#or attacked the byzantines themselves

[lactodebillus-bulgaricus]

avar khaganate: *has awesome long hair braided into braids with ribbons, it's shiny and strong and decorated with silver and bronze and gold applications, everyone in the steppes admires it, others grow their hair and braid it like his hair, even some byzantines try imitating avars*

a salty byzantine empire *writing down historical records* and so avar's hair is UGLY and MATTED and DRY and DIRTY and UNKEMPT and tied in a UNSIGHTLY KNOT

[mostlysignssomeportents]

What the fuck is a PBM?

TOMORROW (Sept 24), I'll be speaking IN PERSON at the BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY!

Terminal-stage capitalism owes its long senescence to its many defensive mechanisms, and it's only by defeating these that we can put it out of its misery. "The Shield of Boringness" is one of the necrocapitalist's most effective defenses, so it behooves us to attack it head-on.

The Shield of Boringness is Dana Claire's extremely useful term for anything so dull that you simply can't hold any conception of it in your mind for any length of time. In the finance sector, they call this "MEGO," which stands for "My Eyes Glaze Over," a term of art for financial arrangements made so performatively complex that only the most exquisitely melted brain-geniuses can hope to unravel their spaghetti logic. The rest of us are meant to simply heft those thick, dense prospectuses in two hands, shrug, and assume, "a pile of shit this big must have a pony under it."

MEGO and its Shield of Boringness are key to all of terminal-stage capitalism's stupidest scams. Cloaking obvious swindles in a lot of complex language and Byzantine payment schemes can make them seem respectable just long enough for the scammers to relieve you of all your inconvenient cash and assets, though, eventually, you're bound to notice that something is missing.

If you spent the years leading up to the Great Financial Crisis baffled by "CDOs," "synthetic CDOs," "ARMs" and other swindler nonsense, you experienced the Shield of Boringness. If you bet your house and/or your retirement savings on these things, you experienced MEGO. If, after the bubble popped, you finally came to understand that these "exotic financial instruments" were just scams, you experienced Stein's Law ("anything that can't go forever eventually stops"). If today you no longer remember what a CDO is, you are once again experiencing the Shield of Boringness.

As bad as 2008 was, it wasn't even close to the end of terminal stage capitalism. The market has soldiered on, with complex swindles like carbon offset trading, metaverse, cryptocurrency, financialized solar installation, and (of course) AI. In addition to these new swindles, we're still playing the hits, finding new ways to make the worst scams of the 2000s even worse.

That brings me to the American health industry, and the absurdly complex, ridiculously corrupt Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), a pathology that has only metastasized since 2008.

On at least 20 separate occasions, I have taken it upon myself to figure out how the PBM swindle works, and nevertheless, every time they come up, I have to go back and figure it out again, because PBMs have the most powerful Shield of Boringness out of the whole Monster Manual of terminal-stage capitalism's trash mobs.

PBMs are back in the news because the FTC is now suing the largest of these for their role in ripping off diabetics with sky-high insulin prices. This has kicked off a fresh round of "what the fuck is a PBM, anyway?" explainers of extremely variable quality. Unsurprisingly, the best of these comes from Matt Stoller:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-lina-khan-pharma

Stoller starts by pointing out that Americans have a proud tradition of getting phucked by pharma companies. As far back as the 1950s, Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver was holding hearings on the scams that pharma companies were using to ensure that Americans paid more for their pills than virtually anyone else in the world.

But since the 2010s, Americans have found themselves paying eye-popping, sky-high, ridiculous drug prices. Eli Lilly's Humolog insulin sold for $21 in 1999; by 2017, the price was $274 – a 1,200% increase! This isn't your grampa's price gouging!

Where do these absurd prices come from? The story starts in the 2000s, when the GW Bush administration encouraged health insurers to create "high deductible" plans, where patients were expected to pay out of pocket for receiving care, until they hit a multi-thousand-dollar threshold, and then their insurance would kick in. Along with "co-pays" and other junk fees, these deductibles were called "cost sharing," and they were sold as a way to prevent the "abuse" of the health care system.

The economists who crafted terminal-stage capitalism's intellectual rationalizations claimed the reason Americans paid so much more for health care than their socialized-medicine using cousins in the rest of the world had nothing to do with the fact that America treats health as a source of profits, while the rest of the world treats health as a human right.

No, the actual root of America's health industry's problems was the moral defects of Americans. Because insured Americans could just go see the doctor whenever they felt like it, they had no incentive to minimize their use of the system. Any time one of these unhinged hypochondriacs got a little sniffle, they could treat themselves to a doctor's visit, enjoying those waiting-room magazines and the pleasure of arranging a sick day with HR, without bearing any of the true costs:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/27/the-doctrine-of-moral-hazard/

"Cost sharing" was supposed to create "skin in the game" for every insured American, creating a little pain-point that stung you every time you thought about treating yourself to a luxurious doctor's visit. Now, these payments bit hardest on the poorest workers, because if you're making minimum wage, at $10 co-pay hurts a lot more than it does if you're making six figures. What's more, VPs and the C-suite were offered "gold-plated" plans with low/no deductibles or co-pays, because executives understand the value of a dollar in the way that mere working slobs can't ever hope to comprehend. They can be trusted to only use the doctor when it's truly warranted.

So now you have these high-deductible plans creeping into every workplace. Then along comes Obama and the Affordable Care Act, a compromise that maintains health care as a for-profit enterprise (still not a human right!) but seeks to create universal coverage by requiring every American to buy a plan, requiring insurers to offer plans to every American, and uses public money to subsidize the for-profit health industry to glue it together.

Predictably, the cheapest insurance offered on the Obamacare exchanges – and ultimately, by employers – had sky-high deductibles and co-pays. That way, insurers could pocket a fat public subsidy, offer an "insurance" plan that was cheap enough for even the most marginally employed people to afford, but still offer no coverage until their customers had spent thousands of dollars out-of-pocket in a given year.

That's the background: GWB created high-deductible plans, Obama supercharged them. Keep that in your mind as we go through the MEGO procedures of the PBM sector.

Your insurer has a list of drugs they'll cover, called the "formulary." The formulary also specifies how much the insurance company is willing to pay your pharmacist for these drugs. Creating the formulary and paying pharmacies for dispensing drugs is a lot of tedious work, and insurance outsources this to third parties, called – wait for it – Pharmacy Benefits Managers.

The prices in the formulary the PBM prepares for your insurance company are called the "list prices." These are meant to represent the "sticker price" of the drug, what a pharmacist would charge you if you wandered in off the street with no insurance, but somehow in possession of a valid prescription.

But, as Stoller writes, these "list prices" aren't actually ever charged to anyone. The list price is like the "full price" on the pricetags at a discount furniture place where everything is always "on sale" at 50% off – and whose semi-disposable sofas and balsa-wood dining room chairs are never actually sold at full price.

One theoretical advantage of a PBM is that it can get lower prices because it bargains for all the people in a given insurer's plan. If you're the pharma giant Sanofi and you want your Lantus insulin to be available to any of the people who must use OptumRX's formulary, you have to convince OptumRX to include you in that formulary.

OptumRX – like all PBMs – demands "rebates" from pharma companies if they want to be included in the formulary. On its face, this is similar to the practices of, say, NICE – the UK agency that bargains for medicine on behalf of the NHS, which also bargains with pharma companies for access to everyone in the UK and gets very good deals as a result.

But OptumRX doesn't bargain for a lower list price. They bargain for a bigger rebate. That means that the "price" is still very high, but OptumRX ends up paying a tiny fraction of it, thanks to that rebate. In the OptumRX formulary, Lantus insulin lists for $403. But Sanofi, who make Lantus, rebate $339 of that to OptumRX, leaving just $64 for Lantus.

Here's where the scam hits. Your insurer charges you a deductible based on the list price – $404 – not on the $64 that OptumRX actually pays for your insulin. If you're in a high-deductible plan and you haven't met your cap yet, you're going to pay $404 for your insulin, even though the actual price for it is $64.

Now, you'd think that your insurer would put a stop to this. They chose the PBM, the PBM is ripping off their customers, so it's their job to smack the PBM around and make it cut this shit out. So why would the insurers tolerate this nonsense?

Here's why: the PBMs are divisions of the big health insurance companies. Unitedhealth owns OptumRx; Aetna owns Caremark, and Cigna owns Expressscripts. So it's not the PBM that's ripping you off, it's your own insurance company. They're not just making you pay for drugs that you're supposedly covered for – they're pocketing the deductible you pay for those drugs.

Now, there's one more entity with power over the PBM that you'd hope would step in on your behalf: your boss. After all, your employer is the entity that actually chooses the insurer and negotiates with them on your behalf. Your boss is in the driver's seat; you're just along for the ride.

It would be pretty funny if the answer to this was that the health insurance company bought your employer, too, and so your boss, the PBM and the insurer were all the same guy, busily swapping hats, paying for a call center full of tormented drones who each have three phones on their desks: one labeled "insurer"; the second, "PBM" and the final one "HR."

But no, the insurers haven't bought out the company you work for (yet). Rather, they've bought off your boss – they're sharing kickbacks with your employer for all the deductibles and co-pays you're being suckered into paying. There's so much money (your money) sloshing around in the PBM scamoverse that anytime someone might get in the way of you being ripped off, they just get cut in for a share of the loot.

That is how the PBM scam works: they're fronts for health insurers who exploit the existence of high-deductible plans in order to get huge kickbacks from pharma makers, and massive fees from you. They split the loot with your boss, whose payout goes up when you get screwed harder.

But wait, there's more! After all, Big Pharma isn't some kind of easily pushed-around weakling. They're big. Why don't they push back against these massive rebates? Because they can afford to pay bribes and smaller companies making cheaper drugs can't. Whether it's a little biotech upstart with a cheaper molecule, or a generics maker who's producing drugs at a fraction of the list price, they just don't have the giant cash reserves it takes to buy their way into the PBMs' formularies. Doubtless, the Big Pharma companies would prefer to pay smaller kickbacks, but from Big Pharma's perspective, the optimum amount of bribes extracted by a PBM isn't zero – far from it. For Big Pharma, the optimal number is one cent higher than "the maximum amount of bribes that a smaller company can afford."

The purpose of a system is what it does. The PBM system makes sure that Americans only have access to the most expensive drugs, and that they pay the highest possible prices for them, and this enriches both insurance companies and employers, while protecting the Big Pharma cartel from upstarts.

Which is why the FTC is suing the PBMs for price-fixing. As Stoller points out, they're using their powers under Section 5 of the FTC Act here, which allows them to shut down "unfair methods of competition":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

The case will be adjudicated by an administrative law judge, in a process that's much faster than a federal court case. Once the FTC proves that the PBM scam is illegal when applied to insulin, they'll have a much easier time attacking the scam when it comes to every other drug (the insulin scam has just about run its course, with federally mandated $35 insulin coming online, just as a generation of post-insulin diabetes treatments hit the market).

Obviously the PBMs aren't taking this lying down. Cigna/Expressscripts has actually sued the FTC for libel over the market study it conducted, in which the agency described in pitiless, factual detail how Cigna was ripping us all off. The case is being fought by a low-level Reagan-era monster named Rick Rule, whom Stoller characterizes as a guy who "hangs around in bars and picks up lonely multi-national corporations" (!!).

The libel claim is a nonstarter, but it's still wild. It's like one of those movies where they want to show you how bad the cockroaches are, so there's a bit where the exterminator shows up and the roaches form a chorus line and do a kind of Busby Berkeley number:

https://www.46brooklyn.com/news/2024-09-20-the-carlton-report

So here we are: the FTC has set out to euthanize some rentiers, ridding the world of a layer of useless economic middlemen whose sole reason for existing is to make pharmaceuticals as expensive as possible, by colluding with the pharma cartel, the insurance cartel and your boss. This conspiracy exists in plain sight, hidden by the Shield of Boringness. If I've done my job, you now understand how this MEGO scam works – and if you forget all that ten minutes later (as is likely, given the nature of MEGO), that's OK: just remember that this thing is a giant fucking scam, and if you ever need to refresh yourself on the details, you can always re-read this post.

The paperback edition of The Lost Cause, my nationally bestselling, hopeful solarpunk novel is out this month!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/23/shield-of-boringness/#some-men-rob-you-with-a-fountain-pen

Image: Flying Logos (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Over_$1,000,000_dollars_in_USD_$100_bill_stacks.png

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[literary-illuminati]

2024 Book Review #41 – Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy by Eri Hotta

Almost everything I know about World War 2, I learned against my will through a poorly spent adolescence and reading people argue about it online. Living in Canada, Japan’s role in it is even more obscure, with the wars in the Pacific and China getting a fraction of a fraction of the official commemoration and pop culture interest of events in Europe. So I went into this book with a knowledge of only the vague generalities of Japanese politics in the ‘30s and ‘40s – from that baseline, this was a tremendously interesting and educational book, if at times more than a bit dry.

The book is a very finely detailed narrative of the internal deliberations within the Japanese government and the diplomatic negotiations with the USA through late 1940 and 1941, which ultimately culminate in the decision to attack Pearl Harbour and invade European colonies across the Pacific. It charts the (deeply dysfunctional) decision-making systems of the Imperial Japanese government and how bureaucratic politics, factional intrigue and positioning, and an endemic unwillingness to be the one to back down and eat your words, made a war with the USA first possible, then plausible, then seemingly inevitable. Throughout this, the book wears its thesis on its sleeve – that the war in the Pacific only ever seemed inevitable, that until the very last hour there was widespread understanding that the war would be near-unwinnable across the imperial government and military, but a broken political culture, the career suicide of being the one to endorse accepting American demands,, and a simple lack of courage or will among the doves, prevented anything from ever coming of it.

So I did know that Imperial Japan’s government had, let’s say, fundamental structural issues when I opened the book, but I really wasn’t aware of just how confused and byzantine the upper echelons of it were. Like if Brazil was about the executive committee – the army and navy ministries had entirely separate planning infrastructures from the actual general staffs, and all of them were basically silo’d off from the actual economic and industrial planning bureaucracy (despite the fact that the head of the Cabinet Planning Board was a retired general). All of which is important, because the real decisions of war and peace were made in liaison meetings with the prime minister, foreign minister, and both ministry and general staff of each branch – meetings which were often as not just opportunities for grandstanding and fighting over the budget. The surprise is less that they talked themselves into an unwinnable war and more that they decided on anything at all.

The issue, as Hotta frames it, is that there really wasn’t a single place the buck stopped – officially speaking, the civilian government and both branches of the military served the pleasure of the Emperor – whose theoretically absolute authority was contained by both his temperament and both custom and a whole court bureaucracy dedicated to making sure the prestige of the throne didn’t get mired in and discredited by the muck of politics. The entire Meiji Constitution was built around the presence of a clique of ‘imperial advisers’ who could borrow the emperor’s authority without being so restrained – but as your Ito Hirobumis and Yamagata Aritomos died off, no one with the same energy, authority and vision ever seems to have replaced them.

So you had momentous policy decisions presented as suggestions to the emperor who could agree and thus turn them into inviolable commands, and understood by the emperor as settled policy who would provide an apolitical rubber-stamp on. Which, combined with institutional cultures that strongly encouraged being a good soldier and not undercutting or hurting the image of your faction, led to a lot of people quietly waiting for someone else to stand up and make a scene for them (or just staying silent and wishing them well when they actually did).

Now, this is all perhaps a bit too convenient for many of the people involved – doubtless anyone sitting down and writing their memoirs in 1946 would feel like exaggerating their qualms about the war as much as they could possibly get away with. I feel like Hotta probably takes those post-war memoirs and interviews too much at face value in terms of people’s unstated inner feeling – but on the other hand, the bureaucratic records and participants’ notes preserved from the pivotal meetings themselves do seem to show a great deal of hesitation and factional doubletalk. Most surprisingly to me was the fact that Tojo (who I had the very vague impression was the closest thing to a Japanese Hitler/Mussolini there was) was actually chosen to lead a peace cabinet and find some 11th hour way to avert the war. Which in retrospect was an obviously terrible decision, but it was one he at least initially tried to follow through on.

If the book has a singular villain, it’s actually no Tojo (who is portrayed as, roughly, replacement-rate bad) but Prince Konoe, the prime minister who actually presided over Japan’s invasion of China abroad and slide into a militarized police state at home, who led the empire to the very brink of war with the United States before getting cold feet and resigning at the last possible moment to avoid the responsibility of either starting the war or of infuriating the military and destroying his own credibility by backing down and acceding to America’s demands. He’s portrayed as, not causing, but exacerbating

every one of Japan’s structural political issues through a mixture of cowardice and excellent survival instincts – he carefully avoided fights he might lose, even when that meant letting his foreign minister continue to sabotage negotiations he supported while he arranged support to cleanly remove him (let alone really pushing back on the army). At the same time, the initiatives he did commit were all things inspired by his deep fascination with Nazi Germany – the dissolution of partisan political parties and creation of an (aspirationally, anyway) totalitarian Imperial Rule Assistance Association, the creation of a real militarized police state, the heavy-handed efforts to create a more pure and patriotic culture. He’s hardly to blame for all of that, of course, but given that he was a civilian politician initially elected to curb military influence, his governments sure as hell didn’t help anything (and it is I suppose just memorably ironic that he’s the guy on the spot for many of the most military-dictatorship-e aspects of Japanese government).

One of the most striking things about the book is actually not even part of the main narrative but just the background context of how badly off Japan was even before they attacked the United States. I knew the invasion of China hadn’t exactly been going great, but ‘widespread rationing in major cities, tearing up wrought iron fencing in the nicest districts of the capital to use in war industry’ goes so much further than I had any sense of. The second Sino-Japanese War was the quintessential imperial adventure and war of choice, and also just literally beyond the material abilities of the state of Japan to sustain in conjunction with normal civilian life. You see how the American embargo on scrap metal and petroleum was seen as nearly an act of war in its own right. You also wonder even more how anyone could possibly have convinced themselves that an army that was already struggling to keep its soldiers fed could possibly win an entirely new war with the greatest industrial power on earth. Explaining which is of course the whole point of the book (they didn’t, in large part, but convinced themselves the Americans wouldn’t have the stomach for it and agree to a favourable peace quickly, or that Germany would conquer the UK and USSR and impose mediation on Japan’s terms, or-).

When trying to understand the decision-making process, I’m honestly reminded of nothing so much as the obsession with ‘credibility’ you see among many American foreign policy hands in the modern day. The idea that once something had been committed to – the (largely only extant on paper) alliance with Nazi Germany, the creation of a collaborator government in China to ‘negotiate’ with, the occupation of southern Vietnam – then, even if you agreed it hadn’t worked out and had probably been a terrible decision to begin with, reversing course without some sort of face-saving agreement or concession on the other side would shatter any image of strength and invite everyone else the world over to grab at what you have. The same applies just as much to internal politics, where admitting that your branch couldn’t see a way to victory in the proposed war was seen as basically surrendering the viciously fought over budget, no matter the actual opinions of your experts – the book includes anecdotes about both fleet admirals and the senior field marshal China privately tearing their respective superiors in Tokyo a (polite) new one for the bellicosity they did not believe themselves capable of following through on, but of course none of these sentiments were ever shared with anyone who might use them against the army/navy.

The book is very much a narrative of the highest levels of government, idea of mass sentiment and popular opinion are only really incidentally addressed. Which does make it come as a shock every time it’s mentioned that a particular negotiation was carried out in secret because someone got spooked by an ultranationalist assassination attempt the day before. I entirely believe that no one wanted to say as much, but I can’t help but feel that people’s unwillingness to forthrightly oppose further war owed something to all the radical actors floating around in the junior ranks of the officer corps who more than willing to take ‘decisive, heroic action’ against anyone in government trying to stab the war effort in the back. Which is something that the ever-increasing number of war dead in China (with attendant patriotic unwillingness to let them die ‘for nothing) and the way everyone kept trying to rally the public to the war effort with ever-more militaristic public rhetoric assuredly only made worse.

That same rhetoric also played its part in destroying the possibility of negotiations with the United States. The story of those negotiations runs throughout the book, and is basically one misunderstanding and failure to communicate after another. It at times verges on comedy. Just complete failure to model the political situation and diplomatic logic of the other party, on both sides (combined with a great and increasing degree of wishful thinking that e.g. letting the military occupy southern French Indochina as a concession for their buy-in on further negotiations would be fine with the Americans. A belief held on exactly zero evidence whatsoever). The United States government was actually quite keen to avoid a war in the pacific if possible, as FDR did his best to get entangled in Europe and effectively start an undeclared naval war with Germany – but the negotiating stance hardened as Japan seemed more and more aggressive and unreliable, which coincided exactly with Japan’s government taking the possibility of war seriously enough to actually try to negotiate. It’s the same old story of offering concessions and understanding that might have been agreed to a few months beforehand, but were now totally unacceptable. In the end, everyone pinned their hopes on a face-to-face diplomatic summit with FDR in Juneau, where sweeping concessions could be agreed to and the government’s credibility staked on somewhere the hardliners could not physically interfere with. The Americans, meanwhile, wanted some solid framework for what the agreement would be before the summit occurred, and so it never did.

After the war, it was apparently the general sentiment that the whole nation was responsible for the war with the United States – which is to say that no individual person deserved any special or specific blame. Hotta’s stated aim with the book is to show how that’s bullshit, how war was entirely avoidable, and it was only do to these small cliques of specific, named individuals that it began. The hardliners like Osami Nagano, but just as much the cowards, careerists and factional partisans like Konoe, Tojo, and (keeper of the Privy Seal) Kido. Having read it I, at least, am convinced.

[nanshe-of-nina]

Women’s History Meme || Empresses (2/5) ↬ Catherine de Valois-Courtenay (before 15 April 1303 – October 1346)

The official Neapolitan investigation into Andrew of Hungary’s murder targeted Johanna’s closest supporters and left her isolated and vulnerable. Her aunt, Catherine of Valois, took advantage of that vulnerability to become the queen’s confidant in order to make certain that one of her sons would be Naples’s next king. At first, it appeared that this son would be Robert, the eldest of the Tarantini, who for a time seemed to be winning the competition between the Angevin princes for power and whom Johanna requested a papal dispensation to marry. Soon, however, Louis gained the upper hand, and Johanna’s requests for dispensations began to identify him as her intended. — From She-Wolf to Martyr: The Reign and Disputed Reputation of Johanna I of Naples by Elizabeth Casteen Of the many relatives who chose to avail themselves of the glittering social whirl of the capital, one stood out: Joanna’s aunt, Catherine of Valois, widow of Robert the Wise’s younger brother Philip, prince of Taranto. Catherine was Joanna’s mother’s older half-sister (both were fathered by Charles of Valois). Catherine had married Philip in 1313, when Philip was thirty-five and she just ten. Catherine was Philip’s second wife. He had divorced his first on a trumped-up charge of adultery after fifteen years of marriage and six children in order to wed Catherine, who had something he wanted. She was the sole heir to the title of empress of Constantinople. … Catherine was twenty-eight years old, recently widowed, and a force to be reckoned with when the newly orphaned Joanna and her sister, Maria, first knew her at the Castel Nuovo in 1331. Shrewd, highly intelligent, and vital, Catherine was supremely conscious of her exalted ancestry and wore her title of empress of Constantinople as though it were a rare gem of mythic origin. Even the death of her husband, Philip, in 1331 had not dissuaded her from persisting in her efforts to reclaim the Latin Empire for herself and her three young sons: Robert, Louis, and Philip. A series of shockingly inept leaders had left the Byzantine Empire vulnerable to attack from the west, and this state of affairs was well known in Italy. Moreover, Catherine was used to getting her way. — The Lady Queen: The Notorious Reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem, and Sicily by Nancy Goldstone

[dominadespina]

LAZAREVIC SISTERS V

Olivera Lazarevic

Early Life

Olivera Lazarević, also often referred to in Byzantine and Greek sources as Maria, was the fifth child and youngest daughter of Knez Lazar and his wife Milica.

She was likely born around 1372/1373 and raised in her father’s capital, Kruševac, receiving the same education as her elder sisters, under the guidance of their mother and maternal aunt, Nun Jefimija.

Like most in her family, she was a fanatic of the arts and literature. Though she was never an artist in her own right, she acted as a patron of it.

There is a folk legend that in her youth, Olivera caught the attention of the Serbian knight, Miloš Obilić, who happened to be a frequent visitor at her father’s court and was considered one of the family.

This attraction led to a marriage proposal by Obilić, yet he was refused by her father, using her young age as an excuse.

Marriage to Sultan Bayezid I

Following the Battle of Kosovo in the summer of 1389, and the death of Sultan Murad I and execution of Knez Lazar, the Serbs abided themselves in a vassalage to the Ottomans due to the Hungarian attacks, who wanted to take charge of Serbia and the advancement of the Ottomans.

To officialize this "ending" vendetta, a proposal was made to the then regent, Milica, of a union of peace with the newly crowned Sultan Bayezid, son of Sultan Murad. Although the mother tried to fight and prolong her final decision, by the end of that same year, her youngest daughter was betrothed to the new Sultan.

The Serbian lords, who were quite unhappy about this betrothal, involved themselves in some sort of intrigues to make Bayezid suspicious in order to prevent this union. However, it obviously did not prevail.

It is unclear if the wedding reception took place in late 1389 or in the spring of 1390. As stated by Konstantin Kostenecki in his biography of Stefan Lazarević written in 1431, he reports that after the Ottoman ambassadors and Milica agreed on the marriage, Stefan appeared before Bayezid with his sister Olivera and the marriage took place. As far as we know, the proposal was accepted in late 1389.

Nonetheless, one thing is for sure, and that is the fact that the reception took place no later than the spring of 1390. This is because the joint action of the Serbs and Turks against the Hungarians in northern Serbia, southern Hungary, and eastern Bosnia took place already in the spring or at the latest in the summer of that year, meaning by the spring of 1390, Olivera was married to the same man who gave orders for her father’s execution.

The wedding seems to have been kept quiet as it appears to have taken place in a mosque, following a Muslim ceremony. Many Serbian lords and people were unhappy about their Orthodox Christian Princess marrying a Muslim, even if it brought some temporary peace to Serbia.

According to Ducas, a 15th-century historian, on top of many talents of silver from Serbia's mines, Bayezid received "a tender virgin."

It is possible that after this marriage Olivera took the epithet of "Despina" (meaning female despot, or mistress), or more plausible it is a title she had already acquired as a royal princess during her father's reign, and thus she became known as "Despina Hatun", Hatun being the Turco-Mongol title meaning "Lady."

It appears that for the rest of her life, she was referred to by this epithet instead of her actual name.

A Woman of Great Influence

Despite the unfavorable circumstances in which this political marriage began, it is noted by historical and contemporary historians that Bayezid loved and valued the counsel of his wife, Despina. It is accepted that the couple welcomed three daughters together; the eldest bears an unknown name, the second in line is Pasa Melek, and the youngest is Oruz.

Her legendary beauty, noble background, and education played a key role in Bayezid’s favoritism of her over all his other consorts and in his trust in her counsel.

From the moment she arrived until his last breath, she remained his main and favorite wife, and had influence on her husband's politics, which played in favor of her people.

Despina was, of course, blamed for having introduced European customs, wine, and mass partying into the once "pious" Ottoman court, and for "whispering in her brother’s favor." However, these criticisms were mostly due to the fact that she was a Christian wife and remained one even though she had influence over her husband. This of course, played a role in the Muslim Ottomans distain of her.

Though it is unknown if Despina reciprocated the same sentiment towards her husband, it is noted that wherever Bayezid went, he could not separate from the Serbian Princess, and thus he took her everywhere with him, suggesting that throughout their marriage she was willing to be a loyal companion to him.

According to Serbian sources, her biggest accomplishments were to partake in Bayezid’s decision to transfer a vast portion of Vuk Branković’s lands (her brother-in-law through Mara) in 1397, following the man’s death and place them under the governance of her younger brother, Stefan.

The other was to save her brother from Bayezid’s wrath in 1398 when he was accused of conspiring with the King of Hungary. Stefan came to the Sultan after the failed attempt of his mother to defend him. It is believed that Olivera was the one who stepped up, and her brother was forgiven upon admitting his fault.

Captivity

Following the aftermath of the Battle of Ankara in 1402, a battle which Bayezid and his sons, Mustafa and Musa, lost and were taken as captives, Timur sent his generals to plunder Bursa, taking many treasures from the palace with them, including Bayezid's concubines. Eventually, they made their way to Yenisehir, where Despina was hiding with two of her daughters.

Despina and her household were brought to Timur and later to Bayezid, who was being kept captive in a tent. Although they were treated with respect at first, events occurred that led to Bayezid being humiliated and kept in an iron cage, while his wife was forced to perform menial tasks at festivities.

Unable to bear the insult made towards his wife, Bayezid committed suicide in his iron cage and was temporarily buried in Akşehir, where he had passed.

Timur is believed to have felt great guilt because of this and released Bayezid’s entourage. He married Despina’s daughters to the son of one of his generals and the other to his grandson, Ebu Bakr Mirza. Both daughters moved to Samarkand where they lived with their families.

Later in 1403, Despina was released along with her stepson, Musa, during the transfer of Bayezid’s body to his personal mosque in Bursa. It is assumed she attended his second funeral.

As the Advisor of the Despots

Following her release, nothing is known or recorded about Despina's whereabouts until the 1420s. It is believed by some that she might have stayed in Bursa or somewhere nearby with her youngest daughter until she grew tired of the battle for the throne going on between Bayezid’s sons and later moved to Serbia.

Or, she might have stayed until the time her youngest daughter was married off.

After her return to Serbia, she took her place at her already widowed brother's side as his comforter and trusted advisor. However, she never lived at court but instead had her own residence in the courtyard of Belgrade.

She was extremely popular, respected, and valued in her homeland. Even during her lifetime, the Serbs referred to her as “Esther” due to her sacrificial marriage to a persecutor of the Christians.

During her stay in Dubrovnik, it is plausible she met with her sister and brother-in-law, Sandalj Hranic, though some historians believe she was there for diplomatic reasons, possibly to acquire information on her brother-in-law to inform her younger brother; the now Despot Stefan Lazarevic.

In 1427, her younger brother passed away, but this did not end her influence. Soon after, she acted as an advisor to her nephew, Durad Brankovic, and from 1430 onwards, moved with his family to Smederevo, the new capital.

Murad II, the Ottoman Sultan at the time, must have believed that since Stefan Lazarevic had died without any children to proclaim as heir, then the state should pass from Stefan to his step-grandmother, Olivera, and thus to himself.

As a result of this situation and threat to their state, historians believe it was Despina who planned Mara Brankovic's marriage to Murad in order to prevent the Ottomans from advancing. And thus, the marriage was concluded in 1435 in the Ottoman capital.

Though this marriage, unlike Olivera's own marriage, did not prevent Ottoman expansion in Serbia.

In 1441, while her nephew Durad was in exile, she traveled from Dubrovnik to Bar, where it is believed she was able to convey secret diplomatic letters to her nephew.

Later Life

Nothing is known about the later life of Despina from 1443 onwards; they lost track of her.

The last time she is mentioned alive is in a 1443 document, in which her sister, Jelena, names her as her executor in her will. She left money to Despina in order to build a burial place for her and to distribute some of the money to the poor.

After this, nothing more is recorded; it is unknown when, where, and how she died.

Issue

Unkown Hatun

Pasa Melek Hatun

Oruz/Uruz Hatun

( Sources: Osmanlı Sarayı’nda Bir Sırp Prenses/ Mileva Olivera Lazarevic by Mustafa Çağhan Keskin, КЋЕРИ КНЕЗА ЛАЗАРА ИСТОРИЈСКА СТУДИЈА ПОГОВОР by Jelka Redep, Dve srpske sultanije : Olivera Lazarevic (1373-1444) : Mara Brankovic (1418-1487) by Nikola Giljen, “КЋЕРИ КНЕЗА ЛАЗАРА ИСТОРИЈСКА СТУДИЈА ПОГОВОР” by Jelka Redep, Dve srpske sultanije : Olivera Lazarevic (1373-1444) : Mara Brankovic (1418-1487) by Nikola Giljen, The European Sultanas of the Ottoman Empire by Anna Ivanova Buxton )

[gemsofgreece]

could you talk more about constantinople university?

Hey, I am sorry for the very late reply. This past week was very difficult. Anyway I assume you are asking about the main educational institution in Constantinople at the times of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire.

First of all, I should start this by saying a few basic things about the educational system in the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire had the best primary education in Europe and one of the best in the known world at the time. All peasant children were able to receive education, that is, both boys AND girls, which was unheard of in most other places. As a result peasant men and women attained a satisfactory level of education for the standards of the time.

Higher education was received mainly through private tutoring, which means that this was in fact a privilege of the rich and upper middle classes. Private tutors could also be hired by women who, even though they could not work in professions of a high academic profile (except they could become doctors for women), were still able to educate and improve on themselves just for the sake of it.

The University of Constantinople

When the Roman Empire was spilt in two in 395 AD, the Hellenized eastern part of the empire already had a few famed schools in some of its greatest cities (i.e Academy of Athens, the schools in Alexandria, Antioch, Beirut, Gaza). Those remained the hotspots for higher education for a few centuries, mostly until the Arab conquest in the 7th century.

In 425 AD Emperor Theodosius II founded the state funded Pandidakterion (Πανδιδακτήριον) in the Capitolium of Constantinople, what is supposed to be the original form of the University of Constantinople. According to some sources the concept of this school was actively supported by Theodosius's sister Pulcheria and his empress wife Aelia Eudocia the Athenian. The Pandidakterion was not exactly a university in the modern sense; it initially did not offer courses in various fields of sciences and arts from which students could choose their studies and career. The Pandidakterion's aim was to train specifically those who pursued a career as civil servants for the administration of the Empire and the secular matters concerning the Church. The courses taught were: Greek Grammar, Latin Grammar, Law, Philosophy (students were taught Aristotle and particularly Plato) and Rhetoric (with an emphasis in Greek rather than Latin rhetoric). That last one was considered the most challenging course. Pandidakterion did not teach Theology; this was the responsibility of the Patriarchal Academy. There are sources which list the Pandidakterion indeed as a university though and perhaps it is the closest thing to a university you could have gotten that early in time.

Meanwhile, in Constantinople and other large cities of the empire there were various academies of theology, arts and sciences but those were not universities. Also, as stated above, it was after the 7th century that Constantinople became the center of Byzantine higher education. In the 7th and the 8th century the Byzantine empire was attacked by Slavs, Arabs, Avars and Bulgars, loosening the focus to education. All this and the Iconoclasm seemed to have had adverse yet non permanent effects on the function of the university. The dynasty of the Isaurians (717 - 802) renamed "Πανδιδακτήριον" to "Οικουμενικόν Διδασκαλείον" (Ecumenical School).

The 9th century signifies a new prosperous era for higher education. There are some conflicting sources for that time - according to some the Pandidakterion was moved to the Palace of Magnaura and according to others this is an erroneous conflation of the Pandidakterion in the Capitolium with the new University of the Palace Hall of Magnaura (Εκπαιδευτήριον της Μαγναύρας). Whatever the case is, this renovated or entirely new school was founded by Vardas (842 - 867), uncle of Emperor Michael III. Mathematics, geometry, astronomy and music were added to the courses. The school then was managed by Leon the Mathematician (790 - 869) from Thessaly. Studying there was free.

In the 10th century, Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos promoted the Pandidakterion and supported it financially.

In 1046 Constantine IX Monomachos reformed the actual Pandidakterion of the Capitolium into two large faculties operating in it; the "Διδασκαλείον των Νόμων" (School of Law) and the "Γυμνάσιον" (Gymnasion). The School of Law retained its purpose to train the civil servants whereas the Gymnasion taught all the other sciences (i.e philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, music). At the time Pandidakterion had a clear resemblance to a typical university. The principal of the Law School was called "Νομοφύλαξ" (nomophýlax), Guard of Law. A notable nomophylax was Ioannis VIII Xiphilinos (1010 - 1075) who was an intellectual, jurist and later Patriarch of Constantinople. The principal of the Gymansion was called "Ύπατος των Φιλοσόφων" (Consul of the Philosophers). Notable Gymnasion principals were Michael Psellos (1018 - 1078), one of the most broadly educated people to have lived in the Byzantine empire or the middle ages even. Psellos was a Greek monk, savant, courtier, writer, philosopher, historian, music theorist, poet, astronomer, doctor and diplomat. He was notoriously horrible at Latin although given the extent of his studies it is unclear to modern historians whether his Latin knowledge was genuinely poor or he played it up as an act of disdain (he was totally the type to do that). Another notable principal was Ioannis Italos (John the Italian), a half-Italian half-Greek from Calabria, who was Psellos' student in classical Greek Philosophy.

The function of the Pandidakterion as well as all high education in the Byzantine Empire was ceased after the capture of Cosntantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. The Byzantine royalty did however survive through the small Empire of Nicaea and they supported financially the private tutors. After the liberation of Constantinople by the Byzantines in 1261, there were efforts to restore the higher education institutions. Michael VIII Palaeologos, the emperor who recovered the city, reopened the university and appointed as principals Georgios Akropolitis, a historian and statesman, for the Law School and Georgios Pachymeris, a historian, philosopher, theologist, mathematician and music theorist, for the Philosophy School (Gymnasion).

However, the University never returned to its previous status and smooth function. It slowly passed fully under the Church's management in order to survive, while the rest of the teaching was again done by private teachers. This was the case all the way to the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Only one day after the capture of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed II founded a madrasa as the primary educational institution of the city. Madrasa is an arabic name for an Islamic higher education religious institution. In 1846, this insitution was reformed into a university in the likes of the typical Western European universities. Until 1930 many old sources referred to this university confusingly as "University of Constantinople" because the city's name had not actually changed until that time. However, this institution was not the same to the Pandidakterion, the university of the Byzantine Age. In 1930, the city's name was officially changed from Constantinople to Istanbul and the university was renamed in 1933 to "Istanbul University" and it operates like this, being the first university of the Republic of Turkey.

What about the Pandidakterion though, the first University of Constantinople? Well, it ceased to exist, unlike the Patriarchal Academy which re-opened one year after the Fall of Constantinople, in 1454, refounded as the Phanar Greek Orthodox College, which operates to this day.

*Forgive any potential inaccuracies, some sources were really conflicting, especially about the possible Pandidakterion and the Magnaura School mix up.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Trumps of the Tropics: Brazil’s Far Right Plots Its Return

As president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro was often called the Trump of the Tropics, an association the Bolsonaro family actively cultivated. From the moment he was elected in 2018, he loudly celebrated the United States — in his first year in office, he even saluted the U.S. flag — but he saved his most intense loyalty for one American. When he met President Trump at the United Nations in 2019, he told him: “I love you.”

Before assuming power, Bolsonaro was an anti-democratic ideologue and former military man with a decades-long career in politics; Trump was a real estate developer and a media personality. But over the six years that Bolsonaro drove the news cycles in Latin America’s largest nation, he gave journalists a long list of reasons to equate the two men. Both made a show of praising authoritarian leaders, past and present, and liked to style themselves as defenders of law and order while acting as if the rules didn’t apply to them. Both formed an alliance with the religious right late in their careers and enlisted their sons to help push their respective agendas. Both frequently took to Twitter to attack their enemies, troll traditional media and rile up their supporters. And both retreated to Florida when things got tough.

For decades, the Brazilian right had looked to the United States, and when Donald Trump began to transform the rules of political discourse, it took note. “We learned to have the courage to speak up,” says Damares Alves, an evangelical pastor who served as Bolsonaro’s minister of human rights, families and women. “We began to be more incisive on the question of abortion. We learned we could be more direct about the question of arming the population. We realized we could take a tougher stand against the left-wing transformation taking place across our continent.”

As president, Bolsonaro seemed eager to import as much of the MAGA movement to Brazil as possible. So when Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to protest a “stolen” election, many Brazilians worried that Bolsonaro supporters might try something similar. That’s exactly what happened. On Jan. 1, 2023, when Bolsonaro’s opponent, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, leader of the left-wing Workers’ Party, took office, Bolsonaro skipped the ceremony, holing up instead in the Orlando suburbs, at the home of a mixed-martial-arts fighter. For weeks, Bolsonaristas had been camping out around the country, under banners calling for an “intervention.” In an echo of Jan. 6, they chose Jan. 8 to occupy and attack government buildings in the capital, Brasília, even though the transition had already taken place and the buildings were largely empty. Military police officers arrested more than 1,000 people, and Lula quickly reasserted control of the country.

Bolsonaro, like Trump, now faces a host of criminal charges for trying to impede democratic elections. Trump has been convicted in one case, but only Bolsonaro has been deemed ineligible to run for president. In June 2023, Brazil’s electoral court ruled that his attacks on the voting system disqualified him from running for any political office until 2030. He is now facing hundreds of other court cases. In February of this year, authorities confiscated his passport after arresting several former aides accused of plotting a coup, making another escape to Florida impossible. Bolsonaro took refuge for two nights in the Hungarian Embassy in São Paulo, perhaps hoping to leverage his relationship with Prime Minister Viktor Orban (one of many friends he shares with Trump) if flight became necessary.

While Bolsonaro is barred from the political arena — at least for now — the movement that he unleashed is very much alive. Bolsonaristasdid well in the election that he lost, demonstrating that the movement was bigger than the man, and they now have real power at federal and state levels. Because congressional politics in Brazil are byzantine — there are 23 parties in Congress, and members can shift allegiances quickly — it would be difficult for Lula to govern even if Bolsonaro’s right-wing Liberal Party were not the largest party in the legislature. As things stand, the Bolsonaristas routinely complicate things for Lula, as they try to pull the country back to the far right.

In 2023, Bolsonaro’s allies began working to create a kind of Bolsonarismo sem Bolsonaro, or Bolsonaro-style politics without Bolsonaro. In interviews in the capital late last year, a rough philosophical and tactical division emerged. One group wants to show that it is moderating its positions and committed to responsibly governing the country; another is doubling down on the kind of fiery rhetoric that drives engagement online and reproduces tropes familiar to observers of right-wing media in the United States.

Continue reading.

[alatismeni-theitsa]

Genuine question: you often talk about the West as if Greece wasn't Western and that leaves me in doubt… isn't it Western? I always see Greece referred to as such, so I figured it was. Like, I imagine there must be some details that don't completely fit into Western molds, but in general, isn't Greece Western and is it even considered one of the main origins of the West?

Hii! This is a very good question for someone who needs context!

In summary: Greece is not exactly Western. In fact, it has more things in common with countries that are considered Eastern. Greece definitely wasn't that "Western" in ancient times compared to the rest of the countries that are considered definitely Western today. Also, Europe has taken some stuff from Greece but most things it took are not Greek in culture, meaning they don't relate to us and we don't relate to them.

But from someone who's not from our general region and has little idea about our culture, there needs to be a big explanation, so all I have to say is:

Disclaimer 1: Let's appoint the US, the UK, and Germany as some examples of "definitely western" countries, as a guide. They are surely considered Western due to their geography and history.

Disclaimer 2: I'll speak in very broad terms about nationalities. In no way this is an attack on individuals who live in these countries. The statements are meant to be political and capture generic national sentiments. For example, the sentence "historically the Greeks don't like the Turks" doesn't mean that Greeks and Turks haven't lived (and continue) to live in peace under certain circumstances.

Everything exists within proper context and even I am using "Western" in a specific context. What is called "Western" today is a standard created by the European countries of Western Europe. And it doesn't make sense cause there are no clear limits between cultures. It's all a gradient, as I said in the past.

I also don't like how by "Western" we imply "progressive and technologically advanced". I haven't seen people fight about whether Albania is Western, although it's more Western than Greece geographically.

In fact, many a time I've seen maps like the one below isolate Greece and put it in the Western category but so many nations right above and west of Greece are not Western?? Notice how they show "West" = "pre-colonial/colonial nations/global empires (what I refer to as "the West" in my posts) + Greece" 😂 (Usually Turkey is also excluded, so I won't comment too much on that right now.) I mean... isn't this whole presentation... weird?? It's not even based on who is a NATO ally and who's not.

Greece is one of the most eastern European countries. Greeks existed in Minor Asia for thousands of years (Asian Greeks baby!) and we literally are right next to where Asia begins. Our capital for almost a thousand years was Constantinople which is in modern Turkiye, and Greeks still make pilgrimage there.

Our differences with the countries posing as the of the West are far greater than they want you to believe. The reason is that the western European powerful nations still want to claim the ancient Greek stuff as the basis of their national identity, and to do so they have to lump us in with their own kind. Only very recently they got "gracious" enough to do that. For most of history they claimed all things ancient Greek for themselves buuut they saw Greeks as "fallen from glory" and "mixed" and "these can't be the descendants of the ancients we admire!" (They had idealised our ancestors a looot in their minds, and by their own NW European standards) That's why maps such as the above exist.

The cultural divide in ancient times was much larger. We were kissing with tongue with Persians, Palestinians, Phoenicians and Lower Egyptians. The battle with Persians wasn't - as today west Europeans and the US want to frame it as a battle between East and West. The Persians were our freaking neighbours! 😂 Our cultures were - and still are - very similar. (Food, music, expression/openness, social politeness, phrasing)

Then came the old Rome, then came the Renaissance, and in these periods Western Europe got a bit more influenced by Greek aesthetics, for sure. But as I said the divide was greater when speaking about ancient times. Okay, our neighbors on the Italian and Iberian peninsula would be more like us, but the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Norse, and Danish tribes were quite unrelated to the Greeks culturally. Even half of Italy (the Northern part) today don't see us as neighbors, because they are closer to other nations by land. (verified this with some friends abroad)

To go back to why I usually exclude Greece from "Western": "Western" is a standard term that former (and modern) colonial powers have created and choose to identify themselves and others with (if they deem them "worthy enough").

As I said, the term can be synonymous with power and progress, but it ignores powerful countries such as India, China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran which have greater industries and more power than Greece. (This is a 2017 map but it still holds, I feel😂) Notice that Greece is not even at the bottom.

Greeks also often feel we don't fit the Western mold. Usually, however, they use the term "European" to substitute the "Western" term but in our minds it's the same thing. Additionally, most Greeks growing up - especially with the rise of communication with other Balkanians through the internet - realise that we have most things in common with our geographical neighbours. The video below is an example of that.

So, why don't we feel that European/Western?

As I mentioned in the beginning, Europe is not Greek in culture. Few of the things West Europe took from us were partly influenced by the cultural climate at the time (like philosophy and the three-act structure of theater). What about the rest? What do trigonometry and astronomy and people voting have to do with one's culture? I mean are people supposed to understand my culture through functions and equations, or the 5th century BCE aesthetics of the human body?

(And to answer your question, no. They have no idea how our names, words, culture food, and music have been. They often confuse clearly Latin words with Greek words, and that's the pinnacle of their interaction with our culture😂)

We have more in common with Turks, Persians and Lebanese than we have with Germans and Swedes. Because Middle Easterners and Northeast Africans have been our neighbors for millennia. To further demonstrate the point, Greeks in Northwestern Europe feel more comfortable with Arabs, Turks, Persians and Indians than with anyone else. And they don't vibe with the Northwestern locals that much because the Greek culture is not close to theirs. (That's a generalization of course but you can't imagine how many Greeks I've heard stating that)

I don't find it unreasonable for someone to lump Greece with the Western countries because that's where our allies are at the moment. As a nation, we look to Western nations for infrastructure (Although it doesn't work too well for us sometimes because the compatibility isn't there. Like the EU gives us money to plant certain trees that are not good for our climate and how often shit catches fire here). And, of course, sometimes Greece happens to be… geographically western than many countries. So in this case "western" also applies.

At the same time, someone should bear in mind that Greece has existed under the pressure-ehhh influence of Western European nations for a long time. After the fifteenth century, they've been stealing our artifacts, fetishizing our struggles, not listening to our people in Greek cultural characteristics (such as the language), noting our "unattractive" looks (and skin sometimes) etc. I mean, they still do all of this stuff sooo… how are we supposed to feel comfortable in the same group as them?

Add the Turkish occupation from 500-600 years so there's additional Islamic and Middle Eastern influence, and cultural exchange from Greeks and towards Greeks in the Ottoman Empire.

There's also the matter of religion and East Europe is religiously and - to a large degree - culturally Orthodox. This plays a larger part in the cultural divide between West and East Europe. In fact, religion played a big part, a thousand years ago, in the schism between west and east Europe.

This difference in cultures, and the dismissive attitude of the West towards Greeks and other East Europeans, shows from Charlemagne's time. A thousand years ago and more, West Europeans were calling Greeks (and generally Eastern Romans/ Byzantines) barbarians and degenerates. Greece has been orientalised a lot in Western art over the past few centuries.

The first colonial "stock company" in History was in the Byzantine/Hellenic island of Chios in the 14th century, established by Genoese occupiers! The island was managed by a monopoly share-charter "Company", Maona. The Company held the monopoly of the world's unique Chiot mastic, as well as control of the import and export trade, while many locals became slave-workers. The "Latins" (Genoese) took hundreds of buildings and homes for themselves. Later the Maona company expanded in Cyprus.

It had come to a point where Greeks and Byzantines in general preferred to be conquered by the Turks rather than the Latins (Francs, Venetians, Genoese). You can find the full history of this conflict in this article.

One should also bear in mind Greeks have been through slavery on a national level (called "chattel" too), and faced oppression, assimilation, and genocide. What I mean is: If someone is representative of the Western Powers…. that's not us 😂 We only play pretend. We are not the ones making the rules or decisions. For example, our PM asked the state of Israel (with which we are supposedly allies under Western contracts) to not harm the Greeks in Gaza, then the Greek Orthodox temple was bombed and our Western allies didn't give a shit.

Greece smiles and nods along so it can sit at the table with the Big Boys. It's not a Big Boy and I doubt it'll ever be for a long time. It can't turn towards the East (because Turkey, the old political and religious enemy) so it turns towards the West. And it has become an obedient puppy of the US and Germany. And if we refuse to play pretend, there's always some type of punishment. I won't absolve our country from all political responsibility. I'm just saying that we usually lack the power for things to go our way.

The reason for our nation's existence is the Western colonial powers (in Greece we call them the Big Powers) wanting to destabilise the Ottoman empire. They didn't give a shit about the Greek state existing. I mean sure they appreciated having one more pawn in the area, but they mainly wanted the Ottoman power to dwindle. The Big Powers gave and took land from us as they saw fit, for their own interests. (They did the same with other nations, too, of course). Our country's debt to the Big Powers started before our nation formed when they sold us half-ruined ships for a very high price.

(Although our debt became significantly worse after 2009, when our people gave money to stabilise their banks.)

So I ask again, how is a Greek - politically and socially - to feel comfortable in the Western group? Especially when we have actual neighbors in the Balkans and the Middle East who are almost like us culture-wise? And, don't East nations have Mathematics and Philosophy and Democracy (most at least) and Theatre and Astrophysics? In the study of things coming from Greece they have nothing to envy from the West. They were studying this stuff waaaay earlier, too!

So the argument of "who has taken the most from Greece" is purely political because if we actually measured, our neighbors are the ones who have the most similarities to us. (Yes, the political and social corruption rates too, as I've been told 😂)

Not to mention there can be found colonial/imperial attitudes from Western European nations which Greece cannot identify with. Except for the obvious neo-colonialism and the pressure to have more military bases on our grounds, there are more.

Some of these attitudes are; refusing to communicate in English, refusing to use subtitles and insisting on watching everything dubbed, straight up altering the names of foreign colleagues to appeal to them more, nitpicking on shades of white and what shade of white is "bad", having the impression that the world is as safe and comfortable as their own country, only getting you out of second class in their minds when you start speaking their language fluently exhibiting one of the highest forms of assimilation, treating East European cultures like an exhibition or a theme park.

Don't be mistaken, the use of language is a power play. Greece also has colorism, but the NW nations take it to another level, trust. It would kill them to admit they might have the same skin tone as someone from China, whereas the Greeks (although not void of racism) wouldn't think to compare the skin tones as different. And they don't categorize slightly darker peoples compared to theirs as another "race" entirely.

I know I rumbled again but there are many things to consider when it comes to Greece's position on the map that's not limited to geography. I also want to put many disclaimers and explanations around because someone away from our area is missing context, and they might misinterpret our notions through their own lens. Hopefully, my answer covered the main points and gave a better picture of our identification.

[honesty-my-policy]

As promised @bright-honey

Quick timeline for you.

6000 BCE: First fortified settlement at Ugarit 4000 BCE: Founding of the city of Sidon 4000 BCE - 3000 BCE: Trade contact between Babylos and Egypt 2900 BCE - 2300 BCE: First settlement of Baalbek 2750 BCE: The City of Tyre is founded 1458 BCE: Kadesh and Megiddo lead a Canaanite alliance against the Egyptian invasion by Thutmose III 1274 BCE: Battle of Kadesh between Pharaoh Ramesses II and King Muwatalli II of the Hittites 1250 BCE - 1200 BCE: Hebrew Tribes settle in Canaan 1200 BCE: Sea Peoples invade the Levant (they are important) 1115 BCE - 1076 BCE: Reign of Tiglath-Pileser I of Assyria who conquers Phoenicia and revitalizes the empire 1080 BCE: Rise of the Kingdom of Israel 1000 BCE: Height of Tyre's power 965 BCE - 931 BCE: Solomon is King of Israel 950 BCE: Solomon builds the first Temple of Jerusalem 722 BCE: Israel is conquered by Assyria 351 BCE: Artaxerxes III sacks Sidon 332 BCE: Alexander the Great sacks Baalbek and renames it to Heliopolis 332 BCE: Conquest of the Levant by Alexander the Great who destroys Tyre Jan 332 BCE - Jul 332 BCE: Alexander the Great besieges and conquers Tyre 64 BCE: Tyre becomes a Roman colony 37 BCE - 4 BCE: Reign of Herod the Great over Judea 30 BCE: Egypt becomes a province of the Roman Empire 30 BCE - 476 CE: Egypt remains a province of the Roman Empire 6 BCE - c. 30 CE: Life of Christ 637 CE: Muslim invasion of the Levant. The Byzantines are driven out. 115 CE- 117 CE: Rome occupies Mesopotamia 117 CE - 138 CE: Reign of Roman Emperor Hadrian

We can stop there because that is where the name Palestine comes from. I've omitted a LOT of history here. These are just some main points. Now for some visual aids.

Take these as you will. While archeology evidence has been found to support the Bible, I'm not aware of maps being found but people tend to forget it isn't a document of fiction, real people made it. That being said there is a LOT of evidence of Sea Peoples

The Sea Peoples are very interesting and I highly recommend reading up on them. It has been theorized and is probably true that it wasn't a singular people but different people coming from the sea as different words were used to describe each set that attacked, 8 different versions have been counted so far.

Of the 8, one that has been seen in recorded archeological history was dubbed Peleset or Pulasati. Historians generally identify them with the Philistines - note these are not the same people as Phoenicians according to historians and other experts.

In fact, the first appearance of the term Palestine but in the 5th century BCE and it was by a Greek historian referring to of a district of Syria called Palaistine between Phoenicia and Egypt. This term was used later by other Greek writers and later on by Roman writers. Though, the region was clearly 'Syria' not Palestine. In fact, let's look at a map or two.

So where did Palestine come from? Remember Roman Emperor Hadrian? Yeah, that asshole. Rome had conquered a large chunk of the known world.

The Jews didn't let themselves be conquered sitting down. The Bar Kochba Revolt was actually at the start going well for the Jews but sadly, the Romans took a scorched earth approach to them and it ended with the destruction of the second Temple, as well as renaming the area known as Judea to Palestina to effectively erase all Jewish connections to the land, going so far as naming it after the historical enemies of the Jews.

This is ALL PUBLIC HISTORY.

[maximumphilosopheranchor]

The Vikings who attacked the Byzantine capital in the summer of 860 were hardly unknown to Photius and his contemporaries. The patriarch called them Rus’, like the members of the Rus’ embassy of 838. He even stated that they were subjects of Byzantium but left it to subsequent generations of scholars to figure out the details. Who were they? The search for an answer has spanned the last two and a half centuries, if not longer. Most scholars today believe that the word “Rus” has Scandinavian roots. Byzantine authors, who wrote in Greek, most probably borrowed it from the Slavs, who in turn borrowed it from the Finns, who used the term “Ruotsi” to denote the Swedes – in Swedish, the word meant “men who row.” And row they did. First across the Baltic Sea into the Gulf of Finland, then on through Lakes Ladoga, Ilmen, and Beloozero to the upper reaches of the Volga – the river that later became an embodiment of Russia and at the time formed an essential part of the Saracen (Muslim) route to the Caspian Sea and the Arab lands.

The Rus’ Vikings, a conglomerate of Norwegian, Swedish, and probably Finnish Norsemen, first came to eastern Europe mainly as traders, not conquerors, as there was little to pillage in the forests of the region. The real treasures lay in the Middle East, beyond the lands through which they needed only the right of passage. But judging by what we know about the Rus’ Vikings, they never thought of trade and war – or, rather, trade and violence – as incompatible. After all, they had to defend themselves en route, since the local tribes did not welcome their presence. And the trade in which they engaged involves coercion, for they dealt not only in forest products – furs and honey – but also in slaves. To obtain them, the Vikings had to establish some kind of control over the local tribes and collect as tribute products that they could ship along the Saracen route. They exchanged these in the Caspian markets for Arab silver dirhams, troves of which subsequent archaeologists have discovered. They punctuate the Viking trade route from Scandinavia to the Caspian Sea.

Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine

[xavierbautistagarcia]

A huge inheritance of the Aragonese Crown in South Italy

The Aragonese castle of Taranto (Tarde in Tarentino) is located in the region of Apulia (Pugghie in Tarentino and Puglia in Italian), in southern Italy and facing the Ionian Sea, and stands on the site of an early 10th-century Byzantine fortification intended to protect the city from Saracen and Venetian attacks.

After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, the barbarian peoples who occupied present-day Italy reached the edges of the peninsula to make it their own. The Ostrogoths and Byzantines fought over Taranto in the 6th century until the Byzantines prevailed, only to be displaced by the Lombards in the 7th century, before the Saracens established themselves and formed an emirate in the 9th century. Once again in the hands of the Byzantines, the construction of the Rocca began.

The Byzantines were expelled from Taranto in the 11th century by the Normans, who had settled in Sicily, and established a principality that lasted until the 15th century, passing from family to family: first the Hauteville for over a century, then the Staufen and Brienne in short periods of time between the 12th and 13th centuries, before falling into the hands of the Hohenstaufen, the Anjou and the Orsini until its incorporation into the Kingdom of Naples in 1465.

In 1442, the Crown of Aragon invaded the Kingdom of Naples from its Sicilian possessions, after two centuries of pretensions to occupy the south of the Italic Peninsula, but on the death of King Alfons the Magnanimous, they were separated and in 1458 Ferdinand I was proclaimed the new king of Naples, and dissolved the principality on the death of his wife, heiress of Taranto, although the title remained in force to designate the sons of the Neapolitan kings.

In 1486, Ferran II of Aragon, King of Naples until his death in 1516, ordered the castle to be enlarged to be completed in 1492, giving it its present appearance, despite the demolitions carried out in the 19th century.

When the Aragonese possessions in Italy passed into the hands of the Spanish Habsburg monarchs, the castle, also known as Castel Sant'Angelo, was reinforced. After the War of the Spanish Succession, Naples fell into the hands of the Habsburgs, who turned the Aragonese castle into a prison, whose harsh conditions can be seen in the surviving torture room.

Subsequently, Naples merged with the neighbouring island into the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies under the Spanish Bourbons (18th century), and was occupied by Napoleon's troops in the early 19th century, only to rejoin Sicily after the defeat of France and the formation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1860.

[readyforevolution]

ISLAM IN AFRICA.

The ancient Arabians are described as “Cushites” and “Semitic”, whom were described as “dark” and “brown” in complexion respectively.

According to the collaborative scholarship of Dr. Ben and Dr. George Simmonds, Muhammad’s grandparents originated in the Kingdom of Aksum modern day Ethiopia and were Kushites.

Muhammad’s grandfather frequently visited Aksum. Bilal, Muhammad’s “closest advisor" mother, was an Auximite and his father was an Arab and the same can be said for the Caliph Umar. (Jochannon 1991, p. 151) Bilal carried Muhammad’s lance, which was given to Muhammad by a companion, to whom it was gifted by the Ethiopian ruler of the kingdom of Axum.

You would now understand why the messenger of Allah may the peace and blessings of Allah ta'ala be upon him sent his companions to the Kingdom of Axum (Ethiopia) and not elsewhere on the Arabian peninsula. A similar journey he himself had undertaken when employed by his beloved wife Kadijah before his prophethood.

It is a commonly held belief that the 7th century Arabians attacked the African people and converted them to Islam by the sword. However, the works of Edward Wilmot Blyden known as “Father of Pan-Africanism” and of Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop show, Arabians introduced the people of the continent to Islam with no coercion.

“…What really took place, when the Arab met their Negro brethren in his own home, was a healthy amalgamation, and not an absorption or an undue repression.” (Blyden 1994, 14)

The primary reason for the success of Islam in black Africa, with no exception, consequently stems from the fact that it was propagated peacefully, Islam therefore is a religion of Africa and Africans.

An 18th century publication says, Islam was spread through Africa by African Muslims who established schools to teach its tenets to

their children, not by the sword.

The introduction of Islam into Kushite and Egyptian Africa liberated North Africa from oppressive Byzantine colonial occupation and rule.

Greek rule had become extremely repulsive in Egypt and it was gladly exchanged for the rule of the Muslins whom were called Saracens.

“The people of Egypt wanted the Muslims to enter the country in an effort to rid themselves of the Roman oppressors.” (Asante 2007, 213)

“The black Muslims came chiefly as traders. . ." and, “. . . gave frequent evidence of their respect for these black brethren nations." (Dubois 2001).

MUSLIM LIBERATION OF ISRAELITES IN PALESTINE.

The Hebrews Israelites under the colonial domination of the Byzantines in Palestine, were among the nations liberated by the 7th century Muslims.

After taking possession of Palestine from the Byzantines, Umayyad khalif Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (Omar II) opened Jerusalem to the black Israelites the decendants of Yakoob and gave them equal rights with the Christians. He himself helped to clean the Holy Temple of the filth and rubbish piled upon it by Christians to spite the Israelites. Israelites, here does not refer to the current white Ashkanazis Zionist of occupied Palestine.

“For a while, it must have seemed that the Moslems would overwhelm all of Christian Europe”.

“It is clear, however, that the conquest of Spain was undertaken upon the initiative of Tarik ibn Ziyad . . . a member of the Warfadjuma branch of the Nafza Berbers.” (Van Sertima 1993, 54)

Below, is an artistic rendition of General Tariq ibn Ziyad (670 CE – 720 CE).

THE PERSIAN OVERTHROW OF THE KUSHITE-ARABIAN KHALIFATE.

The Umayyad Dynasty from Muhammad’s tribe of Quraish (Quraysh), exercised exclusive rule over the Islamic World from 661 – 750 CE.

The exclusive rule of the Islamic empire by the Umayyads was short lived.

In a coup engineered by the Persian general Abu Muslim, in 750 CE, they were overthrown by the Abbasids. Abbasid culture would come to be dominated by the legacy of Persian civilization, and the capital of the Islamic empire was moved from Damascus to Baghdad, near the old Persian capital of Ctesiphon. (Latif 2019, p.3)

“Under the Umayyads, only those of full Arab parentage on both sides were admitted to the highest offices of the state. Under the ‘Abbasids, not only half-Arabs, but Persians and and former slaves rose at the caliphal court, where the favor of the ruler, more than noble descent, was the passport to power and prestige.” (Lewis 1995)

The remnant of the Umayyads, who grieved the decline of Arabian power, migrated westward and settled in Spain under the Fatimid Caliphate, or abode in Africa under the suzerainty of an Arab potentate, at a distance from the power of the Abbasids.

note-Israelites here refer to the descendants of prophet Yakoob who were all black and not the current European Ashkanazis jews who are currently occupying Palestinian lands.

[dinaive]

Khawla bint al-Azwar

a Warrior

Her grave is in Damascus, Syria.

She is big, tall and strong.

She is in the campaigns of the companions that go to Syria to engage the Byzantines. And she goes in this campaign to keep the company of her brother. This is usually, the women would be in the army, that the army of the sahabah and those early generation, usually when the men go forth in a military campaign, the will bring the with the women folk. They will take their mothers, their sisters, their wives, possibly their daughters. Usually they will take women folks who will help them, who will cook for them, who will take care of the sick, and to do other things. Other thing that you have to remember that these women also could fight. They also know how to fight. When it is necessary they would fight. They will encourage the men to be courageous.

In the case of Khawla bint alAzwar, she is there in the army, to keep the company of her beloved brother and he is "Dhiraar" - which is a name means "a person who causes other people harm". It is kind of a bedouin name. Bedouin like names like that. It is like "i cause you harm if we fight, you will be in trouble".

Her brother was Dhiraar, and he was big. He fought without armour, the armours the arab wore during the battle is heavy and so was their swords. Arab also have spears, almost like an arrow, they have thin shaft and they would have a long blade on the spear. Perhaps, they use the spear like sword, they perhaps did not throw it very much.

Dhiraar did not wear armour, he did not wear helmet and he was a frightening soldier. And when he fought the Byzantines, he basically attack the at will, he was so effective, he was so dangerous, using sword, using a spear, maybe he had other weapon like arrow but idk.

And one of the thing he did was, he did not care about common soldier, he did not want to hurt the ordinary soldier. This is actually a good battle technique, if we look at the Europeans, the Swiss was a very good soldier. That was a Swiss technique. The Swiss was undefeated for three hundred years. And the Swiss when they fight, they go to the leaders, they go right to the King or right to the Prince.

Dhiraar was like that too. Dhiraar when right to the head of the Byzantine army - who was the son of Heraclius the Byzantine emperor and dispatch him to wherever he goes. Once he did that, the Byzantine caught him. They overwhelm him. And they took him as a prisoner.

Dhiraar does not come home for dinner. And when he does not come home for dinner, Khawla is broken hearted, because that is her brother. There is poetry of Khawla - Where is my brother, are you dead or alive? was he taken captive? I have to know. It is a beautiful poetry, it might make you cry. And arabs love poetry, they express themselves in poetry.

But the next day Khawla was not crying, the next day she puts on armour, and she put on black armour. So Dr Umar Faruq called her the black night. And then, to conceal her identity, so you do not know she is a women, she puts on a veil. Because the Arab actually, the veil was not distinctively for women. And therefore, she veil her face so that no want know who she is, so they do not know she was a women.

And, the veiling of women, the exclusion of women from the society, that really not part of the prophetic society. Nor was it part of, the Umayyad society. This is a custom that developed in the Abbasid society. And it was taken primarily from the Persians and also from the Greeks. Because the Greek did that too.

So Khawla put on a Niqab, so you did not know she was a women, you can not look at her face, i do not know if she was beautiful or frightening. idk.

Khawla fight just like her brother and she fight by herself. And she terrifies the Byzantines. She did Jihad, but actually she is trying to find her brother. She wanted to now whether he is dead or alive. And the Muslim was astounded by Khawla, they wanted to know who is that, "HERO" not who is that "HEROINE". Who is that hero? They wanted to know from which tribe this hero belong to, because they would want to compose a poetry if the hero came from their tribe.

They say, who is he? Who is he? And Khalid called "him" come with us. Khalid was actually tries to catch her. Would you come join the army, why are you fighting on your own. And he can't catch up with her, she is a warrior, she is a horsewomen, she kept plugging into the Byzantines army, and they were terrified of her. They can't stand in front of her. You can say she is the equal of Khalid Al Walid who has no equal among the men, but if he did had an equal it would be Khawla among the women.

And finally, Khalid finally catches up with Khawla, and he says to 'him' somehow like " i happen to be the commander of the army, it would be really good if you would fight with us. it is not a one man show". And he also say " i was startled, under the niqab, the voice of a women." and Khalid ask her, to explain, and she say, that she is the sister of Dhiraar. And Diraar was lost in battle. And i have to find my brother. And Khalid says, we can help you do that. And then Khalid puts her, right in front. When the byzantines notice the position of the unknown "Black Knight" was in front line of the Muslim army, they was devastated. the Muslim win the victory. And when the Muslin win the victory. Of course, they took the prisoners of war. And Khalid ask the prisoners of war if they know about Dhiraar, and of course they have to describe Dhiraar, he is a soldier, who fought without armour, he was fighting mostly own his own and he is the one who kill the emperor's son. And it does not take long until they would find out that Dhiraar was taken prisoner. And was being march to Constantinople, which century later would be Istanbul.

Khalid says, lets put together a party, and lets rescue him. And Khawla says do you mind if i come? Absolutely not. You are honoured to come. So this party of soldiers, they set out to intercept the party whose taken Dhiraar as prisoner in chains to Constantinople. Who does the scouting ? Who does the tracking ? it is Khawla. She is a Bedouin women. So she is actually the one who discovers, where they are, how they went, follow this path. And then finally she came to Khalid. She ride ahead. She says, we are now ahead of them. They're coming.

Khalid let her lead the attack. And they save her brother. They are able to rescue her brother.

And of course Khawla have a poetry about finding her brother and how happy she is.

On another occasion, Khawla is take prisoner herself. And in this case. The Muslim army would have women in it. And this women as you know that were going was mostly mothers, wives and daughters. they would have a kinship relationship with somebody in the army. And they will fight. If the men begin to lose the women, the women would fight, they will join.

In this case, the Byzantines are able to capture a number of the women. So they get hundreds of women. And it happen, one of those is Khawla, but the don't know that. The women was talking with each other in the camp of prisoner of war, most of them are Yemeni women, most of them are from the southern part of Hadramout, where was most and a lot of the Nusantara ancestors came from.

Khawla is saying to them so women, you're contempt to be slaves? You're contempt to be slave women. to be taken to Byzantine and be sold in the market. One of them says, we don't want to be that, we want to be free. It would be nice if we have weapons - we do not have any weapons. and Khawla says, you do not have weapons ? you dont have tents? you dont have tent poles?

You have tent poles, your tent are being held up by poles. so she organises the women. And she take one of the biggest tent poles. and she says, we will break out at night time. She says you will see the Byzantines (the Roman) have their weapons stack together.

So she says, break those weapons, break them in two. and she with some other women, if they are attacked by the men, they will fight with the tent poles and that what she does. and she liberates all the women.

from one of Dr. Umar Faruq's lecture.

[colin-ross]

North Macedonia is a fairly new, relatively small landlocked country. The Macedonian nation is anything but.

North Macedonia became independent in 1991 following the break-up of Yugoslavia. North Macedonia has been a member of the UN since 1993, but the Greeks objected to the original name "Macedonia", as there is a Greek region of the same name. They were admitted under the provisional description "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in 2018 the dispute was resolved with an agreement that the country should rename itself "Republic of North Macedonia" which came into effect in early 2019.

This is not the end of that particular story though. A few days ago at the Presidential inauguration, new President Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova called the country "Macedonia" - the Greek ambassador walked out of the inauguration. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g5rj4y24do

The wider region of Macedonia is spread, mainly, across three countries - North Macedonia, known as Vardar Macedonia, Greece, known as Aegean Macedonia and Bulgarian, known as Pirin Macedonia. There are also parts of the Macedonia region in Albania, Kosovo and Serbia.

Settlements date back to around 7,000 BC. The Kingdom of Macedonia became the dominant power in the Balkans from the middle of the 4th century and peaked under Philip II and Alexander the Great.

Under Philip II Macedonia subdued mainland Greece and the Thracian Odrysian kingdom through conquest and diplomacy. Philip II defeated Athens and Thebes in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.

Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of Greece when he destroyed Thebes and grew the Empire to reach India in the east and Egypt in the south/west.

After Alexander’s death things began to fall apart and between 168 BC and 148 BC the Romans had taken over most, if not all, of Macedonia.

With the division of the Roman Empire into west and east in 298 AD, Macedonia came under the rule of Rome's Byzantine successors. Over time great parts of Macedonia came to be controlled by Slavic-speaking communities known as Sklaviniai.

After 836/837 the region was absorbed into the First Bulgarian Empire. The first Slavic Glagolitic alphabet was created in the early 860s in the cultural, and ecclesiastical, centre of Ohrid.

In 1018 Macedonia was reincorporated into the Byzantine Empire as the province of Bulgaria. At the end of the 12th century, some northern parts of Macedonia were temporarily conquered by Serbia.

In the 13th century, following the Fourth Crusade, Macedonia was disputed among Byzantine Greeks, the Kingdom of Thessalonica, and the Bulgaria. After 1261 all of Macedonia was once again returned to Byzantine rule, where it largely remained until the Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347, when it once again came under the control of the Serbia Empire.

After the Ottoman victory in the Battle of Maritsa in 1371, most of Macedonia was again under their rule and by the end of the 14th century the Ottoman Empire gradually annexed the region. Macedonia remained part of the Ottoman Empire for most of the next 500 years.

By the late 1890s rival groups were trying to assert themselves across Macedonia. In 1903 the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising in 1903 calling for an independent Macedonian state, and the Greek struggle for Macedonia from 1904 until 1908 led to diplomatic intervention by the European powers and plans for an autonomous Macedonia under Ottoman rule.

What happened, however, were the Balkan Wars. In the First Balkan War (1912-1913), Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro occupied almost all Ottoman-held territories in Europe. The Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of London in May 1913 assigned the whole of Macedonia to the Balkan League, without, specifying the division of the region. The Second Balkan War (1913) saw Bulgarian troops to attack the Greek and Serbian troops in Macedonia, the war sucked in various other powers and the Ottomans even regained some of their lost territory. Most of Macedonia ended up under Greek control.

The ‘settlement’ at the end of the First World War confirmed most Macedonia as under Greek control. Serbian-ruled Macedonia was incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which later became Yugoslavia.

During the Second World War the boundaries of the region shifted yet again. When the German forces occupied the area, most of Yugoslav Macedonia and part of Aegean Macedonia were transferred for administration to Bulgaria. The western Aegean Macedonia was occupied by Italy, with the western parts of Yugoslav Macedonia being annexed to Italian-occupied Albania.

Macedonia was liberated in 1944, when the Red Army's advance in the Balkan Peninsula forced the German forces to retreat. The pre-war borders were restored under U.S. and British pressure. What is now North Macedonia became the People's Republic of Macedonia as part of the People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In 1991 following a referendum the People’s Republic of Macedonia became independent of Yugoslavia. (North) Macedonia remained at peace through the Yugoslav Wars of the early 1990s although there were agreed changes to the border.

North Macedonia is a candidate country for EU enlargement, but the recent comments from the new President have led to Greece saying they may veto any accession agreement.

[gemsofgreece]

Yes there was a part missing between them, which discussed how sexism enabled the west to misuse the term "roman empreror" for the Germanic King rather than the ruler of the roman empire. Namely the excuse to stop recognising the ruler of the roman empire as the roman emperor was, that the new roman emperor (empress) was going to be Irene of Athens and "of course" the romans couldn't be ruled by a woman! The actual reason was that they sought to discredit the romans in order to misuse the term

Roman empires for themselves (aka the "holy roman empire"), and so "appropriate" roman history and exclude the Eastern romans from it. But even so the term does have its roots (partially) on sexism. And that form of sexism was not even present in the Roman empire (I am not saying they were perfect but they weren't as problematic. ) And yes, I believe classical Rome is part of the heritage of those whose ancestors lived in it/under its rule, like Greece, Egypt, France, etc. But most importantly of Italy, who started it all. I am not saying to exclude anyone when they too had been part of Rome. We should use the term "Eastern Roman Empire" to make clear that this was Rome still, but at the same time not let people appropriate it. But there's no reason to start using a foreign term made to discredit east Rome imo. And again, I don't mean to attack you! I hope it doesn't come off as aggressive! You're free to use whichever words you want, of course. I am just wondering if it'd not be better to just use "Eastern Roman" and not care if anyone wants to appropriate it. But that's a problem where different people find different solutions. Thank you for taking your time to read.

END OF MAIL

Don't worry, I didn't feel attacked at all :) I understand what you 're saying. I also believe you hit it on the nail by saying it's a problem with many different potential solutions. We have a similar understanding of the situation / issue, we just think of different approaches as preferable solutions.

I am a little sceptical though about the term Byzantine being invented for the sole reason of discrediting East Romans. For whomever might not know, the term comes from Byzantium, the Ancient Greek city upon which Constantinople was founded. The term was of course later used in order to marginalize the east, but the term itself has no problematic connotations, I don't think. I believe the original intention was for historians to explore at what point the Roman Empire had changed so drastically in character (in language, religion, ethnic make-up, capital city, artistic expression etc) to be thus studied as an independent entity. I don't think historians don't acknowledge the East Roman Empire was produced by the Roman Empire, it's just that they stress that at some point it had changed way too much and that is kinda valid IMO

Now the term Byzantine or East Roman is misused, but that depends on the person using it and not the intrisic meaning of the word. My idea was to help change the misconceptions surrounding East Romans / Byzantines rather than use the term "Roman" interchangeably and continuously fight the confusions, conundrums and appropriations that will rise non-stop in this case. But again it's just my idea, my opinion. I don't believe there is a definite 100% correct answer to this or if there is, we haven't found it yet. We sacrifice something in order to protect something else, I guess.

[rhianna]

From the Bulgarian Professor Drinov, who appears to have made the Balkan peninsula his especial study, we learn that before the arrival of the Bulgarian tribes into European Turkey, the southern side of the Danube had been invaded by the Slavs, who during four centuries poured into the country and, steadily spreading, drove out the previous inhabitants, who directed their steps towards the sea-coasts and settled in the towns there. In the beginning of the sixth century the Slavonic element had become so powerful in its newly-acquired dominions, and its depredatory incursions into the Byzantine Empire so extensive, that the Emperor Anastasius found himself forced to build a wall from Selymbria on the Sea of Marmora to Derkon on the Black Sea in order to repel their attacks. Procopius, commenting on this, relates that while Justinian was winning useless victories over the Persians, part of his empire lay exposed to the ravages of the Slavs, and that not less than 200,000 Byzantines were annually killed or carried away into slavery.

The hostile spirit, however, between these two nations was broken by short intervals of peace and friendly relations, during which the Slav race supplied some emperors and many distinguished men to the Byzantines. Many Slavs resorted to Constantinople in order to receive the education and training their newly-founded kingdom did not afford them. The migration of the Slavs into Thrace ceased towards the middle of the seventh century, when they settled down to a more sedentary life, and, under the civilizing influence of their Byzantine neighbors, betook themselves to agricultural and pastoral pursuits. According to historical accounts the Slavs did not long enjoy their acquisitions in peace, for about the year 679 a.d. a horde of Hunnish warriors, calling themselves Bulgars (a name derived from their former home on the Volga), crossed the Danube under the leadership of their Khan, Asparuch, and after some desperate fighting with the Slavs, finally settled on the land now known as Bulgaria and founded a kingdom which in its turn lasted about seven hundred years.

From the little that is known of the original Bulgarians, we learn that polygamy was practised among them, that the men shaved their heads and wore a kind of turban, and the women veiled their faces. These points of similarity connect the primitive Bulgarians with the Avars, with whom they came into close contact, as well as with the Tatars, during their long sojourn between the Volga and Tanais, as witness the marked Tatar features some of the Bulgarians bear to the present day. The primitive Bulgarians are said to have subsisted chiefly on the flesh of animals killed in the chase; and it is further related of them that they burnt their dead, and when a chieftain died his wives and servants were also burnt and their ashes buried with those of their master. Schafarik, whose learned and trustworthy researches on the origin of the Bulgarians can scarcely be called in question, remarks that the warlike hordes from the Volga regions, though not numerous, were very brave and well skilled in war. They attacked with great ferocity the patient plodding Slavs, who were engaged in cultivating the land and rearing cattle, quickly obtained the governing power, and after tasting the comforts of a settled life, gradually adopted to a great extent the manners, customs, and even the language of the people they had conquered. This amalgamation appears to have been a slow process, occupying, according to historical evidence, full two hundred and fifty years. It is during this period that the Bulgarian language must have gradually been effaced, and the vanquishing race, like the Normans in England, absorbed by the vanquished.