which they are permitted to remain in power. Especially in the more peripheral states of the world, changes are frequently made to national constitutions regarding term limits and the length of individual terms. Herodotus mentions a series of tyrannies and attempted tyrannies in Athens that occurred prior to the democratic reforms that historians believe occurred in 508 BC. 

A pivotal moment occurred in Greece, which foreshadowed a major aspect of modern geopolitics, as the Archaic Era was coming to a close. This was the first and second Persian invasion of Greece, which caused something to occur in the world that had never happened before. In these wars, the greatest imperial power of the world chose to use its massive army against a people who, more than had happened up until this point in history, were starting to develop a national identity. The Greeks did not wish to be subjects of the Persians. To the Greeks, despite their many scattered governments, only Greek rule over Greece was legitimate, and they therefore showed unity and strength to defend their sovereignty. During the eighteenth century, such a notion of nationalism spread across the globe. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it became commonplace for nationalist partisans to resist instances of foreign occupation. Since the Second World War, direct occupation of a different nation-state has grown increasingly difficult, as evidenced by the local responses in Afghanistan in 1979, Iraq in 2003, and Ukraine in 2022. Like the Greeks of the fifth century BC, the people of the modern world are increasingly valuing both democracy and their own sovereignty, and like the Classical Greeks, they have the potential for some of the greatest deeds in human history.

[a-tale-never-told]

Historical Document#2: The Stasi Biography.

//Greetings everyone, this is Mod Sam. I present to you the second history review of the bunch, the Stasi review. Now I'm pretty sure that most of you were expecting this review instead of the Soviet one, given that the Stasi are currently the biggest threat to the blog as of this season, It would make sense to do an analysis on them and what their tactics and operations are. But due to my poor organizational skills, I instead did the Soviet one first, and that review was... disappointing to say the least, but now I understand why it wasn't as successful: it wasn't relevant to the main story yet.

//That's certainly not to say every historical post should be connected to the story, but given the stakes that we have now, it makes perfect sense to talk about them now and explain why they are so dangerous. How I didn't recognize that earlier is beyond me.

//But anyway, I think I did slightly better here in comparison to the last review, where it got way too overcomplicated for anyone to understand, aside from a few aspects. But I think I managed to make it understandable enough for you guys to understand. An added bonus is that the review is shorter, thus you don't have to spend hours reading it, so that's a drastic improvement.

//Given that I've seen a lot of Stasi-related asks during the story, consider this a firsthand survival guide on the Stasi, and what they do exactly firsthand. Consider them a more terrifying version of the KGB and the North Japanese secret police force, at least for now.

//I just want to apologize for the lack of activity on this blog for a while, aside from answering asks and me complaining. I've calmed down since the last time I made that rant, and I eventually realized that I need to take it easy with you guys and not force you because if there is anything people don't like, it's being told what to do, and I feel ashamed that I tried to do that. I hope you all can accept my forgiveness and just no that I meant no ill intentions towards you guys. I was just... so stressed that day and I pretty much lost it.

//But besides that, I'm ready to possibly get back into the story. If all goes to plan, I should have the next story chapter by around Friday or Saturday at the latest. But in the meantime, you have this file to occupy your attention while I start working on the next chapter, so be vigilant for a new chapter coming out soon.

//To close this post off, let me show you the ID card of Vladimir Putin while he was in the Stasi. And before you ask, yes, this is 100% real and accurate, this was actually what he looked like when he was younger. Viewer discretion is advised.

//At the very least, he had some hair, so I'll give him that.

//This shall probably be the last historical post I do for now, as I prefer to continue working on the story since these posts aren't going to really matter to anyone unless we focus on the actual plot itself. I know I just said that before, but I wanted to add more context as to why. Plus, it's pretty much a slog for me to write these long essays in Google Docs since I highly doubt anyone here reads a Google Doc for a review. Still, though, I hope you enjoyed these reviews as that's all you're going to get untill the end of this arc or even the season, it's up to my own volition on how I shall conduct this type of strategy.

//This is Mod Sam from A Tale Never Told, signing out for now. Have a great rest of the day everyone ^^.

[racefortheironthrone]

Hello, I’ve a part asoiaf part medieval history question. So despite the strict gender roles, we know that women (at least noble women) can enjoy some “male” activities like horse riding and some kinds of hunting (Cat says Arya can have a hunting hawk). Are there any other “male” activities women can partake too without being judged about it, or even encouraged to do so (both in Westeros and real world)?

So as medievalists and historians of gender have pointed out, ASOIAF is far more restrictive for women than actual medieval Europe. I'm actually going to leave aside the situation of noblewoman for a second, because the vast majority of women were not nobles and their experience of gender would be radically different.

What counted as "male activities" for example would vary enormously by location (rural vs. urban) and thus occupation (farmer vs. artisan). Among the peasantry, while men tended to work in the fields and concentrated on cereal-crop production and women tended to do the manifold work of maintaining the home, the reality is that the irregular nature of agricultural labor meant that in times of high demand (especially spring sowing and autumn harvest) it was a matter of survival for every single member of the household to work in the fields. So women absolutely knew how to work a plow, and swing a scythe.

As for the urban worker, while there was also a high degree of gender segregation by occupation and guilds could often be quite misogynistic when it came to trying to masculinize trades (especially those involving higher rates of capital investment), it was also true that the entire household was expected to contribute their labor, so that wives, daughters, collateral female relatives, and female servants picked up the trade alongside their male counterpart. Moreover, as biased towards men as guilds could be, they were even more committed to the principle that guild businesses were family businesses, and so in situations where a master artisan had only daughters or died childless or died with underage heirs, it was absolutely routine for guilds to admit daughters and widows as guild members, indeed usually at the rank of master, all so that the business could remain in the same family. This is why medievalists can point to so many examples of women who worked in skilled trades, often at a high level.

That's what I think GRRM's portrait of medieval society is missing: an entire world of women in business, working elbow-to-elbow with men to make a living.

As for noblewomen, part of the difficulty is that a big part of being a noble was not doing stuff - not working for a living, chiefly - and instead engaging in leisure activities as much as possible. And women were very much a part of those activities (indeed, for many of them the point was to mingle with eligible people of the opposite gender), whether that's feasting, dancing, hunting, hawking, theater and other entertainments, fireworks, tourneys and jousts, etc.

However, women were also engaged in the main "occupations" of the nobility - estate management and politics - way more than GRRM really takes note of. To begin with, as even GRRM acknowledges to some extent, the lady of the house was expected to take an active role in running the house, which meant managing servants, keeping track of accounts payable and receivable, making sure the supplies arrive on time and in the right quality and quantity, keeping an eye on maintenance and repairs (with the help of servants, natch), etc.

Given that even the manor houses of the nobility were units of economic production, the lady of the house would also be responsible for oversight of how the house was doing with its pigs, goats, chickens and pigeons and geese, bees (because beeswax and honey were really important commodities), sheep, and so on, and what kind of figures they were pulling down at the mill and the weir, and so forth.

As medievalists have known for a long time, this list of duties got even longer whenever the lord of the house was away at war or on business, when the lady would be expected to pick up all his work too - which means making sure the rents and taxes get paid, deciding which fields to distribute manpower to and when, dealing with legal disputes in the manorial court, and so on. And if the war came home, the lady of the house was expected to lead the defense of the castle and there are many, many examples of noblewomen who had to organize sieges that lasted months and even years.

However, we also have to consider the impact of inheritance by birth and the inherent randomness of sex at birth - as much as they tried to avoid it, plenty of noble houses ended up with female heirs or in the hands of widows. Most of the time in most countries, women could and did inherit (or at the very least their male children and relatives could inherit through them) titles and fiefdoms, and while their husbands would often take on overlordship de jure uxoris, unmarried women and widows very much exercised their authority as the Lady or Baroness or Countess or whatever, and history is also full of women who were extremely influential in medieval politics and backed up their influence by any means necessary.

[wisdomfish]

What happened to the Ark of the Covenant?

When Moses returned from Mount Sinai to see the Israelites, he had with him the Ten Commandments. However, the Ten Commandments was not all that God had given to Moses on the mountain. He also received instructions on how to have his laborers construct the Ark of the Covenant. What happened to the Ark of the Covenant, and where is it today?

[gracehosborn]

Me: *is reading the April 1779 letter again for TAI plot reasons*

Analyst Brain: *notices new thing she somehow hadn't picked up on* ?????

Me: Will this letter ever stop revealing/implying things I have to take into consideration when crafting this series gah! 😭