Ancient World Review

Cambridge Museum To Install Signs Explaining "Whiteness" Of Greek & Roman Plaster Statues

Video from Aug. 25, 2021.

"A new anti-racism strategy at Cambridge University’s classical archaeology museum has been labelled 'shameless pandering' after revealing that signs will be added to explain the 'whiteness' of its Roman and Greek sculpture casts." Source: RT.

"In an action plan published last month, the university’s classics faculty noted that the plaster casts on display in the museum and lecture rooms give the 'misleading impression' of an 'absence of diversity' in the ancient world. The faculty apparently decided to 'turn the problem into an opportunity.'"

Video from Aug. 23, 2021. Closed-captions helpful.

"According to the action plan, the faculty will provide 'improved information' to 'draw attention to the diversity figured in the casts,' and to 'the ways in which colour has been lost and can be restored,' as well as to the 'role of classical sculpture in the history of racism.'

"Noting that students have been recruited to write 'new labels and other materials,' the new information panels will go on display later this year. The plan also noted that discussion to this effect had begun in 2020."

Comment: The ideological subversion of elite British universities has been going on for some time now. Back in 2018, for instance, columnist Geoff Norcott pointed out in the Independent that Cambridge students don't need to take drugs because "they get off their nut by banning or prohibiting stuff." And the great James Dellingpole said in an interview last year (next video) that British universities are "madrassas of woke stupidity."

In the case of these hideously white statues, I have to wonder how long it will take for the woke idiots at Cambridge to realize that ancient Greece and Rome were slave societies and start clamoring to take the statues down or smash them into a million pieces. Don't think that couldn't happen, either. Last year, for example, some students at Brown University called for the removal, relocation or "re-contextualization" of "white supremacist" statues of Augustus and Marcus Aurelius on the campus. A statue of Julius Caesar was vandalized in Belgium, apparently by BLM "protestors," and the British Museum recently removed a bust of its own founder because he owned slaves. The way things are going, it won't be long before the culture-wreckers start demanding that museums get rid of their Greek and Roman exhibitions altogether.

Related:

Cambridge University With Growing Cancel Culture Named One Of The Worst For Free Speech

How the Woke Inquisition Broke Cambridge

Cambridge University Rejects Proposal It Be "Respectful" of all Views

Cambridge's Plunge Into Wokedom

"Historic" Vatican Corruption Trial In Progress

Report from July 27, 2021.

Last month a Vatican corruption trial began which was described at the time as "historic." The corruption here was supposedly so egregious and high-reaching that Pope Francis himself took a break from cracking down on the Latin Mass and calling for more immigration to make sure that the trial proceeded.

The case sounds like something out of a Richard Condon novel. According to Crux Now, "The list of those being tried by the Vatican criminal court include a once powerful cardinal, an alleged intelligence analyst who used Vatican money to buy high-end handbags. and the man once tasked with putting the Vatican on Europe’s 'white list' for financial propriety."

Report from July 27, 2021.

"This will be the first time that the Vatican tribunal, made up of lay magistrates, will carry out a criminal trial against a cardinal of the Curia – the central government of the Catholic Church. The allegations against the defendants include misappropriation of funds, extortion, embezzlement, fraud to money laundering, abuse of office and violation of official secrecy."

Comment: I'm not familiar with this case -- I just read about it a few seconds ago -- but I assume that the cardinal and the other defendants are all guilty as hell. As an impartial observer, I've always thought that extortion, fraud, embezzlement, abuse of office, murder, racketeering and sexual degeneracy are SOP at the Vatican. Like all other governments, the Holy See has its own criminal Deep State. The only difference in this case is that some of the criminals wear robes and weird hats (at least on ceremonial occasions) instead of Armani suits.

July 27, 2021.

This trial is supposedly a big deal because it's the first time the Vatican has brought charges against such a high-ranking cardinal:

"Cardinal Angelo Becciu, who served as chief of staff in the Vatican’s secretariat of state, is the highest-placed Vatican figure to face a trial for alleged financial crimes. At the trial that started on Tuesday, the 73-year-old Becciu and two former leaders of the Vatican’s financial watchdog are among the 10 defendants who are accused of offenses including fraud, embezzlement, abuse of office, money-laundering and corruption." Source: Bloomberg (July 27, 2021).

If you believe the news coverage, Pope Francis is a reformer who has been trying to fight corruption ever since he took office. If that's true, he's going to have to do more than just put a cardinal and various apparatchiks on trial. Becciu was allegedly involved in all sorts of sketchy investments and creative accounting, at the very least, but that's routine in big finance these days. If Francis really wants to solve this problem, the only way to do it is to completely eliminate the Vatican Bank.

Report from 2015.

This trial is just the latest event in an ongoing fight to clean up the Vatican Bank which has been going on for over a decade now. The next news report, for instance, is from 2013.

There have been so many of these financial scandals at the Vatican that it's probably safe to say that the problem is systemic. The Vatican Bank isn't corrupt because of a few corrupt bank officials, though it's certainly had a lot of them. The Vatican Bank is corrupt because it's a bank. The only real solution to this kind of financial corruption, aka business as usual, is to get rid of the bank itself, but that isn't going to happen because (1) it would mean a loss of sovereignty for the Holy See itself, and (2) the Vatican would lose a big part of its revenue.

The Catholic Church is a schizophrenic institution. It's a religious organization, but it's also a big business. Historically, the church has always been corrupt to one degree or another. Its sale of indulgences in the Middle Ages is a classic example, and the Renaissance popes, eg the Borgias, have a notorious reputation. The modern church is an independent state, one of the last absolute monarchies in the world, and it has all the problems that go along with being a secular power. Pope Francis's fight against corruption is doomed because he's just replacing one set of bankers with another.

Whatever happens with this current trial, we'll see more of them in the future. You can count on that. The corruption will keep making the news until the Vatican closes its bank, loses its sovereign status or starts hiring a more discrete and efficient class of money manipulators.

Book Review: The Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire by Michael Grant

The fall of Rome proves beyond doubt that one thing always leads to another, usually in unexpected ways. For example, when the Romans gave up the idea of conquering Germany and switched to a defensive strategy along the Rhine and Danube frontier, they succeeded in blocking the German advance into their territory, but they had no idea that they were starting a long chain of events which would eventually lead to the collapse of the western empire.

The Germanic tribes needed living space. Stymied in their attempts to spread west into Roman Gaul, the various tribes started to move to the east in the Second Century AD and ran into big trouble about a century later. In 372, according to The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, "the eastward expansion of the Ostrogoths provoked an explosive reaction from the Huns of the Volga Steppe." When the Ostrogoths intruded into their territory, the Huns drove all the German tribes back towards the Danube like a giant hammer, pounding them against the Roman frontier.

"...the Huns rolled forward to the Danube, crushing the Visigoths and enslaving the Gepids, who had the misfortune to occupy the Hungarian steppe. There the Huns settled down with their flocks, lords of a pasture that stretched back to the Caspian. In three years they had obliterated a century of German expansion." New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, page 10.

Over the next century, the Franks, Frisians, Suevi, Vandals, Alemanni and Visigoths crossed the frontier into Roman Gaul, but they didn't stop there. Driven by hunger, the need for land and their leader's private ambitions, the Visigoths sacked Rome and spread as far as Spain, establishing the Kingdom of the Visigoths in 418. Rome in the west, heart of the strongest and most successful empire the world has ever seen, no longer existed.

The story of the fall of the western empire is more complicated than this, of course, but the main question is why Rome couldn't defend its frontier. What had changed? One part of the answer is given by the famous classical historian Michael Grant in his short and relatively obscure book "The Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire." Briefly, Rome had been so weakened by two centuries of political instability, corruption, civil wars, military disasters and financial problems that it was no longer able to defend itself. In fact, according to Grant, the western empire should have collapsed in the Third Century, but managed to recover thanks to the efforts of a series of strong emperors who instituted much needed reforms.

"The fact that the Roman empire did not collapse in the 260s or 270s AD is one of the miracles of history." Grant, Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire, Introduction, xvii.

In my opinion, the origins of Rome's political instability can be traced all the way back to Julius Caesar, at least. When the legions figured out that they could make or break emperors at will, they became the ultimate power brokers and this eventually developed into a state of constant chaos and civil war as ambitious military leaders bribed and murdered their way into power, only to be murdered themselves, sometimes after a reign of only a few days. The turnover in the Roman government between 235 and 284 AD was mind-boggling:

"In the age of the soldier-emperors, between the assassination of Alexander Severus, the last of the Severans, in 235 A.D. and the beginning of Diocletian's reign in 284, at least sixteen men bore the title of emperor: Maximinus (r. 235–38 A.D.), Gordian I and II, Pupienus and Balbinus (r. 238 A.D.), Gordian III (r. 238–44 A.D.), Philip the Arab (r. 244–49 A.D.), the Illyrian Decius (r. 249–51 A.D.), Trebonianus Gallus (r. 251–53 A.D.), Aemilianus (r. 253 A.D.), Valerian (r. 253–60 A.D.), Gallienus (r. 253–68 A.D.), Claudius Gothicus (r. 268–70 A.D.), Aurelian (r. 270–75 A.D.), Tacitus (r. 275–76 A.D.), Probus (r. 276–82 A.D.), Carus (r. 282–83 A.D.), Carinus (r. 283–84 A.D.), and Numerianus (r. 283–84 A.D.). Most were fierce military men and none could hold the reins of power without the support of the army. Almost all, having taken power upon the murder of the preceding emperor, came to a premature and violent end. Social life declined in Roman towns and instead flourished among the country aristocracy, whose secure lifestyle in large fortified estates foreshadowed medieval feudalism." (Source: Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History)

Michael Grant's short book, actually a monograph of 68 pages with an appendix and notes, provides a good overview of the chaotic succession of emperors and the constantly changing state of Roman relations with the Germans and Persians at the time. In Part Two, he discusses the military, financial and religious reforms instituted by the "strong emperors" such as Diocletian and Constantine who emerged at just the right time and managed to pull the empire back from the brink--for a while. Grant's book gives one of the most coherent explanations available for why the western empire collapsed after the Ostrogoth's fatal encounter with the Huns on the Volga Steppe. The lesson is clear enough. A series of bad or ineffective leaders can destroy a civilization.

Sound familiar?

The Legacy Of Alexander The Great In Afghanistan

Video from 2011.

Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of empires, a fitting (though not technically accurate) name considering the fiasco we are now witnessing as the US withdraws from the country after a 20-year occupation that was doomed from the start.

"During the history of Afghanistan, several superpowers had attempted to invade Afghanistan without maintaining a stable, permanent rule. Modern examples included the British Empire during the Third Anglo-Afghan War (1919), the Soviet Union in the Soviet–Afghan War (1979 – 1989) and the United States in the War in Afghanistan (2001 – 2021). Some had attributed ancient empires to the narrative, including the Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks and Mongols. The difficulty in invading Afghanistan was attributed to the prevalence of fortress-like qalats, the deserts, the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan, its severe winter and its "impregnable clan loyalties." (Wikipedia)

Alexander the Great is frequently included in the list of foreign invaders who failed to subdue Afghanistan, but this isn't really accurate since the Greeks under various leaders managed to hold on to their territory in Afghanistan for centuries.

To sum it up briefly, Alexander invaded what is now Afghanistan in 329-330 BC during his wider war against the Persian Empire. He fought hard battles against local tribes, renamed his territory Bactria, and settled some of his veterans in cities which he founded there. Then he moved on to invade the Indus River Basin in what is now India. Faced with a mutiny by his troops -- which he managed to contain -- he was forced to return to his base in Babylon where he died from unknown causes, possibly murdered.

"Following the death of Alexander and the partition of his kingdom, the Province of Bactria was under the rule of Alexander's former general, Seleucus, who now formed the Seleucid Dynasty, with its capital in Babylon. But the Greek soldiers in Bactria, based on the remoteness of their territory, declared independence, defeated Seleucid armies sent to reconquer them, and founded the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, which lasted for more than three centuries in Afghanistan, and western India." (Wikipedia)

These Greco-Bactrians "left a legacy of coinage, architecture, and Buddhist art, which comprised the Ghandara culture, especially the Greco-Buddhist Art affecting all of East Asia to this day. The last Greek Kingdom in Afghanistan was conquered by the Kushan invaders in the first century AD, a full three centuries after Alexander. But Greek language continued to be used by the Kushans in their coinage for the next several centuries."

The claim that Alexander failed to conquer Afghanistan isn't historically accurate. He did conquer the country -- part of it, anyway -- and the Greeks occupied the region for centuries until they were finally conquered by another invading force. The Kushans defeated the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and went on to occupy most of Afghanistan for a couple more centuries until they, in turn, were defeated by yet another outside invasion:

"The Kushan Empire fragmented into semi-independent kingdoms in the 3rd century AD, which fell to the Sasanians invading from the west, establishing the Kushano-Sasanian Kingdom in the areas of Sogdiana, Bactria and Gandhara. In the 4th century, the Guptas, an Indian dynasty also pressed from the east. The last of the Kushan and Kushano-Sasanian kingdoms were eventually overwhelmed by invaders from the north, known as the Kidarites, and then the Hephthalites." (Wikipedia)

And on and on it has gone in Afghanistan, a tumultuous history of conquest and re-conquest which has led up to the predictable disaster we are watching unfold right now. Afghanistan may not be the graveyard of the American Empire, but this really mind-boggling failure will definitely be a major milestone in the continuing decline of the United States.

Report from August 15, 2021. Also see Afghanistan, Lost (NBC, same day). By the time this post appears, the Taliban may be in control of the entire country.

The legacy of "coinage, architecture, and Buddhist art" left behind by Alexander and the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom still survives in the British Museum and other museums. Some have condemned these collections for being a "theft of cultural heritage" and so on, but these priceless artifacts will be far safer in Britain and elsewhere than they would be in Afghanistan, which will soon -- very soon -- fall under the total control of the same Taliban fanatics who destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan back in 2001. An attempt was launched to reconstruct the Buddha statues after the Taliban was driven out, but now that they're back in power I'm sure that work will be discontinued immediately.

How The Byzantine Emperor Justinian Dealt With Riots

"The Nika riots ... Nika revolt or Nika sedition took place against Emperor Justinian I in Constantinople over the course of a week in 532 CE. They were the most violent riots in the city's history, with nearly half of Constantinople being burned or destroyed and tens of thousands of people killed." Source: Wikipedia.

The Nika revolt was set off by the Greens and Blues, two factions who supported different chariot-racing teams, but the outbreak of rabid violence that almost overthrew Justinian was a lot more than a simple sports brawl like the soccer riots we have today.

The Greens and Blues were loose political, social and religious associations vaguely similar to today's political parties. And chariot-racing itself was more than just a sports spectacle. According to Wikipedia, "The chariot races were important in the Byzantine Empire, as in the Roman Empire, as a way to reinforce social class and political power, including the might of the Byzantine emperor, and were often put on for political or religious reasons."

Justinian's government wasn't exactly popular with the rabble. The riots were a protest over political corruption, high taxes, budget cuts, legalized brutality, the slow pace of reforms, and a variety of other reasons too complex to go into here. His legitimacy as a ruler had also been called into question by military setbacks such as the Byzantine defeat at the Battle of Callinicum in 531 AD (one year before the riots broke out).

Tension had been growing in Constantinople for a long time and the lowborn emperor and his wife, Theodora, weren't just unpopular with the masses. Some of the legal reforms the emperor managed to push through "made him unpopular with the aristocracy from the start, as they made it impossible to use obscure laws and jurisprudence to avoid unfavorable verdicts, further angering the aristocracy." (Wikipedia)

I'm skipping over a lot of history here -- a detailed description would require an entire book -- but the tensions finally boiled over into what can only be described as a massive insurrection against an emperor the historian Procopius described as a demon in human form.

The Secret History by Procopius is one of the most vicious and entertaining political hit pieces ever written.

The bad feeling against Justinian came to a head in the crowded Hippodrome of Constantinople when the rival Greens and Blues united against him:

"On 13 January 532, as the Emperor took his place in the Hippodrome and gave the signal for the games to begin, his appearance was greeted by an uproar. Suddenly, he realized that, for the first time, the Greens and Blues were united; and that their clamour was directed not at each other but at him. 'Nika! Nika!' they cried, using the normal word of encouragement -- 'Win! Win!' -- by which they cheered on the charioteers. In the past, however, each side had tried to shout down the other. Now, they were speaking with one voice; and that voice was not pleasant to hear." -- A Short History of Byzantium, John Julius Norwich, p. 63. (Highly recommended.)

Justinian managed to escape from the Hippodrome, but the city descended into chaos. According to Norwich, "the mob poured out of the great circus, hell-bent on destruction" and "for five days and nights the smoke lay thick over the city." The fires destroyed the Hagia Sophia, the most important church in Constantinople. 

The violence made the recent "peaceful protests" in the United States look like child's play. To make a long story short, the situation got so bad that it almost brought Justinian's rule to an end. He was on the verge of giving up his throne and fleeing the city when Theodora convinced him to stay and fight, and once he made up his mind he didn't screw around:

"Fortunately, two of the Empire's best generals were present in the palace. The first, a Romanized Thracian named Belisarius, was still in his twenties. The second, Mundus, was an Illyrian who happened to have with him a sizeable force of Scandinavian mercenaries. Secretly the two slipped out of the palace, rallied their soldiers and, by separate routes, marched on the Hippodrome." (Norwich, p. 64).

The rioters had gathered in the Hippodrome to crown a new emperor, one of Justinian's relatives named Hypatius, and the two generals caught them by surprise:

"...they burst in simultaneously on the mob, taking it completely by surprise. No quarter was given; Greens and Blues were slaughtered indiscriminately. Meanwhile the commander of the imperial bodyguard ... had stationed his men at the principal exits with orders to cut down all who tried to escape. Within a few minutes, the angry shouts in the great amphitheatre had given place to the cries and groans of wounded and dying men; soon these too grew quiet. (Norwich, p. 64).

Now that's the way to stop an insurrection.

Was The Byzantine Empire Roman?

Documentary from 2014.

"The Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire [see comment]  in the Greek-speaking, eastern part of the Mediterranean. Christian in nature, it was perennially at war with the Muslims, Flourishing during the reign of the Macedonian emperors, its demise was the consequence of attacks by Seljuk Turks, Crusaders, and Ottoman Turks." Source: Ancient History Encyclopedia.

Comment: The Byzantine Empire is usually referred to as the "Roman empire in the East," but I've never thought there was anything particularly Roman about the Byzantines. Romans weren't Greek-speaking Christians; they were pagans who spoke Latin. If you ask me, the real Roman empire had already ceased to exist as a distinct social organism by the time Constantinople was founded by Constantine in 324 - 337.  After Italy and the western provinces of the old empire were overrun by Germanic tribes in the fifth century AD the Byzantines retained Roman institutions, but they were essentially an Oriental kingdom, a hybrid of western and eastern traditions.

According to this view the Roman Empire collapsed as a culture long before it was conquered militarily. When Rome fell in the West, that was the end of it. Parts of its territory still remained, however, most of it in the East, but it's hard to see these surviving territories as Roman.

The picture is very complicated, naturally. There were similarities and differences between the Roman and Byzantine empires. It would be surprising if nothing had carried over from the old world. As a general rule, civilizations aren't suddenly obliterated, leaving no trace behind. Collapse doesn't work that way. Kingdoms and empires rise and fall and evolve into new political systems, usually after a period of chaos and warfare. Zombie civilizations are common in history -- nations that still exist long after their cultures have died or changed out of all recognition. Christian Rome and the Roman Byzantine Empire are both good examples, I think, of zombie empires.

The Byzantine empire was a "continuation" of the Roman Empire in the sense that it was once part of the Roman empire with all of its legal and political institutions, but it was Roman in name only. The main difference, I think, was religious. Paganism had been outlawed and driven underground, replaced by Christianity, an essentially Oriental religion.

Here's a modern analogy. Let's say that the United States becomes an Islamic caliphate, but keeps all of its current institutions in place. There's a White House, a Congress, a Supreme Court, and so on. People still vote, but all the candidates are Muslims. The county courthouse still looks the same, but Christianity is illegal and the judges enforce Shariah Law. Then the western half of the country is invaded and overrun by savage barbarians who settle down and take over the existing legislative machinery. The eastern half of the country still survives as an independent nation, but is it American? The answer is obvious.

Related: Continuity and change in the Byzantine Empire.

Was There A Real King Arthur?

"It seems that there was a war leader, whose name we do not know, who defeated the Saxons, checking their advance temporarily ... Eventually the name Arthur adhered to this folk memory, and his list of accomplishments grew. Arthur is in many ways greater because we do not know the truth ..." Source: Britain Express.

"The real Arthur may have been a man named Ambrosius Aurelianus, or perhaps his war leader, who defeated the Saxons in a major battle we know as Mount Badon ... halting their advance for as long as forty years. In the end, however, the superior might and numbers of the Saxons and their allies were too much for the islanders, and Arthur's efforts became little more than a historical footnote. A terrifically romantic and exciting footnote though, for Arthur and his deeds were woven like a silk thread into the fabric of myth and legend in which Celtic storytellers delight."

Did a King Arthur actually exist? As mentioned above, various attempts have been made to connect the legendary king with actual historical figures. For instance, according to a 1998 Archaeology story, "possible evidence of the existence of Arthur, the legendary warrior king, has been found at Tintagel in Cornwall. A Cornish slate with sixth-century engravings was found in July on the eastern terraces of Tintagel on the edge of a cliff overlooking the place traditionally known as Merlin's Cave [see next video for more on Merlin]. It was discovered under broken pottery and glass from the late sixth or seventh centuries during the re-excavations of an area last dug in the 1930s." The evidence here consists of a Latin inscription which may refer to Arthur.

This next video shows the ruins of Tintagel Castle: King Arthur's birthplace, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Tintagel is only one of the Arthurian locations proposed over the years. Historic UK has a list of places that have been associated with Camelot, though the consensus is that the legends are entirely fictional. That could be true, but these stories must have come from somewhere. "The King Arthur we know is one of romance, ephemera and myth," according to the Independent (2010). "But is he real? Arthur has been in and out of fashion more than denim: one year his veracity is being argued by every archaeologist in Britain, the next he's ignored or derided."

Video from 2016.

Maybe I'm just a hopeless Romantic, but I like to think that King Arthur actually existed. Despite its implausibility there's a fair amount of documentary evidence to support the idea:

"One school of thought, citing entries in the Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) and Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals), sees Arthur as a genuine historical figure, a Romano-British leader who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons some time in the late 5th to early 6th century." (Wikipedia)

Librovox recording of the History of the Britons by Nennius, read by various.

"The Historia Brittonum, a 9th-century Latin historical compilation attributed in some late manuscripts to a Welsh cleric called Nennius, contains the first datable mention of King Arthur, listing twelve battles that Arthur fought. These culminate in the Battle of Badon [next video], where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. Recent studies, however, question the reliability of the Historia Brittonum."

I really doubt if King Arthur killed 960 men in battle, but it would be interesting to know how Nennius came up with that specific number, assuming, that is, that the 9th century Welsh monk actually wrote the Historia Brittonum. Some authorities believe he compiled the book from various older sources.

"The other text that seems to support the case for Arthur's historical existence is the 10th-century Annales Cambriae, which also link Arthur with the Battle of Badon. The Annales date this battle to 516–518, and also mention the Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) were both killed, dated to 537–539. These details have often been used to bolster confidence in the Historia's account and to confirm that Arthur really did fight at Badon."

The most well-known account of the Arthurian legend is Le Morte d'Arthur, first published in 1485 and written by Sir Thomas Malory, whoever he was. Several candidates with the same name exist, but he was most likely Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel, a  soldier, former MP and possible "thief, bandit, kidnapper, and rapist," said to have written the book using French and English sources while he was being held prisoner during the Wars of the Roses.

Related: Arthurian Timeline

The Kingdom of Mercia, Medieval Wales and King Arthur

Great Library Of Alexandria Destroyed By Budget Cuts, Not Fire?

This brief piece from the History Channel (2013) blames Julius Caesar for the destruction of the Library of Alexandria as if this is a proven fact.

Whatever the case, it's true that Caesar was widely blamed at the time:

"The prime suspect in destruction of the Library of Alexandria is Julius Caesar. It is alleged that during Caesar's occupation of the city of Alexandria in 48 BCE, he found himself in the Royal Palace, hemmed in by the Egyptian fleet in the harbour. For his own safety he had his men set fire to the Egyptian ships, but the fire got out of control and spread to the parts of the city nearest the shore, which included warehouses, depots and some arsenals." Source: Ancient History Encyclopedia.

That's the story, anyway, but it probably isn't true:

"In his book The Vanished Library, Luciano Canfora interprets the evidence from ancient writers to indicate the destruction of manuscripts stored in warehouses near the port waiting for export, rather than the great Library itself." Furthermore, "[t]he great scholar and stoic philosopher Strabo, was working in Alexandria in 20 BC and from his writings it is obvious that the Library was not at that time the world-renowned centre for learning it had been in previous centuries." (Ancient History Encyclopedia)

In other words, Caesar may have inadvertently burned some manuscripts stored in warehouses, but he couldn't have destroyed the library itself if Strabo was working there more than 20 years later. Strabo's writing does show that the library had gone through some kind of decline over the years.

Clip from Cosmos (1980). Note the standard assumption that the library was deliberately destroyed.

The Christians have been blamed for destroying the library as well, but it doesn't look like they did it, either:

"The second possible culprit would be the Christians of the 4 ^th century AD. In 391 AD, the Emperor Theodosius issued a decree that officially outlawed pagan practices. Thus, the Serapeum or Temple of Serapis in Alexandria was destroyed. However, this was not the Library of Alexandria, or for that matter, a library of any sort. Furthermore, no ancient sources mention the destruction of any library at this time at all. Hence, there is no evidence that the Christians of the 4 ^th century destroyed the Library of Alexandria." Source: Ancient Origins.

So if Caesar wasn't responsible and the Christians seem to have been exonerated, then who destroyed the library and its priceless collection of ancient texts? Strangely enough, considering how widespread the traditional story is, there's a possibility that the library wasn't destroyed by a fire in the first place. The truth may be radically different and a lot less dramatic.

"Though it seems fitting that the destruction of so mythic an institution as the Great Library of Alexandria must have required some cataclysmic event ... – and while [riots, fires and other disasters] certainly took their toll on the Library - in reality, the fortunes of the Great Library waxed and waned with those of Alexandria itself. Much of [the library's] downfall was gradual, often bureaucratic, and by comparison to our cultural imaginings, somewhat petty." Source: "The Great Library Of Alexandria?" by Heather Philips (PDF).

This article appeared in 2010, I think. If Heather Philips is right, her version of events would radically change the traditional history of the destruction of the Great Library, but that would be a good thing for those of us who want to know the true story. The traditional history has always been highly speculative since no one really knows what happened.

If Philips is right, we'd lose some dramatic stories, though. For example, her revisionist view would demolish the historical accuracy (such as it is) of the excellent 2009 movie, Agora, which tells the heavily romanticized story of Hypatia of Alexandria  and blames the destruction of the library on a rioting Christian mob.

Agora is a good flick, highly recommended, but it's undeniably a work of anti-Christian propaganda. That doesn't bother me particularly, but some people get all worked up about it. For instance, here's a harsh attack on the movie (2010) by David Bentley Hart who admits he never saw the film but argues that its premise is completely ahistorical, which seems to be the case. Considering their record of destroying pagan shrines and writings, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Christians destroyed the library, but it looks like they weren't involved.

Various other individuals and groups have been blamed for the destruction of the Great Library --the emperor Aurelian, the Arabs, Pope Theophilus of Alexandria -- but if Heather Philips is right, the library may never have been "destroyed" at all, only damaged over the years in various wars and riots before it went out of business due to budget cuts. That doesn't make for a good movie, however, so if that's what really happened, I doubt if the story will ever make it to the Big Screen.

Pope Cracks Down On Traditional Latin Mass

The priest here is being as diplomatic as possible. See next video for a different opinion.

"Pope Francis cracked down Friday on the spread of the old Latin Mass, reversing one of Pope Benedict XVI’s signature decisions in a major challenge to traditionalist Catholics who immediately decried it as an attack on them and the ancient liturgy." Source: AP.

"Francis reimposed restrictions on celebrating the Latin Mass that Benedict relaxed in 2007, and went further to limit its use. The pontiff said he was taking action because Benedict’s reform had become a source of division in the church and been exploited by Catholics opposed to the Second Vatican Council, the 1960s meetings that modernized the church and its liturgy."

Comment: This is clearly an attack on conservative traditionalism by the forces of liberal modernism that took over the Catholic church after the disastrous reforms of the Second Vatican Council. There's a lot that could be said about the results of those reforms and their role in things like the recent church scandals, but I can't write about that stuff openly in the current climate.

It will be interesting to see what will come out of all of this. If the pope is worried about the divisions caused by Benedict's relaxation of the restrictions on the Latin Mass, he should be even more worried about the divisions caused by his re-imposition of those restrictions. A lot of Catholics feel very strongly about the "trad mass" despite the moderation of their public statements. Some traditional parishes, I expect, will simply ignore these new directives and if the pope decides to crack down on their bishops and congregations as a result I could see this leading to a serious schism.

The next report came out shortly before the formal announcement from the Vatican. The bishop here, Athanasius Schneider, is a "Kazakh Roman Catholic bishop, the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan. He is a member of the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross of Coimbra. He is known for championing the pre-Vatican II liturgical traditions and practices of the church and for protesting certain policies, including some associated with Pope Francis." (Wikipedia)

Bishop Schneider isn't alone in his belief that the ban on the traditional mass is an abuse of power. It's quite possible that many Catholic churches could end up associating themselves with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) affiliated orders and continue to practice the Latin rites in defiance of Rome. Whether this will lead to a full-blown schism remains to be seen, but considering the situation in the Vatican right now I think that would be a positive development.

I could be wrong about a lot of this, however. I don't pretend to understand all the internal politics of the Catholic church. Some observers, for instance, believe that the existence of the SSPX orders shows that a schism has already occurred. The next video includes a detailed discussion of the history of the dispute from an Orthodox Christian perspective.

The Battle Of Tours & The Modern Islamification Of Europe

Charles Martel's victory over the Moors/Saracens at the Battle of Tours, one of the most critical battles in the history of the West, "rescued our ancestors of Britain and our neighbors of Gaul from the civil and religious yoke of the Koran," according to Edward Gibbon. The importance of this battle can't be overestimated.

"Few battles are remembered over 1000 years after they are fought, but an exception is the battle of Poitiers [another name for the battle of Tours] in 732, where Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that, had it been allowed to continue, might have led to the conquest of Gaul." -- Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World, p. 19. 

Note: this battle of Poitiers shouldn't be confused with the battle of Poitiers that took place during the Hundred Years' War.

The battle of Tours checked the Muslims' advances into western Europe after they had carried out a long series of destructive incursions into north Africa, Spain, the Near East, and eastern Europe. In 719 AD, the forces of al-Hurr al-Thaqafi captured the southern French city of Narbonne, but were subsequently defeated by Duke Eudo of Aquitaine:

"The Muslims withdrew only to return in two years with a far larger army, which defeated Eudo and pursued him as far as Tours, the major religious center. In 732, between the towns of Tours and Poitiers, the two armies [the western forces now under the command of Charles Martel] faced one another for seven days without fighting," according to A History of the Middle Ages, by John M. Riddle (p. 147). The Muslims ran out of patience and attacked first, but "could not penetrate the Franks' lines." By nightfall, the Muslims withdrew.

If Martel hadn't defeated the Moors, western Europe would probably be Muslim today, but everything that goes around comes around and it's starting to look like the sacrifices those Frankish soldiers made were all in vain. Europe has degenerated to the point where its corrupt leaders are now welcoming the Muslims with open arms and European liberals are cheering them as they pour into their countries.

Video from 2015.

I wonder what Martel would have said if he'd known that huge crowds of Muslims would be praying in the streets of modern Paris, blocking traffic in a passive statement of political power with the full cooperation of the authorities? Would he have bothered to fight the Saracens if he'd known that modern Europeans would simply invite the Muslims into their countries, all in the name of "diversity" and "multiculturalism?"

Video from 2010.

1,283 years after the battle of Tours, the Muslims are achieving through immigration what they couldn't achieve through warfare in the Middle Ages. The Islamification of Europe is happening at an incredible rate. It was already well advanced before the latest "refugee crisis," which may turn out to have been the modern equivalent of the Germanic tribes pouring into the Roman Empire.

Video from 2015.

The "barbarians" who overran Rome had a lot in common with the Romans, however. Islam is a foreign and hostile religion, totally incompatible with western civilization. If something doesn't happen soon, Europe is finished, assuming that it isn't too late already. Betrayed by their own leaders, demoralized by the poison of Cultural Marxism, the decaying welfare states of western Europe seem to be committing cultural suicide. Are we witnessing the birth of the future state of Eurabia? Don't think it can't happen, because it is happening.

Charles Martel had it easy. He only had to stop a military invasion. The current crisis is something completely different.