History of Ancient Rome

History of Ancient Rome

B.C.
1200 Trojan War; in legend. Aeneas arrives in Italy
1000 Settlement on Palatine
800 Huts on Palatine and in Forum
753 Traditional date of the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus
753-509 "Regal Period"
600 Great Sewer (Cloaca Maxima) built; Forum area drained
510-509 Ejection of Tarquinius Superbus; establishment of Roman Republic
509-31 "Republican Period"
509 First treaty with Carthage
500-440 Incursions of Aequi and Volsci
494 First Secession of the Plebs
493 Treaty of Cassius between Rome and the Latins
449 Secession of the Plebs; Laws of the Twelve Tables published
396 Romans capture Etruscan city of Veii
390 Battle of Allia: Rome sacked by Gauls
367 Licinian laws; Plebeians admitted to magistracy
348 Treaty with Carthage renewed
343-4 First Samnite War
340-338 Revolt of Latin League
326-304 Second Samnite War
321 Roman humiliation at the Caudine Forks
306 Third treaty with Carthage
298-290 Third Samnite War
295 Battle of Sentinum
287 Hortensian law (lex Hortensia): plebiscita binding on all citizens
281-275 Invasion of Pyrrhus of Epirus
280 Battle of Herac1ea
279 Battle of Asculum
275 Battle of Beneventum
273 "Friendship" established with Ptolemaic Egypt
264-241 First Punic War
262 Romans storm Agrigentum successfully
260 Roman naval victory at Mylae
255 Roman force in Africa destroyed; fleet destroyed in storm
241 Battle of the Aegates Islands; Sicily made Rome's first province
238 Sardinia and Corsica annexed
241-220 Carthaginian conquest of Spain by Barca family
229 Roman protectorate over IlIyria established
226 Ebro 'Treaty"; "friendship" with Saguntum precedes or follows it?
220 Gallia Cisalpina formed into a province
218-202 Second Punic War; invasion of Italy by Hannibal
218 Battle of Trebia
217 Battle of Lake Trasimene
216 Battle of Cannae
215 Philip V of Macedon allies with Hannibal and Carthage
209 Carthaginian forces in Spain defeated
207 Battle of the Metaurus River
203 Hannibal leaves Italy
202 Battle of Zama
215-204 First Macedonian War
200-196 Second Macedonian War; Macedon barred from Aegean Sea
196 Two provinces formed in Spain (Ulterior and Citerior)
197-133 Roman wars in Spain
192-189 War with Antiochus III of Syria
189 Battle of Magnesia
172-168 Third Macedonian War; Macedon divided into four republics
168 Battle of Pydna; Rhodes ruined by decree
149-146 Third Punic War; revolt in Macedon
147 Macedon formed into province of Macedonia
146 Revolt of Achaean League; Corinth destroyed; Carthage destroyed
135-133 Major slave war in Sicily
133 Tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus; Gracchus and 300 followers murdered in riot; Pergamum willed to Rome
129 Pergamum formed into province of Asia
123-121 Successive tribunates of Gaius Gracchus
121 First passage of senatlls cons G. Gracchus and 3000 followers killed in streetfighting
121 Gallia Transalpina (or Narbonensis) formed into province
111-105 lugurthine War in Numidia
107 First consulship of Marius
105 Battle of Arausio, Italy threatened by Cimbri and Teutones
105-102 Successive consulships of Marius (#s 2-5)
102 Battle of Aquae Sextiae, Teutones defeated
101 Battle of Vercellae, Cimbri defeated
100 Sixth consulship of Marius; senatus consultum ultimum passed
91 Murder of tribune M. Livius Drusus
91-88 Social (Italic) War; universal grant of Roman citizenship to allies
88-84 First Mithridatic War
88 Sulla marches on Rome; "Asiatic Vespers"
87-83 Cinna controls Rome
87 Marius and Cinna seize Rome
86 Seventh consulship of Marius; Marius dies (January)
85 Sulla makes Treaty of Dardanus with Mithridates
83 Sulla returns to Italy; civil war
83-81 Second Mithridatic War
82-79 Sulla dictator "to write laws and organize the state"; strengthens position of Senate, muzzles tribunate
82-81 The Sullan proscriptions
78 Death of Sulla; revolt of M. Aemlius Lepidus; Pompey given command
77-72 Pompey fights Sertorius in Spain
74-63 Third Mithridatic War
73-71 Slave revolt of Spartacus
71 Crassus defeats Spartacus; Pompey returns from Spain
70 Consulship of Pompey and Crassus; Sulla's restoration undone
67 Gabinian Law (lex Gabinia) confers imerium infinitum on Pompey
66 Pirates crushed; Manilian Law (lex Manilia) gives Pompey command against Mithridates
63 Death of Mithridates; Pompey reorganizcs the east; Catilinarian conspiracy in Italy
62 Pompey returns to Italy and "retires"
6O Caesar, Pompey and Crassus form First Triumvirate
51 First consulship of Caesar; legislation favors Triumvirs
58-49 Caesar conquers Gaul
56 Conference of Triumvirs at Luca
55 Pompey and Crass us consuls; legislation favors Triumvirs
54 Death of Julia, Caesar's daughter, Pompey's wife
53 Battle of Carrhae, Crassus killed invading Parthia
49 Caesar crosses Rubicon (10 January); Civil War begins; Caesar dictator for eleven days
49-45 Civil War between Caesar and Pompey
48 Caesar consul; Battle of Pharsalus; Caesar defeats Pompey; Pompey killed in Egypt
47-44 Successive dictatorships of Caesar
47 Caesar suppresses revolt in Asia (Veni, vidi, vici)
46-44 Successive consulships of Caesar
46 Battle of Thapsus in Africa; Cato commits suicide at Utica; Caesar's dictatorship extended for 10 years
45 Battle of Munda in Spain
44 Caesar·s dictatorship made lifelong (February); Caesar assassinated (15 March); Octavius adopted by Caesar and named Octavian; siege of Mutina begins
43 Octavian defeats Antony and. seizing Rome. becomes consul; Octavian. Antony and Lepidus form Second Triumvirate (23 November); proscriptions. death of Cicero (7 December)
42 Double Battles at Philippi (September), Triumvirs defeat Liberators
41 "Perusine War" in Italy
40 "The Peace of Brundisium" between Antony and Octavian
37 Triumvirate renewed
36 Defeat of Sextus Pompeius in Sicily; Lepidus squeezed out of Triumvirate
34 "The Donations of Alexandria"
34-31 Propaganda war between Antony and Octavian
33 Triumvirate lapses; Octavian's second consulship
32 Italy and the west take oath of allegiance to Octavian
31 Battle of Actium; Octavian defeats Antony and Cleopatra
31 BC-AD 476 "Imperial Period"
30 Egypt annexed as Roman province
27 BC-AD 14 Reign of Augustus as first Roman empcror
27 "First Constitutional Settlement" (13 January)
23 "Second Constitutional Settlement"
4 Birth of Jesus of Nazareth
2 Augustus "Father of his Country" (Pater Patriae)


A.D.
14 Death of Augustus (19 August)
14-68 Julio-Claudian Dynasty
14-37 Emperor Tiberius
24-31 Ascendancy of Sejanus
30 Crucifixion of Jesus
37-41 Emperor Gaius (Caligula)
41-54 Emperor Claudius
41 Gaius (Caligula) first emperor to be assassinated
54-68 Emperor Nero
64 Great Fire in Rome. Christians persecuted for first time
66-70 Jewish revolt in Palestine
68 Nero deposed by army revolt
68-69 Emperor Galba
69 Civil War; "Year of the Four Emperors": Galba (January) Otho (January-April), Vitellius (April-December); Vespasian (December)
69-96 Flavian Dynasty
69-79 Emperor Vespasian
70 Jerusalem sacked, Temple destroyed
73 Siege of Masada
79-81 Emperor Titus
81-96 Emperor Domitian
96-98 Emperor Nerva. first of the "Good Emperors"
98-180 "Adoptive Dynasty" (sometimes called the "Antonines")
98-117 Emperor Trajan
106 Formation of Dacia as province
114-17 Eastern wars of Trajan, three new provinces formed
117-138 Emperor Hadrian; abandons Trajan's eastern provinces
122 Construction on Hadrian's Wall in Britain begins
138-161 Emperor Antoninus Pius
150-200 Gradual formation of Germanic tribal confederations
268-270 Emperor Claudius II Gothicus
180-192 Emperor Commodus; adoptive succession abandoned
192 Commodus assassinated; Emperor Pertinax (January-March); emperorship auctioned in forum by Praetorian Guard
193-197 Civil war between Severus, Clodius Albinus, and Pescennius Niger
193-235 Severan Dynasty
193-211 Emperor Septimius Severus
211-212 Emperor Geta (murdered by Caracalla)
211-217 Emperor Caracalla
217-218 Emperor Macrinus (non-Severan usurper)
218-222 Emperor Elagabulus
222-235 Emperor Severus Alexander
220 Emergence of Sassanid Persia in east
235-285 The Crisis of the Third Century; many emperors and usurpers including:
235-238 Emperor Maximinus
238-244 Emperors Gordian I, II, III
244-249 Philip the Arab
249-251 Emperor Decius
250-260 Persecutions of Christians by Decius and Valerian
161-169 Emperor Lucius Verus
161-180 Emperor Marcus Aurelius (rules alone 169- 180)
253-260 Emperor Valerian
253-268 Emperor Gallienus (rules alone, 260- )
253-258 Franks ravage Gaul and Spain
258 Declaration of 'The Empire of the Gallic Provinces" (Imperium Galliantm); Spain and Britain defect to new state
265-268 Gothic assault on Asia Minor and Greece
269-270 Palmyra controls Syria, Egypt, parts of Asia Minor
268-270 Emperor Claudius II Gothicus
270-275 Emperor Aurelian
273 Defeat of Palmyra
274 Imperium Galliarum defeated; empire reintegrated
275 Aurelian assassinated by officers
275-276 Emperor Tacitus
276-82 Emperor Probus
282 Probus murdered by his soldiers
282-284 Civil war
284-305 Emperor Dioc1etian; major reforms; establishment of Tetrarchy
299-311 "The Great Persecution" of Christians, particularly fierce under Tetrarch Galerius
305 Dioc1etian and Maximian retire
306 Constantine dec1ared Augustus by troops; Maxentius seizes Rome; Tetrarchy fails
306-337 Emperor Constantine the Great (rules alone, 324-337)
311 Galerius issues Edict of Toleration of Christianity
312 Battle of the Milvian bridge; Constantine's vision; Constantine gains control of western part of the empire
313 Edict of Milan tolerates all forms of worship
314 Council of bishops at Arelate
317-21 Persecution of Donatists in Africa
324 Constantinople founded
330 Constantinople becomes new capital of Roman empire
325 Council of Nicaea
337-361 Emperor Constantius II
361-363 Emperor lui ian the Apostate
364-375 Emperor Valentinian
364-378 Emperor Valens (east)
375-83 Emperor Gratian
378 Battle of Adrianople, Valens killed by Goths
379-395 Emperor Theodosius the Great gains control of whole empire
391 Edicts of intolerance against paganism; Christianity instituted as official religion
395 Empire officially divided in Theodosius' will into east (under Arcadius) and west (under Honorius)
395-423 Emperor Honorius (west)
395-408 Ascendancy of Stilicho
400 Cities and trade begin to decline in west; Germanic tribes settled in large numbers in Gaul and along Danube frontier
395-402 Alaric and the Visigoths harry east
402-410 Alaric turns to Italy
409 Vandals and others overrun Spain
410 Sack of Rome by Alaric (23 August); Britain abandoned
429 Vandals seize Africa
451-453 Attila the Hun invades west
451 Battle of Chalons; Huns defeated
453 Death of Attila
455 Vandals sack Rome
455-72 Ascendancy of Ricimer
475-476 Romulus Augustulus, last western emperor
476 Traditional date for the "Fall of the Roman Empire"
476-493 Odoacer becomes King (Emperor) of Italy
476-1453 Eastern Empire survives as Byzantine empire/kingdom


Glossary
Acies triplex (tripartite battle formation): The set formation of the Roman Republican army when attacking.

Aediles: The aedileship originated as an office of the "Plebeian State" and became an optional magistracy in the regular cursus honorum; four were elected annually (six after reforms introduced under Caesar), two plebeian and two patrician (the latter termed "curule aediles"). They were in charge of the fabric of Rome, the marketplace, and public games. They had no imperil/m.

Augury: The practice of divination by several means, such as looking at the sky, birds, or interpreting omens.

Auspices: The reading of the gods' attitude toward a project by five means, including looking at the sky, birds, the sacred chickens feeding, or the behavior of four-legged beasts. All public business had to have favorable auspices in order to proceed. Since auspices lasted 24 hours, failure to secure favorable auspices on one day could be reversed the next.

Barbarization: Term for the growing presence and prominence of Germanic peoples in the western empire during the Late Empire.

Boni ("The Good Men"): A self-styling of the conservative senators, it denoted right-thinking, "decent" men in the senate who respected the traditional ways of doing things.

Capitecnsi ("Head Count"): The lowest social class in the Roman citizen census; having no property to declare to the censors, they were counted by their heads alone. hence the name. They were grouped into a single century in the comitia centuriata and voted last, if they got to do so at all (since voting stopped when a majority was reached).

Censors: Two magistrates elected every five years for an eighteen-month tenure of office. They counted citizens, assigned them to their classes, reviewed the register of senators and public morals, and let contracts for tax collection and public construction. They had no imperil/m.

Clientela ("c1ientship"): The social system of binding high and low families together by ties of granting favors and meeting obligations. Originated in the Regal Period.

Colony: Rome started settling colonies of Latins and citizens early, as a means of securing territory. Eventually "colony" became the highest status a subject

community (whether founded by Rome or not) could attain, whereby all freeborn male inhabitants became Roman citizens.

Comitia ("assembly"): Term applied to the Roman popular assemblies convened for voting on a law: the Curiate Assembly (comitia curiata); Centuriate Assembly (comitia centuriata); Tribal Assembly of the People (comitia populi tributa); and Tribal Assembly of the Plebs (comitia plebis tributa) a.k.a. the Council of the Plebs (collcilium plebis). All voting was done in blocks as appropriate for each assembly.

Consul: Chief annually elected Republican magistrate; two elected each year; top powers in political, judicial, and military spheres. They had the greatest imperil/m in the state.

Cursus honorum ("run of offices"): Enforced order of office holding in Republican Rome, based on criteria of wealth, age, and experience. The order of ascent was quaestor (or tribune of the plebs) => aedile (optional) => praetor => consul. Ex-consuls could also become censors or dictators, and patrician exconsuls could be elected as interreges.

Debt-bondage: The archaic system of ensuring cheap labor for the landowning gentry. In return for subsistence, poorer citizens became indentured servants of the landowners. One of the main issues that generated the Struggle of the Orders.

Dictator: Extraordinary magistracy instituted in crises. A dictator was appointed by a magistrate and suspended the normal government of Rome. He had no colleague but appointed an assistant called the Master of Horse (magister equitum). He held office for six months or until he had completed his specific task. A dictator had the combined imperium of the suspended consuls and was so entitled to twenty-four lictors.

Dominate (domillus, Latin for "master"): The term sometimes applied to the autocratic system of rule founded by Diocletian and also to the period of its operation (AD 284-476). The term is used chiefly to distinguish it from the Principate, as established by Augustus.

Donatism: Heresy popular in Africa in fourth and fifth centuries AD. It disputed the right of "traitors," Christians who complied with pagan demands for the burning of Scripture during the Great Persecution (AD 299-311), to be full members of the Church.

Editor: One who put on gladiatorial and related spectacles at personal expense for the entertainment of the commoners.

Epigraphy: The study of inscriptions (on any surface) that derive directly from the ancient world.

Faction: Term applied to politically allied groupings in Republican senatorial politics. Applied later to the four chariot-racing teams (white, blue, green, red) and their supporters.

Fasces: Bundles of rods carried by lictors as marks of a magistrate's imperil/Ill. Outside Rome an ax was added to the rods to symbolize the magistrate's ability to order either corporal or capital punishment.

Fasti: Lists of annual consuls kept at Rome and other towns, usually in the forum. Later, notable events were added under their appropriate years, making surviving fasti (mostly from Italian towns) valuable witnesses to events.

Freedman (Latin, libertus): A former slave raised to the status of citizenship upon manumission but still bound to the owner as a client.

Gallia (Gaul): The Roman name for the Celtic-controlled sector of mainland western Europe. It was divided into two parts, Callia Transalpina ("Gaul across the Alps") comprising France, Belgium, Gallia Cisalpina ("Gaul this side of the Alps"), in the Po Valley in north Italy. Both regions eventually came under Roman control.

Gens (plural, gentes): Normally translated as "clan," this refers to groupings of aristocratic families that seem to have their origin in the Regal Period.

Hellenism, Hellenization ("Hellas," the Greek word for "Greece"): The process whereby features of Greek culture were adopted by another culture in a variety of spheres. The Hellenization of Rome started early (sixth century BC at the latest) but increased in pace following direct contact with the Greek mainland in the second and third centuries Be.

Hellenistic Period/Kingdoms: Name given to the period after Alexander the Great's death in 323 BC; it ended in 31 Be. the year when Ptolemaic Egypt fell to Rome. The kingdoms into which Alexander's eastern empire divided and which existed in this period are termed "Hellenistic."

Imperial Period: Habitual designation for the period from Augustus to the "fall" in the fifth century, so covering the period 31 BC-AD 476. Usually subdivided into the Early Empire (Augustus-Nerva), the High Empire (Trajan-Severans), and the Late Empire (third-fifth centuries).

Imperiuml: Originally this term meant the "power of command" in a military context and was conferred on kings and, later, on consuls and praetors (and dictators). It was also used to denote the area over which the Romans had the power of command, and hence came to mean "empire" in a territorial sense.

Interpretatio Romana ("the Roman meaning"): The process in paganism of identifying newly encountered deities with established Roman divinities, such as the Punic Melqart with the Roman Hercules.

Interrex (plural, interreges): Extraordinary Republican magistracy elected when no consuls were in office. Interreges had to be patrician and held office for five days in order to conduct consular elections. They could be replaced after five days by another five-day interrex, this process continuing until consuls had been elected. They had no imperium.

Latin Rights (ius Latii): A half-citizenship conferred by Rome on deserving allies and colonists. Latin Rights embraced all the privileges and obligations of full citizenship minus the right to vote or stand office (though "naturalization" was possible by moving to Rome itself).

Lictors: Officials who carried the fasces in public as the badges of a magistrate's imperium. The number of lictors reflected the magistrate's relative level of imperil/m: six each for praetors (two when in Rome); twelve each for consuls; and twenty-four for dictators (but before Sulla, only twelve when in Rome).

Ludus: Any place of training or basic education, especially a gladiatorial training school.

Maiores ("elders, ancestors"): The influential and important ancestors of leading Roman families and of the state as a whole. Roman conservatism frequently looked to the mos maiorum ("the way of the ancestors") for examples and guidance.

Manus ("hand, authority"): An important concept in Roman domestic relations, the term denoted the authority-as represented by the hand and what was in it-wielded by fathers over their dependents, husbands over wives, owners over slaves, and so on.

Manumission ("release from authority"): The ceremony of freeing a slave.

Municipia ("township"): This technical term fluctuated in meaning over the centuries but basically described a township under Roman rule in which the freeborn inhabitants had Latin Rights or, later, full citizenship. Eventually it came to denote any self-ruling Italian community, and many provincial ones as well, that was not a citizen colony.

Mystery cults/religions: Predominantly eastern cults in which a select group of initiates went through secret rites about which they were sworn to secrecy (hence the "mystery") and thereby entered into a special relationship with the deity concerned (e.g., Mithras, Isis). A major rival to Christianity, such cults became very popular in the west in the second and third centuries AD.

Names, Roman: The full citizen's name usually had three elements: the praenomen (identifying the individual; very few were in general use), the nomen (identifying the "clan"), and the cognomen (identifying a family within a clan). Extra names (usually heritable) could be accumulated through adoption or as honorific titles, or as nicknames.

Oligarchy: "Rule by a few" selected usually on the basis of birth (aristocracy) or wealth (plutocracy) or a combination of the two. From the Greek oligos ("few") and arche ("1eadership").

Optimates ('The Excellent Men"): Term applied initially to broadly conservative senators who favored the traditional role of the senate at the state's helm. Eventually, it applied especially to die-hard conservatives, who opposed each and every departure from traditional procedure.

Order (ordo, the Latin word for "rank"): The term applied to the various social classes of citizens organized by status. Over the long course of Roman history five Orders appeared: Patrician, Plebeian, Senatorial, Equestrian, and Decurional.

Pax deorum: Term used to describe the desirable modus vivendi between gods and humans, it was maintained by proper ritual observance.

Paterfamilias ("father of the family"): The legal head of the Roman family, he was the eldest living male and wielded patria potestas ("the fatherly power") over all who lived under his roof.

Pontifex Maximus: chief priest of pagan Rome.

Populares ("Men of the People"): Term applied to (usually young) politicians who followed the lead of Ti. and e. Gracchus and employed the tribunate and plebeian assembly to implement their political agenda. Popu/ares. therefore, drummed up support by backing "popular" measures (land distributions, cheap or free grain, debt relief, etc.) and tended to adopt a strongly anti-senate posture.

Praetor: Second highest annually elected Republican magistracy. Originally assistants to the consuls, six were elected each year by 150 BC, with two more added by Sulla. They carried out judicial, political. and military functions. They had imperium. but lesser than that of the consuls.

Praetorian Guard/Prefect: Originally a special detachment of soldiers who guarded the CO's tent (praetorium) in an army camp, the term was adopted for the imperial guard of the emperor in Rome. Formed by Augustus and discreetly billeted in towns around Rome, they were barracked in a single camp on the outskirts of the city by Tiberius in AD 23. They numbered from 9,000-16.000 men, depending on the emperors' inclination. They played some role in imperial politics (it has often been exaggerated), killing some emperors (e.g., Gaius [Caligula]), elevating others (e.g., Claudius. Otho and Didius Julianus). Their commander. a prefect of Equestrian status. could be a person of great influence. as was the case with Sejanus under Tiberius or Macrinus, who himself became emperor in AD 217-218. They were disbanded by Constantine in AD 312.

Principate: Term used to describe both the imperial system established by Augustus and the period of its operation (27 BC-ca. AD 284).

Prodigia: Unasked-for signs from the gods, usually in the form of extraordinary or supernatural occurrences.

Publican; (literally "public men"): Term used to denote companies of (usually) equestrian members who purchased public contracts let by the censors. The most powerful were the tax collectors, who competed for contracts for particular regions, thus leaving those regions open to widespread abuse and extortion.

Quaestor: Most junior magistracy in the cursus honorum, ten were elected annually. They had financial duties and no imperium.

Regal Period: The period when kings ruled Rome, traditionally dated 753-509 Be.

Republican Period: Traditionally dated 509-31 BC, this long period of oligarchic rule by senate and magistrates is often subdivided into the Early Republic (down to 264 BC and the First Punic War), Middle Republic (264-133 BC). and the Late Republic (corresponding to the Roman Revolution, 133-31 BC).

Romanization: Modern historians' term for the process of making previously uncivilized regions into Roman ones (although it can be applied also to the adaptation of urbanized cultures to the Roman way).

Senate: Council of Roman aristocratic advisors, first to the kings, then to the magistrates of the Roman Republic, and finally to the Emperors. Its origins are obscure.

Senatus consultum (ultimum) ("[final] decree of the senate"): Advice issued by the senate to magistrates; it was not legally binding. The "final" (ultimum) decree was essentially a declaration of martial law first issued in 121 BC amid the disturbances surrounding e. Gracchus' attempt for a third tribunate and the last was issued when Caesar invaded Italy in January 49 Be.

Tribe: A grouping of Roman citizens defined by locality (like a parish or county). There were originally only three tribes (hence the name, derived from the Latin tres, meaning "three"), but the number of tribes increased with Roman expansion and was eventually set at 35 (4 urban, 31 rural).

Tribune of the Plebs: Not technically a magistrate, this was the officer attached to the Tribal Assembly of the Plebs; his title derives from the tribal organization of this assembly. He had to be plebeian, was sacrosanct and could not be harmed while in office, was entrusted with looking after the interests of the plebs and could convene discussion sessions (contiones) or voting sessions (comitiae) of the plebs. His most important power was a veto on meetings of all assemblies and the Senate and on all legislation.

Triumvirate: Latinate term applied to any board of three men empowered to carry out some task (e.g., Ti. Gracchus' land commission). Usually applied (technically incorrectly) to the pact between Crassus, Pompey and Caesar formed in 60 BC (the so-called First Triumvirate). The Second Triumvirate comprised of Octavian, Antony and Lepidus and was legally instituted in 43 Be.

Venatio ("the hunt"): Wild beast hunt and/or animal fights that constituted the first installment of the developed gladiatorial spectacle.

History of the English Language

History of the English Language


OLD ENGLISH

Every letter was pronounced and words were spelled as they were pronounced. Each dialect had its own spelling.

Old English had European vowel sounds: Ah, Eh, Ee, Oh, Oo.

Old English vocabulary was deeply influenced by Norse (Scandinavian words). Some Norse words survived along with their English counterparts. For example:

Ship [OE] = Skip [N] (today: a skipper pilots a ship)
Shirt [OE]= Skirt [N] (today: both are a piece of clothing)
Church [OE]= Kirk [N] (today: both are a place of worship in Scotland)

Old English was fully inflected and had case endings, verb tense endings, and gender forms much like German has today. Some of this is fossilized in the King James Bible:

For example: dost, doth, etc. (inflections of the verb “to do”).

Old English also had both 2nd person singular and plural pronouns: Thou and You. Using the second person plural “you” was the polite way to address a single person, while the singular form “thou” was the informal way to address someone. The King James Bible fossilized the use of “Thou” and “Thee” and “Thine” in reference to God since the informal form of address was always used for God in all European languages. Thus, what sounds very formal to us today was actually the informal and intimate way to address someone. By the seventeenth century the second person singular pronoun (thou, etc.) had dropped out and the second person plural pronoun (you) did double duty.

Old English verbs were strong verbs (the vowel changed to indicate tense): sing, sang, sung. However, all new verbs are weak verbs (add “–ed” and “have” to indicate tense): walk, walked, have walked. All new verbs being coined today (since the fifteenth century) are weak verbs.


MIDDLE ENGLISH

The Norman Conquest of 1066 dramatically changed the English language. The northern French dialect of the Norman rulers affected the development of the English language for 300 years.

The was a massive influx of French words into the English vocabulary. As with the Norse words, many of the English words survived along with the French words. For example:

Chalet = Castle
Chapeau = Cap
Chattle = Cattle
Guardian = Warden
Guarantee = Warranty
Gauge = Wage
Salon = Saloon

French also had a strong influence on English vocabulary for food. In Old English, the same word used for animal was also used for the name of the dish. After the eleventh century, however, French words were used for the dishes and not the English animal words. For example:

Pig = Pork
Cow = Beef
Calf = Veal
Lamb = Mutton

There were many dialects in England, and some of them were mutually unintelligible. A man from the south traveling in the north might be mistaken for a foreigner and find that communication was impossible.

The government also began to standardized spelling. Spelling was determined by the ruling dialect, so that words were no longer spelled as they were pronounced but by the standard set by the government. With the introduction of the printing press to England, standardized spelling became universal and unchanging.

As prepositions became more popular, they began to supercede the use of case endings. By the end of the Middle English period, the case endings had all but disappeared.

There was also an increase in the use of the continuous aspect of the verb, using the –ing verb endings.

By this time, England had become a trilingual society: English, French, and Latin. English was spoken by the common man, French by the court, and Latin by the clergy. Most scholarly works were in Latin, and most English works were translated into Latin. One artifact of this reality can still be seen in the wedding vows still used by some: “to love, honor and cherish.” Love is an Old English word, honor comes from French, and cherish is Latin. All three words mean basically the same thing, indicating that the vows grew out of this trilingual culture.


MODERN ENGLISH

The most dramatic change to the English Language came in the Great Vowel Shift (15th century). English pronunciation shifted from its European roots (Ah Eh Ee Oh Oo), to its present pronunciation of Ay Ee Ai Ohh You. Even Shakespeare had a very difficult time understanding Middle English works, such as Chaucer.

Shakespeare, along with his contemporaries, began to coin many new words. Shakespeare’s vocabulary is so extensive because many of the words he used were springing into existence as he wrote.

One dramatic change during this time was the propensity to turn nouns into verbs, for example: hound = to hound.

There was also an influx of new scientific words that later took on metaphorical meanings, for example: Attraction, which originally referred to the force that caused to bodies to move closer to each other, and later took on the metaphorical use.

There was also the introduction of the nominalization of verbs using the “–ing” ending.

Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) and Noah Webster’s Dictionary (1828) in America started the modern trend of lexicography of the English language.


PIDGIN ENGLISH AND CREOLE

Pidgin is a makeshift language used by two or more groups of people that do not share a common language, in such situations as trade or slavery. Creole is a fully developed language that evolved out of a Pidgin.

Chinese History

Chinese Dynasties

Xia 2100 BC
Shang 1500 BC
Qin 221-207 BC
Zhou 1045 BC
Warring States 480-221 BC
Han 202 BC – 220 AD
Three Kingdoms 220-280 AD
Sui 581-618 AD
Tang 618-906 AD
Five Dynasties 907-960 AD
Liao 907-1125 AD
Northern Song 960-1127 AD
Jin 1126-1234 AD
Southern Song 1127-1279 AD
Yuan 1260-1368 AD
Ming 1368-1644 AD
Qing 1636-1912 AD


Chinese History Timeline

500,000 B.C.E. Peking Man hominid fossils
10,000 B.C.E Domestication of rice in Jiangxi
4600 B.C.E Neolithic village cultures in northern China
2100 B.C.E Xia "dynasty" in Yellow River valley
1500 B.C.E Shang state on North China Plain
1045 B.C.E Zhou Conquest
722-481 B.C.E Spring and Autumn period
480-221 B.C.E Warring States period
207 B.C.E Fall of Qin dynasty
202 B.C.E.-220 C.E Han dynasty
141-87 B.C.E Reign of Wudi
81 B.C.E Debate on Salt and Iron
9-23 C.E Usurpation of Wang Mang
100 C.E First Buddhist temple in China
182 C.E Yellow Turban uprising
220-280 Three Kingdoms period
310 Turkic migrations into northern China begin
581-618 Sui dynasty
618-906 Tang dynasty
684-705 Reign of Empress Wu Zetian
713-756 Reign of Xuanzong
755-763 An Lushan rebellion
768-824 Han Yu
845 Official suppression of Buddhism
907-960 Five Dynasties period
907-1125 Liao dynasty of the Khitan people
960-1127 Northern Song dynasty
1126-1234 Jin dynasty of the Jurchen people
1206 Mongol quriltai elects Temujin as Great Khan
1127-1279 Southern Song dynasty
1130-1200 Zhu Xi
1260-1368 Mongol Yuan dynasty
1272-1290 Marco Polo in China
1313 Mongols restore Confucian examinations
1340s Great plague in Yangzi River valley
1368-1644 Ming dynasty
1402 Zhu Di usurps the throne
1405-1435 Ming voyages of exploration
1572-1620 Reign of Wanli emperor
1580 "Single Whip" tax reforms
1626 Nurhaci inaugurates Manchu language use
1636 Qing dynasty proclaimed by Manchus
1644 Fall of Ming dynasty and Manchu invasion
1661-1722 Reign of Kangxi
1673-1681 Rebellion of the Wu Sangui
1712 Kangxi's tax edict
1723-1735 Reign of Yongzheng
1736-1795 Reign of Qianlong
1793 British trade mission to China
1813 Secret society rebellion against Qing
1839-1842 Opium War
1850-1864 Taiping Rebellion
1864-1895 Self-Strengthening Movement
1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War
1898-100 Days Reforms
1899-1900 Boxer Rebellion
1905 Confucian examinations abolished
1911 October 11, Wuhan mutiny sets off revolution
1912 February 12, Abdication of last emperor
1912 February 15, Yuan Shikai becomes president
1916 Yuan Shikai tries to become emperor
1919 May 4, Student demonstration in Beijing
1921 July, Founding of Chinese Communist Party
1922-1927 First United Front of Communists and Nationalists
1926 Northern Expedition of Chiang Kaishek
1927 April, Split between CCP and GMD
1929-1934 Jiangxi period of Chinese Communists
1931 September 18, Japanese invade Manchuria
1934 October 1935 October Long March
1936 December, Xian incident: Chiang "arrested"
1937-1945 Second United Front
1937 July 7, Marco Polo Bridge incident: Japanese invasion
1945 End of war with Japan
1945-1949 Civil war between Communists and Nationalists
1948 Nationalists massacre Taiwanese
1949 Nationalists withdraw to Taiwan
1949 October 1, Mao proclaims People's Republic of China
1949-1952 Land reform
1950 Marriage law
1958-1959 Great Leap Forward
1959 August, Lushan Plenum: Peng Dehuai purged, Mao retreats from daily leadership
1962 Socialist Education Movement
1966-1969 Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
1976 Death of Mao Zedong
1978-1994 Leadership of Deng Xiaoping
1989 Tiananmen student movement, suppressed June 4
1999 China and the United States agree on WTO membership

Mysteries of the Middle Ages

Thomas Cahill, in his recent book, Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science, and Art from the Cults of Catholic Europe, gives a brief introduction to important people and events that shaped the modern world in the areas of Women’s rights, science and technology, and music and the arts. While many historians focus on the negative aspects of the Middle Ages, especially of the corruption of the Popes and the resistance of the Catholic Church to science and progress, Cahill looks at the positive side of the Middle Ages, pointing out many of the brilliant men and women who helped bring change and reforms that laid the foundation for modern society.

Cahill begins the book by laying the historical foundation for the Middle Ages. He explains how ancient Greece and Rome flourished, providing a rich cultural heritage that was nearly forgotten by the fall of Rome to the barbarians. Even though it wouldn’t be until the Renaissance that this cultural heritage was rediscovered, the near millennium between these events wasn’t as “dark” as many have been led to believe. During this time, men and women of great intellect and character continued to make discoveries and add to the cultural development of Europe.

Hildegard of Bingen became a nun at age 8 and lived most of her early life in seclusion in a monastery. However, she read widely and educated herself far beyond any woman of her time, as well as most men. She was outspoken and daring, stepping consistently outside the norms of society and paving the way for the liberation of women in Europe. She also created a new genre of music that was more complex and free than anything the church had ever seen. Even though she lived from 1098 to 1179, she had an influence on the church and society that lasted for centuries.

Peter Abelard was another brilliant man who pressed the envelope by his enquiries and radical theology. While he was constantly harassed for his cutting edge ideas, he never stopped thinking and teaching what he believed was a better understanding of the world and the Bible. Unfortunately, he fell in love with Heloise and married her secretly after getting her pregnant. However, the secret got out and heloise’s father castrated Abelard and he had to live out his days separated from the woman he loved.

Thomas Aquinas was a solid, steady thinker who reshaped Catholic theology by using Aristotle’s ideas as a foundation instead of Plato’s. The newly rediscovered philosopher captivated Aquinas’ imagination and he wrote volumes integrated what he was learning from Aristotle with Christian doctrine. His writings have influenced Catholic doctrine more than any other theologian even to this day.

Dante transformed the world of literature with his Divine Comedy, written between 1308 and 1321. Dante was enamored with the Roman poet Virgil whose Latin style influenced Dante’s Italian style. Dante was also inspired by the love of his life, Beatrice, with whom he never actually had close intimate contact. These two loves shaped all that Dante wrote, the most famous being the Divine Comedy, which describes his journey through Hell, Purgatory, and finally Paradise, in which he places many historical and contemporary figures in one of the three realms. His works have influenced popular Catholic thought for centuries.

Finally, Giotto was a brilliant and prolific artist in Florence, Italy from1267 to 1337. His works are considered the beginning of the Italian Renaissance. His paintings, sculpture and architecture ignited a new artistic movement that lasted centuries.

Attila the Hun

Attila: The Barbarian King Who Challenged Rome


John Man has written a thoroughly researched history of Attila the Hun and his times. In his book, in Attila: The Barbarian King Who Challenged Rome, he gives the historical background that gave rise to the Huns, and the circumstances that weakened Rome, making them an appealing target for Attila. Man also spends a lot of time explaining the military strategy that made the Huns the most powerful and feared kingdom on the northern frontier of Rome: the ability of the Huns to shoot rapidly and accurately while riding a horse at full gallop.

One of the things I found very interesting was the discussion of a modern day Hungarian who spent several decades learning and perfecting the Huns’ riding and shooting skills. He became so proficient that he is now able to shoot six arrows in twelve seconds while riding at full gallop and not miss a single target. He is able to shoot from any direction, including straight behind.

The Huns, with each mounted soldier able to shoot an arrow every two to three seconds, attacking in large fast moving formations, could launch 15,000 arrows within a very short period of time, making their tactics as devastating as a machine gun.

The other major advantage the Huns had was their powerful bows that could launch arrows faster and farther than any of their enemies. This gave them a huge advantage on the battlefield, enabling them to devastate opponents without suffering many losses. This powerful bow combined with the ability to shoot quickly and accurately from a horse made the Huns a nearly unbeatable army.

Attila was more like a robber baron than a king and he was unable to break out of his limiting environment. Instead of solidifying his empire, he spread himself too thin and reached beyond his grasp, leaving him vulnerable and unable to defend his kingdom from the combined forces of Rome, Constantinople and the unified Barbarian tribes. His desire to sack Rome and fill his treasury with Rome’s wealth failed and he was finally defeated in Gaul.

Attila is known for the terror he unleashed on the tribes on the northern frontier. Even after a millennium and a half, Attila is still known for his brutality and his name is synonymous with terror. However, those living in Hungary, distant heirs of the Huns, who had settled along the Danube, view Attila with pride and admiration. Even today, the name Attila is given to boys born in Hungary, just as in Mongolia boys are still named Genghis. One nation’s brutal savage is another nation’s national hero; it all depends on perspective.

In spite of his exploits, Attila led a very austere life. He lived in simple dwelling and had very few amenities to make life pleasant. He succeeded in uniting the Huns and building a powerful military, but he failed to leave any lasting legacy behind. His attack on Rome may have contributed a small part to its final decline and fall, but he didn’t have any real impact on history, either positively or negatively. He terrorized some nations for a few decades and then he died, leaving nothing of lasting value behind. The only thing that remains today is his reputation of brutality and terror.

Alexander the Great

Agnes Savill’s book, Alexander the Great and His Times, is well researched and written. I appreciated her balanced portrayal of Alexander. Some authors portray him as a saint who did nothing wrong while many others see him as a power-hungry, pleasure seeking homosexual.

This is especially true of Oliver Stone’s recent movie, Alexander the Great. I was very disappointed by his portrayal of Alexander and Hephaistion as homosexual lovers, whereas in real life they were close friends and confidants. Alexander had high moral standards and he required upright conduct of all of his generals. While Alexander did throw lavish parties for his troops, it was always after a hard battle in order to help them recover from all of the hardship and suffering they had gone through. Alexander himself seldom allowed himself to become intoxicated, knowing full well the dangers of letting his guard down.

I was impressed with Alexander mainly because of his selflessness in his ambition. While he wanted to conquer the world, his motivation was not for personal glory but for the benefit of all mankind. Alexander kept very little from the spoils of war for himself, choosing to live an austere lifestyle. However, he was lavish in his gifts, giving his generals and troops far more than he kept for himself, so that all of his generals were wealthier than he was. His sole obsession was to unite the world, bring prosperity and peace to every corner. Unfortunately, his generals did not fully buy into his dream and nearly destroyed all that he had labored for after his death.

One of the reasons many see Alexander as a megalomaniac was his insistence in being addressed as a god by the Persians and his generals when Persians were present. His reason for this was sound; the Persians expected their ruler to be a god and so to not demand such treatment would have undermined his authority among the Persians. However, when the Persians were not present, Alexander allowed his generals to address him as an equal, not requiring them to bow and address him as a god. In fact, Alexander often joked with his generals about the silliness of being addressed as a god. Alexander, then, was not a megalomaniac but a shrewd politician.

Another thing that angered his generals was that Alexander recruited Persians into his army, so that at times Persians and Greeks fought side by side. He also gave some Persians authority over Greeks, making his generals furious. This indicates that Alexander’s dream of the unity of all mankind was not fully accepted by his generals. They saw themselves as superior to the Persians, especially since the numerically superior Persian army was devastated by Alexander’s professional Greek army. Allowing Persians into the army was a shrewd political move towards the Persians, winning their loyalty, while it was not implemented shrewdly enough to appease his Greek generals.

Alexander won the loyalty and love off most every nation he conquered, usually by allowing the defeated ruler to maintain his position after Alexander left. As each newly conquered land experienced Alexander’s clemency and generosity they fell in love with him. When they experience the prosperity and freedom that Alexander brought, they remained loyal to him. Again, the love and adoration of these conquered peoples began to chafe at the generals, fearing that Alexander’s love was being drawn away from them.

The racism and selfish ambition of his generals made it difficult for them to fully understand and embrace Alexander’s vision for the world. As a result, as the army got bogged down in India, the generals refused to go any further. Furious, Alexander sent them all home, threatening to go on with his Persians. An angry revolt erupted which Alexander was forced to quash with brutality. In great mourning they army returned to Babylon through the desert.

Alexander’s death has been a point of controversy as well. Some, including Oliver Stone in his movie, portray Alexander’s death as the result of his drunken orgies and sexual deviance. However, the truth is that he died from a disease, most likely malaria or other diseased caused by bacteria in the water. The saddest part of his life is that he didn’t make arrangements for what would happen after his death. His failure to designate a successor resulted in his empire being torn apart by civil war and revolt. It is a shame that all of his hard work nearly went to waste because of his lack of foresight.

Alexander has impacted the world in several major ways, so that even the world today. First, he united the world and paved the way for equality, freedom and justice for all men. This vision was adopted by Rome and still drives us today. Second, he united the world under one language and culture, making trade, travel and cultural exchange possible across many boundaries. Third, he paved the way for Christianity by providing a common language and culture into which a worldwide religious movement could take root and flourish. Even after Rome took over the empire, Greek was still the common language throughout the whole world. This enabled the early Christians to spread the Gospel to the whole known world quickly. While the Romans provided universal peace and high quality roads, it was Alexander who paved the way intellectually by uniting the world culturally and linguistically.

America’s Secret War

In America’s Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies, George Friedman, chairman and founder of Stratfor, has written an excellent book on the history behind the current war on terror, tracing its roots back to the Carter administration and explaining the reasons things are the way they are. Stratfor provides strategic intelligence on global business, economic, security and geopolitical affairs. According to their website, “Stratfor - the world's leading private intelligence firm -- provides corporations, governments and individuals with geopolitical analysis and forecasts that enable them to manage risk and anticipate political, economic and security issues vital to their interests.” As Stratfor’s founder and chairman, Friedman is highly qualified to write on this topic.

Friedman sees this current war as the fourth modern global conflict. Just as World War II grew out of World War I, and the Cold War grew out of World War II, the current global war on terror has grown out of the Cold War. The situation we face today is the direct result of the geopolitical changes that occurred as a result of the fall of the Soviet Empire. Both the events leading up to the collapse and the resulting global situation after the collapse set the stage for the conflict between radical Islam and the West.

One of the Soviet’s favorite techniques to weaken American power around the world was to support insurgents and guerillas in order to bog down U.S. forces. One of the most successful was the support of the North Vietnamese, ultimately driving the U.S. from the region. America, on the other hand had a lousy track record with supporting guerillas. When the Soviets attacked Afghanistan, it was an opportunity for the U.S. to use this technique against them. This was an opportunity to “make the Soviets bleed” like they made us bleed. President Carter authorized the recruitment, organization and supplying of guerilla warfare in Afghanistan by utilizing indigenous forces that were already rising to resist the Soviets. Carter signed the first “Intelligence Finding” authorizing covert military operations in Afghanistan in order to “harass” soviet troops. It was this “Finding” that served as the legal basis for the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. It was also this “Finding” that would culminate, via a long, circuitous and unpredictable route, in September 11.

The first problem was how to fund the covert war. Ever since senator Church passed legislation requiring the CIA to get authorization for such funding, it would impossible to get money from Congress, and if it tried, then the operation would no longer be secret. Saudi Arabia realized that an America weakened by the oil embargo of the 1970s was dangerous to its national security, because if the Soviets or Iran won out in the region, they would be destroyed as a nation. Therefore, Saudi Arabia had a greater interest in what was happening in Afghanistan than America did. The United States was worried that the Soviets were attacking Afghanistan in order to push into the Middle East and capture the oil fields for itself.

Second, the United States had very little intelligence on Afghanistan, and what we did have was only from the CIA agents monitoring the narcotics trade and the poppy fields in the country. Therefore, America had to turn to Saudi Arabia for money and intelligence, making an alliance with the Wahabis in order to gain what we needed.

The U.S. structure a deal with the Saudis to provide funding and personnel to work with the CIA to build a guerilla force to bog down the Soviets in Afghanistan. This was the beginning of an alliance between the U.S. and Muslim fundamentalists.

The third fractor was Pakistan, a long-term American ally. It was torn between the secularism of its founders and the radical Islam of the majority of its population. It was also afraid of being trapped between a Soviet dominated Afghanistan and a pro-Soviet India. Pakistan had a lot of intelligence on Afghanistan and a long contiguous border where training camps, logistic systems, and bases of operations could be set up. The North Vietnamese had Laos and Cambodia; the U.S. had Pakistan.

A three-way alliance was formed. The United States would provide training, coordination and strategic intelligence; the Saudis would provide the money and the guerillas; the Pakistanis would provide the territory and the intelligence needed.

Jimmy Carter was the one who presided over this alliance. Yet, his goal was not to destroy the Soviet Union but to find a balance while restoring America’s power in the world after its decline over the last decade. Carter had no idea that the war in Afghanistan would lead to the destruction of the Soviet Union and the rise of Al Qaeda. When Reagan took office in 1981, he intensified Carter’s alliance and wove it into a larger plan to destroy the Soviet Union and intensify America’s global power.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Al Qaeda was well-trained and well-equipped, possessing many Soviet and American weapons along with the expertise to use them. The Soviets were brutal in their attempts to squash the guerillas, killing many, so that those who lasted the decade-long war were well-trained, experienced, hardened and determined. These radical Islamic fighters saw the fall of the Soviet Union as a Muslim victory, as it was the first victory a Muslim army had achieved against a non-Muslim force in centuries. After the war, these Islamic fighters were irate at America because it threw them away without any hint of gratitude.

The United States saw the war in Afghanistan differently. The war in Afghanistan was only a part in a larger plan that brought the Soviet Union down. America felt it also played the major role, providing the support and training needed for victory. Without the U.S. backing, the guerillas would have been completely annihilated by the Soviets. Because the U.S. ignored their allies and expected them to maintain some kind of bond with us after the war, a rift was created between the Jihadists and America.

In the same way, the first Bush administration mistakenly believed that the Arab countries would be happy with America for helping them free Kuwait and a bond would be created between us and the Arab states. President Bush expected gratitude; he never expected rage. It is clear that the United States was ignorant of the Islamic world and made some serious blunders that caused so much anger and hatred that laid the foundation for Al Qaeda.

While Shiite Muslims are a minority in the whole Arab world, they are the majority in the Gulf region, especially in Iran. The Saudis, by contrast, are not only Sunni, but they are Wahabi, the most radical of the Sunnis. So the Saudis saw the Shiites of Iran not only as a threat to their religion but also a threat to their oil fields. The problem for Saudi Arabia was how to contain Iran and the Soviets at the same time, and the answer was Iraq. Both nations wanted to contain Iran and the Soviets, so America felt is was the best policy to back them as well. Unwittingly, however, the U.S. ended up supporting the most radical form of Islam as a negative unintended consequence. And this radical Wahabi Islam has proved to be even more dangerous to the United States than Shiite Iran.

In order to bog down Iran, the United States sent signals to Iraq that it wouldn’t oppose them if they decided to attack Iran. The resulting war tied up both countries for a decade, costing millions of lives and billions of dollars on both sides. The United States kept shifting its policy towards Iraq to keep it destabilized and to prolong the war. The United States knew that Iraq could not beat Iran, and the Saudis gladly backed the war in order to keep both armies bogged down for nearly ten years.

American foreign policy has chosen to make alliances of necessity with evil states in order to oppose even more evil states. The U.S. made alliances with Stalin and Mao in order to counter worse leaders. America also tends to create solutions that solve the short-term problem at the risk of creating greater problems down the road.

Saddam Hussein wanted to take over Iran and Kuwait in order to become the dominant power in the region. The U.S. quietly assured him, with deniability, that if he won the war we would allow him to have Kuwait as well. Then for the next ten years the U.S. kept shifting the balance of power to make sure Iraq never accomplished its goal and achieved its prize. After ten years, Iraq was less exhausted than Iran, and Saddam declared victory and demanded his prize. The American Ambassador, unaware of the intricacies and policy shifts, assured Saddam Hussein that while the U.S. was opposed to his taking Iraq, they would do nothing to stop him. As soon as Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. worked with the Saudis to launch Operation Desert Shield and then Desert Storm.

The soldiers returning to Saudi Arabia from Afghanistan were outraged by the presence of non-Muslim forces on holy soil. They believed that Muslim states were not naturally weak and could defend themselves if they were willing to sacrifice and persevere. But they also believed that the current Muslim leaders were corrupt and incapable of defending their countries. Therefore, they felt that America had to be humiliated in order to break the psychological dependency on the United States and to generate confidence among the Islamic masses.

These fighters knew America’s strengths, but they also knew its weaknesses. They knew how the American intelligence agencies worked and how they carried out covert operations. These returning fighters were not the poor and disposed, but many were from wealthy families, educated and some even had advanced degrees in secular fields. They also had financial backing from the Saudi royal family and other wealthy Saudis. The financial network that had supported the guerillas in Afghanistan had never been shut down and now it was being used to fund Al Qaeda long after America had lost interest in it.

They knew they needed to take a long time to prepare to strike hard at the United States in order to pull it into a full-scale war against the Islamic world. By doing this they hoped to discredit secular Islamic states in the region and to sap American strength. Through a series of increasing attacks on American targets, the Embassies in Africa, the barracks in Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, they hoped to illicit a hard response from America. Bill Clinton, however, didn’t want to seem impotent and make Al Qaeda look powerful, nor did he want to be drawn into a full-scale war, so he chose to respond in a half-hearted way.

The first mistake America made was to pull the plug on the resistance fighters in Afghanistan and not give them back their papers so they could return home. This was not solely America’s fault, since most of the governments didn’t want these fighters to come back and cause trouble at home. Stranded in a strange land, scarred by war, this band of about 1,000 soldiers united and became a fierce fighting force in the battles for supremacy after the war with the Soviets was won. Most ended up going back home, but the bond between them was strong. Being abandoned by the U.S. and rejected by their home governments was not only seen as a personal affront but as endemic of the malaise that shrouded all the Islamic governments in the Middle East. They viewed the outside threats to Islam, America and the Soviet Union, as manageable and insignificant compared to the inner threats of corrupt Islamic governments.

The first major incident leading up to the current situation goes way back to the Crusades and the loss of the Caliphate. At the height of its power, the Muslim Empire was actually larger than the Roman Empire. The goal of Al Qaeda was to take over one Islamic state in order to set an example and to establish a base of operations. Afghanistan became that base, with the Taliban running the internal affairs and Al Qaeda operating around the world. Al Qaeda hoped to sweep the Muslim world and establish fundamentalist governments throughout the Middle East, unifying the Islamic world and reestablishing the Caliphate.

The key element in their strategy was to show that America is weak and vulnerable in order to break the illusion of the super power’s dominance and remove the Muslim world’s fear and subservience. They felt that the United States lacked to power and moral character to assert its will in the long run. Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis, Beirut, Somalia, and failure to depose Saddam Hussein all seemed to demonstrate the fact that America could strike a hard first blow but could not sustain a prolonged conflict.

Al Qaede realized that it had to strike a blow to the United States that was enormous and for which there was no easy defense, in order to send a clear message to the Islamic masses. The plan was to draw the United States into a prolonged conflict with multiple Islamic states to solidify the Islamic world and to drain the U.S. military dry.

In a society with many unguarded targets, a small group with explosives is very difficult to stop. The fewer the operatives, the more difficult it is to find them. The nearly infinite number of targets and the sparsity of operatives is what makes defending against terrorism a nightmare. The physical damage caused by terrorists is minimal while the psychological damage is extraordinary, making it a powerful political tool.

Al Qaeda’s strategy and ideology were different, and it wasn’t trying to send a message to the United States but to the Islamic world. They saw the United States as an actor that could be manipulated into behaving as they wanted it to behave.

After the end of the Cold War, America didn’t have a major enemy that could threaten its security. Attention was focused on rogue states, such as North Korea, Libya, Yugoslavia, Iran and Cuba, and these were not allied together against the United States. The major threat was threat was that they might develop nuclear weapons. The secondary threat was that they might invade their neighbors. The third level of threat was that they might violate the human rights of their own citizens. All of these were considered containable and manageable through international organizations, such as the United Nations.

The way the United States responded to the small crises throughout the world was triggering unexpected responses in the Islamic world. While the United States saw itself as neutral, impartial and doing good, the Islamic world saw America encroaching on Islamic territory and siding with those who were against Muslims. The intervention by the United States in Kosovo and Somalia, for example, were considered by the Muslim world as struggles between America and Muslims. The United States failed to realize that there was no such thing as a neutral intervention. The United States also saw the fact that these nations were Islamic as incidental while the rest of the Muslim world saw it as fundamental. Al Qaeda used these incidents to mobilize support against Americal Confusion was also created when the United States declined to get involved in other conflicts, making it seem as if America had no coherent foreign policy in place.

The United States also wrongly assumed that nations would be willing to trade a little bit of their sovereignty in order to have stability and security. This was true for many countries, but it infuriated the Muslim nations. The great powers in Europe were also uneasy about America’s growing power and unpredictability, and many were hoping, and even helping, that America would trip and fall, in order to limit America’s power and make us easier to predict and control. After the Cold War ended, America saw the global economy as the most important issue and assumed everyone else did too. However, most nations, especially Islamic countries, viewed national autonomy as more important than prosperity and security. The United States thought that all countries would welcome transnational prosperity, but some Islamic countries were ready to resist, even to the death.

When Al Qaeda started its global terrorism operation, most analysts either ignored it or misunderstood it. They viewed Al Qaeda like any other Palestinian terrorist organization, with limited political goals and operations. The term “terrorist” tended to obscure the issue, since there are vast differences between different organizations as to their ideology and strategy. They didn’t understand how different Al Qaeda was from any other terrorist organization. Al Qaeda wasn’t interested in symbolic gestures and affecting local politics but had a much more complex ideology that drove its global strategy to implement their international political goals. While most other terrorist organizations were based on Arab ethnicity and were trained by the Soviets to further local political agendas, Al Qaeda was based on Islam and they had a global religious agenda that was based on centuries of Islamic history and tradition. By merely focusing on its attacks and not its ideology, the United States totally misunderstood what Al Qaeda was about.

While the United States didn’t create Al Qaeda, we created the atmosphere and climate for it to grow and flourish. When Bill Clinton responded in a half-hearted manner to the embassy bombings and the attack on the Cole, he unwittingly empowered and emboldened Al Qaeda.


This is a summary of the first few chapters of the book which I found extremely helpful in understanding these events. Friedman goes on to dissect the problems with the American intelligence system and why it missed 9/11. He then goes on to explain how America’s military had been stripped down after the Cold War and was totally unprepared for a major military conflict on the scale that was needed to confront Al Qaeda. Friedman’s detailed analysis of what was involved in the September 11 attacks is impressive and chilling, clearly showing that Al Qaeda is highly trained, extremely disciplined and very determined to destroy the United States. He then shows how it is impossible to defend against such attacks and explains why most of what is being done in response to 9/11 is worthless.

I thought Friedman’s detailed account of how the United States prepared for and implemented a major military offensive against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in less than a month was amazing. While Al Qaeda knew we would attack, they expected a massive assault in the following spring, but Operation Enduring Freedom was totally unconventional and unexpected, catching Al Qaeda by surprise. He goes on to describe how America fought the war, the alliances that had to be made with former, and current, enemies, and the problems of working with nationalistic forces within Afghanistan.

The book goes on to cover the war in Iraq up to the end of July, 2004. Friedman concludes that the United States is winning the war. Al Qaeda has failed to achieve any of its strategic goals. There has been no uprising in the Islamic world, no regimes toppled. In fact, most Islamic governments have increased their cooperation with the United States. Al Qaeda has been backed against a wall. The game is far from over, but the U.S. certainly has the lead -- in spite of an extraordinary array of blunders, some inexplicable.


You can read chapter summaries and learn more about the book at: http://www.americassecretwar.com/index.html

History with a Smirk

If you enjoy history, then you might be interested in this article in Books & Culture, January/February 2007, pages 25-27, entitled “History with a Smirk,” by Allen C. Guelzo, a review of David S. Brown’s biography Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography. Hofstadter was a prominent leftist historian who bucked the current trend towards intensively researched histories. He tended to write more in an essay style, commenting on ideas and ideologies, shunning the minute details of the daily lives of the historical period in question.

Hofstadter was sympathetic towards Communism and leftist ideology throughout his life, and ridiculed and sought to undercut democratic and conservative values and ideals. He was so arrogant he refused to believe that anyone on the Right could be an intellectual. He despised the middle class American values and thought the majority of Americans were mindless boobs, clueless and deceived.

Here are a few paragraphs from the article that I found most interesting:

Brown tends to see the resurgence of the Right as an intellectual movement largely through Hofstadter's eyes, as alarming in volume but philosophically insignificant by unit. This underestimation of the hitting power of Right intellectuals has been one of the chronic failures of the American Left; and as Hofstadter's own attitude demonstrates, there is no real cure for this failure, since the logic of Left politics actually requires that intellectuals on the Right be defined, ipso facto, as an impossibility. Brown remarks pretty sharply that whether it was "out of fear, anger or fantasy, the Far Right inspired Hofstadter to write some of the most original studies of American political culture ever produced." But "the Left never provoked such a productive reaction." Hofstadter preferred "to instruct radicals, not—as he had conservatives—to diagnose their mental tics."

So, despite the fact that Hofstadter lived his entire life "in an era dominated by liberal politics," he insisted on describing himself as "politically alienated." And from what, exactly? Born to the modest privileges of the urban upper-middle-class, he treated peace, plenty, and truth as the normal setting of human life, and intolerance, hypocrisy, and inequality as intolerable aberrations, when the norm of human history has been exactly the other way around. While making a university subsidized apartment on the upper East Side his home and a place on Cape Cod his summer retreat, and bathing in book contracts worth $1.3 million dollars at the time of death, Hofstadter nonetheless had never a good word to say about the nation, the politics, or the economic system which guaranteed his entitlements to these things. And despite the Andes of corpses which "a more severe brand of Marxism" piled up around the world in the 20th century, it was not the abominations of Stalin but the infelicities of Abraham Lincoln's prose which summoned forth his most vivid malediction. The vital power of Richard Hofstadter's oeuvre lay in the grace and color of his writing. But it was an almost entirely negative power, in the service of a freedom he wanted for himself, but not necessarily for anyone else.

You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/14.25.html