The Misunderstood Guillotine

It is summer in Paris, and the year is 1793. A throng of people twists and turns through narrow streets as shouts of happiness and shouts of glee echo against buildings that are lit by a June afternoon’s bright sunshine. There is a palpable beat of anticipation. There is a tremor of excitement as the people are carrying pikes, pots, sticks, and drums. The smell of meat roasting on open spits mixes with a more immediate and pungent smell of sweat… this is a carnival of death and the gathering men, women and children are vying for the best view, the best seats, and the quickest way toward the merchants selling ale and bread before the main attraction begins. There is a glint of sun catching the guillotine’s blade; it is a crescent blade, and sharp, and is already stained red from the previous day’s festivities. Hundreds of pairs of eyes are drawn toward the guillotine, raised atop its own platform… here is the “Razor,” the “Madam Scythe,” and below, being marched toward their death, a group of white-clad prisoners who are also squinting against the bright sun.
This is an Era in French History that included the French Revolution and Robespierre’s own “Reign of Terror” – I think it’s interesting to look at the instrument of this terror, the Guillotine, and try to understand what its original purpose was meant to be. Of course, it is a pretty cool little contraption that chopped off a person’s head whenever someone else thought this should have to happen, you know, but it was originally designed with a more humanitarian slant (sorry) in mind.
Before the invention of the guillotine, political prisoners (and thieves and brigands and such) were being put to death in a variety of painful ways. A man could be drowned, strangled, hanged, put to the wheel (too ghastly to even go into) or burned at the stake. The method of decaptitation involved an executioner with what was sometimes a dull sword or a dull axe, and it was necessary to repeatedly “chop” at a person’s neck. This often resulted in suffocation from a crushed windpipe or the loss of blood… it was also made worse if a person flinched or moved just before the strike fell.
Influenced by the “Enlightenment,” in which a man’s ability to “Reason” an “Rationalize” gave rise to new methods in Science and Philosophy -– it would be a French physician who set out to eliminate cruel and inhumane forms of punishment. Antoine Louis (primarily) would develop an easel-like structure which would allow victims to lie on their stomachs, face-down, while above them a crescent-shaped blade was being moved upward by a series of pulleys. The blade would fall quickly, severing a person’s head, and within 10 seconds they could be pronounced dead. Oh, wait. I forgot that a basket was nearby to catch the fallen (um, decapitated) head. This was important. And, in an Enlightened effort, this new tool was tested on animals, more animals, humans, and then more humans.
The guillotine was opposed by many intellectuals of the time who feared the growing power of the state; interestingly, Robespierre was himself an opponent to the tool. Others, like the artist Marat, (you know him, he was murdered in his bathtub) approved of the state’s right to use the threat of death against its enemies. I guess Robespierre, architect of the “Reign of Terror,” came to agree with him – between the summers of 1793 and 1794, the guillotine was dispatching nearly a hundred people every day.
What is interesting is that the guillotine was intended to become a humane tool used for executions. It was certainly a more humane method than dropping a rock-bound person in water or burning them at a stake, don’t you think? Unfortunately, the guillotine, in war-torn France, became a grim machine that symbolized all that the repressive and violent revolution had become. During Robespierre’s “Reign of Terror” as many as fifty thousand people would lose their lives to the constantly falling blade. That included King Louis XIV and his (perhaps) dim-witted wife, Marie Antoinette. The nobility, however, constituted only a slim fraction of those who were killed. It was more likely that the blade would find a member of the new “burgeoise,” or a worker, or a half-starved peasant… possibly those same people who found themselves in the early summer crowds.

Dining with the Peasants

Okay, so imagine you are a person living in medieval England around the year 1100.
You are a peasant, working a manor-field, and your back is hurting from constantly spading strips of hard-packed earth. You can see the manor-house in the distance, and you see the sun falling over towers and catapults made from stone. You’ve been working since the first slivers of pink sun broke the horizon this morning… now it is past mid-day and you’re starting to wonder what you will have for dinner. Already the smell of meat turning on a spit has wafted through the air. Your stomach churns.

In 1100, unfortunately, you were living on the edges of starvation. You could expect to reach your thirtieth birthday if you were fortunate; having survived many bleak, harsh winters you were adept at scavenging for things like nuts, berries, roots, herbs, nettles, and wild grasses. You probably also realized the importance of bark from the forest trees… this could be ground into a fine powder and mixed with your meager supplies of flour. Sometimes you would make a cake from this bark-flour and it would be warmed over a bed of hot rocks.

You were happily resistant to things like dirty water, tainted meat, molded bread, the cold, the heat, and (for the while, until 1348) fleas and rats. You lived close to the land, even if it was not yours, and aside from the “sport-hunting” of the nobility in the forests… you came to poach in those same wilds in order to preserve your very own existence.

If you were able to get meat it was usually in the form of rabbit or deer. (The word “venison” comes from the Latin root “venor” which means to hunt) You might choose to roast the rabbit or deer meat over a large spit; you might also choose to make a pie from the innards of the deer. Unlike your future generations of descendants, you were used to eating extremely lean meat. There was no real fat to be had, and you might count yourself lucky not to have a high cholesterol count.

Sometimes you might get a chicken… but poultry was reserved as a luxury food for the nobles, so you would have to take care in your poaching habits. The nobles were able to make a watery chicken broth and chicken soup from their stock. And you could smell it, sometimes, when you were working in the manor-fields. Probably best to turn to the teeming forests and look for things like pigeons and other game birds.

Bread was your mainstay, as long as there was enough grain to be harvested. And you also had a staple food with your pigs, as long as they remained fed on the grains you could give them.

You might also catch a fish now and then, and things like eels, pikes, minnows and lampreys were common. These were more like slimy snakes with the raw taste of oil and water, but you might find a way to eat them when mixed with your flour cakes.

You might also find a very able way of complimenting foods when you considered the common drinks known as “Mead” and “Ale.” If you preferred Mead (and who doesn’t) you were taking in very sweet mixture of fermented honey and water. Mead was also made with things like clove, ginger, and various fruits or berries that could be found. If you preferred Ale, you were drinking a beverage that was safer, even, than water. Grains could be mixed with water and soaked for days to make the brew, and like Mead, mixtures of herbs could be added. Because of the natural fermentation processes, these mixtures tended to have a powerful alcoholic punch.

The nobles may have had wine, but you preferred your Mead and Ale with your buffet of rabbit roast, deer pie, eel, and flour cakes. Wine was kept in rotting wooden barrels, anyway, and the thick, almost meal-like consistency was not the way to wash down your dinner. Not after you’d spent the whole day toiling in the manor-fields, right?

The Death of William's Sons

My friend LK said he was left feeling “flat” after the Athens post; I said that it was only a quickie, and that he should enjoy those, but he shook his head in utter disagreement.
We can take a look at couple of William the Conqueror’s sons, how’s that? They had good times.
And most excellent deaths… oh, yes.


In the Era following the conquest of Saxon-England by the Normans you had the reign of William I – we know him as William the Conqueror – from 1027 to 1087 AD.
Richard I would have been king, but died young.
William II became king of England in 1087.
Henry I became king of England in 1100.
It is an interesting time in the study of History because you’ve got the transition of England into one of the strongest of the new “kingdoms” in Europe, and also the very strong personality of William I, himself. You begin to see changes in English law, in politics, and the centralization of a king’s authority over distant shires and regions. You also see an intense period of the building of fortifications and institutions as William the Conqueror attempted to cement, with bricks and stone, his absolute control. He is an interesting character, of course, and maybe later I’ll post about his heroics in the Battle of Hastings or his “Domesday Book” – but for this post (LK!) I want to tell you about his immediate sons, and their almost immediate deaths.
Richard I was William the Conqueror’s second son. It is possible that his older brother, Robert II, was responsible for his death. There is scant history here, but young Richard was killed in a hunting accident in 1081. He was hunting a deer, he was attacked by a deer, he was mauled by a deer… little is known of what actually happened to him while he was in the “King’s Forest,” but I can tell you that he went in alive, and came out dead. Signs posted might have said “You aren’t in Sherwood Forest anymore” but I’m not sure that Richard could read them, anyway.
William II, also known as “William Rufus,” was William the Conqueror’s third son.
He was chosen over his older brother, Robert II, who had warred with his father and was under suspicion for the unusual death of Richard. As King, William II was unpopular with the people, and he displayed an extremely violent temper. He was aggressive, quick to fight, and eager to war – he was ruthless in his battles against his brother, just as he was ruthless with any of his own nobles who would not bow down to him. It is also suggested that he was gay… I believe this is true, but it’s not terribly important. More interesting are the circumstances surrounding his death. Like Richard, William II was an avid Huntsman. He, too, went into the “King’s Forest” (hunting grounds stocked exclusively for the nobles) and was soon separated from his hunting party. He was found dead, days later, with an arrow in his chest. It is possible that he was shot by his companion that day… but given the fact that everyone in his hunting party was an excellent marksman, it is probably not true that William’s death was an accident. I have a hunch that it was his younger brother, Henry, who plotted this out. We’ll talk about him next.
Henry I would become King TWO DAYS after William’s death. In a twist, Henry was also known as “The Lion of Justice.” He was perhaps more able to be a “King” of England, and he formed a Charter of Liberties whereby kings, themselves, were subject to laws. He also appointed the first officials in the shires, known as “Shire-riffs,” or “Sheriffs.” His own son would have followed him to the throne, but in a family plagued with strange tragedies, young “William III” drowned in the English Channel. It would be left to Henry’s daughter, “Matilda,” to carry on after her father’s death… and in 1135 he would die from eating too much fish. Well, okay, it wasn’t because he ate too many fish; it was because the fish he DID consume had been poisoned. No trek to the woods for this King. Nope. Instead, Henry the Lion of Justice was poisoned (most probably by his own daughter) and England would be plunged into a war of succession pitting Matilda (grand-daughter of William I) against Stephen of Blois (the grandson of William I).
In the years following the death of William the Conqueror’s sons England would find itself embroiled in the “Nineteen Years War” and a bitter struggle between Matilda and Stephen. Both would have each other imprisoned, and both would escape in dramatic fashion. This Era after the death of William’s sons was traumatic, and it is often referred to as the “Nineteen Year Winter” in early English History. With the death of Stephen’s own son “Eustace” in 1153, Matilda’s son “Henry” would become the next king.

An Athens Quickie

Here is a quickie on Athens, to compliment the quickie on Sparta – I think we’re having fun, right? Even if Gyros are almost five dollars now?
Athens was a mirror opposite of Sparta. I would say they were character foils, but Athens was given to a frequency of warring with her neighbors, often times playing the role of aggressor… and because I like the guys from Sparta better, well, I will just say Athens was a mirror opposite
During the “Classical Era” (500BC to 325BC), Athens was a fertile ground for public life, public culture, and an emerging group of thinkers who would forever change Western History. Just take a look at these guys and you will sense what I mean when I say that this Era was a seed-bomb for future centuries. Oh yeah. You reap what you sew.
You’ve got Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Aristophenes.
You’ve got Herodotus and Thucydides.
You’ve got Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
You know these guys. If the Spartans were rock-stars in leather, these guys were the rockin’ thinkers in sandals and white-draped togas.
Sophocles is famous for his Greek Tragedy – he was writing the “Oedipus” plays around 430 BC, and by this time, already, a tradition of dramatic plays was being performed for audiences of thousands. Aristophanes, a contemporary, was writing political plays that, disguised as comedy, satirized well-known men inside the city of Athens.
Herodotus wrote about the History of the wars between the Greeks and the Persians, and his contemporary, Thucydides, wrote a detailed account of the Peloponnesian Wars between Athens and Sparta. He is one of my personal favorites.
Socrates is well-known, if not from Bill & Ted, then at least from his own trial, where he was found guilty of corrupting Athens’ youth. Before he calmly swallowed hemlock he gave us his famous ideal, “Knowledge is virtue.” He is also known for constantly professing his ignorance when saying “I know… that I do not know.”
His student was Plato, and Plato was one of the most important philosophers we have ever known. Plato gave us a Theory of Forms, and he is famous for his “Apology” and “Dialogues.” Unlike his mentor, Plato was fond of censorship and believed only a small group of people might benefit from his teachings.
His own student, Aristotle, is THE most important philosopher… that’s my opinion, of course, but I’m a student of History, you see, so I’m not supposed to make judgements like that. Just trust me that Aristotle was the most important and it will be fine. Aristotle was also a teacher, and he wrote many hundreds of “Treaties” dealing with things like politics, ethics, poetry, botany, physics, metaphysics, astronomy, rhetoric, logic, and philosophy.
I think it’s amazing that we find these great thinkers together in the same time and place.
Athens was gold when compared to its mirror-mate, Sparta. It was a gold mine for thoughts and ideals and was also the very heart of what we understand a “democracy” to be. Life in the “Polis” inside Athens was a remarkably free and dynamic one. And Athens gives us our first glimpses of what a popular form of government might look like. Compared to militaristic Sparta, yeah, I’m giving Athens some gold stars. You remember this when you discover “Oedipus” or “Antigone” sometime. Or when you watch Bill & Ted.

A Spartan Quickie

(I promised something more on Texas, and I posted it last Friday, but after re-reading it I thought the *Struggle for Texas* deserved more than a one-blog posting. Perhaps even more than ten postings -- so with apologies to my man Santa Anna, I retracted my Friday post)

We can always talk about the Greeks – they’re a bunch of fun. We remember them from early World Civ class, don’t we ? And the Greek-Fest ? (Amy, where’s the Loukoumades?) So, take a moment to consider Sparta in 650 BC. If you were unlucky, you were one of the thousands of unfree laborers taken forcefully from Messenia. These were the “Helots” with whom Sparta warred constantly. These poor people (the Helots, that is) were forced into a harsh slavery that provided them with only a threadbare, minimum quality of life. If you were lucky, you were born Greek *AND* you survived a quick inspection at birth. This was an overall Greek practice, but was particularly employed by the Spartans. If a newborn was deemed unfit (no hair on the head, extra toes, extra fingers, or even a birthmark) it would be abandoned to the hillsides. This, effectively, meant that an infant would be sacrificed to the wolves. (Good luck to me, I was born a “blue” baby in ’71 sometime) But – Sparta. Here was a militaristic state, rugged and disciplined, and given to the ideals of harsh training, harsh loyalty, extreme toughness, and a grit-determined strength. Children were given only a glimpse of their childhood – at age 7, boys were taken from their families and sent to live with a “herd” of other boys ranging through age 18. This would be their new life (for the rest of their life) in a professional military state.
Spartan training was intense, and young boys were expected to develop a tolerance to extreme pain. Broken bones were mended, swords were wielded, military drills continued, and soon these children were being sent into the forests of Messenia to make their own way… indeed, they were abandoned, in small groups, and left for months at a time. Here they made their way by hunting, foraging, raiding, stealing, and sometimes murdering any of the “Helots” they might come into contact with. (Yeah, this was even before the “Lord of the Flies” !!)
Spartan boys were also given to older men who “sponsored” them – homosexuality was not an uncommon reality for the Greeks. It is not surpsising that Spartan society was so open with this; it seemed to be a part of their outlook on the state, itself. Spartans, after all, viewed themselves as “true Greeks” and it is not surprising that a theme of “die for Sparta!” would allow for a group of herded young men to seek solace in one another. (I’m being careful here, you know I am)
Anway, these young Spartan soldiers were permitted to become full members of the military at age 20. They could marry at age 30, and were expected to serve Sparta (ahem) from the ages of 20 through 60. There was an intensive two-year training period from age 18-20, but little is known of this. If a young man was lucky enough to survive, he could expect to be pressed into the military immediately.
I'll post later about Athens, the home of art, literature, drama, and philosophy, but for now I want to sit back and think of the movie *300* and the scantily-clad Spartan warriors in those leather skirts. Oh, yeah. And, of course, I will remember their historical importance. It's not just the skin, you know!! Spartans were the rockstars in Ancient Greece.

The Pastry War

(Note: artist is Diego Rivera)
The "Pastry War" is one of my favorites from Mexican History -- and, no, this is not because I enjoy "pastry" shops so much (be nice).
In 1836 the ever-good, ever-bad "Santa Anna" was returning to Mexico from Wash, DC. He had concluded talks with Andrew Jackson and had ceded the Mexican territory of "Texas" to the Americans. (You know what? I will write more in my next post on the battle for Texas. I tend to side with the Mexicans, but I'll report, you decide.) Anyway -- Santa Anna returned to Mexico a worn, ragged, tired old man; he was discredited, disgraced, and taking his last breaths as a leader for the Mexican nation. Indeed, he was replaced by Anastasio Bustamante.
During this time Mexico was a place of civil disorder, political strife, and social discontent. You had the Spanish Elite, those Spaniards who had first "settled" in Mexico under the strong-armed protection of Spain. They mixed with the local Indians and formed a "Mestizo" population. The vast majority of people, however, were the Indian peasants who subsisted, just barely, in densely-packed urban areas or on their own dust-laden farms.
So, too, European and American "foreigners" lived inside Mexico. They were indiv with money, power and prestige, and they were used to having any trivial complaints resolved quickly by the Mexican government. They were resented deeply by the native population, and even by the Spanish settlers, themselves.
So it was that a pastry-chef made a claim that his shop had been vandalized, looted, robbed, and destroyed by Mexican soldiers. His complaint fell on deaf ears. The pastry-chef, appalled at this lack of regard, appealed to his own government for reparations. The appeal actually made it to the court of the French King, Louis-Philippe, who sensed an opportunity for the French government to intervene inside Mexico. The French King demanded 600,000 pesos for the pastry-chef (and other) claims.
By 1838, the French were actually moving large fleets of ships toward Mexico. They were blockading ports from the Yucatan to the Rio Grande, and the French actually seized the very important port of Veracruz. Santa Anna, sensing a chance to regain his national composure, mustered an army of perhaps 3000 men; France, however, gravely outnumbered him with nearly 30,000 men. I mean – really. Take a step back for a second. A pastry chef was this pissed off? His pastry shop was this important??
No. The French wanted to be able to have their cake… and to eat it, too. (Sorry)
Santa Anna, outnumbered 10 to 1, would nevertheless march foolishly against the French; he was wounded in battle and would actually lose his leg. This is another story, too – Santa Anna kept the bloody boot from his amputated leg and claimed he had rightly sacrificed himself for his nation. (Um, yes. That’s very nice, man) -- yikes.
The French were able to force Anastasio Bustamante to pay them 600,000 pesos, and talks were agreed upon whereby the French would remove themselves from Mexico. Had they not agreed… Mexico could have very well found itself in a war for it’s survival.
So next time you hit the pastry shop, you think of the “Pastry War” and the French Intervention in Mexico. I know you think you won’t… but trust me. You will.

Miracle of the Holy Lance

During the First Crusade, a rag-tag army of Christians set out from Europe with a fiery goal of taking back “Holy Lands” that had been claimed by the Turks. There were fully-equipped knights, with red and blue banners flying behind them, their armor glinting in the sun… and many nobles, too, would light out on this quest. These were the fortunate ones who could afford to take with them clothing, food, and supplies for shelter. They were joined by poor farmers, peasants, adventurers, and even criminals; all believed they were on a divine mission, under God’s protection, and it was their purpose to help the Byzantines drive back the ruthless and godless Turks.
It would not take long for such zeal to give way to the reality of the sun; it was relentless, blazing hot, and unforgiving. It took these people several months to march through hostile territories, through burning, scorched countryside, toward a distant Holy Land. And at every step the Crusaders would find themselves beset by ambushes and skirmishes.
These were the young and old who were walking barefoot through extremely hostile terrain… they were beset by hunger, thirst, and the constant heat of an alien landscape. Indeed, many hundreds would die of exhaustion and sunstroke. So much so that the people kept moving and often discarded the dead by a dusty roadside. They were in constant fear of being overtaken by marauders (as had happened with the massacre of “Peter the Hermit’s” own army).
In 1097 AD they were nevertheless a formidable, massive horde as they approached the city of Antioch, the crown-jewel of the Byzantine Empire. Here was a city with a vast amount of wealth, and one that was equally as impregnable with outer walls stretching almost 10 miles, a series of nearly 200 towers, and a massive main tower that stretched 500 feet into the sky. A tired and desperate army settled in for an eight-month seige… one that almost destroyed them. They were starving within weeks, and facing a winter that seemed on the verge of drowning them in torrential rains. The encampments were quagmires, and many hundreds were dying from fever.
One of the peasant Crusaders, a man named Peter Bartholomew, began to have dreams and visions (hmm…) and revealed to the leaders that the actual lance which had pierced Christ’s side during his crucifixion was inside the walls of Antioch. And as word spread, it seemed it was not only Peter who was having these strange visions. It was enough for the leaders to attack the walls, breach them, and pour into the city of Antioch. Heavy fighting ensued, but the Crusading army was overwhelming in their sheer numbers, and many made their way quickly to the Church where Peter had seen his visions. After digging through the damp earth… a piece of rusted iron was discovered. And, miraculously, a spear lay nearby. The “Holy Lance” had been found, it seemed, and it was a divine confirmation of the Crusader’s quest. The capture of Antioch, and the miracle of finding this Holy Lance, were events that shifted the momentum of the Crusade. The rag-tag army was now rejuvenated, regrouped, and they would no longer suffer the ravages of heat, thirst, hunger or fever. They would instead hold the spear before them, as a very real and divine object, as they moved toward a fateful collision with Jerusalem.

"All In The Family"

To me, the Persians are one of the most interesting Empires from ancient times (yeah, Egypt was boring).
You have the charismatic leader, Cyrus, who waged war against the Lydians, Babylonians, and Elamites. You’ve got a virtual “superpower” that was able to not only conquer enemies, but also incorporate them into their Empire. The Persians also took after our beloved Greeks – you’ve got the Battle of Marathon, the Battle of Artesium, and the legendary Battle of Thermopylae (where 300 Spartans (joined by nearly 700 Thespians) would battle, and die, to the last man in unsuccessfully defending a major pass into Greece). And when Cyrus died, you’ve got his sons, rumored to have plotted the murdering of each other; and a usurper to his throne, also a murderer, to make things even more dramatic and interesting.
Cyrus, King of Persia, died in 529 BC.
He had envisioned that his two sons would “share” his Empire – Cambyses, his eldest, was to take the throne. Bardiya, the second son, would have a place over a Persian army which ruled a vast amount of territory. To make sure the family was secure, Cyrus also arranged for the brothers to “marry” their own sisters (yikes).
Cambyses would rule for only seven years; he was “wounded” by an arrow in the leg, while travelling from Egypt (newly conquered) back to his throne. He died from gangrene. The incident, however, was far from accidental – it is believed that Darius (more on him in a second) was the king’s slayer.
Bardiya took the throne immediately in 522 BC. But he would not last long. The new Persian king found himself ambushed while travelling a royal highway. Cambyses had been murdered in March; now Bardiya was murdered in September. The first king had died from an arrow in his leg, the second king was stabbed to death in an open field
What makes this interesting (yes!) is the fact that Darius, one of the top advisors to both men, was close when both incidents happened. Even more, Darius spun a fabulous tale and was able to usurp the throne and take Persia for himself.
Darius claimed that Cambyses had been responsible for Cyrus’ own death. The son had killed the father, in wanton bloodshed, and had taken the throne. (Actually, Cyrus died in battle, and his head was taken by his enemies) Further, Darius claimed that Bardiya had propped up Cambyses to do this, and it was Bardiya who had killed his brother to cover any conspiracy. Confusing, yes? Well… Darius’ tale spun almost out of control when he claimed that Bardiya had been murdered by Cambyses’ men, in revenge, and that an imposter had taken his place. This man was a dead-ringer (sorry) for Bardiya, and not even his “wife-sister” knew the truth. Of course… only Darius was aware of the full truth. And he would use his “truth” to keep himself “King” for nearly 65 years.

The "Gracchi"

You're probably familiar with the "Ides of March" -- a grim anniversary (Mar.15) marking the murder of Julius Caesar by the Roman Senate (44BC). But did you also know that the Roman Senate, in mob-like fury, murdered two other Roman leaders?

The "Gracchi" family was rich, powerful, and well-connected in Roman politics (ca 160BC). Two brothers, TIBERIUS and GAIUS, would pose a very real threat (like Caesar) to the Roman Senate. Tiberius was a proponent of land reform in a time when the Roman peasantry was truly suffering. The poor had become impoverished, and with Roman land in the hands of the wealthy "Elites" (many of whom were Senators) there was little farming to be had. The Roman people were starving. Tiberius proposed a limitation on the amount of land the Elites could own, and he wanted parcels of excess land given to the poor. For his efforts, he was clubbed to death in 132BC by angry Senators. It was the first time a dispute in the Senate would be settled by bloodshed.

Tiberius' brother, Gaius, was also a proponent of land reform. However, Gaius had the backing of an army of followers, making his threat to the power of the Senate very real and immediate. He had his own angry mob of followers ready to take back the excess lands of the rich by force. There was, indeed, a need for land reform and redistribution... but the wealthy Elites would have none of this. The Senate was responsible for murdering Gaius in 121BC, only eleven years after they had murdered his brother. They would go even further and demand the deaths of Gaius' followers... and it is likely that almost 2500 people were murdered on command by the Senate.

Caesar's assasination is more vivid, and it is probably because he was more famous. The "Pater Patria," 80 years later, was more like a "King" inside Rome. He had himself named "Dictator for Life." Here was the man who had defeated Pompey, who had conquered the Gauls, and who had embroiled himself in controversy with Cleopatra in Egypt (the two had a son together). When the Senate conspired to murder him it was done in the same way as they had dispatched Tiberius and Gaius -- a mob moved against Caesar, clubbed him, and then drew their daggers to stab him almost thirty times.

Lawrence has asked about Hammurabi's Code in relation to what I wrote about earlier, with the Sumerians and their first writings on law.
The Sumerians existed much earlier (ca. 3500 BC) than Hammurabi, and their cuneiform writings appeared during their early dynastic period (ca. 3100 BC). Their concepts of law tended toward their own business dealings with other peoples in the Mesopotamia region. They did recognize "morality" in their writings, and as such, their notions of "Law" are more comprehensive. They dealt with "right" and "wrong" -- and this is remarkable in such an early society.
Hammurabi was the sixth king of the Babylonian Empire, and he lived from 1792 - 1750 BC.
He was, indeed, more harsh in his approach toward his people (he had endured a series of wars with neighboring peoples), and the famous "Hammurabi Code" involved "retaliation" over any legal or moral truths. Because of this, it was really more a "codification" of harsh penalties for wrongs committed. These included things like mutilation, drowning, and sometimes even impalement. Things like theivery or false accusations were dealt with in severe extremes. For example, a man who accuses another might be forced to jump into a river... if he did not drown, the accusations were assumed to be true.
Hammurabi's Code makes for a long and detailed text, and as king he was able to excercise great control over the people in his realms. It is interesting that his codes (nearly 300 of them) were inscribed in stone and then put on display for his people -- many of whom could not read.
So, LK, what I will say is that the Sumerians came first, and their notions of "Law" were far more advanced than Hammurabi's "Codes." I do have a soft-spot in my heart for the Sumerians, but I won't let that taint my historical approach or judgement (ha!). I find the Sumerians fascinating... and Hamm's Code, well, not so much.

The "Sumerian" civilization is credited with the invention of writing... but did you know they are also responsible for many of the stories we find in "Genesis," as well as man's first concepts of "time" and "law" ?
Little is known of the earliest Sumerians, but the hot, harsh climate of Mesopotamia would cultivate settlements that were flourishing as early as 3000 B.C. They were perhaps nomadic wanderers who made their way from the mountains into the valley regions, but little is known of their origin because they were simply unrelated to any other people or language of the time (ca. 3500 B.C.)
I always found them interesting because they give us our first glimpse of "historical" writings. They used a pictographic language and their texts were written by pressing the end of a reed or thin animal bone into wet tablets of clay. The tablets were baked, and this produced a wedge-shaped form of writing we know as "Cuneiform." It was a difficult and time-consuming, and as such, there were only a few scribes working on documents in this era.
The Sumerians had a complex government and society, despite the fact that they lived in a region of extreme heat, sweeping sandstorms, a white-hot sun, and very little rain. When the rains did come they were in the form of sudden flash-floods, and farming soil was left damp, marshy, and untendable.
What these people DID have was a very good form of trade. They were masters in metals, glass, textile-weaving, and they worked with the precious items of bronze, copper, gold, and iron. This trade brought them in touch with many different cultures -- and it's very probable their contact with the early Hebrews gave rise to many of the stories used in the Old Testament, particularly the first book of "Genesis." For example, the Sumerians were the first to have a story of the "Tree of Knowledge" and they spoke of a "Paradise" that had been lost to man. This is paralleled in the later Hebrew texts and the Biblical "Garden of Eden." The Sumerians also told a story of a "Great Flood" and the "Tower of Babylon," too, was theirs.
It is interesting that the "Great Flood" shows up in one of the earliest works of literature, the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh." I have not read this (someday I will find time!) but it is based on a series of older Sumerian stories about the mythical king "Aggas" of Kish.
The Sumerians also provided the earliest concepts of "divine law" and a "divine justice." It can be argued that the Hebrews, likewise, developed a strong sense of these two elements in their religion -- although they focused on one "God" while the Sumerians had many different gods.
We also take our notion of the "foot" having 12 inches from them.
And the fact that minutes and hours each have units of "60."
And also that a "Day" has 24 hours.

Here is a nice story, a tale of heroism and selflessnes, and a deeper look at the grace and kindness of humanity in the face of what was perhaps the greatest calamity ever to befall mankind. (I was asked to write something kind on the Blog; it pains me to do it)
The bubonic plague ravaged the villages, towns, and cities of Europe from 1348 - 1350. This was a disease that infected people via fleas (via rats) and took its toll swiftly, killing those infected in a period of days, or hours. It is believed this disease originated in the steppes of Asia, was transmitted to the Tartars, and was carried to Europe by Genoese sailors who traded (and made warfare) with them. Indeed, ships sailing into medieval ports in Sicily in 1348 were rife with men who were dead or dying. Those afflicted showed strange boils and blotches, and swellings known as "buboes" were open and seeping with pus or blood. These men were burning with high fever, their bodies were damp with sweat, and they were coughing up phlegm and blood.
This was a disease that moved quickly, and seemed to carry with it what people believed to be the wrath of an angry God. In 1347 the plague was in Genoa and Venice; by early 1348 it penetrated France; by the terrible hot summer of 1348 it had reached Rome, then Florence, and was teeming in England. The sheer number of people to die was staggering -- in cities it was recorded that 400 to 800 were dead every day; in the towns perhaps four out of five died; smaller villages were wiped out completely, some of them lost forever.
It is hard to imagine that kind of death; it is harder when you consider that people were dying too quickly for them to be buried. Graveyards were full, and streets were littered with rotting corpses. The church bells tolled endlessly... until there was no one left to actually ring them. The plague was highly transmittable through touch, and was even more virulent in its "pneumatic" (breath) form. People turned on each other, they abandoned friends, and even families deserted one another. A brother might leave his father, a husband his wife, a mother her child -- it was as if a man's heart had grown cold, and one person shunned another. (Boccacio)
So it is in this time that I give you the selfless nuns, in the "Hotel Dieu," in Paris.
These were the charitable women who kept to the tenets of their faith and took in, selflessly, victim after victim of the plague. People with purple-black skin and oozing sores would appear from the streets and the nuns would dutifully care for them... even when touching such a person meant certain death. Daily there were carts of people being taken to burial pits (or else left to be scattered in the streets) and the nuns were soon among them. It did not matter; they were constantly being replaced by newer members, by newer nuns who knew what their fate must be. They tended to the sick, cooled their fevers, washed them with water, and tried to dress the open, festering sores... even when it meant that they, too, might be dead within hours.
This was an act of bravery and kindess that stands out, momentarily, from the terrible dark pages of this time period. These women were able to care for strangers in a way that friends or even family did not. It is unthinkable to believe a mother would leave her child, or that a child would abandon his parents. These remarkable women were not afraid to show us that history is about humanity, and the ways we are compassionate and kind, and the stories we need to share.
(It so hurts me to be nice)

Lawrence has asked me to post something about American History, so I will do it, just for him, to make him well-happy. It's not that I don't "like" Am Hist -- it's just that I've studied more European History and I'm into things like the Crusades, the Church, Byzantium, and the Black Death. So, LK, my buddy, this one is all for you. I love ya.
You may be familiar with the Salem Witch Trials. They took place between 1692 - 93 in the American colony of Massachussetts. This was a larger part of a conflict between the traditional "farmer" way of life common to the early colonists -- and the new, more secular colonists who were more interested in commercialism than religious tradition. It's possible you're not familiar with one elderly farmer named GILES CORY, who was put to death for his alleged involvement in "witchcraft" in 1693. Like the women accused of such crimes, Cory was sent to trial before a panel of men, most of whom represented the older "Puritan" and "Patriarchical" ways of colonial tradition. The old farmer (Cory was nearly 80) was asked to show these men what he had been accused of -- namely, being "possessed" by a supernatural spirit. Cory refused to answer and was then committed to be "pressed to death."
The poor man was laid on his back, and then wooden slats were placed on top of him. Then rocks were placed upon the wood, one after another, over a period of days until the weight was no longer sustainable... and he was crushed to death.
What has always interested me is the fact that this was an old, old man who was perhaps not fully aware of the charges being leveled against him. He was not fully coherent and was perhaps not able to answer his accusers. Indeed, he would not have been able to speak to them at all, given the weight being pressed down on him. It is recorded that he bit off his own tongue as he gasped and struggled for air. And his accusers, in an effort to gain the truth, stood on top of the rocks and eagerly tried to press down on them.
Next Week -- a more pleasant story, I promise.
We'll go back to the Crusades.

Pope John XXII (r. 1316 - 1334) was known for giving lavish feasts. His pontificate would set the tone for the what was known as the "Avignon Papacy" in France. This was a period in History where the Papal See had been moved from Rome to Avignon in what the Italian poet PETRARCH referred to as "The Babylonian Captivity."
The writer went much further to call the Papal Court a veritable "Hell on Earth" and referred to it as a "sink of iniquity" and the "cess-pool of the world."
Indeed, the Papal Court was elaborate, extravagant, lavish, and decked with wanton greed, avarice, simony, and favors given freely to royalty.
In celebrating the marriage of his grand-neice in 1324, Pope John XXII went to extremes.
According to record, the guests at the newly erected Papal Palace in Avignon would consume over 4000 loaves of bread, 8 oxen, 55 sheep, 8 pigs, 4 boars, and vast quantities of fish, chicken, partridge, rabbits, duck, and other wild game. So, too, they would consume over 300 lbs of cheese, over 3000 eggs, and nearly 450 liters of royal wine.
Many were disgusted by such a display and there were calls for the Pope to return to "simpler" ways in following a life for Christ. Unfortunately, the Popes would not be released from their "Captivity" for another 40 years. In 1377 they would leave Avignon and return back to Rome.

Hannibal was famous for crossing the Alps (218BC) with his elephants, and for using the animals in his battles against Rome during the Punic Wars.
But long before elephants it was the use of camels that proved effective in War.
The "Battle of Thymbra" took place in 546BC.
Cyrus the Great (Cyrus II) sought to expand his rule, and the rule of the "Persians," in the central and southern regions of Asia (modern-day Iran).
He was forcefully opposed by the "Lydians," a small empire that had itself arisen from the fallen Hittite kingdoms nearly five hundred years before. There was much wealth to be found in conquering these people, and the warfare between Cyrus and the Lydian King Croesses was vividly detailed in the histories of the day.
Cyrus was pressing against Croesses, seeking the fabulously wealthy city of "Sardis," when he devised a plan to use camels as weapons in his attack. These were pack-animals, but the camels were instead placed in the front of the marching army, and as the Persians approached the Lydians it was the Lydian horses that withdrew in terror. The horses feared the smell of the camels and they reared back, throwing off their riders, and it was not difficult for the Persians to rush forward, cutting down man after man... until they soon found themselves ankle-deep in Lydian blood. The battle quickly became a massacre, and it secured Cyrus' position over Lydia.
Cyrus would continue his quest for "Empire" and soon captured territories in Greece, Babylonia, Syria, Egypt, and Palestine -- with his camels in battle beside him.
Cyrus' grandson, "Darius I," would later become famous in the Persian conflicts against the Greeks and the "Battle of Marathon" in 490BC.

The "Minoans" were a civilization of people emerging (ca.) 1700 BC on the island of Crete in the Mediterranean. They were contemporaries of the early Greeks, and they were known for their palaces, their culture, their commerce, trade, and their elaborate and sometimes hypnotic artwork. Their paintings and pottery depicted animals, gardens, fish and birds, and reflected a sense of freedom and delight that was common to this culture. Trade-oriented, the Minoans were familiar with the Egyptians and the early Greeks; they engaged the peoples in Cyprus, Syria, Mesopotamia, and even moved into the remote regions of Spain.
What is interesting is the quick disappearance of these people -- certainly the raiding, warring Myceneans overtook them -- but there is another factor in this History.
In 1627 BC (ca.) there was a massive volcanic eruption on the island of Thera.
This was indeed one of the largest volcanic eruptions in the Earth's history... it destroyed the island of Thera and much of the coastline of Crete, itself. It is estimated that a 200 foot tsunami hit, with full-force, the island of Crete, and continued violent magma-steam eruptions would destory the people and their settlements. In fact, the amount of ash spewed into the air would darken the skies in Egypt and China. There are records of famine in Egypt and yellow fog and frost in the regions of Asia. Starving, displaced, and devastated, the Minoans quickly faded.
What is left to us are the legendary palaces, now mesmerizing ruins, and a sense of this "Lost Eden" (Thucydides - 460-395BC).

My friend Marilen is fascinated with this one. It is the story of "Irene of Athens" who ruled Constantinople, in her son's stead, from 753-803. What makes this interesting is the fact that Irene actually had her son "blinded" in an effort to make herself ruler.
She was married to LEO IV, who ruled for five years, and was under Irene's thumb. She controlled policy and warfare, and it was under suspicious circumstances (it is very probable that Irene had him killed) that LEO IV met his death.
What is not suspicious is the way in which Irene had her own son killed.
Constantine IV would have been Emperor. He was only six when his father died. Growing up in the royal court he proved to be frivolous, flirtatious, and perhaps scandalous in his escapades with young women. In Constantinople, no "deformed" or "maimed" ruler was able to take control -- and Irene used this to her full advantage. Her son was seized and then mutilated when his captors took red-hot irons to his eyes. It was not something he would survive. For days he lingered in pain before finally succumbing to death.
Irene ruled for fifty years... but her rule was never accepted. Despite the ongoing "Iconoclasm" (still raging between those who supported paintings and idols within the Church, and those who did not) it was, in reality, Irene's callousness and cruellness which people could not accept. She was called Irene "The Terrible" and Irene "The Murderer" for the death of her son.

717 A.D. was a year of acute crisis for the Emperor of Constantinople, Leo III. Skirmishing Muslim armies had seized Anatolia and were swiftly marching on the Holy city itself. The eastern "Rome" would have perhaps fallen to the invaders -- the Muslims were adept at planning a prolonged seige -- if it were not for the use of "Greek Fire." This was an older tactic that had been used by the Greeks hundreds of years before -- yet, it was the scientists inside Constaninople who actually perfected the weapon. They combined a mixture formed of petroleum, sulphur, and saltpeter that ignited on contact with water. This FIRE was crucial in the defense of the city. The Muslims were terrified of the "Sea Fire"... they did not understand how it could actually seem to burn and blur in terrible fury on the waves. Leo III was successful in using this weapon to drive back the Muslims, and Constantinople would be saved. For a long time the actual ingredients of the "Greek Fire" were carefully guarded secrets. Leo III claimed it was "Divine Intervention" in saving the Holy City.

Christian II, the king of Denmark from 1513 - 1523, gives us a fascinating episode in Scandinavian History -- The "Bloodbath of Stockholm" (1520).
Christian was known as a "Tyrant" during his short reign, and if you ask the Swedes, they will tell you the same, as they refer to him as the "Wicked One."
Despite his fondness for the peasantry, and his need for all things German, Christian made many enemies in Sweden. Both the Danes and the Swedes held to a tenuous union (the Kalmar Union), but Christian's actions in November, 1520, would drive a permanent wedge between the two emerging nations.
The Danish army had successfully invaded Sweden and Christian II offered overtures of peace when he asked Swedish nobles, merchants, and even ordinary people into the castle at Stockholm. His plan was perhaps more diabolic -- he had prepared a large and lavish feast for his guests, just before he imprisoned them and began to "hunt" and "kill" them. Nearly 100 people would be hanged, beheaded, or in some other way murdered in Stockholm square.
It was Christian's pleasure to kill these men at will; for three days in stormy November there were people locked within the rooms of the castle. They had nowhere to go, and there was nowhere to hide where Christian would not find them. Only a spare handful of people would survive to tell the tale. Among them, it is notable -- and perhaps done on purpose by Christian -- that Gustav Eriksson Vasa would escape. He would later become the King of Sweden.

On May 28, 1987, a young German named Matthias Rust was able to land his Cessna plane inside the Soviet Union, in Moscow's Red Square. Rust was only 19. He flew from Finland to Moscow and was several times tracked by Soviet radar -- yet, he was never engaged, and remarkably, was not shot-down. He landed and a surprised crowd of curious onlookers greeted him; he was then quickly arrested, given a trial, and sentenced to four years in a Soviet prison (he served just over one full year).
The incident was damaging to the reputation of the Soviet Military -- they had claimed their defenses were unable to be penetrated. Two years later would see the collapse of the Berlin Wall, dividing West and East Germany, and in 1991 "Soviet" Russia would follow.

St. Maarten, April 29, 2009.
The island is beautiful! We've seen Nassau, St. Thomas, and now St. Maarten... and this is my favorite. This island was
"discovered" by Columbus in 1493, who "claimed" it for Spain. It was the Dutch who took real interest (Spain had its sights set on bigger pieces of land -- Puerto Rico) and by the 1630's it would be Dutch-occupied. The French, too, wanted the island, and it was jointly-occupied through the later 1600's when a Treaty was made. The island today is divided by the "Dutch" side and the "French" side. Both sides of the island provide for tourist shopping and exploring havens.