#insurgency after conquest

[jeannereames]

I notice a certain pattern when reading academic scholarship, and I wanted to ask if you see this too, that goes more or less like this: "X people were indifferent to being conquered by Y, because very little changed to them in regards to how things were under the rulership of their previous overlord Z, so it was business as usual. In fact, X people might actually have welcomed conquest, because of less taxes, less persecution, or [insert motive]".

I tend to find a lot of this regarding Alexander's conquests especially with Egypt, but with other Asian regions too. (I also read a lot of this regarding the Roman takeover of Egypt, arguing the people were indifferent to the Ptolemies being overthrown). To the point were I see this becoming a trope of sorts? I'm not disputing that many were happy to see the Persians go, but I can't help but find the "people were indifferent to their rulers" approach de-politicizing and even reductive of the role the people played & their beliefs. I also wonder how much is propaganda to benefit the winners.

Winning the Hearts and Minds… e.g., avoiding insurgency after conquest

An interesting question, and observation, but I fear it may be projecting modern assumptions/ ideas (neither is quite the right word) backwards in time. First, I’ll list what some of the accidental assumptions are, then delve into them. But this is a good question in that it lets us discuss some quite fundamental differences between then and now.

First, it can be easy to forget (because it’s hard to imagine) how little information about the larger world the average person had, especially when living away from urban centers.

Second, the query perhaps over-assumes the political impact individuals could have in most areas. Obviously, this varied.

Third, the role of religion—and perceptions of who has the approval of the gods—shouldn’t be underestimated in who wins/loses and general acceptance of the outcome.

Fourth, what probably affected people most were immediate impacts from combat itself. This, again, would have varied, depending on how close one was to the conflict (or invading army). If caught in the middle of it, it could be absolutely catastrophic, from death to rape to destruction of homes/fields, to later starvation when armies requisitioned your winter stores, etc. (I find this detail is often overlooked in analyses.)

These are each relatively complex things that I can’t go into in detail, but we can take a closer look at each. That said…I tend to agree with those assessments referred to in the ask. For the average person not near the locus of combat/disruption, they probably experienced relatively little change in their day-to-day. Therefore, they may not have cared. But that is a very broad generalization that must be tweaked depending on various factors, not least “who” was the victor. For instance, Alexander changed prior (Persian) administrative structures relatively little. But the Ptolemies could be ruthless in taxes, especially outside Alexandria. Earlier, Persia had definitely been a lighter overlord than the neo-Assyrians or neo-Babylonians. There was a reason every time a new Assyrian king came to power, the provinces rebelled.

Let’s start with Point One: people, especially in rural areas, might not know much of what was going on in the “wider world.” If travel in antiquity was more prevalent than many modern people assume, travel was also a perk of wealth. And travelers tended to show up in/pass through urban areas where they could find lodging, or in seaside towns. That meant news was slower than a snail in the hinterlands. I’m quite sure there were places in Persia that didn’t even realize Alexander was there until months, perhaps even a year or more, after he’d moved on!

The ancient world was a rural world. Even at the height Rome’s power, only (maybe) 40% of the population lived in urban centers. Compare that to 83% of the modern US population living in urban centers, 84.5% in Britain, and—for contrast—65% of the Chinese population, and 74% of Russia. But 92% of the Japanese do.

In short, throughout most of antiquity, more people did NOT live in cities and may have seen only a handful of foreigners in their lives. They rarely moved more than 5-10 miles from where they were born.

This is important to understand, when it comes to reactions to a change in “overlord-ship.” They probably rarely/never even saw the “overlord.” It would have been locals who assessed and collected taxes, then took those taxes to be paid. Also, remember that quite late, many taxes were still paid “in kind.” E.g., in non-monetary forms.

So that may help set the stage for why historians say the average person probably didn’t notice a lot of change—or care. Unless there was a sharp shift in how high taxes ran.

That brings us to Point Two, about the impact of individuals on political structures. In MOST places, the average person had little-to-no say in politics. Even in some of the democratic poleis of ancient Greece, much of the voting was done by urbanites, not rural farmers. And there were many more rural farmers. This is the opposite of the US today, where one big complaint about the US Senate, with 2 senators per state—not based on population—is that it gives an outsized voice to swathes of very rural and unpopulated areas. But that system was created in an age when rural areas were much more populated. They are not about to give up their statistical advantage, so altering the Constitution to fix it after 200+ years of change is out of reach.

And that’s just in the democratic poleis of Greece, such as Athens. Outside of Magna Graecia, democracy was a unicorn. Even Rome was a republic. In Lydia, in Persia, in Egypt…yeah, no.

That said, a couple other areas do suggest greater “citizen” input, and these are peoples who famously resisted Alexander: the Scythian groups of the Steppes, the Sogdian and Baktrian populations, and especially the independent tribes/populations of the S. Indus River areas. Alexander cut a bloody swathe down the Indus because the people. Would. Not. Submit.

(This is an area of Alexander studies, btw, that I think needs much more research, but requires reading not just Alexander sources, but Indian ones as well, and weighing the historiography of each. There’s an unfortunate divide that’s largely a function of geography and language in the modern world. It’s not dissimilar to the issues with Mesopotamian sources on Alexander, but in that case, not many ANE/Mesopotamian sources have survived. India is much richer in evidence, I understand. A new book IS due out soon from Brill: How the Brahmins Won: from Alexander to the Guptas. Being Brill, it won’t be something flaky. But, also being Brill, it’s godawful expensive: $228.)

Anyway, resistance to conquest by Alexander or anybody else depends on the POLITICAL structures of the place conquered. So the Greeks resisted Macedon generally. They were used to making their own political decisions. In contrast, areas of Persian that weren’t accustomed to independent rule accepted a change in ruler more easily. But once you get further east (and north) that changes. Also, in Italy, it would have been difference. And certainly, Rome experienced LOTS of problems dealing with the Germans! And Celts/Gauls before them. Egypt also typically resisted because while it had a god-king, it also didn’t like foreign rule. They resisted Alexander less because they knew he’d go away again, and he got rid of the Persians. But in the end, they got the Ptolemies who weren’t any better (and arguably worse).

So Alexander had something of an advantage moving into areas that were largely not accustomed to a great deal of autonomy in rule (with some select exceptions).

This leads into Point Three, the role of religion in ancient warfare. For many ancient peoples, the ones ruling them had that role by “divine right.” This concept of a divinely chosen king is very, very old in Mesopotamia. The earliest Sumerian texts talk about kingship first descending on Eridu “from heaven.” If this sort of divinely selected kingship isn’t as extreme as Egyptian notions of pharoah as a living god, most areas Alexander marched through had such ideas. “As above, so below.” Ergo, victory in war indicated victory in heaven and divine favor. Alexander winning meant the gods were on his side. Who’s going to argue with the gods?

Yet it's also typically religion (or higher taxes/mistreatment) that drove resistance, resentment, or rebellion against a new king/conqueror. This is WHY Alexander was generally very careful in his respect for local gods and religious practices. Actions by the one conquering could reverse a perception that the gods were on the conqueror’s side. For example, the Persians might have been more inclined to accept Alexander if he hadn’t torched their ceremonial city with its fire temples, etc. He really had no idea what he was doing, and his message was half for Greece anyway. But he lacked a real grasp of Persian symbolism and so, put his foot in it. He’d been much better handling Egypt.

In any case, when looking for ideological reasons for resistance, that would come from religion more than political theory, at least in most places.

And finally, Point Four. What is most likely to generate resistance is when an invading army causes LOSS. This loss can be very literal: as in loss of life, loss of property, or destruction of farmland and with it, livelihood. Or it can be a bit more theoretical, as in loss of (prior) independence, loss of potential trade and trade markets, or threats to alliances that benefit the people.

Resentment owing to death and destruction of towns is fairly straightforward. This is why, when a people choose to resist, Alexander, the Romans, the Assyrians earlier, etc., may enact quite shocking (to moderns) executions of whole populations: certainly of menfolk down to children, but sometimes of everybody (the Romans were noted for that). They know that X people won’t ever forgive them, so they elect to eliminate the problem for at least a generation, or they just exterminate the people altogether and use the land to reward their own soldiers or allies. A lot of the land the Roman consul Marius passed out to his soldiers was just such war-booty.

But there are other, less obvious forms of loss that generate resentment and rebellion.

For instance, armies march on their stomachs, and until recently, invading armies typically ate off the land. This is why Memnon’s proposed strategy of burning crops to freeze-out Alexander when he first invaded would have worked. He had only about a month’s rations. Yet Memnon’s advice to burn the fields wasn’t taken precisely because it would have devastated the farmers in that region of Asia Minor: destroying their stores for the coming year (as well as taxes due). Local satraps would have had to pay to import food to replace the loss, or let their people starve.

They elected to ignore Memnon instead, and, well, the rest is literally history.

Ancient armies couldn’t bring supplies far for a variety of logistical reasons. If the army is simply passing through and they’re wealthy enough, the impact on the locals may not be that great: e.g., they don’t deplete the needed stores and pay for what they take. But if they aren’t rich enough (and even sometimes when they are), they just take it. If they wind up stationed in an area a while, the burden becomes too great on the local populations. The army is, well, an army. With weapons. Locals have a choice: resist and die now or give them food and die later from starvation. This is precisely why resistance wasn’t necessarily immediate; people hoped X army would leave before their storage hit critical lows when fighting back became the only option.

This is one reason you’ll read especially in Alexander’s early campaigns that he grants this or that town or place exemption from taxes. He doesn’t want to anger the locals who are providing him supplies. (Not always with pay.) He was also able to avoid resentment in many cases just because he never stayed put long. But when he did stay a while, as at Tyre, it created logistical difficulties.

This is the sort of detail our histories don’t dwell on much, so we’re not always sure how armies are getting supplies, or it’s tucked away into the corners of other descriptions. “The so-and-so people sent gifts and rations…” etc.

Similarly, when armies or conquerors interfered with established trade ties, this could also arouse resistance…as Alexander found in Sogdiana. The people there wanted an open (permeable) border in order to continue trading (and intermarrying with) steppe tribes to the north. Alexander started out trying to impose a closed border with hill forts to police it. THAT is one chief reason for the rise of insurgency up there. The region wasn’t resistant initially once Bessus was removed. They even cooperated in his capture. Spitamenes turned over Bessus and made peace. But within a few months, the whole area was in open rebellion due to Alexander’s policies regarding the border.

It took marrying Roxana—and figuring out why they were fighting him—before he could march out two years after he entered. Generally, the further he got from areas already familiar to him, the more he put his foot in it.

I’ve been using Alexander to illustrate because his campaign is familiar to me, but these same general principles apply to any army and any commander. While some areas met invasion with resistance (by more than just the ruling class), much depended on the type of government already in place, as well as local views of the gods and war. The more absolute the style of rule, and as long as religious norms weren’t offended and exceptional demands not made, then yes, many conquered people didn’t necessarily care, and may even have welcomed a change in leadership.

[ventresses]

Is Ryloth based on Algeria?

A while back, some friends and I had an interesting discussion about why Star Wars has the Twi'lek speak with French accent, and the implication that Ryloth could perhaps be inspired by a country formerly colonized by France.

We discovered there were A LOT of parallels between Ryloth and the country of Algeria

Political History & Colonialism

Algeria became a colony of France after they invaded it in 1830. Their conquest of Algeria has been called a genocide, and they perpetrated countless atrocities- starvation, epidemics, retaliation for resistance, etc. During that time period, there were popular revolts against the French occupation, and insurgent groups, guerilla warfare, etc., particularly in the decade prior to their independence, which Algerians finally won in 1962.

Ryloth's rulers/most powerful political official(s) are always shown as off-world, corrupt, disconnected from the life and struggles of its people, and allowing the people and resources of the planet to exploited. First, this is under Senator Orn Free Taa, then Separatist occupation, then the Empire.

Throughout that same history of oppression and exploitation, we also see armed resistance movements and guerilla fighters, like the Twi'lek Resistance and the Free Ryloth Movement.

Geography

Algeria is the largest country in Africa. It contains a significant portion of the Sahara Desert, and hosts many impressive rock formations.

Ryloth is a large planet on the Outer Rim. Whenever we see Ryloth on-screen, it almost always shows the desert, is peppered with incredible rock formations, gorges, etc.

Architecture

The homes and structures we see on Ryloth are reminiscent of traditional &/or vernacular mud-brick architecture in Algeria and its neighbor, Morocco. For example:

The Syndulla House

Numa's Village (from The Clone Wars S1E20)

The Capital City (from The Clone Wars S1E21)

Interior Design

We also see themes and details that are strongly reminiscent of Islamic architecture in, for example, the design of the Syndulla family's home.

This is also true of simpler homes, like the ones in Numa's village from The Clone Wars, which utilize subtle geometric motifs and Arabesque patterned windows.

Art

Mosaic art was one of the hallmarks of Roman and Byzantine and Islamic Empires, all of which Algeria was part of, and had their history and culture influenced by.

The Syndulla family portrait is a mosaic.

Head Coverings

The vast majority of Algerians identify as Muslim. It's very common practice for Muslim women to wear the hijab, which covers their hair.

Every time we see a female Twi'lek on-screen she is wearing a head-band or head-covering. We very rarely see male Twi'lek do so.

Language and Accents

As a remnant of the legacy of French colonialism, French is widely spoken and understood in Algeria, though its official language is Arabic.

Many Twi'lek speak Galactic Basic, and do so with a French-sounding accent, though Twi'leki is their native language.

Anything else?

[steampunkforever]

Every now and then I play a game in my head called "How would you win 9/11?" Not in the Mark Wahlberg sort of way but from the perspective of "if I were not a neocon ghoul, how would I handle this and avoid/postpone the sandbox forever war?"

Hard mode: Bin Laden has to still escape the battle of Tora Bora alive.

Extreme mode: you still have to invade Iraq at the behest of Reagan Era advisors still mad about Iran 30 years ago.

Easy mode I would just play the PR machine hard with the launch of Enduring Freedom. Like Panama, I'd hit hard and all at once with a coordinated force. The American people would need blood quick, and looking like a strong president is imperative for your first term, especially after such a hit to the American Ego.

Definitely approving the Ranger battalion's deployment to Tora Bora is the best path here, but the key is to pull out just as fast as we went in once we get our guy. Keep it feeling fresh, like Panama or Desert Storm. Afghanistan frankly has very little advantages for any army (according to most imperialist conquests of the area) so leave the government to the people that live there. The important part is that Americans feel that NYC has been avenged.

Hard mode means you don't get Bin Laden til 2011 as per current day, and therefore need to do a bit more cleanup during enduring freedom. Frankly my methodology here isn't much different than the current US anti-terror doctrine of airstrikes and deploying elite squads for night raids.

When you're fighting an asymmetrical war, using small units and remote explosions to hit key points (putting the "terrorism" in "counterterrorism") and match guerrilla fighters both costs less and beats the bad publicity of shipping corpses not old enough to drink home in flag wrapped caskets.

A low-impact campaign (read: less of a full on occupation) like this with US logistical support (and the input of people who're actually experts in Afghan geopolitics) would hopefully allow the US to avoid the protracted war with the insurgency that lasted literally 20 years and ended with the Taliban stronger than ever. Give it a couple years, call it a success, and hunt down the big guy until you get him in 2011.

Extreme mode isn't ideal (We shouldn't have been in iraq) but putting Bremer in control was really the nail in the coffin. I would demote him to janitor and find someone who understood the situation instead. Why build a highway next to an existing road? The obvious way to rebuild a country you bombed into fine gravel is to take advantage of the infrastructure you left behind.

I personally would've avoided treating Ba'athism like we could just denazify iraq, and rather pull key leadership and left the rest relatively intact so as to better rebuild the country. Allowing the military to remain standing (and in fact work as a method of reconstruction) and set up a client state that could keep Iran on its toes, sort of like how Iraq was before Desert Storm. Which still wouldn't be ideal but at least we'd significantly lower the chances of outright spawning ISIS through American cultural and administrative incompetence. There are no good imperialist wars but there are ways to not completely bungle it too.

[centrally-unplanned]

Could you elaborate on when Israel was legitimately under threat of conquest? I thought they were always militarily superior?

In recent years yes, but they didn't started that way. They double+ did not start that way in 1948! But it does require clarification. The Arab-Israeli war was intensely lopsided:

The population of the countries arrayed against Israeli was easily 10 to 1; with far more equipment and resources at their disposal. And while how much of this was rhetoric vs reality is intensely disputed, the Arab League put out many statements for public consumption of their intent to expel the Jewish population and ~maybe kill them all, so given the lopsided numbers and the rhetoric of ethnic cleansing you can see how this war would be seen, both in Israel and abroad, as existential.

Now, it turned out in this conflict the Arab states were a bunch of bickering idiots, far more invested to their selfish ambitions and personal vendettas, and commanding famously incompetent armies. They were highly non-committal to the operation; the tiny Israeli population actually fielded a larger army than the whole Arab coalition, and Jordan for example marched in, annexed, the West Bank, then promptly stopped fighting. So Israel won the war handily; but you really can't take this too far. If these countries ever decided to stop being incompetent morons, then it would be a very different story - their combined resources vastly overwhelmed Israel's, and the geography of Israel means that the moment they lose once, they can lose permanently.

And through the 1950's up until about the 1970's, that threat was ever-present. Both sides were intensely aggressive to the others and in particular Egypt & Syria continued to have strong political forces pushing for military action. They were frequently supported by the Soviet Union giving them arms & aid; at one point Egypt and Syria actually united as one country! The United Arab Republic, 1958 to 1961, and Israel was a strong motive for that union (though Jordan was more of one), only undone by a coup in Syria in 1961. Israel faced insurgent attacks on civilians sponsored openly by its neighbors all through the 1950's and 1960's, and fights three major wars against Egypt and sometimes Syria - in particular in the Yom Kippur War Israel suffers some its first major defeats at the hands of Egypt, showing their growing strength. At this point its not actually in the cards for anyone to 'remove' Israel, but Egypt & Syria still haven't recognized Israel as a country, so the tension is still very high. Israel does a ton of shit too ofc, taking sides isn't the point; you can just see that the situation is very tense, and Israel is up against countries that vastly outnumber it and are always one bad battle away from occupying the small country. This is only 'safe' if you constantly presume incompetence on Egypt, Syria, & Jordan's part; that isn't a safe assumption.

After 1973, however, the US and others help broker a permanent peace between Egypt & Israel, which culminates in the 1978 Camp David accords and Egypt recognizes Israel. They have been at peace since. Also fun fact, this is part of why the US gives annual blank check military aid to Israel - we give military aid to Egypt too, still do to this day! We essentially bribed them into making peace. But anyway, after this Israel never faces a real threat from a large state army; instead its all terrorist organizations in Lebanon and stuff like that. So in the 1970's through to the 1990's the Israeli security situation shifts from being surrounded by large countries actively organizing military operations against them to every single one of them abandoning that goal, and pushing for things like a two state solution in Palestine instead.

So to move to opinions, you can see how from 1948 to 1978, once the fallout from the formation of Israel is settled and you aren't gonna try to eliminate a sovereign nation because that is what we call a bad idea, there are going to be a lot of moments where you need to back Israel to keep the peace (like if the USSR is pumping weapons into Egypt, its the Cold War, you balance it). US policy towards Israel, alongside most European countries, is formed in this time around that dynamic. But in the modern era all these threats are gone - Jordan isn't going to try to conquer Israel, that is fucking ridiculous. But Israel still acts like that is a thing, like it needs "security space", and like its military isn't vastly superior and its neighbors aren't trying anymore to compete with that. And US policy is locked into indulging that.

[reyaint]

history of HAIQIN | part VI: era of constant border conflict

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

date: october 2, 2024

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Age of Strife (1700s-1900s):

European Threats and Invasions:

Foreign Invasions and Border Skirmishes:

Although Haiqin successfully secured independence in the 17th century, it entered a long period of instability in the 1700s, as other European powers saw the newly independent nation as vulnerable. These nations, especially Spain, Portugal, France, and the Netherlands, were driven by expansionist ambitions and the desire to control the region's resources and strategic location. This led to a series of conflicts, border skirmishes, and attempted invasions throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. While none of these powers fully conquered Haiqin again, the constant threat of invasion kept the nation in a near-permanent state of military readiness, draining resources and shaping Haiqin's society around the need for defense.

Spanish Aggression (Mid-1700s):

Spain, one of the most aggressive colonial powers during this era, sought to dominate trade routes and establish control over Haiqin. In the mid-18th century, Spain launched several naval attacks on Haiqin's coastal cities. These attacks were devastating, with many towns burned and significant resources drained as the nation mounted a defense. Haiqin’s naval prowess, bolstered by alliances with Greece and Ireland, proved decisive in repelling these attacks, though the cost in human lives and economic stability was high. The battles with Spain forced Haiqin to develop innovative naval tactics, which would later form the backbone of its military doctrine.

Portuguese Interference (Late 1700s):

Portugal's ambitions were subtler but equally dangerous. By inciting unrest in border regions and supporting rebel groups, Portugal aimed to destabilize Haiqin from within, creating a long-running proxy war. These conflicts bled the nation dry, as resources were diverted to control uprisings. This period of constant vigilance and low-intensity warfare against Portuguese-backed forces shaped the way Haiqin approached internal security. This was also when the Silver Falcons, a covert elite force specializing in counter-insurgency, were first deployed to root out foreign influence.

French Occupation Attempt (Early 1800s):

Napoleon's conquests extended across the globe, and in the early 19th century, France briefly occupied parts of southern Haiqin. The occupation of key southern cities and ports lasted only a few years, but it was a traumatic time for the nation. Local resistance movements led by generals like Aria Othonos, a prominent female commander, were crucial in expelling the French. Her leadership and strategic use of guerrilla warfare made her a national hero. The French invasion, though short-lived, showcased the resilience of Haiqin’s people and the effectiveness of their hybrid military tactics, blending Greek phalanx formations with guerrilla strategies.

Constant Border Skirmishes (Throughout the 1800s):

Even after major invasions subsided, border skirmishes continued with colonial powers, especially France, Spain, and the Netherlands. Territorial disputes over resource-rich areas, particularly involving valuable minerals and fertile land, were common. These skirmishes were small but frequent, forcing Haiqin to remain in a state of military readiness for more than a century. The Royal Guard was expanded during this time, focusing on rapid response and fortifying key strategic points across the borders.

Haiqin's Military Evolution:

Transformation of the Army:

To resist larger and better-armed European forces, Haiqin transformed its military structure into one that emphasized flexibility, discipline, and the strategic use of terrain. The army integrated Greek-inspired phalanx formations, particularly useful in open combat, with the guerrilla tactics of the indigenous population. Soldiers were trained to operate in diverse environments, from mountain ranges to dense forests, making them adaptable to the varying geography of the nation. Similar to the training King Katalies gave to his troops against Britain.

Navy’s Ascendance:

The navy, once a secondary force, became a cornerstone of Haiqin’s defense strategy. Realizing that control of the seas was crucial to repelling foreign invasions, the monarchy invested heavily in naval development. By the 19th century, Haiqin had one of the most advanced fleets in the region, with ships designed for speed and agility. These ships, combined with cutting-edge naval tactics learned from alliances with Greece and the fledgling United States, enabled Haiqin to maintain control of its waters and safeguard vital trade routes. Notably, during the Portuguese naval incursions in the late 1700s, Haiqin's Ironclad Fleet was deployed, surprising enemies with its superior firepower and maneuverability.

Specialized Elite Units and Espionage:

The Silver Falcons, established as an elite guard and intelligence agency, became one of the most feared and respected military units of the era. These soldiers specialized in covert operations, assassination, and sabotage, often operating behind enemy lines to disrupt invasions before they reached Haiqin's shores. Their successful use of stealth and guerrilla tactics greatly influenced military strategy. Moreover, Haiqin established a vast spy network inspired by the legendary figure Sloane Tuoapizan, sending agents to gather intelligence in enemy nations, disrupt supply chains, and infiltrate foreign governments.

Diplomatic Maneuvering:

Alliances with Greece, Ireland, and Scotland:

These alliances, forged from a shared experience of resisting colonial powers, were crucial to Haiqin’s survival. Greece, Ireland, and Scotland provided vital military support, including tactical advice, supplies, and troops. Cultural and intellectual exchanges flourished, and these nations helped bolster Haiqin’s defenses against its more powerful adversaries. These alliances were also critical in ensuring that European powers were forced to fight on multiple fronts, reducing the pressure on Haiqin.

Naval Pacts with Greece and the United States:

By the mid-18th century, Haiqin had entered into naval agreements with Greece and the United States. This partnership allowed for the exchange of ship designs and naval tactics, strengthening Haiqin’s maritime defenses. These pacts also ensured that Haiqin could secure vital supplies and resources during times of conflict.

Cultural and Trade Exchanges:

Though Haiqin’s policies became more isolationist, the nation did not entirely shut itself off from the world. Controlled trade routes remained open, especially with trusted allies, allowing for an exchange of goods, ideas, and cultural practices. These exchanges helped foster a sense of shared identity and bolstered Haiqin's economy during the turbulent centuries of conflict.

Internal Consolidation and Isolationism:

Tightening of Trade and Travel:

By the late 1700s, the monarchy adopted an isolationist policy aimed at safeguarding Haiqin from foreign influences. Strict regulations were placed on trade, limiting foreign merchants to specific ports and requiring extensive background checks. Diplomatic relations were primarily reserved for allied nations, emphasizing the need for security and control. This protective stance sought to insulate Haiqin from espionage and subversion while consolidating the monarchy’s power.

Trade Networks:

While isolationism prevailed, Haiqin prioritized trade with trusted allies, ensuring the supply of essential goods and resources necessary for ongoing military campaigns. Trade with Greece flourished, with exchanges of olive oil, textiles, and military supplies bolstering Haiqin's economy. The government implemented policies that encouraged local production and self-sufficiency, reducing dependence on foreign imports. Agricultural innovations led to increased yields, allowing for surplus exports that contributed to national wealth.

Internal Consolidation:

Isolationist policies facilitated the centralization of power within the monarchy. The Vasilios dynasty streamlined governance, establishing a bureaucratic state that exercised control over military, economic, and educational institutions. Provincial governors, appointed by the crown, implemented policies that aligned with royal interests. Although local governance was granted some autonomy, ultimate authority remained firmly in the hands of the monarchy, fostering a stable but sometimes contentious relationship between the crown and local leaders.

Cultural Renaissance and National Identity:

Military and Technological Innovations:

To fortify its defenses, Haiqin invested heavily in military research and technology. Drawing inspiration from successful military traditions, the nation adopted new weaponry, including improved firearms and cannons, and fortified its coastal defenses. Innovations in military engineering led to the construction of impressive fortifications along key borders, which played a critical role in resisting invasions. By the mid-1800s, Haiqin’s military was recognized as one of the most technologically advanced forces in the region.

Cultural Renaissance:

Despite the strains of warfare, the period witnessed a flourishing cultural renaissance. Haiqin embraced its dual heritage, celebrating both Greek and Native traditions through education, art, and literature. Schools were established to teach the histories and languages of both cultures, while national symbols, such as the Daggered Rose Flag, emerged as powerful emblems of unity and resilience. Festivals celebrating poetry, music, and dance became integral to national identity, promoting a sense of belonging and pride.

Non-lethal Duels:

The practice of non-lethal dueling emerged as a unique cultural tradition in Haiqin, allowing individuals to resolve disputes honorably without resorting to deadly violence. These ritualized combat scenarios were characterized by strict rules and formalized conduct, reflecting Haiqin's values of strength and honor. The duels served to reinforce social bonds and demonstrate martial prowess, contributing to a sense of community amidst the backdrop of conflict. These were also used as a form of entertainment. Usually held in the Hanging Crescent Arena within Nirin

The Role of Women:

Women in Power:

Women in Haiqin held influential roles in political, military, and cultural spheres, challenging the norms of the time. Inspired by pioneering figures like Sloane Tuoapizan, women rose to prominence in espionage, diplomacy, and military leadership. They acted as regents, advisors, and cultural patrons, shaping the nation’s policies and contributing to its defense.

Female Spies and Warriors:

Haiqin’s military culture celebrated women's contributions, recognizing them as capable warriors and strategic leaders. Notable figures like General Aria Othonos emerged, leading successful campaigns against foreign invaders and inspiring future generations. Women became integral to the espionage network, providing critical intelligence that aided in thwarting invasions and securing the nation’s borders.

Cultural Contributions:

Women significantly impacted Haiqin’s cultural life, excelling in the arts and gaining recognition for their creative works. Female poets, musicians, and painters contributed to a vibrant cultural landscape, often focusing on themes of resistance, strength, and national pride. Their contributions fostered a sense of unity and identity among Haiqinian people during times of adversity.

Society Under the Monarchy:

The Growth of the Monarchy:

Throughout the 1700s and 1800s, the Vasilios dynasty became the embodiment of national pride and resilience. Monarchs personally led military campaigns and were deeply involved in state affairs. As the nation grew wealthier, however, tensions began to rise between the monarchy and the merchant and land-owning classes, who sought greater political representation.

Formation of Provinces:

To better manage its territories, Haiqin established ten provinces, each with distinct regional identities. While these provinces were initially under direct royal control, they gradually gained autonomy over local trade and governance. However, the monarchy retained ultimate authority over national security, ensuring a centralized approach to defense against foreign threats.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

“Feast day of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe today, 490 years since she gave Juan Diego that cloak filled with roses. A little over two years ago I went to her shrine in Mexico City. 

It was a profound experience, done as research for Orwell's Roses, the section on Tina Modotti and her photograph of roses (and 'bread and roses" and the Spanish Civil War and much more): In Mexico, roses have a particular significance as the flower that cascaded forth from Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin’s coarse-woven cloak on December 12, 1531, only a decade after the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire. The legend relates that a radiant young woman had appeared to this indigenous man near what is now Mexico City, identified herself as the Virgin Mary, and commanded that a shrine be built to her. When the Spanish bishop of Mexico demanded proof, the Virgin caused the hilltop named Tepayac to bloom with out-of-season flowers—a variety of flowers in some accounts, non-native roses in the most common version—for Juan Diego to use in his quest to be believed. He returned to the bishop, the roses tumbled forth, and the inside of his cloak was revealed to bear her image, as if the roses themselves had drawn her or become her. The cloak with its image of a dark woman cloaked in a robe scattered with stars and standing atop a crescent moon still hangs in the Basílica de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe at the foot of Tepayac, still so revered that to keep the crowds flowing, moving walkways transport people past it. 

The largest Catholic pilgrimage in the world is to that shrine complex on the Virgin of Guadalupe’s feast-day, December 12, and year-round the shrine is piled high with offerings of roses.She is sometimes regarded as an Aztec goddess reappearing in Christian guise, and she spoke Juan Diego’s language to him, Nahuatl. In D.A. Brading’s history of the origins and evolution of the image and its worship, he notes that “when Mary commanded Juan Diego to gather flowers, she rooted the Christian gospel deep within the soil of Aztec culture, since for the Indians flowers were both the equivalent of spiritual songs and by extension, symbols of divine life.”  

She became Mexico’s patron saint, and in 1810, when Father Miguel Hidalgo raised the cry for liberation from Spain, he did so in her name, and “Long live the Virgin of Guadalupe” became the indigenous and mestizo rallying cry, her image—the one from the miraculous cloak—the insurgent banner. When Modotti titled her photograph Roses, Mexico City, she was following the modernist style of neutrally descriptive naming, but the conjunction of those particular flowers and that particular place had its own resonance.”

[Rebecca Solnit]

[mariacallous]

After the successful fast-track impeachment of Peru’s former president, Pedro Castillo, on Dec. 7, euphoric lawmakers posed for photographs on the floor of the country’s Congress, laughing and giving thumbs-up. Their elation was understandable. For nearly 17 months, Castillo’s chaotic administration had staggered from corruption scandal to policy failure and back again while repeatedly clashing with lawmakers, climaxing in Castillo’s abrupt TV announcement just hours earlier that—in a flagrant violation of the nation’s constitution—he was going to dissolve Congress and rule by decree.

But the triumphalism could hardly have been more inappropriate. Not because Castillo, who faces six separate corruption investigations, did not deserve impeachment; aside from the authoritarian denouement, his brief period in office has done deep and lasting damage to Peru’s institutions and economy, seeing the country’s credit rating downgraded while Castillo packed the public bureaucracy with a mix of unqualified and ethically unfit apparatchiks. Nor even because Peruvians are suffering intensely right now, all while being ignored by the feuding far-left executive and ultraconservative legislators; half are experiencing food insecurity, double the pre-pandemic level, and many more are suffering the human and economic aftereffects of the pandemic, with Peru registering the world’s highest COVID-19 mortality rate.

What was truly jarring about the lawmakers’ joy was that Castillo’s ouster in no way marks the end of Peru’s political crisis, which has been simmering since 2016. More likely is that it is merely another staging post in the country’s descent into polarization, ungovernability, and—in a worst-case scenario—a potential resurgence, albeit on a smaller scale, of the violence of the 1980s and ’90s that, according to the official Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report, claimed the lives of nearly 70,000 Peruvians, mainly the rural poor caught in the crossfire of Maoist insurgents and the security forces seeking to crush them. The unfortunate truth is that Peru’s political and social turmoil will likely get worse before it gets better. The question is by how much.

There are three reasons for this. The first is that Castillo’s ouster, however justified, has unleashed a wave of dangerous anti-system sentiment among the many poor Peruvians who were taken in by his populist promises to reverse their society’s deep inequalities and injustices, entrenched over centuries since the Spanish conquest. Many of them have good reason to believe that neither Peru’s democracy nor capitalism has provided them with any tangible benefits. The second is that Peru’s electoral architecture and party system mean that, barring extensive reform, any new elections will simply usher in more of the same unrepresentative politicking and pointless clashes between the executive and legislature that fail to address citizens’ often desperate needs. The final reason is that there is not a single actor on Peru’s political horizons, be they a party or individual politician, with the skill, commitment, or electoral appeal to fill the leadership void.

Although members of Peru’s Congress may be in denial, the impeachment has created a storm of public fury that will likely sweep them from their own jobs in the coming months. Already, violent protests have broken out across the country—in particular in the mining and farming regions that voted heavily for Castillo in 2021—which led the government to declare a state of emergency on Wednesday. President Dina Boluarte, who stepped up from the vice presidency to replace Castillo, has recognized the public mood by calling for the next general election to be brought forward from 2026 to 2024. Although Castillo may have been a deeply disliked president, with a disapproval rating that hovered in the 60s in recent months, Congress is loathed even more, with its disapproval rating bouncing around in the 80s.

More importantly, nearly 90 percent of Peruvians, according to a poll by the Peruvian Studies Institute in November, believed that if Castillo were forced out, there should be a new general election, in a country where successive reelection, including for members of Congress, is prohibited. Legislators, desperate to hang on to their jobs—and the status, perks, and, in many cases, opportunities to monetize their elected positions through graft—to the end of the current fixed five-year term in July 2026, will in the coming months find it increasingly hard to resist the pressure for early elections.

Yet in Peru’s current political system, new elections will likely again yield unrepresentative and problematic results. Under the constitution, legislative elections coincide with the first round of presidential voting—when the vote is typically dispersed among more than a dozen different candidates—rather than the runoff. Recent presidents have thus never had a legislative majority. Indeed, most have found themselves without sufficient support in Congress to protect them from persecution by power-hungry lawmakers, often seeking to protect murky interests—from illegal gold mining to Peru’s poorly performing but lucrative private universities—against anti-corruption measures. One such president was Martín Vizcarra, who had 60 percent approval when he was successfully impeached in November 2020 on the spurious grounds of his supposed bribe-taking, which prosecutors have yet to demonstrate two years on.

That is just the start of the built-in weaknesses of Peru’s presidency. In the country’s hybrid presidential-parliamentary system, the president appoints a prime minister, who then appoints a cabinet. But that cabinet must pass a congressional vote of confidence—a vote that was intended to be routine but has become a modern trial by ordeal, with several cabinets being voted down in recent years. The president even requires congressional approval for international travel. A humiliated Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, the center-right president from 2016 to 2018, effectively had to beg to be allowed to attend the United Nations General Assembly in New York and a meeting with Pope Francis in the Vatican after lawmakers objected to him leaving the country.

Then there are the deep-seated problems within the legislature. Since members of Congress are not allowed to run for immediate reelection, most are legislative neophytes. There is also no senate, which might check the worst excesses of the current 130-member single-chamber Congress. In addition, there are several lawmakers for each electoral district, including 33 for the capital, Lima, a city of 10 million people, watering down the link between legislators and their constituents. Worst of all, however, is that Peru’s party system is essentially closed, with individual party bosses effectively owning party registrations and personally selecting candidates, a recipe for backroom dealing and corruption.

Barriers for new parties to register, including a requirement of 25,000 party members, are by design extremely high. Boluarte, who was kicked out of Castillo’s self-described Marxist-Leninist Free Peru party earlier this year, has signaled that she wants political reforms before any new elections. But she has yet to set out specific measures, and it remains to be seen whether she has the political skills to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to push recalcitrant members of Congress into curbing their own power and privileges.

Finally, were new elections held today, the three likely front-runners, at least initially, are populists with the potential to wreak even more havoc on both democracy and the ailing economy. The first is Antauro Humala, the extremist brother of Ollanta Humala, the center-left president from 2011 to 2016. Antauro Humala was recently released from prison, where he had been serving a lengthy jail sentence for leading a 2005 military uprising against the elected government in which several police officers were murdered. Along with his father, he advocates for “etnocacerismo,” their homemade ideology that espouses the supposed racial superiority of Andeans. Antauro Humala is calling for the execution of corrupt officials, including—as he has repeatedly made clear—his brother, Ollanta, who is facing a money-laundering trial over undeclared campaign funding.

The second is Rafael López-Aliaga, the ultraconservative mayor of Lima who has, without evidence, refused to acknowledge Castillo’s election victory as legitimate and even called for his death. A successful businessman accused of widespread tax evasion, he is also a devout Catholic who claims to be celibate and self-flagellate. That might seem like a private matter, but López-Aliaga is seeking to impose his personal morality on contemporary Peruvian society. Opposed to abortion in all circumstances, he has suggested that minors who become pregnant through rape will get over their trauma if they are put up in “five-star hotels.” He also said a paraplegic woman, who recently won her court battle for the right to euthanasia, should throw herself off a building rather than involve the state in her “private” problems.

And, once again, there is Keiko Fujimori—the daughter of the imprisoned 1990s strongman Alberto Fujimori—who lost the 2016 presidential election, despite her party winning 73 congressional seats, and then helped hound two presidents, Kuczynski and Vizcarra, from office. The narrow runner-up in the last three presidential elections, Fujimori retains a core of supporters despite facing her own looming corruption trial and possible decadeslong prison sentence for alleged money laundering and, according to prosecutors, leading a criminal organization within her Popular Force party—unless she can achieve presidential immunity.

Fujimori and López-Aliaga finished second and third in the first round of the 2021 election. Humala, meanwhile, has been polling at 12 percent. In Peru’s splintered political landscape, with more than a dozen deeply unpopular parties competing for power, just scraping into double figures in the first round—as Fujimori and Castillo did in April 2021—could be enough to make it to the runoff, where weary Peruvians typically end up having to choose the “lesser evil.”

In the long run, Castillo’s deserved ouster may thus mark another step in Peru’s descent into lethal ungovernability. Unless Boluarte, who like Castillo had never held elected office prior to last year, proves a more adept politician than she has so far shown herself to be, the window for avoiding a further downward spiral of citizens’ wrath, government illegitimacy, and extreme populism will quickly close.

[tenebraebuzz]

Under the cut, you will find Lux et Tenebrae's base plotline as well as some of its canon changes. Our plot serves as a starting basis to an ongoing story furthered by events. As an AU site, we are able to present a variety of opportunities for the originality of the roleplay as well as inspire character creativity. Lux et Tenebrae is an au Marauders Era roleplay set in 1985, a year after the First Wizarding War has drawn to a close, witches and wizards seek balance as they traverse a new age of fallacious peace and political intrigue. But echoes of the Dark Lord continue to haunt the air, and his life not wholly dispelled, lurks in the shadows, gathering strength to rise again.

PLOTLINE

1983. Terror and insurmountable loss carry through another year, the Ministry’s shortcomings long evident in the failure to quell the threat of an ascending Dark Lord and his impending insurgence. The Wizarding World in ruin, he is close to conquest, helming as its tyrannical victor and laying waste to all who oppose him. The Order alone is not enough to keep errant forces at bay nor are they powerful enough to breach the Dark Lord’s seemingly unnatural immortality. As the year stretches on, a great yawn of fatigued time, the tally of fallen wix reaches a new sum that is too costly to count. Near the end when all is thought lost, as the skies are cast ever darker across Great Britain, hope manifests itself within an unexpected source — one of Voldemort’s own. A Death Eeater, Regulus Black, uncovers a clandestine secret that lends to the candour behind Tom Riddle’s impenetrable defence. Disillusioned for a prolonged swell of time, his covert efforts lead to unveiling a Horcrux, a wicked mass of dreadful magic bound to Salazar Slytherin’s locket. 1984. The tides begin to turn, and the Order gains their first foothold in a war the world had begun to deem lost. The Dark Lord’s lethal militia of Death Eaters begins to break off as he becomes debilitated in the wake of the locket’s destruction, fortuitously annihilated by the research of its defected thief. It is here that the Order, led by Albus Dumbledore, overcome Voldemort and his reign in a final battle that bears witness to his physical dissipation. A body that sheds tendrils of fractured shade, drifting into the night. With news of the Dark Lord’s demise boldly headlining The Daily Prophet, Millicent Bagnold, the newly minted Minister of Magic, seeks to herald in an era of peace with the conclusion of the Death Eater trials. It is found that many of Voldemort’s followers had fled his ranks post the Horcrux’s eradication, but those that the Aurors can capture and condemn are seen to the depths of Azkaban. And some, in more peculiar cases, are pardoned with alternate deals, members of their tribunals perhaps bearing lasting ties to the Dark Lord’s whims. Though Millicent garners much approval throughout the Wizarding World by the end of her first year in office, there are several who fought and bled during the war that believe she is too quick to dismiss the potential of enduring threats. 1985. For many, the passage of time does not mend the persisting wounds of their buried dead. The pain of memory is a stain that cannot be scrubbed clean, and trepidation stalks even the bravest of wizard kind who struggle to reintegrate into daily life after the ferocity of such vast conflict. Even a year post the contest, a volley of trauma clouds heavy above the lives of survivors. And they are right to dwell on the past, as the Dark Lord remains, not entirely whole but able, methodically manoeuvring taut strings as he operates in his weakened state from the shadows, calling upon his sympathisers and sycophants that have remained unbroken and unbridled to once again aid in his pursuit of blood purification and wizarding rule. His soul still split into four pieces, his form strengthens, ready to rise again.

CANON CHANGES

Millicent Bagnold succeeded Harold Minchum as Minister of Magic at the terminal stage of the First Wizarding War in early 1984. Minchum was unsuccessful in containing Voldemort’s rise to power and rumoured to have perhaps even been in league with him, leading to Bagnold’s swift ministry interference. She gained further universal approval post the successful Death Eater trials.

There are four Horcruxes remaining as not all have canonly been created by the starting time of the roleplay. With the locket destroyed, Harry’s birth having not taken place and Nagini not turned into a Horcrux until 1994, the only remaining items are Hufflepuff’s cup, Ravenclaw’s diadem, Tom Riddle’s diary and Marvolo Gaunt’s ring.

The Wizarding Wireless Network, or WWN, has a pirate radio channel still active from the First Wizarding War in which most Order members and Order leaning individuals used to keep track of Death Eater movements and other related issues ( think of Potterwatch for an example ). The station is only accessible by those with the correct password and accompanied wand movement which changes weekly.

Those with Dark Marks will find that the mark has faded in colour, but has not vanished or scarred over, lending them to believe amongst one another that he is not entirely gone from the world.

To be updated as needed.

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 1.19 (after 1930)

1937 – Howard Hughes sets a new air record by flying from Los Angeles to New York City in seven hours, 28 minutes, 25 seconds. 1941 – World War II: HMS Greyhound and other escorts of convoy AS-12 sink Italian submarine Neghelli with all hands 64 kilometres (40 mi) northeast of Falkonera. 1942 – World War II: The Japanese conquest of Burma begins. 1945 – World War II: Soviet forces liberate the Łódź Ghetto. Of more than 200,000 inhabitants in 1940, fewer than 900 had survived the Nazi occupation. 1946 – General Douglas MacArthur establishes the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo to try Japanese war criminals. 1953 – Almost 72 percent of all television sets in the United States are tuned into I Love Lucy to watch Lucy give birth. 1960 – Japan and the United States sign the US–Japan Mutual Security Treaty 1960 – Scandinavian Airlines System Flight 871 crashes near Ankara Esenboğa Airport in Turkey, killing all 42 aboard. 1969 – Student Jan Palach dies after setting himself on fire three days earlier in Prague's Wenceslas Square to protest about the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union in 1968. His funeral turns into another major protest. 1977 – President Gerald Ford pardons Iva Toguri D'Aquino (a.k.a. "Tokyo Rose"). 1978 – The last Volkswagen Beetle made in Germany leaves VW's plant in Emden. Beetle production in Latin America continues until 2003. 1981 – Iran hostage crisis: United States and Iranian officials sign an agreement to release 52 American hostages after 14 months of captivity. 1983 – Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie is arrested in Bolivia. 1983 – The Apple Lisa, the first commercial personal computer from Apple to have a graphical user interface and a computer mouse, is announced. 1986 – The first IBM PC computer virus is released into the wild. A boot sector virus dubbed (c)Brain, it was created by the Farooq Alvi Brothers in Lahore, Pakistan, reportedly to deter unauthorized copying of the software they had written. 1988 – Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286 crashes in Bayfield, Colorado, killing 19. 1990 – Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley in Indian-administered Kashmir due to an insurgency. 1991 – Gulf War: Iraq fires a second Scud missile into Israel, causing 15 injuries. 1993 – Czech Republic and Slovakia join the United Nations. 1995 – After being struck by lightning the crew of Bristow Helicopters Flight 56C are forced to ditch. All 18 aboard are later rescued. 1996 – The barge North Cape oil spill occurs as an engine fire forces the tugboat Scandia ashore on Moonstone Beach in South Kingstown, Rhode Island. 1997 – Yasser Arafat returns to Hebron after more than 30 years and joins celebrations over the handover of the last Israeli-controlled West Bank city. 1999 – British Aerospace agrees to acquire the defence subsidiary of the General Electric Company, forming BAE Systems in November 1999. 2007 – Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink is assassinated in front of his newspaper's Istanbul office by 17-year-old Turkish ultra-nationalist Ogün Samast. 2007 – Four-man Team N2i, using only skis and kites, completes a 1,093-mile (1,759 km) trek to reach the Antarctic pole of inaccessibility for the first time since 1965 and for the first time ever without mechanical assistance. 2012 – The Hong Kong-based file-sharing website Megaupload is shut down by the FBI. 2014 – A bomb attack on an army convoy in the city of Bannu kills at least 26 Pakistani soldiers and injures 38 others.

[sit-tunisia-polyglot-blog]

George Ashford

10/11/2023

Reflection

Traveling through Tunisia, I saw the marks of the many cultures that have found a home here throughout history. A Roman coliseum. Amazigh villages carved into the desert. A Sunni mosque made of Roman columns and a Shi'a fortress guarded by Ottoman cannons. The monumental art-deco and brutalist structures of the capital. An ancient synagogue rumored to contain stones from another, even more ancient temple that stood where Abraham obeyed and Isaac was spared. They tell a story that spans thousands of years, a story of colonization, assimilation, war, and the advent of a nation.

One part of the story begins on the island of Djerba. The Ghriba Synagogue, purportedly the oldest Jewish site in Africa, sits near the center. No one knows for certain how old it is, but legend has it that the high priests of the Temple Mount fled to Djerba after Nebuchadnezzar and the Bablylonians sacked Jerusalem, carrying a stone and a door from the First Temple to build anew. As he shows us around a traditional Amazigh house, dug two stories deep into the soft desert dirt, a light-eyed man in a baseball camp explains that his people were once Jewish. That is why they sheltered Jews during the holocaust, he says, pointing to a metal helmet from WWII hung on a stick bannister. With a few exceptions, the Amazigh are not Jewish anymore, as evidenced by the woman in hijab who serves us tea while we watch the sunset wash over the small circle of sky visible from the open pit at the center of the house, but the man is proud to tell us that they once were. He is staking a claim to Tunisia’s story, reminding us that it began before the Arabs arrived, and that his ancestors were here before Islam. Although he does not make it a point to tell us, they were here before Judaism too.

In Kairouan, conquests are layered onto one another in the very foundations of the city. As we look out over the massive cisterns that held the water for the ascendant Umayyad caliphate’s first outpost in the region, we learn that it gets its name from the Arabic word for a military caravan. The outpost was to protect the new settlers from the Amazigh, who staged a series of successful rebellions before being defeated and gradually converting to Islam. We do not have to explore Kairouan for long, however, to see that the The Umayyads were not the first conquerors to make their mark here. The columns of the majestic Great Mosque of Kairouan are carved in the Greco-Roman style, clearly repurposed from older buildings. Some of the stones in the outer wall have latin writing on them. 70 kilometers away, closer to the coast, the towering Roman amphitheater in El-Jem testifies more explicitly to the power of the empire that counted this part of North Africa among its first and hardest won territories.

After El-Jem, we stop in Mahdia. The insurgent Fatimid caliphate, tracing their lineage back to the Prophet’s daughter, founded the city as their first capital a few hundred years after the Umayyads founded Kairouan. They would go on to capture Egypt and the rest of North Africa from the ruling Abbasid dynasty, spelling the end of a united Arab empire in the Mediterranean. We walk along the parapet of a fortress looking out over bright blue ocean on three sides. We imagine seeing

ships coming over the horizon and scrambling to man the defenses, as so many must have over the centuries. Genoese, Norman, Spanish, French, and Ottoman raiders all came by sea to Mahdia, its well-fortified harbor making it a prime toehold for a long line of would-be conquerors.

The latest conqueror in that line is most visible in Tunis, where art-deco facades adorn the most prominent buildings in the city center. It is also audible in the French words and accent woven into Tunisia’s unique dialect of Arabic. Tunis also, however, tells of something new. Hulking government buildings and hotels made from the ubiquitous concrete of the late 20th century overlook Habib Bourguiba Avenue. They proclaim the sovereignty of a people that is not quite of the ancient desert tribes nor any of their conquerors. Our professor points out the site of famous protests where Tunisians proclaimed a more personal form of sovereignty, demanding political freedom and economic opportunity and getting at least the former.

Tunisia is an Arab country. Hearing the language and the call to prayer every day make that clear, and Kairouan tells the story of how it became so. It is not, however, a solely Arab country, just as the story of Kairouan is not Tunisia’s only story. Djerba, El-Jem, Tunis, Mahdia, and the Amazigh villages tell other stories about Tunisia, stories that include elements of the French story, the Jewish story, the Ottoman story, the Roman story, and the story of the Amazigh. With revolution for national, and then for personal independence as the most recent chapters, they weave together into one, rich, cohesive, Tunisian story. It has been a fascinating story to learn these past few months, and I look forward to someday knowing it in more detail.

Expressions

One of the most common Tunisian expressions is to say صحة when someone is eating, gets out of the shower, or buys new clothes. The response is يا أتك صحة. The expression literally translates just to ‘health,’ and expresses encouragement of healthy activities like eating.

ما يْحِس بِالجمْرة كان الّي يعْفِس عْليها is a less common Tunisian proverb that translates literally to ‘only he who walks on embers can feel it.’ It expresses the idea that one should not judge or criticize the struggles of someone else, since it is impossible to know what they are really going through.

Photos

أركان رومانية في جامع قيروان الأكبر

George Ashford

10/11/2023

Reflection

Traveling through Tunisia, I saw the marks of the many cultures that have found a home here throughout history. A Roman coliseum. Amazigh villages carved into the desert. A Sunni mosque made of Roman columns and a Shi'a fortress guarded by Ottoman cannons. The monumental art-deco and brutalist structures of the capital. An ancient synagogue rumored to contain stones from another, even more ancient temple that stood where Abraham obeyed and Isaac was spared. They tell a story that spans thousands of years, a story of colonization, assimilation, war, and the advent of a nation.

One part of the story begins on the island of Djerba. The Ghriba Synagogue, purportedly the oldest Jewish site in Africa, sits near the center. No one knows for certain how old it is, but legend has it that the high priests of the Temple Mount fled to Djerba after Nebuchadnezzar and the Bablylonians sacked Jerusalem, carrying a stone and a door from the First Temple to build anew. As he shows us around a traditional Amazigh house, dug two stories deep into the soft desert dirt, a light-eyed man in a baseball camp explains that his people were once Jewish. That is why they sheltered Jews during the holocaust, he says, pointing to a metal helmet from WWII hung on a stick bannister. With a few exceptions, the Amazigh are not Jewish anymore, as evidenced by the woman in hijab who serves us tea while we watch the sunset wash over the small circle of sky visible from the open pit at the center of the house, but the man is proud to tell us that they once were. He is staking a claim to Tunisia’s story, reminding us that it began before the Arabs arrived, and that his ancestors were here before Islam. Although he does not make it a point to tell us, they were here before Judaism too.

In Kairouan, conquests are layered onto one another in the very foundations of the city. As we look out over the massive cisterns that held the water for the ascendant Umayyad caliphate’s first outpost in the region, we learn that it gets its name from the Arabic word for a military caravan. The outpost was to protect the new settlers from the Amazigh, who staged a series of successful rebellions before being defeated and gradually converting to Islam. We do not have to explore Kairouan for long, however, to see that the The Umayyads were not the first conquerors to make their mark here. The columns of the majestic Great Mosque of Kairouan are carved in the Greco-Roman style, clearly repurposed from older buildings. Some of the stones in the outer wall have latin writing on them. 70 kilometers away, closer to the coast, the towering Roman amphitheater in El-Jem testifies more explicitly to the power of the empire that counted this part of North Africa among its first and hardest won territories.

After El-Jem, we stop in Mahdia. The insurgent Fatimid caliphate, tracing their lineage back to the Prophet’s daughter, founded the city as their first capital a few hundred years after the Umayyads founded Kairouan. They would go on to capture Egypt and the rest of North Africa from the ruling Abbasid dynasty, spelling the end of a united Arab empire in the Mediterranean. We walk along the parapet of a fortress looking out over bright blue ocean on three sides. We imagine seeing

ships coming over the horizon and scrambling to man the defenses, as so many must have over the centuries. Genoese, Norman, Spanish, French, and Ottoman raiders all came by sea to Mahdia, its well-fortified harbor making it a prime toehold for a long line of would-be conquerors.

The latest conqueror in that line is most visible in Tunis, where art-deco facades adorn the most prominent buildings in the city center. It is also audible in the French words and accent woven into Tunisia’s unique dialect of Arabic. Tunis also, however, tells of something new. Hulking government buildings and hotels made from the ubiquitous concrete of the late 20th century overlook Habib Bourguiba Avenue. They proclaim the sovereignty of a people that is not quite of the ancient desert tribes nor any of their conquerors. Our professor points out the site of famous protests where Tunisians proclaimed a more personal form of sovereignty, demanding political freedom and economic opportunity and getting at least the former.

Tunisia is an Arab country. Hearing the language and the call to prayer every day make that clear, and Kairouan tells the story of how it became so. It is not, however, a solely Arab country, just as the story of Kairouan is not Tunisia’s only story. Djerba, El-Jem, Tunis, Mahdia, and the Amazigh villages tell other stories about Tunisia, stories that include elements of the French story, the Jewish story, the Ottoman story, the Roman story, and the story of the Amazigh. With revolution for national, and then for personal independence as the most recent chapters, they weave together into one, rich, cohesive, Tunisian story. It has been a fascinating story to learn these past few months, and I look forward to someday knowing it in more detail.

Expressions

One of the most common Tunisian expressions is to say صحة when someone is eating, gets out of the shower, or buys new clothes. The response is يا أتك صحة. The expression literally translates just to ‘health,’ and expresses encouragement of healthy activities like eating.

ما يْحِس بِالجمْرة كان الّي يعْفِس عْليها is a less common Tunisian proverb that translates literally to ‘only he who walks on embers can feel it.’ It expresses the idea that one should not judge or criticize the struggles of someone else, since it is impossible to know what they are really going through.

Photos

أركان رومانية في جامع قيروان الأكبر

كنيس الغريبة في جربة

كنيس الغريبة في جربة

[krouserthehero]

And here is my personal favorite character out of Klaus's band of misfits! One-eyed gunslinging mercenary, Cole Fawkes!

(Click read more for Lore!)

Delta-94, “The Timberwolves” , A special forces unit of the ERA military forces that were formed specifically for the purpose of fighting the Confederacy of Earth's Liberation, "CEL" as they are more commonly known, and stopping their conquest in their tracks. These brave soldiers took to the frontlines against these insurgents for years, keeping them behind their borders in Fordahl by any means necessary. The Timberwolves weren’t bound by the rules of engagement that ERA forces followed strictly. As such, they would use unconventional methods of warfare to fight off their enemies, forcing many marines and commanding officers to raise eyebrows at them. This unit, while unpredictable, was highly effective against ERA’s enemies. But no member of the unit was more unpredictable than their second-in-command… Sergeant Major Colson Fawkes.

An orphaned slum dweller of the colonies turned soldier of fortune, Cole was the very thing the Timberwolves were missing early on in their career, a man who wasn't afraid to take risks to get the job done. His survival instincts and quick thinking would soon earn him the respect of his comrades, scoring them one victory after the next against ERA's enemies, especially CEL. They gave him the codename "Cyclops" due to his missing left eye, which he lost when he was only thirteen, and despite offering to install a bionic eye into his empty socket, he politely refused, feeling cybernetics would only bring further complications to their operations. As his tour of duty progressed, Cole would soon find himself falling in love with his own CO, Captain Ashlynn “Red-Eye” Hart. The two shared many of their days off duty together, having a drink at the local bar and listening to old world rock'n'roll. Balancing out their duties in ERA with the time they spent together off duty wasn't easy, but they always seemed to make it work, which finally led up to Cole getting down on one knee and popping her the question.

The day of their marriage, however, would be the day the Timberwolves' career would finally come to end. The unit, and all present at the wedding, found themselves attacked by an unknown group of assassins sent to kill Captain Hart and Sergeant Fawkes, as well as any witnesses to their mission. It was on that day that Delta-94 made its final stand against these mysterious enemies, determined to bring as many of them down to hell with them as possible! Though it seemed they would be able to make it out alive, Captain Hart was, unfortunately, assassinated by the attackers successfully, leaving a heartbroken Cole to fly into a mad rage and kill every last one of the assassins that remained, not even giving them a chance to escape or regroup. The attack left Cole, Lupin “Wolfman” O’Donnell, and Sandra “Nightingale” Cohen as the only survivors, resulting in the unit being disbanded and the survivors going their separate ways.

Cutting ties with his former military comrades, Cole soon took on a career as a mercenary, completing jobs with everything his tour of duty taught him along with his own flare of cruel and unusual tactics to outsmart his enemies. Despite his brutal methods, Cole's work earned him a reputation as a highly respected gun for hire, known by many as "The One-Eyed Wolf" . He would've likely spent his whole life working alone in the mercenary business, if not for Goddess Zephym. Becoming the only god he trusts on Terrene, Cole would later help Zephym in her quest to find a new disciple, which in turn would lead her to train a young Colonist from Emerald city named Klaus Bardawulf. Unfortunately, their initial encounter led to Cole nearly killing him before Zephym had the chance to induct him into her Tutorage. Had she not stepped in and chased him off, he would have likely have caused great harm to the boy...

In spite of his recklessness, Klaus and Cole would grow to become good friends and partners in the adventuring business, with Cole acting almost as a second father figure to the boy as they progressed further into their journey. And though his careless behavior and snarky remarks do tend to cause trouble for the group, Cole's instincts have saved the party from certain death on many occasions, implementing tactics that quickly turn the battle in favor of Klaus and his friends. Since his battle with Klaus, He has been an invaluable asset to the party, acquiring a multitude of curiosities to aid in their journey as well as safeguarding Zephym's disciple from harm while he makes his mark on Terrene, perhaps heralding the Soldier of Fortune's luck finally turning around after his misfortunate tour of duty.

[blaserables]

Maven’s Background

Maven is an expert on guerilla warfare and topography, stemming from her time in the South American military. She has a fiery temper and the skills to match. She first came to Chief Aramaki’s attention during an operation in which she single-handedly held off an insurgent attack after her entire squad was killed. Since then, she has been working for Section 9, where she has proven both resourceful and deadly. However, her troubled past is never far away. She has vowed to destroy the rebel group that ravaged her country and killed her family.

Special Skill – Therm-Optic Barrier

Quick Facts: - Activates a therm-optic wall capable of obscuring sight. - Tier 2 of this skill will increase the size of the barrier. - Barriers can be destroyed by enemies.

As with all Operatives, Maven comes with a brand new skill, Therm-Optic Barrier, to bring even more strategy into tactical team play.  Although not a shareable skill, team members can still benefit from the barrier as it renders them invisible while capping. This is especially useful in Terminal Conquest Mode near capture points!

…And that’s not all arriving during our upcoming updates. Keep checking our social pages for more sneak peeks at what is to come in our next update. Also, keep checking our Tumblr page for a first look at content update announcements!

Until next time, continue the assault against Cyber Terrorism!

~Tachikuddles

1st Installment: Introducing Maven by CM Tachikuddles

Welcome Operatives… to the 1st Installment of many sneak peek and developer blogs for First Assault. I am Tachikuddles, your resident Think Tank and Community Manager, here to report the latest news on content releases and updates! 

Becoming a member of Section 9 is only reserved for the most elite combatants of Cyber Terrorism. I am excited to report the arrival of our newest Operative to join Section 9, Maven and her skill Therm-Optic Barrier!

Keep reading

[andejoe]

It was a bad idea. Everyone knew it was a bad idea. I know because they kept telling me. Last game night nearly killed me, and yet, I had to go back.

I brought drinks from my homeworld this time, because Joey explained drunk Phase Ten. I wanted to experience this myself.

The humans and I entered the game room and locked the door behind us. We all sat around the table. Several boxes sat in the middle.

"Alright Xxl, first board game, which one do you want to try?" Rosa asked.

I looked over the names and tried to find one that I thought I might have a chance at winning. I pulled out the dark green box on the bottom and held it up.

"Xxl, are you sure you want to do that one?" Derek asked.

"Yeah, I'm not sure you know what you're asking," Lonnie warned.

"I have selected, unless you are afraid?" I directed my question at Lonnie, but was sure to glance at everyone else.

Rose smiled. "Not bad Xxl, not bad. Alright, Galactic Conquest it is."

We laid out the board and selected our species. We received our quest cards and rolled to begin.

Everyone enjoyed the drinks I brought, and we all got louder each round, until I was sure we were screaming just to communicate.

I was watching Lonnie carefully. She was close to having the resources to conquer Vrall, which in itself was worthless, but it contained the fastest travel to Miumiu, the best planet in the game. Of course, going after Miumiu is suicide, because once one player attempts it, war breaks out over who keeps it. That's why I was carefully gathering ships and supplies, keeping them hidden in asteroid fields and mining colonies.

Three turns later, Lonnie made her move to Miumiu. Rosa immediately challenged, with Joey and Derek right behind her. With the humans all fighting over Miumiu, I invaded.

In one turn, I conquered all home planets. With no where left to go, and no back up resources to call on, the humans were defeated.

"We call for an alliance," Lonnie stated.

I frowned. An alliance was the only way they might stand a chance against me. Might.

"No way, I'm not aligning with you. You cheat," Derek scoffed.

Lonnie pointed at the board. "If you don't, we die."

"You die. I pledge my loyalty to Xxl," Derek stated.

"What?" Lonnie's voice was shrill, betrayed.

"It appears I win," I said, overjoyed.

Lonnie tilted her head back and finished off her drink. "Alright, fine. But next we're playing Revolt."

"Really Lonnie? Social deduction on Xxl's second game night? You really that sore of a loser?" Joey asked.

"I don't hear Xxl complaining," Lonnie scoffed.

I did not know much about social deduction games, but the name was self explanatory. "I accept. Where is Revolt?"

Derek brought it out and gave me a brief overview of the rules. Basically, don't get caught, killed, or exposed and you win. Sounded just as violent as every other human game. We began.

Revolt was a much more, involved game. It quickly got violent when Rosa accused Joey of being the insurgent and Derek accused Rosa of being the queen. I accused Derek of being a spy, because why else would he jump to defend Joey?

Derek swung at me, Rosa defended me, and Joey went after Lonnie.

I woke up in the infirmary again. My head was still buzzing from the drinking.

"Xxl, I hope you learned your lesson this time," Ylli said firmly.

"I learned that Lonnie is a bad ruler and Derek is a bad spy. Also that Joey is stronger than he looks," I replied.

"What?" Ylli asked.

"You had to be there to understand," I said, not caring to explain further.

"Xxl, you feeling alright?" Rosa asked.

I turned to see the rest of my friends also waking up in various cots.

"I feel like Joey broke a chair over my head."

"Well, you're the one who brought the alcohol," Rosa chuckled.

"It was quite entertaining."

"You plan on joining us next game night too?" Rosa asked.

"Yeah, you should. We're gonna play exploding kittens," Joey added.

"Dude, I love exploding kittens," Lonnie smiled.

"I look forward to it."

[ask-the-hws-immigrants]

Romano! Forgive me, but I am very curious, what was the Risorgimento like?

At least in America I don't have a shitload of politicians and bigger empires reminding me of my inadequacies. Just a babe in the woods who's outcompeting my grain sales while I mop his floor.

**Historical Note: In 1816 after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Southern Italy (Naples and Sicily) became the fully independent Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. It was one of the largest and more powerful Italian states, however, it suffered from unrest throughout the 19th century due to opposition of the conservative Bourbon monarchy and administrative differences between Naples and Sicily. However, despite opposing the monarchy, many Southern Italians were in favor of rewriting the constitution rather than Italian Unification. Even those in favor of Unification were often in favor of strong regional governments within a united Italy rather than a centralized Italian government. 

In 1860, revolutionary Giuseppe Garibaldi planned an invasion on behalf of the Piedmontese government. His plan was secretly supported by the British Empire, who had an interest in stunting Sicily's power in the Mediterranean and cheaply acquiring Sicilian sulfur. In March, Garibaldi led an expedition of roughly 1,000 men escorted by British gunboats to invade Sicily. He persisted into Naples and on October 21st, The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was officially annexed via referendum. When Garibaldi entered Naples, he was largely welcomed by its citizens. King Francis II remained besieged in the fortress of Gaeta until he abdicated in February 1861, at which point the conquest could truly be regarded as complete. It left Venetia and Rome as the only provinces left to be added, as Venetia remained under Austria rule until 1866 and Pope Pius IX rejected the idea of papal territory being absorbed into the rest of Italy. 

Although Garibaldi had been welcomed by the majority of the population in Naples, the new government still faced resistance from insurgent groups still loyal to the Bourbons or to the Pope, and later peasants affected by Northern economic policy. Additionally, instead of appointing regional leaders, Southern Italy came to be ruled over by officials from the Piedmont who regarded the South as “barbaric” and needing Northern guidance to become “civilized.” Some even regarded Southerners as not being “truly Italian”, and often propped up these ideas with racist pseudoscience. The government focused its industrialization efforts on the North and saddled the South with unequal tax rates and tariffs.. The South’s agricultural economy struggled to compete, especially with cheaper grain alternatives from countries such as the United States. 

The economic situation in Southern Italy after the Risorgimento and general unrest throughout Italy were the largest reasons for the wave of Italian immigrants that arrived in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th century. 

[gemsofgreece]

History of the Greek Cuisine

Part 3: Ottoman occupied Greece and early years of Independence

The previous part was about the Greek Cuisine during the Byzantine period. With the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Byzantine Empire officially ceased to exist and gave its place to the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman rule over Greece lasted roughly 400 years, give or take, depending on the region. This post is about how Greek cuisine evolved through that period and how it exchanged elements with the Turkish cuisine.

Constantinople was one of the last regions to fall. Even before the conquest, Greeks and Ottoman Turks had developed relations as people. Fish was introduced in Turks' diet through the Greeks, who were frying and selling fish in the streets of Constantinople. Greeks also ate a lot of seafood - shellfish and mollusks - but Turks weren't very eager to try these. Turks loved roasted meat and particularly chicken instead. While Greeks loved roasted meat and ate poultry too, the current popularity of chicken in the country is probably a result of the interaction of the two nations. Turks loved the Byzantine dressing γάρος (gharos) which was described in the second part.

The shops were full of sweets, dairy and even sherbets with ice. This ice was simply snow collected from the mountains which was preserved for short periods of time. Other shops sold prepared stews, head soups and especially tripe soups. Tripe soup restaurants are still a thing in Greece. They stay open until the early hours of morning and offer tripe soup as comfort food after alcohol consumption.

Tripe soup restaurant. Also note the presence of olive oil and vinegar, the ingredients of gharos, and the bread in the basket which are the traditional ways to set the Greek table since the Byzantine times, as explained in the previous part.

At the early years, the Turks drank a type of beer called Boza, while wine and raki (or rakija) was preferred by the Christian populations of the empire.

The Byzantine fashion of the diverse shops in the urban centres, offering various types of street food, was maintained in the Ottoman empire. In rural areas, families were preparing their own food and the resources were limited. In texts of the time it is mentioned that Ottomans consumed a lot of rice and coffee, while Greeks consumed a lot of squids and fish roe. A peasant's meal included bread, an onion, olives, cheese or salt-cured meat, beans, greens and wine. Greeks also ate a lot of bulgur, wild greens and snails. In general, the extreme poverty forced Greeks to abandon the lavish ways of the Byzantine times. They didn't have much access to meat except during the big Christian celebrations (i.e Easter).

Hochlií buburistí is a very popular Cretan Greek snail dish.

On the other hand, Turks avoided pork for religious reasons and they also avoided hares and frogs, all of which were delicacies to the Greeks.

Ioannina is the only region of Greece where eating frogs remains popular.

During the Ottoman occupation, Greeks adopted the Ottoman style of eating on low tables with pillows, but this was dropped quickly after the revolution when they returned to the Byzantine style of a tall round table with tablecloth and wooden chairs. The plates were ceramic.

As for the klephts, let's first explain what the klephts were. The klephts, which technically means brigands, were self-appointed armatolí, meaning anti-Ottoman insurgents. In short, they were folk who had retreated in the mountains already in the 15th Century to avoid and oppose to Ottoman rule. They lived on the run and they were eating hunt, mostly hares and partridge. They roasted the meat quickly and very close to the fire, so as to not create a lot of smoke and get seen. As a result, they often ate the meat half-raw, rare as you'd say, a practice that has survived only in Crete island with the αντικριστά (antikristá).

Antikrista means opposite, face to face.

After the Greek revolution and the independence, new products were imported to the country, most importantly tomato, potato, cocoa and sugar. Greeks developed relations with Western Europe, and the Greek cuisine was influenced by the Italian, French and Bavarian cuisine, as the first King of Greece was the Bavarian prince Otto. (Interestingly, the tomato was imported to Greece from the Bavarians.)

Source:

https://www.tanea.gr/2021/03/27/people/alitheia-ti-etrogan-oi-ellines-epi-tourkokratias/

Aftermath:

My sources end here but I wanted to add a conclusive part, summarizing everything and connecting it to the Modern Greek cuisine.

The Modern Greek cuisine is a fairly faithful continuation of the Ancient and Byzantine Greek cuisine, with the addition of a few now integral elements thanks to the interaction with other cultures.

The most ancient attributes of the Greek cuisine is the love for meat, pies, fish, seafood and all dairy products with a simultaneous extensive use of vegetables, beans, herbs, nuts, honey, fruits, wine and olive oil. Some popular types of meat cooking, cheese kinds and desserts date back to ancient times.

The prosperous Byzantine era allowed even the peasants to enjoy big meals of great variety. The empire encompassed people of the Middle East and had relations with many Asian nations, adding the use of many spices in the Greek cuisine. Some characteristic dishes of the time remain trademark dishes of the Modern Greek cuisine.

The Ottoman period led to way more modest meals but Greeks started consuming significantly more coffee and rice and chicken became more popular than it was before. It must be noted that the Byzantine cuisine greatly influenced the Ottoman empire, especially in the more prosperous areas, particularly Constantinople and the coast of Asia Minor, where the Greeks remained a large part of the population.

After Greece's independence, the country was immediately introduced to ingredients that were already popular in Europe, and would quickly become vital to Greeks too. Potatoes, tomatoes, chocolate, sugar. It is crazy to even imagine Greek cuisine without tomatoes, yet Greeks didn't know they existed before 1830! Greece also quickly developed a huge love for chocolate, starting its own chocolate industry less than 10 years after its introduction to it. Nowadays, pastry shops have one side for chocolate and cream pastries and one for traditional honey and nut desserts. As for the lemons, they were known in Roman and Byzantine times but they only started competing with vinegar in the Modern Greek cuisine. While Ancient Greeks made their own pasta and influenced Romans, we can bet that the Venetian occupation of Greek regions after the 13th century as well as the contemporary close relations of Greece with Italy, reinforced and italianized the ways of pasta consumption.

In the '20s, the population exchange between Greece and Turkey led to the influx of 1.5 million Greek immigrants from Asia Minor and Constantinople to Greece, who brought their ways with them and were decisive for the final profile of the Modern Greek cuisine. As explained, it is easy to make the mistake that they brought straight out Turkish cuisine to Greece, however these were the regions which preserved the Byzantine cuisine most intact, whose most extravagant elements were partly lost to the lands of Modern Greece due to the severe poverty. So, in fact, with the influx of the Greek immigrants from Anatolia, the traditional Byzantine element was reinforced in the Greek cuisine, of course now with the addition of Turkish elements.

This is why the Greek cuisine is a fascinating blend of consistent and diverse and there is something for everyone to enjoy ;)

End of Part 3

Part 1

Part 2

[jeannereames]

In a fictional setting, how do you think Alexander would react to defeat? Let's say some guy, who wasn't a warrior, stood up to Alexander and said "You will not defeat us. We will not become slaves!" He's convinced everyone Alexander runs a slave state, and this is a fight against tyranny (not exactly true but it sells). Unlike Darius, he never retreats. In short if Alexander was defeated in battle, would this enrage him, or would he seek to recruit this person? What if the person said no?

Alexander and Resistance/Insurgency

This question is modern in some fundamental ways. That’s not a slam, but is an important point. It poses a situation that speaks to modern ideals rather than ancient conceptualizations.

Thing is, this happened quite a lot. It defines much of the conflict Alexander experienced in India as he moved down the Indus River. Also earlier, in Baktria-Sogdiana.

Alexander inevitably beat the crap out of the rebelling group, butchering anybody he perceived as a rebel. Why he won (however Pyrrhic the victory) is that he refused to give up, perceiving resistance to him as defiance that must be eliminated. It’s not a pretty picture.

So, let’s break down the question.

“Slave state” is largely a modern concept, and nothing like an abolitionist movement existed then.

Slavery was ubiquitous: so fundamental, ingrained, and assumed that slaves might own slaves, who might own slaves. By the Roman imperial period, slaves could be wealthy, especially skilled slaves. Generally, slavery was regarded as a result of ill fortune, disfavor of the gods, or even inherent inferiority (the beginnings of scientific racism, rooted in geographic determinism).

Did people want to become slaves? Of course not. Did entire populations resist conquest, choosing to die rather than become slaves? Absolutely. Was a fight against “tyranny” not used as a battle cry? It absolutely was.

But in ATG’s day, nobody would frame it as fighting a slave state. Even later slave revolts such as the Third Servile War [e.g., Spartacus’s Revolt] shouldn’t be understood as a philosophic fight against the institution of slavery so much as one slave who’d had enough. No “movement” arose from it. (Forget the 1960s Spartacus.)

The goal was to avoid becoming a slave yourself. It’s important to understand how resistance to conquest was framed. Claiming ATG ran a “slave state” would carry no weight. Everybody was a slave state, even if (by modern definitions*) that’s not technically true.

We know how ATG reacted to defeat: he viewed it as temporary—and made it so. We see this in sieges like Halikarnassos, Tyre. He just keeps pounding you. Not unlike Rome. Beat them and they come back, and beat you the next time. He learned from his defeats. As a battle commander, he was nothing if not agile. The worst defeat the army suffered was the massacre at Marakanda in Baktria (led by Spitamanes). In fact, he was mostly losing in Baktria, until he figured out why the resistance was occurring, then married his way to peace.

Ultimately he succeeded because he figured out how to win, then did whatever it took.

In India, things got even uglier. Lots of resistance as he made his way south down the Indus, especially from the Brahmins. He just mowed them down. But! If people surrendered, he granted clemency and didn’t kill them. That bad cop/good cop routine worked (mostly). But success was temporary. After his death (and perhaps even before), areas of India went back into revolt, with the (curious) exception of Poros, who he defeated at the Battle of the Hydaspes but subsequently befriended due to his bravery on the battlefield. BUT also because he surrendered.

This brings me to the concept of conquest and clemency. Equality was not a thing, even in a democratic state like Athens. It was still all about proving your exceptionalism. Ethnocentrism was universal and “Live and let live” not a concept most ancient cultures would have understood.

Yes, people regularly fought to maintain their freedom and independence, but loss was routinely interpreted as having the gods against you, and/or “natural” weakness. Victory meant “I’m better than you,” either due to divine favor or natural superiority. A sort of schoolyard mentality. Worth was proven by success. Alexander very much subscribed to this. He believed himself the son of Zeus-Ammon in part because he kept winning. Ergo, the gods were on his side.

Therefore, to quote Apollo 13, “Failure is not an option.”

Yet tucked inside all that—the inherent tension—was admiration for courageous resistance. This was also important to Alexander. He wanted to win a fair fight and have that acknowledged, as it meant (again) divine approval. If he felt somebody was cheating, or cowardly, he just got angry. This also defines his reaction to those who surrendered, only to resist later. To him, they’d broken a sacred contract.

And that brings me to Poros, why ATG went from War to Besties with the man. To Alexander, the conflict wasn’t personal, but about conquest, which meant, “We’re here to prove who’s better by right of combat.” When Porus fought bravely, lost, then surrendered: that was the script ATG wanted! Why? It let him be magnanimous in his victory. He returned Poros’s kingdom to him and added another kingdom as well!

But note something here: who’s the giver? Alexander. That’s what clemency was: a grant of grace to somebody below you in the pecking order. This isn’t an alliance, no meeting of equals. Alexander GRANTS favors.

That means he cannot accept defeat. As long as he was on top, he wasn’t a terrible overlord, comparatively—assuming he cared enough to pay attention (his main failing as a ruler). But you may not resist (win). Victory = divine approval. Defeat = loss of divine approval.

Unacceptable!

At least some Indian nations figured this out pretty quickly and used it to their advantage. They discerned he was just sweeping through the region and had no plans to stay, so “surrendered” or claimed some connection to Herakles or Dionysos, flattered him, and he passed them by, maybe even gave them gifts. If the swathe he cut through the Indus Valley was often bloody, it wasn’t entirely bloody. Much depended on how the locals played him. Further, if prior Persian attempts to hold the Indus gave any example, they could “surrender,” pat ATG on the head, send him on his way…and he’d probably never be back to bother them again.

But in short, we have a lot of examples of the situation you outline here, and absolute defiance was always met by ruthless extermination. The further ATG went, the more resources he had to draw upon, so (as with fighting the Assyrian army) it was virtually impossible for smaller groups to stand up to his army. The Hydaspes was ATG’s victory in large part because of a discrepancy in troop numbers. He still fought a brilliant battle (maybe his most clever), but faced a much smaller army than at Gaugamela.

YET had he continued into India to face larger nations, he’d not have been so successful, imnsho. And even the fading glory of the divided Zhou Dynasty in China might have rolled him up and spat him out, with his much-reduced Macedonian core. He didn’t head back west for shits and giggles and a mutiny. He had good scouting, and Poros now on his side…whose fortune it benefitted to convince ATG to go back west. So, he cut his losses and marched south.

But this gives you some context for the question. Alexander both did not accept loss, and also had enough savvy to get himself out of—or avoid facing altogether—situations that he couldn’t win.

__________________________________

* In modern parlance, a “slave state” is one in which slavery is required for economic survival. Otherwise, it’s a state (or nation) that practices slavery. In the ancient world, due to the relatively small number of slaves per household in most places, plus a category of “serfs” (such as mushkênu in Mesopotamia), defining slave states is tough. There are some. Ancient Sparta was a slave state: without the helot system, it collapsed. Rome was a slave state. But most of ancient Greece was not, and certainly not ancient Macedonia. We might consider slavery key to certain professions: mining, prostitution, but it’s hard to argue the entire society would collapse without those slaves.

That said, east to west, south to north, slavery was everywhere. Nobody questioned it, they just wanted to own the slave, not BE the slave.