#Macedonian court practice

[jeannereames]

Aside from Hephaistion, who did Alexander consider to be his friends? Is there anyone who’s been noted as someone he was close to or fond of? Were they around his age, or older, like someone like Kleitus?

No doubt Alexander’s circle changed across his lifespan. Hephaistion appears to have been a constant, and a few others, but we get mention of new friends and acquaintances now and then, also fallings-out, or deaths.

First, we should note that each Macedonian prince was accorded an “official circle” called syntrophoi (σύντροφοι), selected by the king. It means “those who were raised together with,” e.g., schooled with Alexander. His cousin Amyntas would have had the same. (I’m thinking Arrhidaios probably didn’t, but he might have, depending on his actual mental capacity, which isn’t clear.)

If we can’t be 100% certain who were Alexander’s syntrophoi, we can make a few guesses. Perdikkas, Leonnatos, Marsyas, Hektor, Lysimachos, and Seleukos all seem likely—maybe even Kassandros (although he was younger). Probably Hephaistion, although one of the places Sabine Müller and I disagree is when he met Hephaistion. She thinks they met only as adults, whereas I think Hephaistion was a syntrophos. (I won’t go into why; I simply note it.)

The ruins of the palaistra near Mieza turns out to be much bigger than we expected, suggesting there were a lot of boys sent to study with Alexander—more by far than I included in the novel. But I’d already written Dancing with the Lion by the time that excavation occurred, and I’m not sure I’d change it even if I had known, as 100 kids is a lot to keep track of! I did note the size in the Historical Note, however, at the end of book 2. Obviously if there were even 50 (never mind the possible 100), they weren’t all close to Alexander. Probably most weren’t.

Some not syntrophoi, but important to his circle, include Krateros, Philotas, Nikanor, and Ptolemy, all of whom would have been about 10-ish years older, and may have been syntrophoi (at least some) of Alexander’s older cousin Amyntas. Erigyios, Laomedon, Harpalos, and Nearchos, despite my making them Alexandros’s age in the novels, were all almost certainly older, and perhaps by some years (more than Ptolemy and Krateros). Kleitos would have been like a big brother to Alexander, too, but not a syntrophos.

Now, OF those assigned syntrophoi, who were his actual friends? Good question. Keep in mind this is just my own opinion, based on my sense of things from the sources.

In addition to Hephaistion, he seems to have been genuinely fond of Hektor (Parmenion’s youngest). I think he also liked Lysimachos, and Perdikkas. Despite the hatchet-job Ptolemy (et al.) did on Perdikkas’s reputation in the Successor Wars, after Hephaistion’s death, Perdikkas occupied the highest position still at court (with Krateros his most trusted person away from court). I’m not sure if he were actual friends with Krateros, or simply recognized him as an excellent general, Parmenion’s natural successor. If they were close at some point, I can’t imagine the friction with Hephaistion made it easy to continue. For that matter, I’m not sure Hephaistion and Krateros weren’t originally at least friendly, if not friends. The tension seems to bloom late in the campaign after Hephaistion’s rise. Another possible friend was Marsyas, who had more of a literary career than a military one. But like Ptolemy later, he could have exaggerated his importance to Alexander for prestige.

There were also people in-and-out of his personal circle who weren’t Macedonians, or soldiers. We hear less about them. And we should remember that people’s personal circle does change across time. I think most people do probably count only a handful of people as consistent, long-term friends. That’s what makes them special.

Alexander’s unique place as crown prince, then king…then simply the most powerful person in his world, would have complicated enormously who he could call a friend.

It’s why I find his attachment to Hephaistion so fascinating—a unicorn—as it seems to have been both sincere and to have weathered his rise to power. It’s also why I think his own death followed so quickly on Hephaistion’s. It’s lonely at the top. A cliché, but very true. He got lucky enough to have a trusted partner who he brought along from the beginning. When that partner died, he was rudderless. Even if he trusted Perdikkas…Perdikkas wasn’t Hephaistion. Nobody was. That emotional devastation was heightened so much more simply due to his position.

[siringadev]

Basil Lekapenos - a powerful eunuch and ruler of Byzantine empire. He was an illegitimate son of the Byzantine emperor Romanos I Lekapenos who served as the parakoimomenos and chief minister of the Byzantine Empire for most of the period 947–985, under emperors Constantine VII, Nikephoros II Phokas, John I Tzimiskes, and Basil II. His mother was a slave woman of "Scythian" (possibly implying Slavic/Bulgarians) origin. From his father's side, he had Macedonian and Armenian roots. Basil was a close friend of emperor John Tzimiskes. Basil himself took part in the great campaign against the Rus' in Bulgaria in 971, having been entrusted with the reserve forces, the baggage train and the supply arrangements, while Tzimiskes himself with his elite troops marched ahead. His enormous wealth enabled Basil to become, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, "one of the most lavish Byzantine art patrons".  "Psellos characterized him as the most remarkable person in the Roman empire, outstanding in intellect, bodily stature, and regal in appearance." As an artifice shaped by human hands, Basil Lekapenos became skilled in rhetoric, diplomacy, warfare; he possessed avid desire for wealth and power, subtle taste, and an eye for exquisite shapes. This eunuch's adorned body could be equated to the beautiful Limburg container. It is this brilliant form in which power resides. The eunuch is the angelic guard and protector; the face and body of the empire, in brief—the container of the empire. Relic and reliquary work in tandem, a pair suspended between presence and absence, between inaccessible energy—the emperor—and sensual experience of an iconized container—the eunuch."     

— Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 51: Spring 2007. By Francesco Pellizzi

The history of Byzantium is dotted with examples of what some historians condemn as over-powerful eunuch courtiers, who attempted to dominate their rulers. From Chrysaphios in the fifth century, Euphratas under Justinian, to Staurakios and Aetios, Samonas in the ninth, Basil Lekapenos in the tenth, and John the orphanotrophos (in charge of the large Imperial Orphanage in Constantinople) in the eleventh, the list is extensive. Basil Lekapenos, an illegitimate son of Romanos I, known as ‘Nothos’ (‘the Bastard’), made a particularly successful career. After being castrated as a child to destroy any imperial ambitions he might have developed, he was appointed parakoimomenos by Constantine VII. He held on to great power through the rule of Nikephoros II and John I, and practically governed the empire during the first decade of Basil II’s reign (976–85). With his great wealth, he commissioned magnificent art objects such as the Limburg reliquary. He also wrote a treatise on naval battles and had it copied in a splendid manuscript of military Taktika.

In this respect, Basil Lekapenos was typical of several high-ranking eunuchs who became art patrons, diplomats, generals, administrators, teachers, writers, theologians and churchmen (plate 10). In many cases these officials were detached from their court duties to undertake particular missions, diplomatic or military, such as Andreas, who negotiated with the Arabs in the seventh century, or Theoktistos, who commanded the navy in the ninth century. In Byzantium, as in the caliphate, eunuchs regularly found employment as military generals and diplomats. Their high status is confirmed in the Book on the Interpretation of Dreams, written by a Christian Greek author, Achmet, who drew on Byzantine and Arabic sources as well as on his own dreams. In common with many authors, he equates beautiful eunuchs with angels. Both of course were considered sexless beings, since angels have no sex and eunuchs were supposed to have lost theirs. 

As well as these high-ranking eunuch officials, others made careers far away from the Great Palace and imperial patronage. They appear incidentally in hagiographical sources, and sometimes feature on a list of wedding gifts, as in the story of Digenes Akrites, the frontier hero. When Digenes Akrites finally married the girl (she is never named), her eldest uncle presented them with ten boys:

Sexless and handsome with lovely long hair, Clothed in a Persian dress of silken cloth With fine and golden sleeves about their necks. — Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire by Judith Herrin.

About eunuchs' appearance in Byzantium.  As he [Andrew] sat on the ground in front of the gateway there came a young eunuch who was the chamberlain of one of the nobles. His face was like a rose, the skin of his body white as snow, he was well shaped, fair-haired, possessing an unusual softness, and smelling of musk from afar.  [Another variant: beautiful young eunuch, with blond hair (epixanthos), a face like a rose and a body white like snow] -- Life of St Andrew the Fool.

Basil had a luxurious palace with 3000 servants, and he also built the most beautiful church of St. Basil, full of gold and decorations. It is said that when his nephew Basil Porphyrogenitus destroyed this church, Basil the eunuch fell from a stroke and was paralyzed, and later he died in the monastery.

Psellos records that In 985, the emperor Basil Porphyrogenitus assumed personal rule and banished Basil Lekapenos who soon after died "his limbs…paralysed and he a living corpse". 

***

"In the course of Byzantium’s long history, a few individuals effectively ruled the empire without occupying the imperial throne. One of the most interesting of these figures was Basil the Nothos, or Basil the Parakoimomenos, who was the main power beside or behind the throne for most of the period from 945 to 985.

This he did until 985, when Basil II, no longer a teenager, could no longer bear his own exclusion from power. The vindictiveness with which he not only removed the Parakoimomenos from office, but also sought to destroy the latter’s political legacy, is a measure of how complete the elder Basil’s political control had been. It was a political control that both amassed and expended great wealth, both facilitating and relying on an extensive network of social and cultural patronage. The greatest beneficiary of this patronage, the monastery that Basil founded in the name of his patron saint, has disappeared almost without trace, but his sponsorship has been seen, or surmised, in numerous cultural artefacts of the later tenth century, and interest in his role as the last patron of the “Macedonian Renaissance” shows no signs of abating.

At the centre of the Parakoimomenos’ quasi-imperial power and patronage was his oikos, which was no doubt appropriate to his status. Indeed, his house and household are mentioned no less than four times in literature of the period. According to Leo the Deacon, Basil was able to mobilise and arm over three thousand “household members” (οἰκογενεῖς) in support of Nikephoros Phokas in 963. The same author later records that he had witnessed a bright star descending on the house of the proedros Basil; this portended Basil’s death shortly afterwards and the looting of his property

There is an additional reason for seeking the house of Basil the Parakoimomenos in the area of the Embolos of Domninos. This is because it was somewhere to the west of the Embolos that Basil established his monastery of St Basil, which was famously stripped of its wealth and its ornaments by Basil II."

-The House of Basil the Parakoimomenos, by Paul Magdalino

[whencyclopedia]

Thessalonike of Macedon

Thessalonike of Macedon (c. 345-295 BCE) was the daughter of Philip II of Macedon (r. 359-336 BCE) and one of his several consorts, Nikesipolis of Pherae (also spelt Nicesipolis). Born to the Argead family of Macedonian rulers like her half-brother Alexander the Great (r. 336-323 BCE), Thessalonike married Cassander (r. 305-297 BCE), and after his death, she probably acted as regent for their sons.

In contrast with such a high profile, historical details about Thessalonike's life are relatively rare. And yet, her character still casts resounding echoes in both myths and history, in her legendary personification as a mermaid and as the eponym of Greek's second largest, emporium city, Thessaloniki.

Birth & Family

The uncertainties around Thessalonike's historical background start with her date of birth. In the absence of direct hints in ancient writings, scholars have tried to use the meaning of her name as a clue. Stephanus of Byzantium, a 6th-century grammarian, in his geographical encyclopedia, Ethnica, notes that 'Thessalian Victory' was an expression to celebrate Philip II's victory (nike) in Thessaly (Ethnica, v. 'Thessalonike'). Philip’s first grand victory in Thessaly, at the Battle of Crocus Field, effectively awarded the king of Macedon with the life-long archonship of this major Greek city-state right at the south of his kingdom. The title was granted to him by the Thessalians themselves, who had initially called for his help to fend off the Phocians. Philip has been openly applauded by both ancient and modern historians for his numerous political and military achievements in Greece. And yet, this enormous boost of his power as the ruler of Thessaly – and, in effect, of all city-state members of the Amphictyonic League – was nothing less than the dawn of Macedonian glory in the Hellenic world, where the Macedonians were always regarded with contempt.

Philip's victory over the Phocians and their allies, a formidable and ferocious force fighting against the Amphictyonic League in the Third Sacred War (354-346 BCE), scored the first auspicious, game-changing point for the League after a series of inconclusive battles. Philip could also reduce the Phocians' capability by securing an alliance with their main supporter in Thessaly, the city of Pherae, by taking Nikesipolis, a young lady from the family of Jason of Pherae – an ex-ruler of Thessaly – most likely as his second wife (marriage is not verbally mentioned to have taken place, although it is hardly doubtful given the context and later events). Therefore, many scholars connect the birth of Philip's new princess - purportedly an immediate outcome of her mother’s union with him - with the Battle of Crocus Field in 353/2 BCE.

This dating, however, may not match comfortably with the other turning points of Thessalonike's life. Philip II was assassinated in 336 BCE at the wedding of his elder daughter, Cleopatra, with her maternal uncle, Alexander I of Epirus (r. 343/2-331 BCE). The marriage was arranged by Philip himself – a common practice in the ancient Greek world, and many other nations' upper classes throughout history, to secure treaties, mitigate hostilities, pay tributes, or forge alliances. However, by the time of his death, Philip had not revealed any plans for Thessalonike's marital future, presumably because she was still very young. She was believed to be only a child when his half-brother, Alexander the Great, succeeded their father and took the lead in Philip's intended crushing campaign against the Persian Empire. Historians have established that royal women of the Argead court became marriageable in their mid-teens. Thessalonike's half-sisters, Cynane and Cleopatra, were given to the men chosen by their father in their late teens. Therefore, it is unlikely that Philip II in 336 BCE had not already introduced a potential son-in-law for a 17-year-old daughter.

A second date that may question 353/2 BCE for Thessalonike's birth is her marriage in 317 BCE or shortly after to Cassander (Kassandros, c. 355-297 BCE), a commander of Alexander the Great and one of the ferocious belligerents in the Wars of the Diadochi, the succession struggle after the death of Alexander the Great. Cassander secured his claim on the Macedonian throne by turning out to be the ultimate winner of the Second War of the Diadochi when he took the strategically important harbour city of Pydna and put the chief claimants of Alexander's crown, his mother Olympias, his Persian wife Roxana (Roxanne) and their son Alexander IV, to death. Still, like the other Diadochi, Cassander also wished for a familial link with the Argeads to justify his succession of Alexander. And Thessalonike, one of the two surviving daughters of Philip II, was ideally close at hand. She was in Pydna with Olympias, who had raised her ever since Nikesipolis' death only 20 days after childbirth.

Cassander

The Trustees of the British Museum (Copyright)

Apart from obtaining justification, scholars believe that Cassander must have hoped to father a new branch of the Argead dynasty with Thessalonike. This could raise at least a few comments from ancient writers had he been marrying a 36-year-old woman. Moreover, in the heat of the Diadochi wars, it would have been even less likely for Olympias to leave her stepdaughter unmarried for such a long time without trying to use her in the fabrication of an empowering alliance with a king and/or commander. Again, relying on her name to figure out a terminus post quem, a date after which she must have been born, scholars now generally agree that Thessalonike was most likely born around 346/5 BCE, after her father's decisive victory that uprooted the Phocian power once and for all and thus terminated the Third Sacred War. Based on this date, she would be around 9 years old on Philip's assassination and in her late twenties at the time of her marriage to Cassander.

Continue reading...

[wonder-worker]

What of Olympias in her marriage to Philip II? It is said to be quite stormy and he has many other wives.

Hello! I love this period of history and have read up quite a bit about it, but I'm definitely not an expert. Most of my information from this answer has been taken from Olympias by Elizabeth D. Carney, which I enjoyed a great deal and would recommend.

To get straight to the point - polygamy was most probably a standard practice among Macedonian kings by the time Philip II came to the throne (see this article for more information on the topic), although it's certainly true that Philip practiced it on a particularly extravagant level: he had seven recorded wives, and many other lovers, possibly including Olympias' own brother. However, since Olympias was his fourth or fifth wife, she would have surely been aware of this and prepared for it before she married him. Even if it was a shock to her at the time of her marriage, she would have had almost two decades to become accustomed to it. She may have even been close to Nicesipolis, another one of Philip’s wives, as she might have raised her young daughter, Thessalonike, after Nicesipolis died in childbirth.

Moreover, these kinds of high-level marriages weren’t for love; they were for politics. The few ancient sources that frame Philip and Olympias’s union as love match have to be discarded: it’s logistically impossible for this to have been the case, as they had been betrothed since Olympias was a very young child.

After they married, they had two known children: Alexander and Kleopatra. It’s true that their marriage is (and was) often viewed as very volatile, but this is generally tied to the oft-repeated misogynistic view of Olympias as a difficult and temperamental woman. They seem to have gotten along for the most part, considering Philip II had an agent shopping for Olympias from Athens as late as 341 B.C.E. Moreover, we probably shouldn’t let Olympias’ later actions during Alexander’s reign and Wars of the Diadochi cloud our judgement of her earlier years – for most of her marriage, she seems to have played a generally expected role for a Macedonian royal woman (That does not mean she wasn't politically active, as she would have been protecting and advocating for her son and probably had her own "faction" of a sort). Either way, we don’t know what either spouse thought of each other on a personal level, and I don't think it would have mattered much on a practical level either way.

Eventually, Olympias became the dominant woman at court, as she was one of the only two wives of Philip who gave birth to a living son. More importantly, by the time he reached his teens, Alexander – the future Alexander III – was regarded as his father’s eventual heir. (His brother, Arrhidaeus, seems to have been mentally disabled in some way, which unfortunately affected how contemporaries viewed him). However, it’s important to note that this was not a formalized hierarchy or ranking system as it was in, say, Persia (there was no such thing as a “chief wife”), but inherenty informal, precarious and subject to change.

It’s true, though, that their marriage seems to have become very tense in later years. Namely, Philip II’s last marriage to Kleopatra-Eurydice provoked a visceral and negative reaction from both Alexander and Olympias. Again, this is not because Olympias was a volatile, jealous, power-hungry bitch as she is often depicted in ancient sources and historical fiction, but because the wedding resulted in dishonor to both her and Alexander. Attalus, Kleopatra Eurydice’s uncle and guardian, had apparently insulted and threatened both mother and son during the ceremony, which Philip II did not rebuke him for and thus tacitly condoned (That being said, Alexander's reaction to Attalus also out-of-line, as was Philip's reaction to Alexander). More crucially, the marriage placed Olympias and Alexander's own political positions in potential jeopardy should Kleopatra-Eurydice have a son (at least, based on the insults Attalus levelled at them). Accounts for the wedding incident somewhat differ, but all agree that it resulted in Alexander taking himself and his mother away from Macedon in protest. Justin then claimed that Olympias tried to persuade her brother in Molossia to declare war on Philip. We have no idea if this is true or not, but Carney believes that it is at least "somewhat convincing".

It is sometimes believed that the marriage Philip subsequently arranged between his and Olympias’ daughter, Kleopatra and Alexander I of Epirus (Olympias’s brother and Philip’s possible former lover) was meant to deprive mother and son of a potential ally. However, this is far likelier to have been Philip’s desire to effect a public reconciliation between them, demonstrating that his household troubles were over and mollifying his son and his wife for the humiliation they had endured. It was also probably an attempt to stabilize the somewhat rocky Molossian alliance. The vital importance of the wedding is demonstrated by how Philip transformed it into an international festival in its own right, complete with public performances and processions where Philip walked between the two Alexanders. That doesn't mean that there may not have been cracks and that the reconciliation efforts were partial rather than entirely sincere (as suggested by Plutarch), but progress was undoubtedly being made. At the very least, it seems pretty clear to me that Philip still considered Alexander his heir.

Ultimately, however, we will never know what would have happened next between Philip, Olympias and Alexander. Philip was murdered at his daughter's wedding by Pausanias (his former lover who he had wronged very badly) and Alexander took the throne in 336 B.C.E. And no, while we don't know what they felt about Philip's murder, it's very unlikely that Alexander or Olympias were actively involved in it. It can't be proven or disproven by any explicit evidence, but as Carney has observed, "the circumstances of the murder strongly argue against their participation."

I hope this was helpful! As I said, I have read up a lot about this era but am not an expert, so if I've gotten anything wrong or mixed up, do let me know!

[theantonian]

Antony after Caesar

The first coin with Antony's portrait, struck within two months of Caesar's assassination. Antony is shown veiled and bearded as a sign of mourning.

Antony’s career independent of Caesar started with the Ides of March 44 BC. The murder of Caesar sent shock waves through the population, giving rise to diplomatic activities with the purpose of both conciliation and the factionalism, resulting power struggles and eventually civil war. As Caesar’s seeming successor, Antony had to strengthen his own position without provoking immediate conflict. Would he be able to lead the Republic? He held imperium of all the armed forces, which was the most important factor, not only to rise to power, but also to keep it as Sulla, Pompey and Caesar before him. Huzar notes “the fact that Caesar made Senate and Comitia truly ineffectual lies behind the helplessness of these bodies”.

After Caesar’s death Antony brilliantly took control (Cass. Dio 43.27.1; Cic. Ad. Fam. 4.6.3; 6.16; 15.3-4), while also ensuring his safety as he was guarded by his praetorian guards and 6000 veterans. In order to get the mob on his side he swayed them with his passionate speech at Caesar’s funeral by his oratorical talent and his exhibitionism. Even though Suetonius (Jul. 85) says he held no formal speech, Cicero and Plutarch (Ant. 4.3 9-4), among others, describe how he swayed the people to rage, inciting them to burn the body and buildings and assault the murderers. With the acquisition of Caesar’s papers and money Antony was in a strong position. Although Cicero accuses Antony of falsification “on a colossal scale” (Phil. 2.36), and forgery of the papers may have been possible on a practical level, it could not be proven, then or now.

Antony, however, was not deterred by the common belief that he was resorting to forgery; and a little later he obtained a sum of money from the Cretans in return for granting them, again on the authority of Caesar, future exemption from taxation. His justification is that he needed funds for the upholding of his authority, and for winning the support, for instance, of Caesar's veterans; and it is certain that, he spent the bulk of the money in the public interest.

Antony continued to use the popular assembly to ensure Rome and the empire does not fell into anarchy. Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul for six years, and the retention of four Macedonian legions, which he transferred to Gaul. Since his campaign in Gaul (off and on between 54 and 51 BC), Antony must have realized the importance of being in control of especially Cisalpine Gaul, the “gateway to Italy".

Legislation like municipal legislation on qualifications for holding office and census regulations continued Caesar's plans. Unfortunately, we hear of his programs chiefly from his enemies. When a judiciary law extended eligibility for jury duty to men of centurion and even legionary rank and transferred the hearing of final appeals from the courts to the people, Cicero charged that Antony was packing the courts and fostering mob violence. The democratic measures were never given a fair trial, for with Antony's other measures, they were cancelled in 43 B.C. When Antony failed to hold the scheduled election of the censors owing to the unwillingness of the majority of the senate, but did issue an edict on sumptuary laws, it became the object of ridicule because of his reputation. Nevertheless, that Rome remained calm during these days of transition indicates a strength and stability in Antony's administration of the state.

[irishfederalreconnaissance]

Foes of the Charleboises, and Friends of the O'Neills

Enemies of the Chilton Macedonians (Attleboro Charleboises):

Jesus: Jesus's father, Joseph, was a retired soldier, that joined a protection racket on cemeteries.  Jesus was trying to get married, despite never practicing law, police, military, espionage, or criminal ventures.  We killed him, personally, with "The Bible".  He was the first priest, crucified, and sodomized, publicly, by Israel's new friend, Rome; the Diaspora, our concoction. 

Hitler: Adolf's family, stole a cricket term, for a play called due to the monarch of England's sporting bet calling a foul; a player cheated, to please Britain.  Hitler was trying to be an artist, on public spectacle of produce, instead of private sales within firm, with a spouse as advisor, heterosexual, or date, or a prostitute or dominatrix or close platonic business colleague.  We fired him, for wanting a widening gala of review, and having sex with female coworkers.  We had MI-6 plant a fake Jewish culture book, we ordered him to burn after inspecting the water mark.  It was in the Reichstag.  It sent all the cooks to prison, for snitching on Jews, the Wehrmacht; Lutherans.

Bundy: Ted Bundy, was raised as a CIA agent, by the children's program, but figured out he could make more money, working for France.  He got into a relationship with a lesbian, that got really fat, because he insemenated on her hymen, to break her virginity, instead of using a dildo.  He didn't like the lie, of virginity, a "popped cherry", being a masculine virtue, and instead committed rape, unaware that the woman was a poor mother, for having improper understanding of sex, and instead trying to "pick up" men; a pedophile's mother, a sperm thief of an orphan.  We changed Ted Bundy's last name, Charlebois, to Bundy, and gave kindergarteners copies of "Batman" comics, and ruined his advertising career, with children's books about him as Bruce Wayne.

Friends of the Boston O'Neills (Boston Fire Department):

Judas: Judas was Cicero of Rome's kin, through Pontius Pilate with an Arab beggar.  He was placed, as an undercover cop, to bust the Jews, a new cult in Israel, from Rome; the actor's trade, that had caused the War with Carthage, over homosexuality and bestiality and child molestation, being offensive; spread through art, depicting children's morals, instead of military theater, demonstrating how to fight others, through playwright's economic mercantile tactics.  Money, the root of all evil, Judas's cause, and Rome's, to prevent queer; morality, the common poverty of a dictator, a rapist of family.  When Judas figured out they were all humping and fucking after boxing matches and prize fights in spectacle, and gambling on wine debt rigs with cops calling matches through badges, "baal", he delivered a book to Paul, the Bible.  Jesus claimed the credit for the book, the first court room lawsuit.  Then he spent three years, wandering around, screaming about his son being a vagina, the Lord of Heaven.

Stalin: Stalin, was a military and political cadet, thousands around the Old World, raised out of literature programs of 19th century German intellectualism.  He was pranked into Seminary, by Germans, through local newsletters responding to the candidates from other countries, as potential diplomatic marriages to models and pornography actresses, a Russian idea that Stalin was enthusiastic for.  Stalin, rose to power, as a brilliant criminal and rebel and drunk and prison survivor and outcast, journeying through higher Arctic villages and around townships and cities and palaces and revolutions.  He placed himself in charge of organizing the minutes, for meetings, meaning he'd take and keep track of numbers, of the political council, in charge of giving out assignments, from winners of awards for academic excellence, to organizational bureau.  He stomped the school and class project assignment to position and award, forever, meaning that anyone with a lawsuit for fair play, ruined their firm or government post.  Now, Russia is the best forever, because they put something in TV, that the other guy does, in the enemy country, that one of theirs did due to a lawsuit assignment.  However, they save the footage, on leader and mention the military struggle.

Richard Ramirez: A psychic Mexican, Richard Ramirez's father, had insulted a historian on a college campus, despite being a construction management major himself.  The entire family was marked historians on records - counter espionage professionals - and Richard Ramirez was placed as an altar boy, a martial arts trained student by Nuns, and priests showing them how to handle firearms and military warfare implements.  However, he was not on record, as armed and dangerous, through his family.  He was brought in to advise on dozens upon dozens of cases, as an independent vigilante, without pay, living off of what work he could find in the margin community, the people he helped.  He did hard drugs, and fought the "Little Mermaid" trend of the 1960s and 1970s, out of the Viet Zen community, the use of German texts and improper disability driven religious origin study stories.  He was a savage man, eventually being arrested for a string of murders, after locating the problem to the comic book, "X-Men", and fighting Omega Red's follows; called, "The Russians", to this day.  

[pashterlengkap]

Greek minister blasts Netflix’s Alexander the Great series for depicting same-sex relationship

Alexander: The Making of a God, Netflix’s new docu-drama about Alexander the Great, is causing controversy in Greece, where some commentators and far-right leaders have slammed its depiction of the ancient Macedonian king’s same-sex relationship with one of his generals. As The Guardian notes, one recent editorial in the Greek daily newspaper Eleftheros Typos described the six-part series, which combines commentary from historians with dramatic reenactments, as “a distortion of the truth,” and cited director Oliver Stone’s 2004 film Alexander for starting “a propaganda campaign about Alexander’s homosexuality.” Related: Conservatives are outraged that Netflix’s Alexander the Great docuseries “turned him gay” “I don’t think it was Netflix that made him gay.” Dimitri Natsios, founder and leader of the far-right, anti-LGBTQ+ Niki party, went so far as to question Greece’s Minister of Culture, Lina Mendoni, about the series in Parliament. Natsios said the series aims to “subliminally convey the notion that homosexuality was acceptable in ancient times, an element that has no basis” and described it as “deplorable, unacceptable and unhistorical.” Stay connected to your community Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our daily newsletter. In fact, the ancients would have had no concept of homosexuality as an identity category. But same-sex relationships were tolerated and even encouraged in certain contexts, notably in the “Sacred Band of Thebes,” a troop of elite soldiers consisting of 150 pairs of male lovers. While sexual relationships between adult men were likely frowned upon in many ancient Greek cities, some modern scholars like Thomas Hubbard have suggested that the Macedonian court may have been more tolerant. Mendoni, though, seemed to agree with Natsios’s assessment, describing the Netflix series as “replete with historical inaccuracies” that demonstrate “the director’s sloppiness and poverty of scenario.” She went on to address the show’s depiction of Alexander’s life-long relationship with Hephaestion, a childhood friend who went on to become a general in his army and his personal bodyguard. “There is no mention in the sources that it goes beyond the limits of friendship, as defined by Aristotle,” Mendoni said. “But you will know that the concept of love in antiquity is broad and multidimensional. We cannot interpret either practices or persons who acted 2,300 years ago by our own measures, our own norms and assumptions. Alexander the Great, for 2,300 years, has never needed, nor does he need now, the intervention of any unsolicited protector of his historical memory or, even more, of his personality and moral standing.” Mendoni may be right in her assertion that there are no known descriptions of Alexander and Hephaestion’s relationship as explicitly sexual by their contemporaries, but many modern historians believe they were more than just friends. They were frequently compared to Patroclus and Achilles, who were also believed to be lovers, and historians like Robin Lane Fox believe their sexual relationship may have continued into adulthood. While Alexander did marry and produce an heir later in his life, historian Peter Green argues in his 2007 book Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age that there is little evidence that he had much interest in women. This is not the first time a pop culture depiction of Alexander the Great has caused an uproar in Greece. In 2004, a coalition of Greek lawyers claimed that Stone’s depiction of Alexander as bisexual in his 2004 film starring Colin Firth was defamatory and threatened to sue the director and Warner Bros. In the U.S., Alexander: The Making of a God has already sparked outrage from the usual anti-LGBTQ+ trolls on social media. Earlier this month, influential rightwing X account End Wokeness posted that Netflix had “turned… http://dlvr.it/T3FfMc

[melitaafterfeather]

I am contacting a solicitor to inform exfamily of Europeans they can transfer money if my father's inheritance via banks transfer as I won't be returning to Europe.

It is sad the entire Europe has to suffer because of exfamily. Yes after your apology transfer the money complete correcting your deliberate mistake.

Solicitors ensure both opposite sides parties are satisfied. Electricity won't kill me nor you. It is a war.

Before Brexit Britain had Irish police EU who were in possession of Britain weapons. After Brexit we separated weapons police duties separated from Ireland. Nuclear weapons should not be built with other countries where the risk of separation is high.

After Brexit things changed laws changed borders closed. EU is no longer valid partner to Britain not lawful not economic.

I act per English laws. I never liked nor had use of EU nor Europe.

People who want power through immigration cheap labour are desperate to gain position cause they are gonna be revealed for crimes fraud laundering money. Immigration you can contact banks why the banks employ immigrants more than domestic citizens. Why the Government import electricity when we have British electricity. Why electricity in rented accommodation costs triple because dead people. Houses in England cost triple the price because of dead people. Not just English dead America dead Asian dead European dead. We can never resolve community issues till housing settlement of dead and illegal who are sadly in Government royals.Multiple citizenship should be single citizenship.

Sell possession refund deposit refund whatever is not yours. Contact me private or professional I am available when you book an appointment. Death to Macedonians. Death to Croatians. Death to Solvenians.Deat to Irish. Death to illicit drug abusers. Death.

I am 49 years adult still financially abused by a parent. Does anyone of adults have such experience abuse of family members ?

I know people go to court to resolve finances among families

When the court is not possible for resolution because of corruption isn't it obvious you'll ditch the family parents siblings friends lovers whomever abuses you

After millions times repeating I am not in a relationship I have no family I have no need of abusers

If you have experience of parental financial abuse which is not normal the usual practice is parents give to children

I moved country permanently in England to stay away of parental abuse an old woman bribed by uneducated like her politicians

Luka is my eldest son he is in care like a pet to his father although Luka is adult

Very bad family

I pray to Jesus Christ to kill the enemies save the children of bad adult perverts

You wouldn't believe it since birth I experience 49 years abuse

What kind of patent steals from birth children

Very shameful family

🇬🇧

[gemsofgreece]

For the longest part of its existence, the Byzantine Empire had no clear law about the inheritance of the imperial throne. This means that the empire was weirdly “democratic” in the sense that anyone could become a king regardless of background, education, status and even gender. The only thing the aspiring ruler needed was the guts and the competence to question the emperor’s power or the right of their descendant to the title and somehow survive right through it, preferably by winning the support of the public and the army. This is why some of the usurpers proved to be some of the most competent Byzantine Emperors like Basil I the Macedonian, John I Tzimiskes or Nikephoros II Phokas. And this is why of all 107 emperors that reigned in Byzantium, only 34 died peacefully in their bed, only 8 died in war or by accident and the rest were killed violently, often poisoned, strangled or mutilated.

To give you an idea, Tzimiskes was Phokas’ nephew. He ascended to the throne after he conspired with Phokas’ wife Theofano and had him killed in his sleep. This is why Phokas’ tombstone read: “He defeated everyone but a woman”.

As for Basil I, he was a random peasant from Thrace (which makes his eponym inaccurate) and he was of outstanding beauty. He had been gaining the favour of rich ladies and members of the court alike (no historian ever says what kind of favour that was) until he met Emperor Michael III and, you guessed it, Basil gained his favour when the emperor watched him wrestle with another man. He rapidly became the emperor’s confidant, companion and bodyguard. Michael had Basil to break up with his wife in order to marry the emperor’s consort who was pregnant with his child because Michael didn’t want to embarrass the Empress Eudokia who was unable to conceive. Thus, he named Basil co-emperor planning to make Basil’s child (actually HIS child) the successor of the throne. If that’s not weird enough, Basil also adopted Michael, despite being much younger than him. Soon, Michael grew fond of another courtier. Basil confronted Michael about it, who threatened to make the new courtier his new co-emperor (apparently Michael was making co-emperors left and right). After that, a night when Michael and the new courtier were drunk, Basil and his loyal men crept in and killed them, and he also cut the emperor’s hands with the sword. Basil became the Emperor and despite being just a random peasant who rose to power with questionable practices, he later proved to be one of the greatest rulers of the Byzantine Empire. He was the founder of the powerful Macedonian Dynasty.

[betawithablog]

Headcanons for the greek gods as omegas?

(I assume you mean as Omegaverse and not for them all to be Omegas cus there’s no way Ares is Omega lol)

This is gonna be the 12(.5) Olympians and the royal couple of the underworld

Zeus: Alpha, a very obvious Alpha. Leader of the Olympian pack. If we're going with the personality he has in the myths then he's the kind of douchebag Alpha who thinks it's his right to go around knotting whoever he fancies; I imagine his pheromones are pretty powerful too. Like, send-you-into-an-surprise-heat kind of powerful. If we're going with how the ancient Greeks actually saw Zeus though he's the absolute best provider. Big dad vibes towards everyone who's even a little bit younger than him (which... y’know, given that he's a god is almost everyone).

Hera: Omega. The kind of Omega that has a dominant, leader's streak; the kind born to be the leader's mate. She has that Omega's need for love and attention (which Zeus really needs to work on giving her smh) and likes to pamper her body (see: pool that she bathes in every night that somehow magically makes her not a virgin anymore... yeah idk either, blame the ancient Greeks). She does, however, lack a natural maternal instinct (see: yeeting baby Hephaestus off of mt. Olympus), so I feel like she could potentially also be a Beta.

Poseidon: Alpha. Originally he was actually the leader of the Olympian pack (no that's not a headcanon - the Macedonians actually considered Poseidon to be the head of the Olympians). I imagine him to be a kind of rugged-looking Alpha - like an strong old fisherman with rough palms and speckled grey hair - with an air of calm and control that can switch to chaotic and aggressive in an instant's notice - like the ocean itself.

Hestia: Omega. Absolutely 100% Omega. The kind of Omega who's very presence makes you feel soothed, her hugs are warm and soft (not just because she always wears fluffy cardigans), her nest is absolute perfection - beautiful, calming to be in, and cosy - and she's always got something divine (if you'll excuse the pun) in the oven. Always purring kin the kitchen. Absolute biggest mama vibes. She smells like a bakery; chocolate and pastry. Holy shit I love Hestia.

Demeter: Alpha. Considered her, perhaps, as an Omega on account of her being a fertility agriculture goddess but she just doesn't strike me as the placating, gentle type. Quite the opposite. She fought stubbornly for her daughter to remain at her side, and she's the goddess of law too - she's not the rolling-over-showing-her-neck type at all. I picture her as an absolute Unit; muscles for days from all the years harvesting crops. The no-nonsense kind of Alpha.

Aphrodite: Omega. The hypersexual kind of Omega. I believe I've seen them called 'Pack Omegas' - the type that do best when they're in a relationship with lots of people, practically (or literally) a whole pack. Also the beauty-obsessed kind of Omega. Takes ten hours to get her clothes, hair, and makeup done yet somehow she turns the whole process into a mesmerising dance. She turns everything into a mesmerising dance. Another I imagine with knock-out strong pheromones that have Alphas falling to their knees for her. She smells like roses.

Athena: Alpha. Another leader-type Alpha - literally has Athens named after her, and she's very proud of her people... despite some of the absolute nonsense she's had to witness from them throughout the ancient years. A very adept and skilled fighter and strategist - likes to know everything about a situation before rushing in. She's an incredibly supportive and wise lead Alpha, the kind that the pack feels they can go to with whatever problem they might have. I feel like she could also easily be a Beta, but she's got such a strong sense of being dominant and in charge it's hard to see her as anything but an Alpha.

Ares: Alpha. Less of a leader-type Alpha, lbr, more of a team player. The kind of Alpha that runs into things without thinking, relying on instinct and, on the battlefield, pure rage. Your average Aggressive Type Alpha who's ready to kill for anyone in his pack. Can come across as a bit of a meat head... and can be a bit of a meat head at times... Yet I imagine him as a really loving, doting mate, which initially surprises a lot of people; seeing this big burly 6ft< Alpha who smells like fire and blood smiling dopily as picks out the perfect dainty jewellery for Aphrodite.

Hephaestus: Beta. My poor poor bastard boy. Very crafty and creative (see: trapping his mother in a beautiful trick throne he built as revenge for yeeting him off the mountain as a baby). Likes to think his creations through and plan genius contraptions. He could very easily also be an Alpha, what with the fact he's a blacksmith, which is a rather Alpha job. But I guess I lean towards Beta because, even though he's a bit of a social outcast on account of his leg and general appearance, he's clearly desperate to be more socially involved with the pack and doesn't want to be a lone wolf.

Artemis: Alpha. Surprisingly nonsexual for an Alpha. Very much a lone wolf. Loves spending her days out in the forest. You wouldn't think she's an Alpha to look at her, but she'd surprise you with how strong she is. Also very good at using her opponent's strength against them. Because of her build, she's considered the protector of Omegas; most Omegas would feel very safe in her presence. She's got this mysterious edge to her that just uncontrollably draws you in... like the moon.

Apollo: Omega. Ah, sweet darling disaster bisexual... I just imagine him being very soft and sensitive (not that he can't kick ass on a battlefield, see: his involvement in the battles of the Iliad). He has an artist's soul and an angel's voice. His serenades are totally his courting gifts. I imagine him revelling in being doted on, and always eager for fuss and attention. He has a beautiful Omegan frame, and he loves decorating himself in luxurious garb and crowns of flowers and leaves. He smells like laurel and somehow also sunshine. No one knows how this is possible but he does.

Hermes: Beta. And nooo I'm not just saying that because he's my favourite and that's the dynamic I best identify with (>_>) He really is such a Beta though. I've a headcanon that Beta's love travelling and exploring and he's literally the God of that so y'know. He's also so quick thinking and witty: represented himself in a what was basically a godly court case where he was guilty of thievery and won when he was literally a baby. He's hardly ever submissive to anyone but he hardly ever uses aggression or physical force to get his way/get out of trouble. He smells like ripe strawberries and the metallic tinge of coins.

Dionysus: Beta. The eccentric, outgoing, party type Beta; wants to be surrounded by friends having a good time all the time. He smells like booze; in the morning it's a little off-putting, but in the evening its literally intoxicating. I imagine his mortal Maenads needing only his scent to drive them into a frenzy. Not the kind of Beta you'd expect to also have the Supportive Beta streak, but he absolutely does; he lives to support his friends and gives the kind of advice you don't realise is advice at first and later hits you like an epiphany, and it was exactly what you needed to hear.

Persephone: Beta. Difficult one, but I had to go with Beta because she strikes me as a very gentle, delicate goddess of spring that could easily have her classified as Omega, but in winter she's the no-nonsense, dominant queen of the underworld that could have her classified as an Alpha. Overall, I think this shows her adaptability, which is a very Beta trait. Also, she's not really as needy and dependent as an Omega traditionally is. Things might have happened to her beyond her control, but she very much took back control and has both Hades and Demeter wrapped around her little finger. Of course, she smells like pomegranates, and spring blossom.

Hades: Omega. I have such a soft spot for soft!Hades. But he's kind of the reverse of Artemis in that you would not think to look at him that he's an Omega, you'd assume he's an Alpha, especially considering his position as ruler of the underworld. But he's a softy at heart, and adores material possessions (which I consider a bit of an Omegan trait). He mopes all the way through spring and summer at the lack of Persephone's presence, cooped up in his nest the whole time until autumn rolls around and she comes back into his life. He has a very earthy scent.

bonus:

Hermaphrodite: All three! Thought I'd include Hermaphrodite because they flashed through my mind and I wondered what might be classified as intersex in a/b/o. Of course, that depends on how you hc biology for the dynamics but I thought what would perhaps make Hermaphrodite an outcast/outlier could be their body, scent, and instincts being a mix of all three dynamics.

thanks for the ask 💞

[jeannereames]

Whenever we think of royal families our minds tend to go to the concept of the European noble House. The House of Habsburg, the House of Windsor, the House of Stuart etc. I understand that we should look at the Ancient Greek, Macedonian & Hellenistic royal families in a different way becuase of the different family & power dynamics - could you please help us understand the difference?

Ancient Court Societies vs. Modern

Probably the biggest difference is greater organization of hierarchy. Modern royal houses have had a lot of time to evolve.

Norbert Elias’s The Court Society has become the foundational study on court systems, although it’s western-focused by intent. Nonetheless, it’s a useful introduction to how courts function with inner courts, outer courts, etc.

The biggest things to keep in mind are:

The degree of formality between court members. How “deep” and structured is the hierarchy? (Smaller courts typically have far less formality than larger ones.)

How formalized are matters of succession and marriage ties? Particularly the presence (or absence) of royal polygamy can affect that.

Court societies inevitably progress from less formal and hierarchical to more of both. We can sometimes talk about earlier court societies as chieftain-level societies versus more organized royal, or even imperial societies.

Part of the struggle first Philip, then Alexander faced was transforming a chieftain-level court system into something that would work on a (much, for Alexander) larger scale. Unsurprisingly, there was push-back against, essentially, “bureaucracy.” Nobody likes it, but the larger an area controlled, the more necessary it becomes.

Traditional Macedonian courts were fairly informal, the king being primo inter pares (first among equals). No titles were used when addressing him—he was called by his name—and the only thing expected of the speaker was to take off his hat. “King” (basileus) was used when speaking OF him. We don’t see “King ___” employed in Macedonia (at least in inscriptions) until Kassandros, who needed it to buck up his claim.

None of that means the average person could wander into the palace and start chatting up the king. He was protected by his Bodyguards (Somatophylakes), who also apparently managed access to him. Yet he was expected to sit in judgement as an appellate court, where anybody could appeal a case before him. How often this occurred no doubt depended. Philip was gone a lot, and Alexander was permanently out of Macedonia two years into his reign. Presumably his regent fulfilled the role in his absence. (As I depicted near the beginning of book 2, Rise, when Alexandros is hearing cases.) Anyway, that’s one place the “average person” could get the ear of the king. Also, it seems that he was more approachable by soldiers in battle circumstances. We’re told Alexander got right in with his men to do work during sieges. It was to encourage them, but he was standing next to them so they could see and talk to him, if they wanted to. He seems to have known many of his veterans by name.

Another factor in Macedonia was lack of formal hierarchy among nobility. They had a nobility—the Hetairoi (King’s Companions)—but theoretically all Hetairoi were equal in status. In practice, they absolutely weren’t. The king also had an inner circle referred to as “Friends” (Philoi), who acted as chief advisors. The problem with both terms is their use as common nouns as well as special titles. When is a friend a Friend?

Also, at least some of this was hereditary. Yes, making (or removing) Hetairoi was in the power of the king. But it was much easier to do the former than the latter, and even strong kings didn’t do the former early in their careers, never mind the latter. For many, becoming Hetairos was a rubber-stamp. They were Hetairoi because their fathers had been. We’re also not sure if the title was extended only to the eldest male in a household, or more than one could hold it at once, but for most, it was a birthright.

So, when Alexander took the throne, he was stuck with his father’s Somatophylakes (Bodyguard) and inner circle of advisors. He absolutely could not toss them out on their ear to install his own men. He had to proceed sloooowly. Which is why we don’t see Hephaistion as a Somatophylax even by the Philotas Affair, five years into ATG’s reign. He was clearly an advisor (Philos), but didn’t become Bodyguard until sometime later. Same thing with Ptolemy, who apparently got Demetrios’s slot—the Bodyguard (almost surely one of Philip’s) behind the actual conspiracy of Dimnos, not the made up one of Philotas. When he was executed, Alexander promoted Ptolemy to his slot. Note that Ptolemy was made Somatophylax before Hephaistion. Politics, family status, and probably age trumped personal affection.

If Hetairoi couldn’t be kings themselves (unless they were also Argeads), they were king makers, and kings had to take their influence into account. Especially new kings.

As a chieftain level society, Macedonia operated on “rule by clan” with the king being the senior male Argead. His brothers, sons, nephews, and male cousins might all have important roles, as did the women, although theirs were primarily religious and the running of the royal household. Yet royal women could do limited politicking in the way of donations (eurgetisms) to create goodwill, promote the family, or make alliances—as well as (of course) the alliance created by their marriage itself. Most of these roles were informal and ad hoc, rather than titular, if also expected of them. For instance, the king’s wives were just that: king’s wives. The title queen (basileia) wasn’t used until the Hellenistic courts of the Diadochi.

Ancient near eastern courts were more stratified, with more distinct roles. In fact, it seems that Macedon, from Alexander I onward, borrowed offices from the Achaemenid Persian court, including the Bodyguard and the Royal Pages (King’s Boys). So as early as the late Archaic Age, Macedonia looked east for how to formalize a court. Certainly Philip did it well before Alexander. The notion that Alexander’s Persianizing was somehow new is bull malarky.

Anyway, in the ANE, kings tended to fit one of two traditions: shepherd king or heroic king. The Sumerian kings and Hammurabi (Old Babylon) were both examples of the shepherd-king model. Heroic kings began with the Akkadian, Sargon the Great, then the neo-Assyrian kings, especially the Sargonids. Cyrus cast himself as a heroic king, but we see a shift back to shepherd kings with Darius the Great. Another aspect of ANE kingship were three chief expectations: win wars, build big shit, and administer justice.

Due to a much longer tradition of kingship extending from the Early Bronze Age, as you may imagine, these court systems developed much more in the way of formalized structures and offices. If these changed from king to king, at least by Bronze-Age Babylon (Hammurabi), then Neo-Assyria, access to the king was severely curtailed. At least the Persian kings got out and moved around on a sort of “King’s Progress,” but that was to check up on satraps. The average citizen saw them only at a distance. In contrast the Sargonids of neo-Assyria emerged from their palace complexes almost exclusively when going to war.

The Medes and Persians, like the Hittites before them, fit themselves into ANE traditions after they arrived in the area. Less is known about pre-ANE Hittites, but if they kept some unique religious traditions, when it came to How to Run an Empire, they used Akkadian and Egyptian precursors. Similarly, the Medes and Persians who came from the steppes, also adopted ANE patterns while retaining some traditions—again particularly religious (Zoroastrianism). We know a wee bit more about them prior; they (like Macedon) seem to have had chieftain-level monarchy with rule by clan, plus tribal princes, before conquering the whole area.

I hope that helps in understanding ancient eastern Mediterranean and near eastern notions of a court. We know less about the Odrysian Thracian and Illyrian kings to Macedonia’s north, but I suspect they were similar to early Macedon. Just tooling around Thrace, it was very clear to me that we’re looking at a shared regional culture between that area and Macedonia. Similar vibes attended my visit to Aiani (ancient Elimeia) and Dodonna (Epiros). I didn’t get up into Illyria, but what I do know of the archaeology suggests the same. ALL these cultures, despite the ethnic and linguistic differences, influenced each other. Yes, ancient Macedonia was at least “Greek-ish,” but we can’t and shouldn’t dismiss the impact on them from their northern neighbors.

Last, let’s consider the role of royal polygamy. Well back into the Bronze Age, ANE kings might marry several wives and also kept concubines for political purposes. That’s why we call it royal polygamy, not just polygamy. Royal polygamy might exist in a society that otherwise limits the number of wives anyone not the king can have.

Macedonian kings also practiced it, and Thracian and Illyrian, but on a more limited scale. Greeks and Romans, then Christians, depicted any polygamy as a “barbaric Oriental” (= morally corrupt) practice that supported their general view of Asia as soft and indulgent. (Sex itself wasn’t a vice, but too much sex was: uncontrolled desire.)

In later Europe, kings might have mistresses, but it wasn’t “official,” and they certainly didn’t have multiple wives. Christianity frowned on that. Even before, Roman emperors didn’t employ royal polygamy, although they did use serial monogamy—a long-standing practice back into the Roman Republic. Yet that required divorce. When the Christian church made marriage both a sacrament and a vow (not a contract, as it had been pretty much everywhere else), they made divorce impossible without either a wife’s death or religious shell games like annulment. Until Henry VIII, European kings were largely stuck with just one marriage.

Ancient courts didn’t have that problem. And from a political point of view, monogamy is a problem. It reduces the number of political ties available. Having royal polygamy offers more fluidity in possible heirs, and increases, sometimes exponentially, avenues for political alliance.

That said, the downside can be messy inheritance. Two of the more infamous inheritance disputes (other than Alexander’s) involved Esarhaddon, youngest son of Sennacherib, and Cyrus the Younger vs. Artaxerxes II. The latter dispute resulted in civil war (thank you, Xenophon, for telling us about it). As for Esarhaddon, he was so in danger from his older brothers, his mother kept him out of the capital until claimants were dead. There are others, but these two leapt to mind. There are also Egyptian examples, but I’m far less knowledgeable about those dynasties. And, as we see later in Europe, disputed successions can occur without polygamy!

Anyway, when it comes to selection of the heir, two things that matter in polygamous courts: status of the mother, and (for the ANE) whether she was queen. Not all wives were also queens. In the case of Esarhaddon, his mother Naqiʾa was of lower status and not a queen, so when his father named him heir, his older brothers (and their court allies) blew a gasket. Both Assyrians and later Achaemenid Persian kings could marry as many women as they wanted, plus take concubines…but the heir was expected to be from his Chief Wife, or Queen. Of “pure” blood. Cyrus the Younger’s argument against his older brother rested on a similar status technicality: he’d been born after his father became king, while Artaxerxes II was born before. We’d say Cyrus was “born to the purple.” But it was just an excuse; he was the ambitious one, and their mother favored him. If Macedonia didn’t have queens, the status of the mother mattered to being selected as heir there as well.

So these are some of the chief differences between ancient Mediterranean and near eastern courts, compared to later European.

[princessmacedon]

( 👗 + No Champagne ) Lustrous fixtures of silver and gold overshone by a crowd of even brighter faces. The scene is no dime a dozen from the likes of his once war-torn homeland and to him that is to appreciate all the more, but of course the Hero-King appreciates other things as well and by much more at that—like the friendly Macedonian flower that has thought to join him at the refreshment table.

“Dear Maria,” Marth greets with a look of warmth, eyes crinkled merrily at their corners as he assesses her with uncontained pride. “You appear as if you are glowing! The Red Dragoon that your sister may be, I believe we should take to calling you Macedon’s Red Rose.” Indeed; Macedon’s youngest daughter was a fine blossom of the court on this night and he was far from the only one who thought so with many eyes trained upon her.

One such pair even made daring, his attention flickers to a point behind her head as an older Fódlanese gentleman makes to approach with his sights set—a second champagne glass in hand. Much older than her. Too old. Quickly, the prince intercepts the offering with a hand raised, gentle face set in stone.

“...Ah, none for her, I’m afraid. She has redeemed her single cup already.” The excuse is probable enough, though untrue, and the Archanean lord watches on as the man slinks away. No doubt to an inspiration of some curiosity for the princess. When he circuits back to her in a moment of greater honesty, the prince sounds a tinkling laugh as if returned to his good mood. “Forgive me. I am sure the man had good intentions and I would not have wanted to spoil either night, whether his or yours, but... Well, I suppose my heart just felt it right.”

As the Ethereal Ball continues its merriment throughout the night, Maria flits about the ballroom like a hummingbird, all shimmering colors and uncatchable flights; in the time between, she returns to the sky, to her favorite blue-- to the side of the Hero-King, who, by all indications, is a gardener true. He must be, the way he shines warmth upon this rose and showers her with praise, and though her cheeks warm and her chin tucks oh so slightly down, she is sure of it: there is no other garden she would rather walk through than his, for she can see the seeds of the future he will one day sow, and they will blossom beautifully.

But here and now, she covers her smile with both hands, earnest eyes peeking up at him from atop their rose-tinted throne. The man has an inherent talent for compliments as it is, but to be compared so kindly to her sister, to bask in praise and pride... Her nose ducks beneath her makeshift shield, sweet laughter slightly muffled in its cage. Such is the way of Archanea's warmest sun, her brightest dawn-- he draws speeches from the breviloquent and silence from the silver tongued, and though Maria would never dare to consider herself the latter, she is most certainly bubbly enough to be spurred to quiet nonetheless.

It is in this fond and gentle quiet that she witnesses something curious: the sight of Marth's charm and warmth at odds with each other. He practically sparkles as he coolly stops a hand she had not even noticed from offering a drink to her, the spurned gentleman casting a forlorn glance at her as he vanishes back into the crowd. Alas, he does not have the favor of receiving a glance in turn, for Maria is looking to her friend with eyes full of questions and no answers. She understands well enough what has just happened, but it is not the what that lingers on her mind so; it is the who, and she blinks at Marth again. Almost certainly, he shielded her as Minerva would have, albeit with far more social grace. Then she wonders: would Michalis have done something like this, too, if he had stayed with them? It is no one's fault the three of them are not together, and one day they will be together again (they will, they will), but... she had hoped for what family remained to her to see her grow up. ...It is a funny feeling. She is happy, and she is sad, too. And all at once, she is grateful for the fairytale prince, for the king of a future forged, for her friend, gentle and true.

"Prince Marth?" Her hand latches, gingerly, onto his sleeve, and her smile at last returns to her face, a warmth spilling across it like the setting of the sun. It is enough-- it is more than enough-- that he sees her; she will do her utmost to see Marth, too.

"...Thank you."

[cincinnatusvirtue]

1799: The Tiger of Mysore.  A tale of an 18th century Indian superpower, British imperialism and the rise of Arthur Wellesley, future Duke of Wellington.

220 years ago in 1799, the Indian Subcontinent was divided into several different polities, both native Indian kingdoms and European colonies.  A mix of Dutch, Portuguese, French and most consequentially British.  Europeans had interacted with India off and on since the days of Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Empire and subsequent Greco-Indian kingdoms in its wake.  By the late 18th century, the great maritime powers of Europe were invested in trade with India and were more importantly invested in an arms race with one another to expand territorial and commercial influence the world over, particularly between France and Britain.  They also sought to exploit the internal fighting and power vacuums created by changes amongst the various Indian kingdoms. 

The biggest change in 18th century Indian century politics was the decline of the Mughal Empire, an Islamic empire founded in the 16th century by Turco-Mongols who laid claim to Northern India by way of conquest and subsequently ruled over most of India.  They were in the position of ruling over a mostly Hindu country, though many were converted to Islam as well.  Overtime, a caste of Hindu warriors in the western-central and southern portions of the country, called the Marathas who had served as mercenary warriors for the Mughals arose and asserted their independence.  Not only did they gain their independence they expanded their power and the military stagnation and economic exhaustion of the Mughals led to a weakening and fracturing of their power.  Further wars with Nader Shah of Persia, saw the sack of Delhi and weakening of Mughal power and wealth.  Overtime, the Maratha Empire itself became decentralized and fought amongst itself and other powers which saw its own weakening by the late 18th century.

One power that grew increasingly influential in the 18th century was located in the south of India, the Kingdom of Mysore, having for centuries been vassals of the Vijayanagara Empire but by the 16th century it gained gradual independence and rose to autonomy in the 17th and 18th centuries.  A Hindu majority country ruled by the Wodeyar dynasty, its kings however by the mid-18th century were also weakened when power was gradually handed over to its prime ministers, much like the neighboring Maratha Empire, the Wodeyars became rulers in name only, with the prime ministers exerting near total control.  Enter, the Sultans of Mysore, Hyder Ali and his son Tipu Sultan.  Men who would change the destiny of Mysore and India in the later half of the 18th century.

Hyder Ali was a soldier and Muslim, born into the Karnataka region of southern India, where Mysore was located among other kingdoms.   Ali served essentially as did his father as mercenaries in the service of the Rajas (kings) of Mysore.  Gradually in the wake of the Rajas own weakness and the subsequent transfer of power to Mysorean prime ministers, Hyder Ali due to much military and administrative success took over the country for himself.  Becoming the de-facto if not nominal ruler of Mysore by 1761, he established a court at Srirangapatna and expanded Mysore’s power.  Ali was said to have a great memory despite his illiteracy and had great financial accounting skills, this helped to stabilize Mysore’s economy which combined with diplomatic and military prowess lead Mysore to become the leading native power in the southern portion of the subcontinent.  Ali styled himself Sultan Hyder Ali and ruled Mysore for the next twenty one years.  During this time, Mysore increasingly came into the power struggle between France and Great Britain.  The British East India Company, supported by the British government and in treaties with local Indian powers, played the local rivalries against one another and gradually began expanding its power into Southern India from its base, the Presidency of Madras.

Britain’s East India Company had formed as a state chartered enterprise alongside the French and Dutch East India Companies for control of trade in Africa and Asia, gradually this turned into colonization and two events really saw British interest in India turn from trade monopolies into gradual imperialist ventures.  The first was the Seven Years War (1756-1763) which saw Britain gain control of many of the Kingdom of France’s colonial possessions the world over, including becoming the premiere European power in India.  The second was Britain’s defeat in the American Revolution, which saw, Mysore as a co-belligerent of the Americans and their Allies of France, the Dutch Republic and Spain in coalition against Britain.  Britain’s defeat in North America and its loss of the Thirteen Colonies that made up the USA, transferred Britain’s interest of imperial focus from North America to India, becoming its eventual crown jewel, figuratively and literally.

Hyder Ali had fought a successful war against the British in the 1760′s and by 1780 war was again sounding out between Mysore in alliance with France against Britain, linked in part with the American Revolution.  Mysore would be victorious once again against the British, in no small part to the great innovation in artillery, that was Mysore’s trademark weapon, rocket artillery known as the Mysorean rocket.  The rockets were not especially accurate but were devastating if launched in numbers.  The genius of their crude design was they were iron cased attached to bamboo shafts as opposed to the paper ones used elsewhere in the world.  The soft iron casing of the rockets gave them greater range and explosive power and damage when the black powder charge exploded.  Even more frightening was the use of attaching sharp instruments to their end which could maim or kill its targets before exploding and sending shrapnel elsewhere. 1780′s Battle of Pollilur which resulted in a Mysorean victory is the first time the British were privy to the Mysorean rocket and its effects.  Britain was again defeated by 1784 on terms favorable to the Mysoreans. 

1782 saw Hyder Ali die and he was succeeded by his son Tipu Sultan, who thanks to his role in the Second Anglo-Mysore War and the use of the tiger in his personal standard became known as the “Tiger of Mysore”.  A nickname earned due to his fierce opposition to the British, his tiger hunting prowess and appreciation for symbolism of the animal.  His summer palace had ornate paintings celebrating his victory over the British at Pollilur.  Also he had a mechanical toy crank operated pipe organ made of ornate wood designed in the form of a tiger mauling a European man made for his entertainment, known as Tipu’s Tiger. 

Tipu continued his father’s mix of diplomacy and aggression in foreign affairs, playing the French and other Indian powers against the British.  He also upped the living standards of every day Mysoreans, reformed the coinage, calendar and government apparatus of his kingdom and improved the rocket artillery innovations introduced by his father.  Tipu helped make Mysore one of the absolute wealthiest countries on Earth.  Mysore became a leading agricultural and textile producer especially of fine silks.  Mysore under Tipu became so wealthy that the per capita incomes were on average higher than even in Europe in the Netherlands and Britain in the 1820′s.  Tipu also garnered controversy over his religious policies however, he was a devout Muslim himself but practically speaking ruled a Hindu majority kingdom.  He appointed many Hindus to positions of power in his administration and gave land grants to as many as 156 Hindu temples as examples of his religious tolerance.  On the other hand evidence of massacres, imprisonment and forced conversion to Islam of both Hindus from outside his kingdom as well as of Indian Christians, notably the Catholics of Mangalore and captured British soldiers are cited as evidence of his cruelty.  His legacy of religious tolerance is a matter of debate into the modern day.

Things went well for Tipu and Mysore until the Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790-1792).  This saw Mysore’s first major defeat when Britain with a coalition of Maratha Empire, Kingdom of Travancore and the Nizam of Hyderabad all with unresolved issues against Mysore defeated Tipu Sultan in the 1792 Siege of Srirangapatna, led by General Charles Cornwallis, famous for his defeat at Yorktown during the American Revolution.  This in some ways redeemed Cornwallis for his defeat in America.  The battle saw the use of Mysorean rockets en masse once more.  However, the British advanced and knowing without negotiation utter defeat was at hand, Tipu agreed to negotiate a peace.  He ceded half of Mysore’s territory divided among the British and their allies and also handed over two of his sons as hostages to Cornwallis to be cared for by the British to ensure good behavior and compliance on Tipu’s part.

Mysore never fully recovered from this defeat and it was only a matter of time before war broke out again.  The fourth and final Anglo-Mysore War broke out in 1798, now in the context of the struggle between the French Republic and British lead coalitions against the French Revolution.  Tipu turned to his traditional French allies once more.  In 1794 in touch with the French Republic under the auspices of French military officers, Tipu established the Jacobin Club of Mysore, the first Revolutionary Republican club of its kind in Indian history.  He symbolically planted a “liberty tree” in solidarity with the French and was made an honorary Citizen Tipu or Tipoo.  In 1798, French General Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt, then nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, but really under the centuries old rule of the Mameluke dynasty which French forces defeated.  Napoleon’s stated goal was to secure Egypt and the Levant as a base from which to advance onto British India and link up with Mysore and defeat the British once and for all, delivering a blow to their most precious colony which would end the war in France and Mysore’s favor.  Napoleon conquered Egypt and parts of the Levant but his fleet was defeated in the Battle of the Nile by the British Royal Navy, effectively stranding his army in the Middle East.  Though he would escape in 1799 and initiate the coup that lead to his rise as First Consul and later French Emperor coming to dominate European politics for nearly the next two decades.  Without French help, Mysore was left to its own.  Its army was still formidable and Tipu was determined but 1799 was to be the end of it all. 

The British Governor-General of India in 1799 was Richard Wellesley, 2nd Earl of Mornington of the Anglo-Irish family from Dublin.  His younger brother, Arthur Wellesley, had found structure in an otherwise aimless life in a military career, fighting against the French in the Low Countries in the earlier part of the decade.  By 1797, Arthur had transferred to India to assist his brother and the British East India Company expand its power, he was made a Colonel and set out with his regiment, the 33rd Regiment of Foot infantry in spring of 1799 under a larger British force made of British regulars, British administered Indian regiments (sepoys) and supported by the Nizam of Hyderabad’s army once more, they marched on Srirangapatna once again.  The battle was a last stand and fierce, with the Mysorean rockets launched en masse one last time.  Wellesley himself suffered a minor wound, finally a breach was made in the walls of the fortress and the British advanced in, volleys of fire and hand to hand combat took place and Tipu Sultan, armed with his ornate sword and modern European blunderbuss flintlock rifle fought to the very end, killed by a musket ball lodged in his head above the right ear and lodged in his left cheek.  Wellesley himself pronounced Tipu dead upon checking his body on the scene.  The Tiger of Mysore was no more, dead aged 48 and Mysore was conquered.  In the aftermath of the battle, some British soldiers were engaging in looting and pillaging of the city and rape of Indian women.  Wellesley, later famed for the discipline he attempted to instill in his troops, had troops he found engaged in this behavior, tried and executed by hanging for their crimes.  Tipu’s body was buried honorably next to his father the following day.  His sword lost in battle later found it’s way into British hands and his automated toy organ (Tipu’s Tiger) was confiscated by the British and is on exhibit to this day in the British Victoria and Albert Museum in London.

For his part, Wellesley was made Governor of British Mysore in the wake of his victory.  His first step to military renown was achieved here.  He would stay in India for a few more years, greatly expanding British control there, most notably defeating a large army of the Maratha Empire at the Battle of Assaye in 1803.  Before he would return to Europe and face Napoleonic France in the successful Peninsular War in Spain of 1808-1814, then most famously defeating Napoleon Bonaparte himself by leading the British and Allied forces at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815,  he was made the Duke of Wellington and subsequently served as British Prime Minister.  He always remarked it was his time in India, that he truly discovered himself and learned the lessons he later applied to armies under his command against Napoleon.

One of Tipu’s and Mysore’s lasting influences on the British military and military development in general was the use of the Mysorean rockets, the British studied the iron casings and under William Congreve, developed the Congreve rocket, based on descriptions of the Mysorean originals.  The British began employing Congreve rocket regiments of artillery in Napoleonic battles as well as the War of 1812 against the United States, it helped contribute to advances in later missile and artillery technology up on through the modern day.  So while the Tiger of Mysore may long be gone, his legacy in many ways, survives.

[imaginaryelle]

Comissatio

For the prompt “park bench” by @dafan7711, which spiraled into something entirely different than I initially intended. The title comes from the Roman version of symposium and (I’m told) refers to “conversations with drinking in the late hours.” Tags include: First Kiss, Alcohol, Gratuitous abuse of miracles, 17th Century London. ~ 1.3k. This can also be read on AO3.  

-1670, London, England-

Crowley likes London. It’s always busy, always rushing along into the future and always on the edge of a fight breaking out. Good mix of people, good entertainment and night life, even if it does rain too much for his personal tastes. But sunny Spain, for example, had left a lingering sourness in his mouth that he’s still not quite forgotten, and anyway there’s something almost gravitational about London. About England in general these last few centuries, but especially London. He’s considering sticking around for a bit.

That England, and London in particular, has been Aziraphale’s main stomping ground for roughly a millennium is probably not a coincidence.

They walk in St James’ Park—newly public and re-landscaped since their last foray at court—a sort of amiable stroll in the wake of business matters duly completed. Twilight is falling, their shadows lengthening ahead of them, close enough to be arm in arm. All around, as far as Crowley can see and sense, the human landscape is shifting. Milk maids and nurses and nannys lead their charges away from the grounds, to candlelit spaces with sturdy walls and tiled roofs, and in their place come London’s night people; the criminals and secret keepers, cleaners and prostitutes, plying trades less welcome in the blazing judgment of a sunny day.

“I miss the aviary,” Aziraphale says. He’s looking over towards Birdcage Walk in a wistful sort of way, his mug of new milk and mulled wine still held half-full in one perfectly manicured hand. “The birds are beautiful. Such variety and color.” His hair falls in curls to his shoulders, drifting lightly around his face in the breeze, and Crowley can almost see him thinking about plumage, and preening, and—

“We could sneak in,” Crowley offers, halting at the edge of the path. It’s been--how long? Nearly a century? More? Since he last watched rainbows dance off angel wings. “No one’d notice.”

Aziraphale’s mouth scrunches up in indecision. The aviaries are on private land, exclusive to the King and his guests, of course. It would be Breaking A Rule, but a human one. And Crowley doesn’t need millennia of practice to see how the angel wants to.

“This time of year, they’ve probably got chicks,” he coaxes.

Wrong move. Aziraphale sighs and shakes his head. “And this time of night they’ll be sleeping. Better to let them get on with it, I think.” They start walking again. “Still, it’s a shame about the menagerie.”

“Elephants,” Crowley says, trying to scrub that wistful slant of the angel’s mouth out of his mind. There’s something there, some want, he just hasn’t found the right hook for it. “The elephants were good. And the crocodiles.” He grins at the sharp look shot his way. “Kept people on their toes.”

“I’m sure you don’t miss the camels,” Aziraphale says archly, pointedly not looking at him even as a smile tugs at his lips.

“No one misses the camels, angel.” They both of them have enough memories of musty camel smells and trudging through sand at the dawn of the world for several lifetimes, no reminders necessary.

“True.” Aziraphale agrees, and then, as if he’s been looking for something,  “Ah, here we are.” 

He veers off the path slightly, drawing Crowley in his wake to settle on a wood slat bench next to the water, just slightly hidden from casual view by a bushy fig tree that somehow escaped the most recent razing.

It’s all very … illicit, Crowley can’t help but notice. Fig tree. Twilight. London is never really quiet, but the noise seems somehow muffled here, too. And the park itself has a reputation these days. For—things. Of a decidedly non-angelic nature. That have very little to do with feathers.

Aziraphale shifts his weight until their knees are not-quite-touching, and Crowley watches him carefully. There’s a question lurking in the back of his throat, not quite parsed into words. Why are we here, perhaps, or You have something in mind, I can tell, don’t try lying to me. Unvoiced is fine. Unvoiced is better. He’s not going to muck things up twice in one evening if he can help it.

“You really should try this.” Aziraphale holds out his mug, keeping eye contact now. “It’s quite good.”

Crowley doesn’t say, What are you up to, angel? He takes the mug. He sips at the contents. It’s alright. He’s never really been much for the taste of milk, which Aziraphale knows. He passes the mug back.

“Such interesting things they come up with, aren’t there?” Aziraphale says, apropos of nothing, and takes an apparently enjoyable swallow of his own.

And then holds the mug out again, insistent even when Crowley tries to wave it away, so he accepts it with a resigned sigh.

Oh.

Mead. It’s mead this time, sweet and sparkling on his tongue. Reminds him of—Iceland, 13th century. Each of them entirely turned around and frustrated by the prospect of trying to find a specific individual human in the middle of a civil war. The autumn had been particularly stormy, he remembers. They’d spent a long night sheltering in a turf-built farmhouse. He doesn’t remember what they talked about. Sagas, maybe. The angel had been big into sagas. Probably still is. He passes the mug back and Aziraphale smiles like he has a secret. The pale creams and golds of his clothes make him look luminescent in the brightening starlight. Crowley is fading into near nonexistence in his shadow.

The next sip is rice wine, light and smooth as a spring morning in a Japanese garden, and it too carries a memory: stolen glances, watching dawn spread rosy fingers over Aziraphale’s cheek. Then a Riesling, cool and lazy as the Rhine; the high, ringing tones of a dulcimer and Aziraphale’s soft curls tumbling over his hands. Yarrow beer, bright and sharp as shared laughter and a warm shoulder leaning into his own. Conditum, rich with pepper and saffron and the sense of hands smoothing over his wings. A heady brandy and a snatch of song whispered in his ear. Pomegranate wine, achingly sweet as the sight of Aziraphale licking honey off his fingers.

They’re not even touching but oh, Crowley wants. This isn’t how it’s supposed to go. Temptation is his job. He slouches lower and extends one arm along the back of the bench. Closer. Closer. He sends back Macedonian wine and fermented date liquor. Barely beer and cider heavy with cloves and cinnamon. He watches Aziraphale drink, watches the movement of his throat as he swallows and his tongue as he licks his lips. The mug comes back and it’s the bloody syllabub again, frothy with too much cream, but this time, this time it comes with the press of sugared violets against his mouth and the sight of his own face, like looking in a mirror except he’s never felt like he wanted to ravish himself, looking in a mirror.

The mug falls from his fingers. Aziraphale makes no move to catch it and it bounces to the ground between their feet, leaving a little half-circle of milky wine in the dirt that matches the curve of the moon. Aziraphale is just … waiting. No deflection now.

“Angel,” Crowley whispers, inching closer, and Aziraphale meets him, lays a finger against his lips. No words. They’re not talking about this.

Like the nights spent in conversation and mornings of stolen time. Like feathers under his hands and curls brushing his cheek. They’re not talking about it. But Aziraphale’s finger is replaced by Aziraphale’s lips, and his hands are steady and sure, and his tongue tastes of violets.

It’s enough, Crowley tells himself, to just hold on and kiss him back. To revel a bit, in the moment of temptation realized, and to layer new memories over old ones with the glide of his tongue and the gentle nip of his teeth.

It’s enough, for now.

[androphile-archives]

"An incident involving a plot to assassinate Alexander demonstrates that homosexuality was not a practice limited to royal circles, but was apparently commonplace among the Macedonian donian military aristocracy. For some unknown reason a small group of young Macedonians aristocrats in the army became disenchanted with Alexander's leadership and so formed a plot to assassinate the king. The plot came to light when one of the conspirators, a Macedonian youth named Dimnus, told his lover, Nicomachus, about the plot. He in turn told another officer, Cebalinus, who then went to a high-ranking court official named Philotas with the information and asked for an audience with the king. Philotas told him that the king was too busy, but gave Cebalinus assurances that he would inform the king of the situation. When Cebalinus discovered the next day that the king had still not heard about it, he himself told the king the news. When an angry Alexander demanded to know why Philotas had delayed in telling him about the plot, Philotas explained that he had lent no credence to the information mation because of its source, and claimed he was reluctant to say anything out of "fear that he would be ridiculed for taking a lover's quarrel too The casual way in which the homosexual relationship of the young plotter was mentioned illustrates how ordinary such relationships must have seemed at the time."

(James Neill, The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies)

Find me on Facebook

[outoftheforestshow]

Letter From Birmingham Jail A U G U S T   1 9 6 3  by Martin Luther King, Jr

 From the Birmingham jail, where he was imprisoned as a participant in nonviolent demonstrations against segregation, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote in longhand the letter which follows. It was his response to a public statement of concern and caution issued by eight white religious leaders of the South. Dr. King, who was born in 1929, did his undergraduate work at Morehouse College; attended the integrated Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, one of six black pupils among a hundred students, and the president of his class; and won a fellowship to Boston University for his Ph.D. WHILE confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling our present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom, if ever, do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all of the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would be engaged in little else in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I would like to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms. I think I should give the reason for my being in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the argument of "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every Southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliate organizations all across the South, one being the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Whenever necessary and possible, we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago our local affiliate here in Birmingham invited us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promises. So I am here, along with several members of my staff, because we were invited here. I am here because I have basic organizational ties here. Beyond this, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the eighth-century prophets left their little villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their hometowns; and just as the Apostle Paul left his little village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to practically every hamlet and city of the Greco-Roman world, I too am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my particular hometown. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider. You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative. IN ANY nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action. We have gone through all of these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying of the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of police brutality is known in every section of this country. Its unjust treatment of Negroes in the courts is a notorious reality. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in this nation. These are the hard, brutal, and unbelievable facts. On the basis of them, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the political leaders consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation. Then came the opportunity last September to talk with some of the leaders of the economic community. In these negotiating sessions certain promises were made by the merchants, such as the promise to remove the humiliating racial signs from the stores. On the basis of these promises, Reverend Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to call a moratorium on any type of demonstration. As the weeks and months unfolded, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. The signs remained. As in so many experiences of the past, we were confronted with blasted hopes, and the dark shadow of a deep disappointment settled upon us. So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We Letter From Birmingham Jail 2 started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?" We decided to set our direct-action program around the Easter season, realizing that, with exception of Christmas, this was the largest shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic withdrawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this was the best time to bring pressure on the merchants for the needed changes. Then it occurred to us that the March election was ahead, and so we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that Mr. Conner was in the runoff, we decided again to postpone action so that the demonstration could not be used to cloud the issues. At this time we agreed to begin our nonviolent witness the day after the runoff. This reveals that we did not move irresponsibly into direct action. We, too, wanted to see Mr. Conner defeated, so we went through postponement after postponement to aid in this community need. After this we felt that direct action could be delayed no longer. You may well ask, "Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So, the purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in monologue rather than dialogue. One of the basic points in your statement is that our acts are untimely. Some have asked, "Why didn't you give the new administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this inquiry is that the new administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one before it acts. We will be sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Mr. Boutwell will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is much more articulate and gentle than Mr. Conner, they are both segregationists, dedicated to the task of maintaining the status quo. The hope I see in Mr. Boutwell is that he will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from the devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals. We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was "well timed" according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "wait." It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "wait" has almost always meant "never." It has been a tranquilizing thalidomide, relieving the emotional stress for a moment, only to give birth to an ill-formed infant of frustration. We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." We have waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our God-given and constitutional rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward the goal of political independence, and we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward the gaining of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say "wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she cannot go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her little eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see the depressing clouds of inferiority begin to form in her little mental sky, and see her begin to distort her little personality by unconsciously developing a bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son asking in agonizing pathos, "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger" and your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and when your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never knowing what to expect next, and plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodyness" -- then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the bleakness of corroding despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. Letter From Birmingham Jail 3 YOU express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all." Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. To use the words of Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher, segregation substitutes an "I - it" relationship for the "I - thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. So segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Isn't segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, an expression of his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? So I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right, and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong. Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow, and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating because it did not have the unhampered right to vote. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up the segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout the state of Alabama all types of conniving methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties without a single Negro registered to vote, despite the fact that the Negroes constitute a majority of the population. Can any law set up in such a state be considered democratically structured? These are just a few examples of unjust and just laws. There are some instances when a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I was arrested Friday on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the ordinance is used to preserve segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law was involved. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks before submitting to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a Communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws. I MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because His unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see, as federal courts have consistently affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. Letter From Birmingham Jail 4 I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. YOU spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I started thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency made up of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, have been so completely drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodyness" that they have adjusted to segregation, and, on the other hand, of a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because at points they profit by segregation, have unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred and comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up over the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. This movement is nourished by the contemporary frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination. It is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable devil. I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need not follow the do-nothingism of the complacent or the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. There is a more excellent way, of love and nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, I am convinced that by now many streets of the South would be flowing with floods of blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare. Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come. This is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom; something without has reminded him that he can gain it. Consciously and unconsciously, he has been swept in by what the Germans call the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America, and the Caribbean, he is moving with a sense of cosmic urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. Recognizing this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand public demonstrations. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sitins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, "Get rid of your discontent." But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled through the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized. But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice? -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ? -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist? -- "Here I stand; I can do no other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist? -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice? I had hoped that the white moderate would see this. Maybe I was too optimistic. Maybe I expected too much. I guess I should have realized that few members of a race that has oppressed another race can understand or appreciate the deep groans and passionate yearnings of those that have been oppressed, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent, and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too small in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some, like Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, and James Dabbs, have written about our struggle in eloquent, prophetic, and understanding terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They sat in with us at lunch counters and rode in with us on the freedom rides. They have languished in filthy roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of angry policemen who see them as "dirty nigger lovers." They, unlike many of their moderate brothers, have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Letter From Birmingham Jail 5 LET me rush on to mention my other disappointment. I have been disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand this past Sunday in welcoming Negroes to your Baptist Church worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Springhill College several years ago. But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say that as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say it as a minister of the gospel who loves the church, who was nurtured in its bosom, who has been sustained by its Spiritual blessings, and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen. I had the strange feeling when I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery several years ago that we would have the support of the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests, and rabbis of the South would be some of our strongest allies. Instead, some few have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows. In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and with deep moral concern serve as the channel through which our just grievances could get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother. In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sidelines and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "Those are social issues which the gospel has nothing to do with," and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely otherworldly religion which made a strange distinction between bodies and souls, the sacred and the secular. There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period that the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was the thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." But they went on with the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven" and had to obey God rather than man. They were small in number but big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest. Things are different now. The contemporary church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's often vocal sanction of things as they are. But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. I meet young people every day whose disappointment with the church has risen to outright disgust. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are presently misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with the destiny of America. Before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson scratched across the pages of history the majestic word of the Declaration of Independence, we were here. For more than two centuries our foreparents labored here without wages; they made cotton king; and they built the homes of their masters in the midst of brutal injustice and shameful humiliation -- and yet out of a bottomless vitality our people continue to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. I must close now. But before closing I am impelled to mention one other point in your statement that troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I don't believe you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its angry violent dogs literally biting six unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I don't believe you would so quickly commend the policemen if you would observe their ugly and inhuman treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you would watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you would see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys, if you would observe them, as they did on two occasions, refusing to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I'm sorry that I can't join you in your praise for the police department. Letter From Birmingham Jail 6 It is true that they have been rather disciplined in their public handling of the demonstrators. In this sense they have been publicly "nonviolent." But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the last few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or even more, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. I wish you had commended the Negro demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the midst of the most inhuman provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, courageously and with a majestic sense of purpose facing jeering and hostile mobs and the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman of Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride the segregated buses, and responded to one who inquired about her tiredness with ungrammatical profundity, "My feets is tired, but my soul is rested." They will be young high school and college students, young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience's sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters they were in reality standing up for the best in the American dream and the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage. Never before have I written a letter this long -- or should I say a book? I'm afraid that it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else is there to do when you are alone for days in the dull monotony of a narrow jail cell other than write long letters, think strange thoughts, and pray long prayers? If I have said anything in this letter that is an understatement of the truth and is indicative of an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything in this letter that is an overstatement of the truth and is indicative of my having a patience that makes me patient with anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me. Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright © 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. All rights reserved. The Atlantic Monthly; August 1963; The Negro Is Your Brother; Volume 212, No. 2; pages 78 - 88.