A review of “Byzantium: The Lost Empire” (The Learning Channel)

Also known as the “Eastern Roman Empire,” which lasted about a thousand years longer than the better-known “Western Roman Empire.”

The Roman Empire was divided into western and eastern halves more than once in its history. Sometimes, the halves reunited; but when they were divided again in 395, the separation became permanent. When Westerners discussing this period use the phrase “the Roman Empire,” they are usually talking about the western portion, which fell in the year 476. But the eastern portion didn't fall until the year 1453, and it is now known to us as the “Byzantine Empire.”

Map of the split of the Roman Empire into East and West, in AD 395

To the inhabitants of this empire, it was originally known as the “Eastern” Roman Empire. But when the Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, the eastern empire had now become the only “Roman Empire” still remaining. Thus, it became convenient for the people living under it to refer to these eastern territories as simply the “Roman Empire.” Why, then, do contemporary English speakers instead tend to refer to it as the “Byzantine Empire”?

A review of “The Wars of the Roses: A Bloody Crown”

“The great revolutions that had happened, in manners and in property, had paved the way, by imperceptible yet sure degrees, for as great a revolution in government: yet, while that revolution was effecting, the crown became more arbitrary than ever, by the progress of those very means which afterwards reduced its power. It is obvious to every observer, that, till the close of the Lancastrian civil wars, the property and the power of the nation were chiefly divided between the king, the nobility, and the clergy. The commons were generally in a state of great ignorance; their personal wealth, before the extension of trade, was comparatively small; and the nature of their landed property was such, as kept them in continual dependence upon their feodal lord, being usually some powerful baron, some opulent abbey, or sometimes the king himself.”

– Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 33

So why is this conflict known as “The Wars of the Roses”?

In fifteenth-century England, there was a conflict between two families for the throne of England. This conflict lasted for 32 years, and claimed thousands of lives by the time it was over with. But this conflict carries the strange name of “The Wars of the Roses.” Why do historians call it that? The reason is that the House of York was symbolized by a white rose, while the House of Lancaster was symbolized by a red rose. These were the two families that were battling each other for the throne of England. Technically, they were two rival branches of the same family - namely, the Plantagenets.

The Wars of the Roses were not really about ideas, but about who controlled the throne …

It is important to be clear on this: In contrast to later wars like the “English Civil War,” this was not a war about ideas. Rather, it was just a war about which family would control the throne, both during their lifetimes and beyond. Although I know that thousands perished during the “Wars of the Roses,” I have no information about whether it was bloodier than the later “English Civil War.” But one thing is clear: both wars were civil wars. And something else is clear, too: the “Wars of the Roses” lasted far longer than this later conflict - over two-and-a-half times longer, in fact.

20th-century rendition of “The Battle of Towton” (1461), possibly the largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil

A review of “Jerusalem: Center of the World” (PBS)

“Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah,” Chapter 52, Verse 1 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Three of the world's great religions have looked upon Jerusalem as a “holy city” …

Three of the world's great religions have looked upon Jerusalem as a “holy city.” Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have an intimate historical connection with the city. These three religions may be the most prominent of what scholars today call the “Abrahamic religions.” The city has long been hot real estate (and still is today), and has been the site of more than a hundred battles scattered throughout its history.

The “Temple Mount” in Jerusalem, with the Dome of the Rock in the center

Jerusalem really is the “Center of the World” (or at least, the “Old World”) …

I live in the distant United States, the most powerful country in the “New World.” By contrast, Jerusalem lies in the “Old World” – a world which consists primarily of three continents; which are Europe, Africa, and Asia. The Middle East in general – and Jerusalem in particular – lie in the middle of that “Old World.” This may be part of why this documentary calls Jerusalem the “Center of the World,” as it does here. As with the Middle East in general, the central location of Jerusalem may be both a blessing and a curse to it. It is a blessing in some ways, because it was at the center of the world's trade routes, and has long been such. But it is also something of a curse, because its central location accounts (at least partially) for why it has long been such hot real estate. The Middle East in general – and Jerusalem in particular – continue to be something of a battleground today. But the importance of Jerusalem also has strong religious components, which are rooted in the unique history of this city.

Forgotten battlegrounds of the Cold War: South Asia and Indonesia

“We the people of Indonesia hereby declare the independence of Indonesia. Matters which concern the transfer of power and other things will be executed by careful means and in the shortest possible time … In the name of the people of Indonesia …”

– Indonesian Declaration of Independence (from the Dutch Empire), Djakarta, 17 August 1945

Few parts of the Cold War are more forgotten than this …

Asia was one of the biggest battlegrounds of the Cold War. Two of the biggest of the aptly-named “hot wars” within the Cold War were both fought in East Asia, which were the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Many Cold War conflicts were likewise fought in the Middle East (which is part of Asia), and the Soviets fought their war in Afghanistan in central Asia. In addition, communist China was located in East Asia, and much of the Soviet Union was located in North Asia. But the Cold War events of South Asia are often forgotten, and were not covered in CNN's 18-hour television history of the Cold War (one of the few major omissions on CNN's part there). Thus, an examination of some of these events would seem to be in order here. Some would consider Indonesia to be a part of Southeast Asia, while others would instead consider it to be a part of the region known as Oceania. But since the Cold War events of Indonesia are often forgotten as well, I would like to cover some of them, and this actually seems a convenient place to do so. Like South Asia, Indonesia is a part of the Indian Ocean region, and was a major battleground in the Cold War. Thus, I will combine some of these things together into one post, and show how the Cold War affected the general Indian Ocean region (a forgotten battleground of the Cold War).

Bendera Pusaka, the first Indonesian flag, is raised on 17 August 1945

A review of “The Communist Manifesto” (audiobook)

I once read “The Communist Manifesto” itself in English translation in 2012, because it is a shorter work that requires very little time commitment. I am not a fan of this work, and tend to find it a bit on the nutty side. Nonetheless, I'm glad that I read it, and took the time to think about its ideas. Some years ago, I acquired an audiobook about “The Communist Manifesto” which briefly discusses its main ideas, and gives some historical background about it as well. This is the audiobook that I will be reviewing here.

Actually, Machiavelli WAS pro-dictatorship (and Rousseau was wrong about him)

“I admit that, provided the subjects remained always in submission, the prince's interest would indeed be that it should be powerful, in order that its power, being his own, might make him formidable to his neighbours; but, this interest being merely secondary and subordinate, and strength being incompatible with submission, princes naturally give the preference always to the principle that is more to their immediate advantage. This is what Samuel put strongly before the Hebrews, and what Macchiavelli has clearly shown. He professed to teach kings; but it was the people he really taught. His Prince is the book of Republicans.[footnote]”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (1762), Book III, Chapter VI

Rousseau said that Machiavelli's “The Prince” is “the book of Republicans” …

More than 200 years after Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532, Jean-Jacques Rousseau commented on this work in 1762. Rousseau argued that it was “the book of Republicans.[footnote]” (Source: “The Social Contract,” Book III, Chapter VI). In this context, “Republicans” seems to mean “those who support a republic.” Was this meant as positive praise or negative criticism? It appears that this was indeed meant as praise, as we can see by examining Rousseau's definition of a “republic” (as I shall do below).

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… and said that “every legitimate government is republican”

Elsewhere in “The Social Contract,” Rousseau had written: “I therefore give the name 'Republic' to every State that is governed by laws, no matter what the form of its administration may be: for only in such a case does the public interest govern, and the res publica rank as a reality. Every legitimate government is republican;[footnote] what government is I will explain later on.” (Source: Book II, Chapter VI) In the footnote to this paragraph, Rousseau actually said that “I understand by this word republic, not merely an aristocracy or a democracy, but generally any government directed by the general will, which is the law. To be legitimate, the government must be, not one with the Sovereign, but its minister. In such a case even a monarchy is a Republic.” (Source: Footnote to Book II, Chapter VI) Thus, for Rousseau, “even a monarchy is a Republic,” and “every legitimate government is republican.” Thus, referring to “The Prince” as “the book of Republicans” seems to be meant as positive praise.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, later in life

Machiavelli argued that Cesare Borgia was a good ruler. (Was he?)

“I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. This duke entered the Romagna with auxiliaries, taking there only French soldiers, and with them he captured Imola and Forli; but afterwards, such forces not appearing to him reliable, he turned to mercenaries, discerning less danger in them, and enlisted the Orsini and Vitelli; whom presently, on handling and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he destroyed and turned to his own men.

And the difference between one and the other of these forces can easily be seen when one considers the difference there was in the reputation of the duke, when he had the French, when he had the Orsini and Vitelli, and when he relied on his own soldiers, on whose fidelity he could always count and found it ever increasing; he was never esteemed more highly than when every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces.”

– Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” (1532), Chapter XIII

Niccolò Machiavelli

Rousseau argued that Machiavelli's choice of Borgia as his hero revealed a “hidden aim” …

More than 200 years after Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532, Jean-Jacques Rousseau would comment on this work in 1762. In his work “The Social Contract,” Rousseau opined that “Macchiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Cæsar Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays.” (Source: Footnote to Book III, Chapter VI) Even Rousseau admitted that Machiavelli's hero “Cæsar Borgia” was “detestable” (calling him his “detestable hero,” after all), but he argued that this strange choice “clearly enough shows [Machiavelli's] hidden aim” right after this. In this passage, a “love of liberty” is thus implied to be a part of this “hidden aim.” Was it really so? I shall examine this question below.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau