Researchers once dismissed ancient face pots and battle axes from northern Europe as purely local creations, with no broader significance. A new study published in the Danish Journal of Archaeology challenges that view. It finds that these objects from the fourth millennium BC were part of a wider cultural movement linking societies across Europe.

Sebastian Schultrich, an archaeologist at the ROOTS Cluster of Excellence at Kiel University in Germany, studied pottery and stone weapons from the late Funnel Beaker Culture, roughly 3300 to 2600 BC.

His findings suggest communities in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia were far more connected to the rest of the prehistoric world than previously recognized.

The face pots rank among the most striking artifacts of the period. Made primarily on the Danish islands around 3000 to 2900 BC, they feature raised eyebrow arches, a central nose, and circular eye markings.

Most have come from collective burial sites. For decades, researchers treated them as a uniquely local art form.

Face pots and battle axes mirrored pan-European cultural trends

Schultrich argues they were a local response to a pan-European cultural impulse. Around the same period, anthropomorphic art was emerging in southern France, northern Italy, and the Paris Basin.

Stone carvings and stelae depicted human figures alongside daggers and axes. The near-simultaneous appearance of human imagery across such distant regions suggests a shared “spirit of the age,” one that each society expressed in its own distinct way.

Battle axes reveal a parallel story. The double-headed stone axes found across northern Germany and Scandinavia carry a distinctly regional character. But battle axes as a broader category spread across Western, Central, and Northern Europe during this period.

Schultrich draws comparisons between these axes and weapons like daggers and halberds found in Italian graves. Both types used copper or stone, appeared in rock art, and showed up increasingly in burial contexts from the mid to late fourth millennium BC.

Loose Atlantic links laid the groundwork for bell beaker networks

The study also uncovers early signs of an Atlantic exchange network that predates the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Battle axes resembling French designs appeared in Galicia. Scandinavian flint axes reached the British Isles.

Pottery styles in Brittany echoed those developing in the Lower Rhine region. Schultrich describes these as loosely connected networks along the Atlantic coast, ones that would eventually grow into the broader Bell Beaker exchange system of the third millennium BC.

The Danish face pots and the eye motifs on Iberian pottery are most likely unrelated directly, Schultrich notes. But both reflect a broader cultural shift toward human representation in material objects.

The study adds to growing evidence that pre-Beaker societies built wide-reaching connections long before the migrations and cultural upheavals of the third millennium BC reshaped prehistoric Europe.

Scholars acknowledge that some legends from Greek mythology are strikingly similar to stories from the Bible. According to some theories, a few individual characters from the Bible might also appear in Greek mythology. One theory argues that the famous Moses of Egypt can be found in Greek records. Does Moses really appear in Greek mythology, or is this just wishful thinking?

Who was Moses?

Firstly, let us establish who Moses was. He appears in the Bible books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Exodus contains the most famous part of his life story. It tells the story of how he was a Hebrew boy placed in the Nile River, where the Pharaoh’s daughter then found him.

When Moses was an adult, he tried to help his fellow Hebrews, who were slaves in Egypt, but then he ran away and remained in a distant land for forty years. He eventually returned after God allowed him to go and free his people from Egypt. Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go, but after ten devastating plagues from God, he relented.

Moses led the people out of Egypt across the Red Sea (where Pharaoh and his army drowned after trying to pursue them) and into the Sinai wilderness. There, he gave his people an extensive list of regulations from God, collectively known as the Mosaic Law. He also wrote many religious writings. The first five books of the Bible are attributed to him, as well as several poetic writings.

Did the Greeks know about Moses?

The theory that Moses appears in Greek mythology depends on the idea that the Greeks could have known of Moses in the first place. After all, he could not have appeared in their mythology if they did not know about him.

As it so happens, Moses does appear in quite a few Greek records. The Egyptian priest Manetho, from the third century BCE, mentioned Moses in his history of Egypt. Since Manetho lived in Egypt during its Hellenistic era, it is virtually certain that the Greeks of that region were aware of Moses. They certainly would have known of him after reading Manetho’s history.

Interestingly, there is evidence that the Greeks knew about Moses even before the Hellenistic era of Egypt. The first-century BCE Greek historian Diodorus Siculus wrote about the origin of the Jews. His account came from Hecataeus of Abdera, a Greek traveler from c. 300 BCE.

Hecataeus’ account differs from the Bible’s account in numerous ways, but it is still fundamentally the same story of Moses. Therefore, at least as early as 300 BCE, the Greeks definitely knew about Moses.

Was Musaeus from Greek mythology the same as Moses?

In ancient times, several writers explicitly identified Moses with a certain figure from Greek mythology. This figure was Musaeus. It is obvious that the main reason for identifying the two figures is due to the similarity between their names. But is there any more of a connection than this? Well, what does Greek mythology say about Musaeus?

Musaeus was a legendary intellectual, philosopher, seer, prophet, poet, musician, and historian. The Greeks believed that he founded a class of priestly poetry in Athens. He allegedly lived in the time of Heracles and was associated with Orpheus, another prominent poet and prophet from Greek mythology.

Immediately, we can see that there are some definite similarities between Moses and Musaeus from Greek mythology. In addition to the similarity in their names, their roles are also similar. Moses was a prophet, since he relayed messages from God. He was a poet, since he wrote the poetic book of Job and several of the Psalms. He was also a historian, since he wrote part of the history of the Jews.

Why Musaeus could not have been Moses

Despite these similarities, there is a key reason why Musaeus could not have been Moses. The key reason is that they did not live at the same time.

At first glance, it might look like the chronology works very well. Moses is usually placed at the time of Ramesses II, who ruled in the 13th century BCE. He is also placed in the time of Heracles, who lived about half a century prior to the Trojan War. That would also put him in the 13th century BCE according to the traditional date of the Trojan War. Therefore, it seems at first glance that Musaeus and Moses would have been exact contemporaries.

However, the reality is not so simple. Despite the popular association between Moses and Ramesses II, this has no historical or Biblical basis. The Bible’s internal chronology, along with its genealogical record of the prophet Samuel, places Moses firmly in c. 1500 BCE. That means he lived almost three centuries earlier than the traditional era of Musaeus.

The true era of Musaeus

The theory connecting Moses with Musaeus is further disproved if we examine the information about Musaeus from Greek mythology even more closely. For one thing, there is evidence that the Trojan War occurred several centuries later than the traditional date.

Furthermore, recall that Musaeus was closely associated with Orpheus. Some records say that Musaeus was Orpheus’ son, while other records give the inverse relationship. In either case, they lived at about the same time.

Greek tradition claims that Homer was a tenth generation descendant of Orpheus. That would place Orpheus, and therefore his associate Musaeus, about 200 to 250 years prior to the time of Homer. Since Homer lived in the seventh century BCE, that would mean that Musaeus would have probably lived in the ninth or tenth century BCE. Hence, this would have been long after the time of Moses. Therefore, it is virtually certain that Moses was not Musaeus from Greek mythology.

Researchers have expanded the known Sidetic alphabet to 31 letters, moving the field closer to decoding one of Anatolia’s lost languages. The new findings come from active excavations at Side Ancient City in Antalya’s Manavgat district.

The work is led by Prof. Dr. Feriştah Alanyalı, excavation director and archaeologist at Anadolu University, in collaboration with Italian linguist Alfredo Rizza and Austrian linguist Michaela Zinko. Funding comes through the Culture and Tourism Ministry’s Heritage for the Future Project.

Sidetic sits within the Luwian branch of Anatolian Indo-European languages, a grouping that also includes Lycian and Carian. Decipherment has moved slowly because the surviving inscriptions are few and most span only one or two lines.

Alanyalı said that the thin body of material has made it hard to reconstruct grammar, vocabulary, and structure with any confidence.

New excavations yield longer texts and bilingual comparisons

New excavations have brought a shift. Researchers have now recovered inscriptions running as long as 30 to 40 lines, well beyond anything previously available. Bilingual texts written in both Sidetic and Greek have also come to light.

Alanyalı said that those texts have renewed optimism because matching content across two languages helps researchers assign meaning to unknown signs and connect recurring words to known concepts.

One finding in particular has drawn attention. Researchers now think the Sidetic terms “Siruawn” and “Siruawan” refer to Side itself.

Since the Greek word “Side” (Greek:Σίδη) translates to pomegranate, a fruit that featured prominently on the city’s ancient coinage, Alanyalı said that the name likely carried the same meaning in the native language.

She described this as a significant finding for understanding the city’s origins and identity.

An ancient city that held its language for centuries

Side is typically known through its Greek and Roman structures, but Alanyalı said that the city’s history runs deeper.

Ancient accounts record that settlers from the Greek city of Kyme arrived at Side and, over time, abandoned their own language in favor of the one spoken by local residents.

Alanyalı said that tradition points to a community whose culture was firmly rooted long before outside groups arrived.

That cultural foundation held even after Alexander the Great brought Greek influence into the region during the fourth century B.C.

The inscriptions show that Side’s residents continued writing in Sidetic for roughly two centuries into the Hellenistic period, with the language appearing to fade only around the late second century B.C.

Alanyalı said that the persistence of Sidetic complicates the idea that Greek culture quickly swept away what came before it.

Assyrian and Babylonian seals point to ancient eastern ties

Archaeological finds also point to Side’s connections with civilizations to the east. A Neo-Assyrian seal turned up during excavations at the site.

Separately, Italian researchers obtained a Neo-Babylonian seal from residents of the area before the Turkish War of Independence. Alanyalı said that the two objects together point to cultural ties with Mesopotamia dating back to the seventh century B.C.

A bilingual inscription tied to the city’s Serapis Temple adds another dimension. Alanyalı said that the text documents how the temple was financed, listing the names of donors and the sums each contributed, all written in Sidetic.

31 letters bring researchers closer to Anatolia’s lost language

The use of the local language for a public record of that kind confirms it was still understood and used in everyday civic life.

With the alphabet now standing at 31 known letters, up from 26, researchers working on this lost Anatolian language have a sharper set of tools.

Alanyalı said that the international team continues its work, and each newly identified letter brings the field a step closer to a fuller reading of inscriptions that Side’s people worked for generations to preserve.

The invasion of the Byzantine Empire by the Normans is a fascinating chapter of Roman history that is often overlooked.

Imagine descendants of Viking raiders, now known as Normans after settling in northern France, setting their sights on southeastern Europe and threatening the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Eager to expand their influence beyond their French territories, these ambitious warriors turned their attention to the wealthy Byzantine lands. What followed was a century-long struggle that would fundamentally reshape the balance of power in medieval Europe.

The beginning of the story between the Normans and the Byzantine Empire

The first signs of trouble appeared around AD 1017, when small groups of Norman knights began turning their attention toward southern Italy, initially in search of mercenary work. The Byzantines, who still controlled significant territories on the Italian peninsula, believed these foreign fighters could prove useful in defending their holdings. After all, they needed additional manpower to deal with local rebellions as well as the frequent Arab raids originating from Sicily.

What the Byzantine administration failed to grasp early on was that the Normans came from a culture that placed extraordinary value on land acquisition above almost everything else. In Normandy, in northern France, younger sons were often left landless due to inheritance laws that favored the eldest child. Southern Italy, with its patchwork of competing communities and loosely defined borders, therefore looked like an ideal opportunity for expansion.

The Byzantines would learn this lesson the hard way. Within a few decades of their arrival, the Normans—initially seen as hired help—had begun establishing permanent bases across the region. Although Norman groups often fought one another in the early years, a more unified front gradually emerged. They would accept Byzantine payment for military service, only to use their positions to seize territory for themselves and steadily challenge Byzantine authority throughout the region.

The rise of Robert Guiscard

A man who would play a crucial role in what followed was Robert de Hauteville, better known as Robert Guiscard, “the Cunning.” This Norman was not the eldest son nor was he especially wealthy, and he was certainly not expected to carve out lands and establish his own realm. Nonetheless, he did so anyway.

Guiscard arrived in southern Italy around AD 1047 and immediately set about strengthening and consolidating Norman power. He possessed an almost uncanny ability to turn enemies into allies and allies into subjects. Through a combination of strategic marriages—a common practice at the time—military strength, and sheer boldness (which others might have called recklessness), he gradually unified the fragmented Norman factions under his leadership.

It would take until AD 1071 for Byzantine Italy to finally collapse. Guiscard captured Bari, the last major Byzantine stronghold on the Italian peninsula. For the Byzantines, the loss was deeply symbolic. For more than five centuries, the Eastern Roman Empire had maintained a presence in Italy, a living link to the legacy of the Western Roman Empire and the origins of the Roman world itself. That connection was now severed by a band of opportunistic outsiders.

Norman aggression against Constantinople

The conquest of southern Italy was only the beginning for the Normans. Robert Guiscard’s ambitions extended far beyond the Italian peninsula. His ultimate goal was Constantinople itself. In AD 1081, he launched what can only be described as one of the most audacious military campaigns of the Middle Ages.

The plan was bold in scope. Guiscard intended to cross the Adriatic Sea, establish a beachhead in what is now Albania, and then march overland toward the Byzantine capital through northern Greece. His first objective was Dyrrhachium, the critical fortress controlling access to the main route into the Greek mainland.

Emperor Alexios I Komnenos suddenly found himself confronting a nightmare scenario. The Normans had already demonstrated their ability to seize and hold territory, and now they were effectively at his doorstep, threatening the survival of the Byzantine Empire itself. To make matters worse, his army was a patchwork force of mercenaries, including (ironically) Anglo-Saxon refugees who had fled the Norman conquest of England.

The Battle of Dyrrhachium in October AD 1081 proved disastrous for the Byzantines. Guiscard’s tactical skill, combined with his son Bohemond’s aggressive cavalry charges, shattered the imperial army. The road to Constantinople lay open, and for a brief moment, it seemed as though the thousand-year-old Eastern Roman Empire might actually fall to these descendants of Viking raiders.

Desperate measures and unlikely alliances

Alexios I was many things, but he was not a man to surrender easily. Faced with the possibility of total collapse, he executed one of the most impressive diplomatic maneuvers of the medieval world. First, he effectively bribed the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV to attack Norman territories in Italy, forcing Guiscard to divide his attention across two fronts. Then, in a move that would have lasting consequences, he granted extensive trading privileges to Venice in exchange for naval support against the Normans.

These concessions were enormous for an empire like Byzantium. The commercial rights awarded to Venice would eventually help transform the city-state into one of the wealthiest powers in Europe, often at Byzantium’s own expense. However, in AD 1082, Alexios was fighting for survival, and generosity was not a choice but a necessity.

The strategy worked—but only just. Guiscard was compelled to return to Italy to confront the German intervention, leaving Bohemond to continue the eastern campaign against Constantinople. What followed was several years of brutal mountain warfare across the Balkans, with neither side able to secure a decisive victory and both remaining locked in a tense stalemate.

The long shadow of conflict and the Byzantine Empire attack by the Normans

Although Robert Guiscard’s ambition to destroy the Byzantine Empire ultimately failed, the Norman-Byzantine conflict did not end with his death in AD 1085. A few years later, Bohemond attempted to revive the campaign in AD 1107, launching another invasion that also ended in failure. The final (and perhaps most devastating) Norman assault came in AD 1185, when a joint Norman-Sicilian force captured and sacked Thessaloniki, the empire’s second-largest city.

The events in Thessaloniki were brutal. Contemporary sources describe widespread slaughter of civilians and the systematic destruction of the city. The scale of devastation shocked even medieval observers, who were accustomed to the violence of war. For the Byzantines, the psychological impact was profound. It demonstrated that no part of the empire was truly safe from Norman ambition, as even its greatest cities could fall to such overwhelming force.

The Norman campaigns against Byzantium had consequences that extended far beyond Thessaloniki. They helped establish a powerful Catholic kingdom in southern Italy that would remain a persistent rival to the Byzantine Empire for centuries. More importantly, they drained Byzantine resources at a time when the empire was increasingly pressured by Turkish advances in the east.

The prolonged conflict also deepened the divide between the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic worlds, turning former Christian counterparts into bitter adversaries. The Normans saw themselves as champions of Latin Christendom, while the Byzantines regarded them as little more than barbarian raiders. This growing hostility would ultimately culminate in the Fourth Crusade, when Crusader forces turned against Constantinople itself and sacked the city.

Even today, traces of this once-forgotten conflict remain scattered across the Mediterranean. Norman castles still stand along the coastlines of southern Italy and Sicily.

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated as soon as possible.

Michael Fox: Hi Mark.

Marc Steiner: Hey Mike, how you doing? Good to see you.

Michael Fox: Good to see you.

Marc Steiner: What do you got for us today?

Michael Fox: All right. So late last fall I visited this place that I think you’ll appreciate for this episode. Sprout Plaza at the University of California campus.

Marc Steiner: I know exactly where you were.

Michael Fox: So it’s a beautiful blue sky out. Leaves are changing colors. It’s a crisp autumn afternoon and in front of me is this big long stoic building marble, four big long Roman columns at the top of a row of stairs. This is the administration building here at the University of California Berkeley and this is called Sproul Hall. And that is important because this was literally ground zero for the free speech movement of 1964 here at the University of California Berkeley. Like the Plaza where I’m at right now, which is Sprout Plaza, was where you just had daily marches, protests, speeches just constantly happening.

I think it is really poignant that on the ground in front of Sprout Hall, someone has written in chalk, Trump must go now, refuse fascism. And it’s chalked up in two different locations here. People still staking out their territory, demanding their right to speak their voice. I was there to get a sense of the feeling being there and kind of the legacy today. And of course this was ground zero for the free speech movement. And Mark, that’s something you know a couple things about.

Marc Steiner: A little.

Michael Fox: So just to kick this off, how would you define the free speech movement for those that don’t know or don’t remember?

Marc Steiner: Well, I think you got to take a step back with the free speech movement, Mario Savio and the rest because they came out of the civil rights movement. That’s the roots of this. The roots of this is in Mississippi and Alabama and Louisiana and SNCC, the student unviolent coordinating committee and people putting their lives on the line to end segregation in the south and to register people to vote. So those are the roots of the people who created the free speech movement. And people came out of that movement in the south with black and white in different parts of the country and created things that were spawned by their work in the south
As with Mary Osavio was as well, who was a philosophy graduate student at Berkeley. And so that was also all throughout the country at that moment on the campus as I was and on the East Coast and around the country universities were clamping down on the ability for students and faculty to speak out against the war in Vietnam, which was just beginning and to talk about civil rights and racism and more. And so the locus of that, the central part of that erupted on Berkeley’s campus with a free speech movement that kind of gave birth to free speech movements across the country. So it was the beginning of the volatile 60s given birth by the civil rights movement.

Michael Fox: I was trying to make this connection to the past, right? What does it mean for people there today?

Yaseli Mendez: Yeah, I mean it’s very impactful.

Michael Fox: And so I spoke with this one student, Yaseli Mendez. She grew up in Mexico. She’s a third year psychology student. It is scary at

David Hollinger: Times.

Michael Fox: I asked her, what does it mean to be studying here and to be on this campus in this place that was so important for free speech and for this movement around the country?

Yaseli Mendez: So crazy. I was raised in Mexico and free speech is not very tolerated there. There’s a lot of violence against speaking out. And so being in a country specifically Berkeley where it’s like, wow, free speech was born, I feel very lucky to be here. Yeah.

David Hollinger: That’s awesome.

Michael Fox: I spoke with another really interesting student.

Gabriel Alou: Gabriel Alou, L-O-U.

Michael Fox: He’s a senior history student and he told me how history is still so important. Clearly he’s a history student, but not just for the free speech movement, but he made this connection to what free speech means, but also the history of struggle in the United States.

Gabriel Alou: We talk about woman suffrage movement. We talk about Malcolm X. We talk about Martin Luther King about the black rights. And also we talk about the fundamental human rights. I feel like everybody has the right to like freedom of speech. Everybody could express their ideas and thoughts. I feel like-

Michael Fox: And he said, “We still need freedom of speech. We still need a free speech movement.” It’s something that he still appreciates today. And he said something that I thought was really interesting in that everybody should be able to have their own political opinions.

Gabriel Alou: Give opinion, but you do not need to raise it to a level of conflict. Our speeches should not be something that’s division or more of a unity. Yeah, because United States is a country of immigrants. Yeah. So the main goal of free speech is for us to have different opinions from different countries. We’re coming together to make the country better but not worse.

Michael Fox: But his analysis I thought was really, really powerful and so important because he’s talking about we should be coming together, we should be focusing on the positive. And I think that’s such a great segue for this episode, Mark, because a lot of what we’re going to be doing today is talking about the powerful and the positive stories of the past and how movements have stood up and lifted up the voice and shared their voices and lifted up and stood for free speech going back hundreds of years.

Marc Steiner: I think one of the things people have to recognize though is that the battle for free speech and the belief in freedom of speech has been at the core of the fundamental debates on what democracy should be in this country from the beginning,
Whether it was the differences between Adams and others in the founding father, if they call the founding fathers or whether it’s going down to Trump wanting to arrest people and filing all these ridiculous lawsuits to stop people from speaking or this tradition act of 1798 all throughout American history, this has been a battle. And I think that there’s precedence for limiting speech and there’s precedence for expanding speech in the history of this country. And I think we are now at the precipice in the beginning, not in the beginning, I think we’re in the middle of the start of a major battle over free speech in America and this time being pushed to limit it by the right wing in America and unless they’re criticizing you because you’re black or you’re left.
And I think that that’s why this discussion is so timely and important because we’re in the throes of a battle to protect freedom and speech in this country and it’s flying under the radar for most people. It’s not being seen at all. I want to welcome everybody to a special podcast series that I’m co-hosting with my colleague and dear friend, journalist Michael Fox, about one of the core freedoms of our nation, our freedom of speech. The right to speak one’s mind is a cornerstone of our democratic principles. That precious freedom is under assault, under threat and this series is the battle for free speech, a new multi-part narrative podcast series brought to you by the real news with your hosts. I’m Mark Steiner And

Michael Fox: I’m Michael Fox. Over the coming weeks, we’ll be taking you on a journey to understand the important role that free speech has played in US history and the fight being waged over it today.

Marc Steiner: And in our last episode, we looked at the attacks by this administration of President Donald Trump on our free speech. People are being silenced, fired, even jailed for voicing their opinions and their views. This is a threat. Today, our country faces the greatest threat of free speech in decades and in this series, we’ll cover the battles being waged over free speech here in the United States, at home, and abroad.

Michael Fox: In today’s episode, we’re diving into the past to look at how the fight for free speech has been at the core of organizing and struggle for change in the United States. From

Marc Steiner: The abolitionist movement to end slavery and the civil rights to end segregation to the free speech movement of the 1960s.

Michael Fox: So Mark, I’ll be honest, I’m particularly excited to have this conversation with you today because you actually lived some of these moments actively. For those who don’t know your work or history, can you just give us a quick sense of who you are?

Marc Steiner: I’m old. No. So I started my activism when I was like 13, 14, 1960, when I was first in the civil rights movement here in Maryland, in Cambridge, Mississippi in the South with Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committe. And in 65 when I went to college, I was part of Students for Democratic Society leading the chapter at College Park in Maryland and we were taking the message from and the struggle from the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and bringing it East to have that same fight in College Park at American University at Georgetown and George Washington to bring that fight to the East Coast that took place also in Columbia when the Columbia University was taken over by Mark Rudd and the free speech movement there. So this is essential to what developed the movement of the 1960s was a battle for free speech on campuses and in the civil rights movement and to end segregation.
So the roots run deep and now we’re facing it again.

Michael Fox: Yeah. I want to continue where we started at the top amid the free speech movement at Sprout Plaza at the University of California, Berkeley. I want to go back to that moment and I don’t know if you know this, but I got my start in journalism over two decades ago, just up the street from there at KPFA. It’s the Pacifica Radio Station in Berkeley. And many, many years ago they produced this pretty incredible audio documentary about the free speech movement. They were on the ground recording and I just want to play a clip or two for you really quick right now. Yeah,

Marc Steiner: Of course. Please do. Yeah.

Recording: If you have the strength here, which you have to stand in the administration and say, “We want free speech on campus, you can have for the rest of your lives the strength to stand up whenever you say, whenever you see something you don’t like, you don’t believe in segregation or to say to the government, I don’t believe in war.” And you really have to do it
You could never believe such a thing could happen at the University of California where this many students would said they’ve had enough and they’re going to stand up right now. This university is so rough and so corrupt at its base that a simple demonstration by students asking for free speech will cause this university to collapse on outside pressure. I asked you if you can stand there and so listen my support for it.

Michael Fox: You know Mark, you and I interviewed UC Berkeley history professor David Hollinger.

Marc Steiner: Yes,

Michael Fox: Right. And he was a student at the university at the time and I asked him to take us back to that moment.

David Hollinger: Well, okay. The Sproul Plaza where Alsavio and various other worthies would be speaking And the

Speaker 3: University which is the complainant will not press charges.

David Hollinger: Now you’d have several thousand, of course proud assessments are often contested, but I can remember times when it was shoulder to shoulder all the way from Bancroft, which is the closest street to the south all the way up to say their gate, which is the part of the campus that enters the other buildings back to where the stairwell goes down to the lower level. So I don’t know, were there five or 6,000 people at those rallies? I think there might have been, but it was this feeling that we really did have this act together and there were a number of rallies like that. I would say the anti-war rallies were bigger than the free speech rallies, but they were part of the same thing. The free speech rallies began small and gradually increased over time and among the things that helped them actually, helped them grow
Were these faculty members that used to show up and speak. The issue that brought it up was the remarkably myopic perspective of the regents of the University of California and the administration, which was to prevent speech on campus that advocated political action. And so as a result, all these rallies would occur right at the edge of the campus. So you’d stand up like on the street and then you’d have a couple thousand people on the campus listening. And so the idea was this is absurd. We ought to be able to speak on the campus about political advocacy. So this is what triggered it and more and more people got involved and it’s true that the civil rights movement experience of the south was very important. There were lots of people, not only Mario Savio, but others who’d been involved in Mississippi summer so the connection was there because what kind of political adequacy did you want?
Well, we were advocating against racism.

Recording: I’m not here to destroy something. We’re all here to try to build something. Why don’t you help us?

Marc Steiner: And then that movement spread across the country. It was in Chicago. It was College Park, Maryland. It was at NYU in Columbia. It was across the United States of America that spread like wildfire, which is not often reported enough. It wasn’t just Berkeley. It took over campuses across the country and that melded into not just free speech, but free speech when it came to standing up against the Vietnam War. So all those things are really connected and there’s one piece of this people don’t talk about a lot, which is when in the student nonviolent coordinating committee in the south and SNCC, when Stokely Carmichael and some of the other leaders told the white folks who were in the Civil Rights Movement to go back to your campuses, go back home and organize and that’s part of what gave birth to all of this. And so it’s a rich history and it’s sadly relevant to this moment we’re facing today.

Michael Fox: What you brought up, Mark, what you bring up about how this spread at other universities campuses and people who were protesting elsewhere is so profound. When you saw this kind of erupt from the East Coast where you were and you saw this kind of blowing up in Berkeley, what was the context? What did you feel kind of on the other side of the country that this was happening in Northern California?

Marc Steiner: It was an inspiration I think for people across America. It was the beginnings, not the really beginning because the beginnings really weren’t with the Civil Rights Movement, but it was part of the explosion out of that movement, especially in majority white campuses across the country and white communities to stand up to the war and to stand up for free speech. And so really it was the birth of what we call the movement and the anti-war movement, all came out of this. And I remember as a young person just being enthralled by it and part of it

Recording: Is a possibility of reconciliation.

Michael Fox: You know what’s fascinating, Mark, because it seems like 60 years later people are still grappling with the same question, kind of the same struggle. Students and teachers on university campuses block from protesting or being silenced and fired over Palestine or Charlie Kirk like what we looked at in the last episode. Mark, what came out of the free speech movement? What was one and what did it mean for civil rights, the anti-war movement that would kind of explode across the country?

Marc Steiner: It gave birth to a number of things. The leading student force of the 60s, the late 60s, mid late 60s was the students for Democratic Society, SDS. And in many ways it was born out of the Port Yuran statement and Tom Hayden and all that rest, but it was born out of free speech movements.That’s what exploded the student movement across country. Part of the birth of it was a free speech movement that was deeply connected to the civil rights movement. And I think that the changes we saw in America in part came out of that time and out of that movement. It also was the reason we had this reaction today to fight back against free speech.

Recording: We have breaking news just into our newsroom this morning. Leaders at the University of Tennessee have fired a professor for her social media posts. Taken to jail, is included in a federal law. Are saying something about the deceased Charlie Kirk.

Marc Steiner: They wouldn’t say that directly on the right, but that’s what’s happening. So this is like taking America back, we’re breaking America backwards. And as a reaction to what the free speech movement gave birth to.

Michael Fox: One of the things I’ve been grappling with for this series, in particular this episode is the definition of a free speech. What does that actually mean? Today, while we’re looking back at social movement and activist organizing the free speech movement, abolitionist movement, how would you describe, what would you define free speech as taking this kind of historical look back?

Marc Steiner: We can say a lot of things about American democracy and its flaws. It’s always in a battle with itself. Freedom of speech is one of those things, one of those ideas, one of those principles that has unleashed revolutionary forces not just in America, but across the globe. The right to say what to organize and stand up, the right to say what you want to say, the right to use that to build movements. And I think that it is really at the core. Part of the essence of the early movements in the ’60s was a concept called participatory democracy that really galvanized both SNCC and SDS and other movements of people in their teens and 20s. The idea that the core of our country starts from the community, starts from the ability for everybody to say what they want and participate in this democracy as an equal.
Democracy in the beginning of this country was a democracy for white men of property, but the principles they believed in for themselves were universal. I mean, it inspired the abolition movement. It inspired the free speech movement. It inspired early union organizing in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Those principles, these white men who kept for themselves were actually universal principles.
And gave birth to all the movements who we see.

Michael Fox: Mark, let’s dive into this past. Let’s dive further into this past. Can you take us back to the 1800s to the abolitionist movement? How were people organizing demanding the end of slavery and what did free speech have to do with this?

Marc Steiner: Well, I mean, I’m not that old. I wasn’t there then, but I fantasized that I was. And so the battles that took place, especially from say 1830s to the Civil War, even earlier than that, free speech was under attack, especially when it came to the enslaved of Africans in our country. And it led to real violence. When people stood up to talk about ending slavery, they were attacked. They were killed. They were beaten. They were jailed. Thanksgiving. Free speech was dangerous to your life being a person who stood up and talked against enslavement.
And I think though that what the abolition movement did was take the words of the founding fathers of America and made them universal. Didn’t quite include women yet, but it made them universal. And I think people don’t realize that the movement to abolish slavery, the abolitionist movement in America really changed democracy forever. It was one of the major turning points. We’re still battling it in some ways, but I think that, look, I mean newspapers that came out to fight against slavery in America were burned to the ground. People were tarred and feathered. People were killed, but it gave birth to something that changed America fundamentally. And people, I think, don’t realize how deeply important the abolitionist movement was to our democracy, to our future, to our country.

Michael Fox: But even in the north, and that’s been something like researching for this podcast, Mark, which was kind of shocking to me is that you even had situations where people were in the north and they were still being attacked abolitionists in the north calling for an end of slavery all over. I interviewed this woman recently and I’ll mention her several times in today’s episode. Her name is Marianne Franks.

Mary Anne Frank…: I’m a law professor at the George Washington Law School and I’m also the president and the legislative and tech policy director of a nonprofit organization called the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.

Michael Fox: And she talks a litle bit about this. She wrote a book in 2024 called Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment in which she talks about how during the abolitionist movement it was really abolitionists who were pushing the definition of free speech were rethinking of it in different ways because up until then, basically the First Amendment basically said, “Well, Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the freedom of speech.”

Mary Anne Frank…: So the assumption that everyone made based on that reading, and that’s a fair reading, is that it only applies to the federal government and it only applies in this really narrow sense that Congress literally can’t pass laws that say, “You can’t say that or you can’t say this. ” So that when you had states saying, “We don’t like this kind of activism or these kinds of expression that suggests that slavery is wrong or bad,” that was not really seen as a First Amendment issue because it wasn’t even conceptually or doctrinally possible.

Michael Fox: So that’s why you had states, for instance, that were banning abolitionist literature. There’s the great postal campaign where abolitionists send hundreds of thousands of material to Southern states, basically demanding the end of slavery, et cetera. And then states started to ban this material. They were literally prohibiting abolitionist from sending abolitionist material in the mail. But since it was the state and not Congress, then the state said, “Well, we can do this because it doesn’t fall under First Amendment.” But then abolitionists were pushing it to this other level. And so Marianne Franks talked about this one story about Elijah Lovejoy, abolitionists, Presbyterian minister, newspaper editor, journalist.

Mary Anne Frank…: He very firmly read the First Amendment as a protection of his free speech. One of the most poignant things about his story as he is continuing to move states, move cities because every time he establishes his newspaper and writes about the horrors of slavery and advocates for abolition, he’s attacked and he has to move again

Michael Fox: And so on November 7th, 1837, a mob catches up with him at his home in Alton, Illinois.

Mary Anne Frank…: And they are at his doorstep and they are saying, “You have to stop writing about slavery.” And I can’t remember the exact quotation, but he says that he has the freedom to speak in this way and he will use that freedom as he sees fit. And he says that right before the mob shoots him to death.

Michael Fox: This was the violent retribution for speaking out, but there was this new vision of what free speech should mean or what it could mean for others for change for social justice in the United States.

Marc Steiner: And I think that the newspapers that were printed at that time, like The Liberator or Freedom’s Journal were attacked violently. They were abolitionist papers, but they aren’t really at the core of what really led to freedom of the press, really led to the battle for free speech because they stood up against a horrendous violence and a horrendous nature of slavery to push the boundaries of free speech to end enslavement of African people in our country. And I think that people don’t always get that connection between free speech and the abolitionist movement. And also what you described are also the roots of the Trumpian right in the struggle that we’re facing today. What we’re facing today is like not so much of a redux as it is the growth of both moments in our country and we’re at that place. We’re head to head.

Michael Fox: Mark, I want to bring us to just the year after Elijah Lovejoy was killed Philadelphia and just to set the scene to remind people Philadelphia at the time just wasn’t just another city on the East Coast. Before 1800, it was the capital of the United States. It’s where the founders signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and they did that all in a place called the Pennsylvania State House or what we now call Independence Hall. It’s in downtown Philadelphia and just two blocks away in 1838, the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society built Pennsylvania Hall.

Mary Anne Frank…: Where you had all of these luminaries coming together who were staunch anti-slavery advocates and they were also advocates for women’s rights. And those are two of the most controversial positions you can take at the time, but you had all of these people wanting to come together, use their own money to build this incredible building that was supposed to become a communal hall for speaking freely and they referred to the freedom of speech in that way.

Michael Fox: And this was of course to be a place for abolitionists to come and meet and debate because at the time, like what you were talking about there, it was hard to find places to have large meetings because there was so much backlash against the abolitionist movement. So it was a big three-story building, several stores on the first floor. There was an abolitionist bookstore, another store that sold products not produced by slave labor. There were meeting rooms, a large auditorium, and it opened in May 1838, this is another one of those stories that I talked with Maryanne Franks about.

Mary Anne Frank…: And that it was going to be for the first time that the America would really speak freely. Black people and white people would mingle together, women and men would mingle together. There would be lectures, there’d be discussions, there’d be a bookstore. And it was such an incredible moment in American history that I think most people never read about because what happened when the people of Pennsylvania, and not just in Pennsylvania, there was all of these white-owned presses that were speaking about the abomination of Pennsylvania Hall in their Southern newspapers and advocating for people to go and fight for their rights against what was happening in Pennsylvania and all these flyers that were put up around Philadelphia by people who were saying that there are Obama and Nations going on at this particular hall and you should do something to stop it. And so for the first week or so when they were having their incredible lectures and there were all of this incredible progressive mingling of society, again, kind of living up to the aspirations that the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights actually articulated and people were furious about it.
The white mobs were furious about it. White businessmen were furious about it. And what happens as I recount is that they get so agitated that they burn the entire building down and they break in, they’re breaking in with stones. They start helting the building with stones as some of the speakers are speaking.

Michael Fox: And in her book, Mary Anne Franks talks about this one moment where Angelina Grimke, she was an important abolitionist and women’s rights activist. And she was literally speaking as mobs are trying to break in to stop her and she kept going.

Mary Anne Frank…: And she just incorporates it into her speech and talks about how we, she says, that we who are speaking the truth have nothing to fear. They’re the ones who should fear and tremble. But when they leave, the mob breaks in and sets and opens all the gas jets. And before you know it, this incredible monument to true free speech, expression, equality has been burned to the ground.

Michael Fox: This monument of free speech went up in smokes at the hands of white mobs and white supremacists and supporters of slavery. It’s just this crazy moment where you see this glimmer of hope of what could be, of people coming together to stand for what we dreamed the United States could actually represent literally almost 200 years ago and it’s burned to the ground within days of being built.

Marc Steiner: And what was the consequence? What happened of that act?

Michael Fox: I mean, the abolitionist movement clearly continued to organize, but there was fear around speaking out.

Mary Anne Frank…: And I think to some extent that was a very powerful kind of dampening of this moment that free speech and democracy were intertwined. I think it really did a lot to erase that from memory or put such a scar on that memory that that really wasn’t the way it was articulated for some time. And even when you saw the later abolitionist movements taking up the cause, I don’t think they so much talked about it in terms of free speeches. They just said, “This is about humanity. This is about evil. This is about a compact with the devil,” as they called the Constitution for its concessions to slavery.

Michael Fox: What’s so important is for us to remember these moments, to champion these moments, and also remember the backlash, which has been continual, but how people have continued to respond and continue to organize and would not bow down to the powers that be or the violence pushed by white supremacists, which has continued to be pushed by white supremacists in the United States.

Marc Steiner: Right. And I think that when you talk about Maryanne Franks, it’s interesting. When you mentioned her name, I remember her book, Fearless Speech. And I think that is the battle of the moment that we face in terms of fighting for free speech in America. I mean, I don’t think people realize how under threat it really is at this moment. I think that we are in a moment where as happened before in American history where freedom of speech is under attack. And I think that this notion of fearless speech is an important one to wrestle with.

Michael Fox: It is. And I want to take a second to dig in a litle bit deeper before we move on. Sure, please do. Yeah. About what this idea of fearless speech actually means. So she got this idea actually from lectures from Michel Fuku in the 1980s where he talks about the Greek concept of Paracia, which basically means saying it all. It’s freedom of speech, but speaking truth for the common good and speaking truth in a moment that it could potentially even put myself into danger. So the idea is that an ancient Greece mark, this was the most important speech that was needed to preserve democracy.

Mary Anne Frank…: It’s not just that you get to say whatever you want. The Greeks did have a word for that too, this kind of idea that you could just say things without consequences, but the Greeks didn’t seem to think that that was the particularly valuable form of speech. They thought the most valuable form of speech was the kind of speech where you had to speak in your own voice. That was the first qualification, which is you can’t pretend to be a devil’s advocate or take on a role or just do it for rhetorical purposes. You had to commit to it. And they said you also had to be speaking to or about something that was more powerful than yourself as the speaker, someone in power, some force in power and you could not be praising it because praising it is possible, of course, you can do that, but that isn’t fearless.
To be fearless about the way you speak about power is to criticize it. And it’s fearless because that creates a risk to you because once you criticize people in power, you are in danger that the people in power are going to hurt you.

Michael Fox: And so she says, “This is so important because usually kind of like in society, we kind of lump all forms of speech together.”This is in particular, we’ll talk about this in the next episode, but over social media, this is a big deal. Oh, everyone has their right to speech. But what she says is that we need to understand fearless speech juxtaposed with reckless speech. And what she describes as reckless speech is all of kind of the famous free speech cases you could imagine, KKK’s right to spread their message, Larry Flint, Neo-Nazi speech, whatever it might be, it is not fearless.

Mary Anne Frank…: These are not people who are taking a burden of speech upon themselves and actually taking a risk that they will be hurt by the people in power because they’re reinforcing power.

Michael Fox: And often people actually get hurt from their speech, but they’re not the ones who are getting hurt. So one example she gives here is the famous 1969 Supreme Court case of Clarence Brendanburg.

David Hollinger: The honorable the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mary Anne Frank…: Where he is full clan regalia doing a march around a burning cross, got the Bible at hand talking about how black people and Jews need to be removed from the country. Now that is not the kind of speech. I mean, literally someone in a mask who is proclaiming these things and stirring up dehumanization and rhetoric against people who are objectively speaking more vulnerable in society. And in the wake of those kinds of rallies, people did get lynched. They did get attacked. And the entire question of Brandenburg was how closely related do his words have to be to the attacks for it to be illegal and the answer that his words weren’t close enough. But forgetting the doctrine for a moment, that’s reckless. You are putting this out into the world fully knowing that the people that it’s going to hurt or the people that it puts in danger is not you, it’s someone else.
And there I thought that is a really important distinction that I would like to emphasize.

Michael Fox: And so what her book really emphasizes and what we see time and time again is how fearless speech is actually attacked or silenced or pushed aside or banned, whereas reckless speech is then supported again and again. But her book is interesting because she tries to kind of get away from our understanding of free speech as kind of first amendment, because there’s been a lot written. If you look at most of the books that are written about free speech today, and I have been reading many of them lately, Mark.

Marc Steiner: I’m sure you have.

Michael Fox: But if you look at most of the books that have been written about free speech, they’re all talking about, well, what’s constitutional, what’s not constitutional, what’s defended by the First Amendment, what’s not defended by the First Amendment. And what she tries to do in her book is say, “Okay, that’s all good and well, but let’s actually talk about what free speech should mean beyond the First Amendment. And how do we define this in a different way? And how do we then kind of support and champion those struggles that are standing up for fearless speech?

Marc Steiner: People kind of whittle down free speech meaning I can belittle you if I want to. It’s my right to do. ” And I think that not to go too far afield here, but I remember back in the ’80s, in my days in graduate school when I was still too old to be there, that we were wrestling with Michelle who calls fearless speech and the lectures he gave at Berkeley and how that really is at the heart of her work and at the heart of what it means to be able to stand up and fight for human rights and justice and a democratic and free world in fearless speech.

Michael Fox: Were you having conversations then about Fuko and his lectures in the 1980s? Were you all talking about that and kind of what that meant?

Marc Steiner: Oh yeah. Oh yeah. I mean, not to digress into this too deeply, but my intellectual mentor back then was a Holocaust survivor named Avram Engelman who founded Antioch here on the East Coast who actually lived in Paris and was in one of Stalin’s camps as well. So this was a major part of his being and he actually studied and worked for Co. So it was like I was one step away with my mentor, Al Engelman. Yeah, so I’m very familiar with all that.

Michael Fox: Wow, amazing, Mark. Amazing. So I want to start to move us slowly in the timeline, the chronological timeline, because there’s another important episode that happens. This is after the Civil War that I think is really important in terms of understanding this question of fearless speech, reckless speech, and how people have used free speech in the past to stand up. And so I want to go to 1890s Memphis, Tennessee.

Marc Steiner: Okay.

Michael Fox: Population, roughly 65,000 people, a third of the residents are black and there is of course incredible racism. This is Jim Crow laws are mandating segregation across the Southern United States and lynchings against black men are just so common. And just to put this into perspective, during the 1890s, someone is being lynched somewhere in the Southern US every other day.

Marc Steiner: That’s right.

Michael Fox: So it’s just a terrifying moment and one woman in particular is pushing back. Her name is Ida B. Wells.

Marc Steiner: And

Michael Fox: Again, I spoke with Mary Anne Franks about her story as well because she was a black teacher, turned journalist and really a muck rager and her focus was on denouncing the lynchings.

Mary Anne Frank…: She got really consumed by the horrors of lynching because she experienced what had happened to some people that she knew and in neighborhoods that she lived in and suddenly that became what she really felt that she needed to communicate to the public. And as you might imagine, this was not received well and it was particularly an editorial that she wrote about the horrors of lynching where she wasn’t just talking about how lynching was a bad thing. She was saying, “Here’s what I think is actually going on with the problem of lynching.” And this was something I think had not really been expressed before, certainly not by a black female journalist, but she says the story that we keep hearing about these lynchings is that the men we’re told, the black men who are usually the subject of these lynchings that they’ve done something horrible to white women, that they’re raping white women.
And she says, “Here’s what my research has shown,” because she went and she would follow on these incidents and she would gather information about them and ask questions. And she said, “What I think is happening and what seems to be happening in these places is that there’s a problem of competition.” And she says, “And it’s not just economic competition, but that’s a big part of it. It just so turns out that many of the victims of lynching are people who are black men who were running businesses that were in competition with white businesses.” But then she suggests there’s a much more intimate form of competition when she says it’s not about, in many cases, sexual violence against these white women, it was consensual relationships. And that I think is really what drove the mob around her at this time from being very angry with what she was saying to being enraged in a way that was incredibly destructive.
It was because she said, “I believe that black men are not raping white women. I believe that there are consensual relationships happening between black men and white women, and that is why lynching is actually happening. It’s a sexual vengeance project. It is why so often we see that these men are tortured in these ways that are very sexual and very physical. And it really did seem to just animate the worst possible forces where she was in Memphis to drive them to that same kind of mob rage that we saw with Pennsylvania Hall.

Michael Fox: She’s writing these stories for her paper, The Memphis Free Press, and a series of white newspapers responded with editorials advocating a violent response or calling for people to do something about it. And in the end, they burn the Memphis free press to the ground.

Mary Anne Frank…: So again, you see that same sense of all- consuming rage about the publication of this idea and you can certainly see it in the way that the white newspapers talked about her editorial. They would reprint her editorial and talk about how unbelievable it was that somebody would make such horrific accusations. And it’s so reminiscent in ways of the Pennsylvania Hall reporting after Pennsylvania Hall was burned, there were a lot of editorials in Southern newspapers where they might say something about how well it’s a shame that this incredible building was burned to the ground, but not only were these radical ideas being stated in this hall, but also white women and black men were seen leaving together and sitting together. And you could see that this was really something that was animating so much of a part of what was animating this kind of mob hatred, this real censorship was that sense of you cannot speak to that.
You cannot speak to this idea that the black races and the white races might be mingling voluntarily together.

Michael Fox: I think this is another such powerful message and reminder of regardless of the response and the violent backlash, people are standing up, people are speaking their voices, people are demanding to be heard and this is clearly fearless, fearless speech.

Marc Steiner: Now when you mentioned her, I’m just going to throw this in as well. I mean, she was one of the most amazing Americans that ever walked the face of the earth. She was fearless. I mean, in what she wrote in the movement she helped build, she helped found the NAECP. She stood up … Lynchbobs tried to kill her. They killed people around her and lynched them, but she never stopped. I mean, this is a woman who I think most Americans don’t know but should know. She was one of the great heroes of our entire history and just fearless, a woman, a black woman in that period to stand up the way she did. So yeah, I mean, she’s one of those people, whenever hear her name, Ida B. Wells, my next line is say her name.

Michael Fox: Mark, bring us up in the decades, right? Walk us into the 1950s, into the 1960s and the civil rights movement. You participated directly. How important was free speech for the civil rights movement? What did this mean?

Marc Steiner: Two things. I mean, A, the roots of the civil rights movement people don’t really often give credit to was World War II. And Truman announced the official surrender.

Recording: This is a solemn but glorious hour.

Marc Steiner: It was Black men coming back from the war throughout the South and throughout the United States standing up saying, “We just fought for this country. We’re not going to live in segregation.” Those are the roots of the movement where black veterans of World War II. We often forget that. That led to Little Rock in 1954 to start slamming down racial segregation of schools. When I was a kid in the 1950s, Baltimore, we were all in segregated schools. And I remember the first time black kids came into our elementary school. I was in the sixth grade. And so it’s not ancient history. Well, maybe some people might think I’m ancient, but it’s not ancient history.

Michael Fox: That’s incredible. For other generations, that seems like that was lifetimes

Marc Steiner: Ago. Yeah. I mean, I was just very lucky to have been living then and have the mother that I had who stood up to racism and crossed the line early and my father, who was the first white doctor in Baltimore to integrate his waiting room and it was that recent. White doctors made black patients come in at the end of the day or early in the morning and leave. So it’s a history that has defined this country and the battle against it has defined this country, the struggle for a different world. But I think that what we’re seeing in America now is really a pushback against all of that. That’s what the Trumpian right is. It’s a decisive pushback against free speech and against civil rights and how those two worlds are intermarried. As I said before, the free speech movement in America was born of the civil rights movement.
The struggles are connected, which is why the battle against racial equality and the battle against free speech are also connected.

Michael Fox: Mark, I want to dig just a little bit deeper into this because what is it about free speech that was so important for the civil rights movement, for the anti-war movement? Is it the idea that we should be allowed to stand up and to speak for what we believe? We should be allowed to protest and to change the structure, the inherently racist structure of the country. What is it about free speech in particular that is so important to these movements at the time?

Marc Steiner: That’s a really interesting question. I mean, again, I may go back to start what I said a little while ago. When America started with free speech, it was free speech for white men of property.
That’s how it began. But it was such a universal principle that everybody embraced it and fought for the right to have free speech. And I think that’s something we forget. What the founding fathers did was unleash a democracy for themselves, but what the unleashed was a passion for democracy among everybody else and that redefined … It was a long struggle. And I think people know often make that connection. And I think that what you talked about earlier, which was the violence against those who really pushed it in the early part of the late 19th century, something most people don’t see or know the deaths that came place for fighting for free speech.
I think now we’re in that battle again. We really are. I mean, for me, it’s not a question of Republicans or Democrats. It’s a question of the anti-free speech movement, the anti-free speech movement, the racist movement, capturing one of the America’s parties and pushing this very dangerous agenda for the future. Let South be confused, the Democrats are all good and Republicans are all bad, but we have to be realistic about what’s happening to us right now. It almost seems to me to be, in terms of free speech, akin to when the right wing in Germany ceas power in 1933. And I think that we have to look at that history and understand what we’re facing.

Michael Fox: When we spoke with David Hollinger, he had this really interesting thing to say exactly about this is how Trump today is using the narrative of free speech to censor and using the narrative of free speech for his own means, attempting to derail our definition of free speech when it’s only for himself. Well,

David Hollinger: What happens is that Trump uses a lot of generic ideals like merit and free speech and diversity and he claims that he represents them and that the academic establishment has betrayed those ideals. And so free speech is somehow that’s not allowed unless it’s enunciating the stuff that he wants to advance.

Michael Fox: So free speech for my people is what Trump is saying, but if you’re not one of me, if you’re not with me, then you’re against me and you don’t deserve to have free speech. And of course, I think this is part of that same contradiction, this same push and pull that you talked at the beginning that goes, that is historic throughout the history of the United States. But I think it is fascinating today how Trump’s attempts to take the universities for himself and use this discourse around free speech, his own definition in order to support himself or bolster himself weaponizing the different departments of the country. It is clearly a terrifying moment and another reason why this moment of free speech of trying to define what this is and remember the movements that have stood up and fought for everything that’s made the United States great in our history and why it’s so important now.

Marc Steiner: People have to realize also it’s a constant struggle. It’s never over and it never will be over probably and that the movements you’ve raised here, like the abolitionist movement was so key to expanding our democracy. It was such a threat to people in power and the destruction of that movement, I always say the destruction of freedom in the South and its roots in the abolitionist movement in the 1870s gave birth to 90 years of sheer terror against the black world in America. And it was the civil rights movement that went back to the roots of America, freedom of speech for everybody to break the back of that and try to build new America. And what we’re seeing now is a reaction to that. Was it in Spanish. It’s not over. It’s never over.

Michael Fox: Mark, I have a question about the legacy of the free speech movement today and thinking about, particularly around universities and campuses, would you say that we’ve actually been rolled back some of the gains, the rights to be able to stand up and speak out at university campuses, which were one, which were so important clearly during the anti-war movement, anti-Vietnam movements, what that’s always meant up until now, but it almost feels as though all of that has been rolled back so much in terms of like the government backlash against pro- Palestine protests on campus or saying anything about Charlie Kirk clearly. Would you say that things have been rolled back to even before the time of the free speech movement in the 1960s?

Marc Steiner: I would say they are attempting to roll it back. It has been rolled back completely, but universities are running scared. They’re terrified. I mean, huge chunks of money for universities comes from the federal government and that’s what Trump is threatening them with, taking that money away. And so the university systems either have to stand up and fight it with a threat of losing their money or cowtow to it and roll over.

Michael Fox: This is interesting because this is one of the things that David Hollinger brings in. He says, “This is the hill to die on.

David Hollinger: Given what the Trump administration is trying to do to universities to reduce them to vocational and technical institutions, to deprive them of the critical role that universities have traditionally played in fomenting democracy, they really are trying to do that. So that means that this is the hill to die on. The universities are right. This is the hill to die on. This is the worst crisis that we’ve had since 1916, 17, 18, in terms of the political opposition to universities when Charles Beard resigned at Columbia and there were a whole series of quarrels over World War I. This is by far the worst thing that’s happened since then and universities are much more central to American life than they were at that time. They have a lot more authority, they affect many more things. So it’s important that we take a stand and I’m very glad to see that many of them are, but not all.

Marc Steiner: This is the tip of the iceberg because Trump and his minions on the right see attacking the university systems, not just as killing freedom of speech, which is the subtext to it, but as a first salvo in controlling their power by limiting and shutting down freedom of speech in universities. And it’s not really given enough play in the press.
When the National Socialist Party took power in 1933 with a minority of the vote, I might add, but they built a broad coalition, everything they did in the beginning was subtle. They didn’t come in one fell swoop and turn the whole place into a dictatorship overnight. They built it slowly and they created one of the most horrible societies the world has ever seen, killing 11 million people in Europe, in concentration camps. So what I’m saying that is, is that we have to be really very watchful and careful about what we’re facing. This is just the beginning. It’s not the end. And people say it can’t happen here. Well, it can happen here and it has happened here before, especially if you’re black or indigenous. And so I think we are, as I said before, we’re on a precipice and I think we cannot underestimate the moment that we face.

Michael Fox: Mark, I want to Bring in Mary Anne Franks one more time.

Marc Steiner: Please do. Yeah.

Michael Fox: And I want to talk about the First Amendment because for me, this was a really powerful … It’s a controversial point in her book, I feel like, but I think we need to discuss it and I think it’s important to grapple with because in our conversation and in her book, she talks about how racial justice advocates and social moments have succeeded in the history of the United States, have succeeded in the past despite rather than because of the First Amendment or First Amendment protections. And so she says, imagine an alternative America.

Mary Anne Frank…: Where from the beginning we took the concept of free speech in the way that Elijah Lovejoy took it, which is to say, we have to recognize if freedom of speech means anything, it is the freedom to criticize what we are doing, what the powerful people are doing in our society. And the most important thing for us to articulate at that time is slavery. And close on its heels is the subjugation of women. Imagine if that had really been allowed to sort of take … If Pennsylvania Hall had never burned down and it really did become a temple of humanity where people began to see that things that they were deeply wedded to, ideas that they had always grown up thinking were correct if they really had been challenged by other ways of thinking if that had been allowed to flourish. I mean, think about how radical and revolutionary that would’ve been.

Michael Fox: Could that and so many other experiences have actually shifted the discourse within the United States enough to stop the Civil War, she asks. Instead, you have the Clarence Brandenburg version of what it means to be radical. So KKK, Neo-Nazi, those are the guys who are embraced and protected.

Mary Anne Frank…: We skipped the part where it actually becomes the norm that slavery and all forms of racism and sexism are evil and wrong. Instead, it goes from becoming the way that society’s constructed to, “Oh, he’s saying something very edgy that’s probably making you uncomfortable, but for that reason, we should protect it. ” And it’s like there’s nothing in between. And so at that point it gets quite literally the KKK gets a second life and a third life. And it’s partly because it’s revitalized through these perversions of the concept of free speech to say, “Well, we must be allowed to say these things now that slavery has been abolished. We fixed things in terms of racial injustice and now it’s all gone too far. And so we are going to be the old guard who is going to be talking about how things used to be. ” And then immediately that’s what gets so much protection, gets so much rhetorical resources and protection.

Michael Fox: And she brings this one other moment. She talks about this, which I think is important. She talks about the white supremacist play and then movie, the 1915 movie, The Birth of a Nation, right? Yeah. So it sparks riots every place and lynchings.

Mary Anne Frank…: And you get one of the first sort of showdowns between the NAACP and the ACLU, where the NAACP is saying, “This is going to get people killed.” And the ACLU saying, “You really need to understand that if you’re trying to advocate for censorship, it’s going to hurt you too at some point.” And it’s one of those moments in the book where I’m trying to articulate the expression on my face when I read this, this idea of the NAACP being lectured by the ACLU, by the white director of the ACLU saying, “It’s going to come around and hurt black people. The law isn’t going to work for you if you advocate for restrictions now.” And the obvious point being that the law has never really worked for black people. Of course, it’s going to be used against them. It has been this entire time. That whole premise of the, well, don’t censor the radical white supremacist speech because it’s going to mean that you’ll get censored too, completely erases the fact that radical abolitionist speeches we were just talking about has always been censored, has always been suppressed.
So it’s this kind of retelling of history that is so perverse because it’s also this kind of lecturing that says, if you just had a sophisticated enough view of speech and just enough confidence in the American people, you would understand that we just need to allow this kind of material to flourish so that you will be saved as much as the white supremacist will be saved.

Michael Fox: And so I feel like this is such an important point and really powerful because she said this and it had to take a double take. The fact that social movements, abolitionist movement, the fact that the civil rights movement, the fact that they were successful not because of the First Amendment, but actually despite the First Amendment, but because of free speech, but free speech the way that we consider free speech, not free speech as according to say the Constitution and whatnot and that white supremacists have always gotten the benefit of the doubt and everyone else has gotten shut down, but people continue to stand up.

Marc Steiner: That’s interesting. It really is. It would take a lot to explore what you just said and what she said because the alternative theory is if you shut that down, then we’re next to be shut down.

Michael Fox: Exactly.

Marc Steiner: It’s really difficult. I mean, I know that battle around the ACLU and the NAACP and it’s a core battle and I understand both positions. The oppression of black people in America saying this has to be banned and stopped because it’s attacking us and formating violence against us and the ACLU saying one of the bedrock rights in America is the right to say what you want to say, even if it’s disgusting and full of hate. So it’s a difficult discussion. We could do a whole series just on that. Really? You know? I mean-

Michael Fox: Totally.

Marc Steiner: I’ve had this debate over decades around the First Amendment, what’s the First Amendment say? Congress shall make no law representing an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That’s pretty broad. So that’s a very difficult question. I’ve been fighting racist and neofascist my whole life since I was a boy, since I was maybe 11, 12, 13 years old. And so I’m passionate about it, but it’s a really difficult nut to crack.

Michael Fox: What I come back to here is what you said at the beginning about the contradiction at the root, at the core of free speech in the United States and the conflict and the battle over what it means today, but what it’s meant and what it’s always meant and how there has always been this push and pull. I think what’s the most important thing for me now is for us to understand what is at the root of this battle and for us to be able to define it like when we talk about fearless versus reckless speech,
This is not a concept that people understand, but it’s a concept that we should understand because when we go out and speak truth to power or people are standing up in the streets, they should understand and know that they are participating in something that goes back, this idea of speaking out goes back thousands of years. It’s not just right now and that they have this support and this backing even if the First Amendment hasn’t always worked in their favor or has often supported white supremacists at the same time as it’s silenced those fighting for social justice or those fighting for equality. So I think you’re absolutely right that this is a hard, hard nut to crack, but it’s still a conversation we have

Marc Steiner: To have. We do. Because the reckless think they’re fearless.

Michael Fox: Yes.

Marc Steiner: I mean, it really is tough. It really is. So now I have to go home and think about all this.

Michael Fox: Mark, I want to close with someone else I spoke with recently.

Fara Dabhoiwala: Fara Dabhoiwala. Well, I’m a historian at Princeton, but I used to teach at Oxford University in England.

Michael Fox: His book, What Is Free Speech? The History of a Dangerous Idea was published last year. I’ll be bringing him in more in future episodes, but I really appreciate his analysis for this episode and where we’re headed. He told me free speech has always been about power.

Fara Dabhoiwala: Both in the theory and in practice, we see that today, what voices are silenced or elevated is about power. It’s a noble ideal because everyone can appeal to it and throughout history, as my book shows, those without power and those who are attempted to be silenced have also appealed to it from abolitionists and early feminists onwards into the present day. So that’s the good side of why it’s a dangerous idea. And we should all be shouting from the rooftops that right now free speech rights are being trampled upon. The First Amendment is being completely disregarded in the United States and the rest of it. But I think that the real global battle here is about how to deal with the communications revolution that we’re living through and how to deal with the power of media companies, the unfettered transnational power of basically of American media companies.

Michael Fox: And I’d say not just media companies, but tech companies, social media, AI firms, and that’s where we’re headed next time.

Marc Steiner: And next week we go to Silicon Valley. Look at the internet, social media, artificial intelligence are transforming the way we communicate and what it all means for our right to free speech.

Michael Fox: Hi folks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed today’s podcast and you like this series, please do us a favor, go to your podcasting app and give us a like, a follow, a subscribe, or tell a friend about it and leave us a comment or a review. It really helps to spread the word about the show and the state of free speech in the United States today. You can find more of my work on my Patreon page at patreon.com/mfox. Also, please make sure to sign up for the Real News Network’s newsletter so you never miss an episode. You can find that at therealnews.com or you can click on the link in the show notes. If you’d like to find out more about the stories we talked about today in this episode, we’ve added some links in the show notes there as well. The Battle for Free Speech is a production of The Real News.
Thanks for listening. See you next time.

Free speech in America was never given—it was fought for, bled for, and died for. In this episode, hosts Marc Steiner and Michael Fox dive into the history of the movements that built and defended the right to speak out: the abolitionists who continued to speak—even as mobs attacked the building where they gathered—Ida B. Wells, who exposed the truth about lynching in Jim Crow Memphis, and the students at UC Berkeley who launched the Free Speech Movement of 1964.

Michael takes us to Sproul Plaza, ground zero of the Berkeley free speech movement, and Marc shares his own story of carrying that fight from the civil rights movement to campuses on the East Coast. Together they trace a brutal pattern that runs from Elijah Lovejoy—the abolitionist editor murdered by a mob in 1837—to the burning of Pennsylvania Hall, to today’s crackdowns on student protest and the firing of professors for their political views.

Featuring law professor Mary Anne Franks, author of Fearless Speech, on the crucial difference between fearless speech and reckless speech—and why America has so often protected the wrong one. Plus UC Berkeley historian David Hollinger on why universities are “the hill to die on,” and Princeton historian Fara Dabhoiwala on why free speech has always been a battle over power.

This is the second episode of The Battle for Free Speech. In this podcast series, in the lead-up to the country’s 250th anniversary, journalists Michael Fox and Marc Steiner look at the battle for our free speech rights today, and the attacks on people speaking out in the United States.

The Battle for Free Speech is a production of The Real News Network.

Hosted by Michael Fox and Marc Steiner. Theme music by Michael Fox, Jordan Klein and Daniel Nuñez. Other music from Blue Dot Sessions and Epidemic Sound. Production and Sound Design by Michael Fox and Stephen Frank. Editorial support by Kayla Rivara and Heather Gies. Research by Ben Schweiger.

Guests

• David Hollinger
• Mary Anne Franks
• Fara Dabhoiwala

Resources

• Mary Anne Franks’ book, Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment
• Fara Dabhoiwala’s book, What Is Free Speech?: The History of a Dangerous Idea
• David Hollinger’s book, Christianity’s American Fate: How Religion Became More Conservative and Society More Secular 
• The full KPFA documentary about the Free Speech movement: Voices of Independence – The Free Speech Movement: Sounds & Songs of Demonstrations
  • Support KPFA here: support.kpfa.org

Some 31.9% of respondents said the controversy, which sparked a diplomatic row between Kyiv and Warsaw, did not affect their view of Ukraine, according to a survey conducted by the SW Research agency.

Authorities in Messenia, Greece are investigating the mysterious disappearance of the historic Battle of Navarino commemorative bell from the Church of the Transfiguration of the Savior, located in the Niokastro fortress in Pylos.

Weighing 12 kilograms (approx. 26 lbs), the bell holds profound historical and symbolic value. It was gifted to the church by Russian Philhellenes and transported to Greece aboard the Russian warship Azov to mark the 190th anniversary of the Battle of Navarino, a pivotal naval engagement of the Greek War of Independence.

According to state broadcaster ERT, photographic evidence confirms the bell was securely in place as recently as May 29, 2026. However, tourists visiting the castle on the morning of Saturday, June 6, noticed it was missing.

It remains unclear whether the artifact was stolen or removed for unannounced maintenance. Local police and cultural heritage authorities are investigating all possibilities to locate the missing relic.

Bell honored historic ties between Greece and Russia after Battle of Navarino

Originally delivered to Greece on October 19, 2017, the bell was celebrated as a “bridge of memory,” honoring the historic ties between the Greek and Russian peoples. Its sudden disappearance has sparked deep concern within the Pylos community, where it is revered not just as a religious object but as a tangible link to Greece’s journey toward independence.

Fought on October 20, 1827 in Navarino Bay (modern-day Pylos), the Battle of Navarino was a monumental naval clash that effectively secured Greece’s independence from the Ottoman Empire. It marked the last major sea battle in history fought entirely with sailing ships, pitting a powerful allied fleet of British, French, and Russian warships against the combined forces of the Ottoman Empire and Egypt.

Despite being outnumbered, the Allies possessed vastly superior firepower and tactical positioning, completely decimating the Ottoman fleet in a matter of hours. This decisive intervention by Europe’s great powers turned the tide of the struggling Greek War of Independence, forcing the Ottomans to eventually withdraw and pave the way for the establishment of the modern, independent Greek state.

Long before Aristotle Onassis became the husband of America’s most famous First Lady, he was the center of a bitter, private tug-of-war between two sisters. The billionaire’s overlapping relationships with Jackie Kennedy and Lee Radziwill didn’t just make headlines—they ignited a lifelong sibling rivalry fueled by power, betrayal, and the constant struggle to outshine one another.

Caroline Lee Bouvier was the younger sister of Jacqueline Bouvier, who in 1961 became the first lady of the United States, as Mrs. John Kennedy.

The two sisters — daughters of a Wall Street stockbroker father and a socialite mother — were raised to look beautiful, have impeccable manners and to marry rich, prestigious men.

Jacqueline married John F. Kennedy in 1953, at age 24. Her sister Lee married the Polish nobleman Stanisław Albrecht Radziwiłł, of the princely House of Radziwill, in 1959.

After the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963, the widow went on to marry Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis five years later, in 1968, after that becoming known popularly as Jackie O.

Books have been written about the rivalry between the two sisters — with chapters dedicated to an implied relationship between Lee and Onassis.

The Kennedy sisters’ rivalry and Onassis

The two girls adored their father, John Vernou Bouvier III, who was a stockbroker and ladies’ man who resembled Clark Gable. Bouvier always advised his daughters to “be the best.”

Lee and Jackie struggled to be their father’s very best daughter. Lee loved her older sister, but she found it hard to follow Jackie’s many accomplishments in school and in horse riding.

After Jackie married Kennedy and later became First Lady of the United States, she was regarded as one of the most beautiful and stylish women in the entire world.

Her younger sister was equally stylish and beautiful, yet to the world, she was just Jackie’s sister; needless to say, she was obscured by her sister’s shadow.

So she divorced her first husband and became Princess Lee Radziwill.

Princess Radziwill and Aristotle Onassis

When Princess Radziwill started an affair with Aristotle Onassis, the Greek tycoon was still involved with opera diva Maria Callas; Lee’s husband was indifferent and Jackie was still in the White House.

On August 22, 1963, Radziwill and Aristotle Onassis attended the opening of the Athens Hilton in Greece, invited by Nicky Hilton. Their appearance together at the luminous event generated the expected gossip.

Some speculated that Onassis wanted to be near Lee for her connection to the White House. John and his brother Robert Kennedy both disliked Onassis, who had been sued by the U.S. government in 1955 for removing from the U.S. a fleet of ships he had bought and promised to keep in the country.

In order to keep Lee away from Onassis, they asked her to accompany John on a presidential European tour to Great Britain, Italy, Germany, and Ireland because Jackie was seven months pregnant at the time.

When John Kennedy made his famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in Berlin, he had his sister-in-law, not Jackie, at his side.

Despite that, however, Princess Radziwill returned to Greece and resumed her relationship with Onassis. When in late August of 1963 Jackie gave birth to Patrick, the newborn died 39 hours after being born.

Lee flew to Boston to attend her nephew’s funeral and to comfort her grieving sister. Concerned about Jackie, she urged Onassis to invite her aboard his legendary yacht, Christina.

Despite objections from the Kennedy family, Jackie went on a vacation on the yacht for four weeks, accompanied by her sister. The two sisters were left alone by Onassis for most of the time, resting and exchanging confidences.

When President Kennedy was assassinated in November of that year, Onassis stayed at the White House some days after, at Lee’s request, despite the Kennedy brothers’ distrust of him.

Onassis and the Kennedy sisters

In 1964 the young widow bought an apartment at 1040 Fifth Avenue in New York City and Robert Kennedy persuaded Stanislaw Radziwill to buy his wife a duplex at 969 Fifth Avenue in order to be near Jackie and so that her children could spend more time with their cousins.

Princess Radziwill then became friends with Truman Capote, who admired her style, elegance and femininity. He urged her to become a stage actress, and she embraced this new direction in her life with fervor.

She starred in a couple of plays and had options for film roles, but the reviews were not impressive. Nevertheless, she received great publicity and was on the cover of TIME magazine.

It was speculated at the time that all that was an effort to become more popular than her sister. Yet it was Jackie, again, who continued to gaining more attention as the grieving widow who was carrying the torch of the Kennedy legacy.

At the same time, Jackie Kennedy was relying heavily on her brother-in-law, Robert F. Kennedy, urging him to run for president in the 1968 election.

However, when Robert was assassinated in June 1968 after he and a crowd of his supporters had been celebrating his victory in the California Democratic presidential primary, Jackie fell into depression once more.

Furthermore, she feared for her own life and her children’s, convinced that there were people who hated the Kennedys and wanted to exterminate the family, and saying that she wanted out of the United States.

It was rather sudden when on October 20, 1968, Jacqueline Kennedy married her long-time friend Aristotle Onassis.

Understandably, that came as a blow to her sister. After all, Lee had been the first of the two to have an affair and fall in love with the Greek mogul. She reportedly wept when she heard the news.

Onassis called and asked her sister to be at her wedding. Although she was personally devastated, Lee dutifully served as matron of honor in the wedding.

Sixteen years later, Jackie dealt a final blow to her sister. At age 64 she was diagnosed with cancer and Lee rushed to comfort her ill sibling.

But when Jackie died, Lee found out that her sister had left her out of her will and the substantial holdings and cash her inheritors received. Maybe this was somehow because of Onassis, maybe not.

In any event, although the will included $500,000 trust funds for each of Radziwill’s two children, Tina and Anthony, there was nothing for her — not even one family memento.

A military campaign launched by the Frankish ruler Charlemagne in the late 700s set the foundations for Europe’s east-west divide, shaping the continent’s political landscape for more than a thousand years, according to new research published in the Austrian History Yearbook.

Helmut Reimitz, a historian at Princeton University, argues that Charlemagne’s conquest of the Avar people in Central Europe in 795 CE did far more than expand a medieval empire. It drew a line between east and west that would later echo in everything from medieval church politics to the Iron Curtain of the 20th century.

The Avars were a steppe people who had controlled Central Europe for roughly 200 years before Charlemagne’s armies marched east. Carolingian propaganda portrayed them as the ultimate enemies of Christendom and the campaign as a holy war.

In 791, Charlemagne sent three armies into Avar territory. Before crossing the river Enns, the entire army fasted for three days, held masses, and prayed for divine protection.

The conquest that erased an empire from the map

The initial campaign produced little. The armies marched deep into Avar territory and found almost no resistance. In 796, Charlemagne’s son Pippin finally conquered the Avar capital and seized a vast treasure. Charlemagne distributed it across Europe to cement his image as the most powerful Christian ruler of the West.

The conquest, however, created a lasting problem. The Avars, unable to maintain their political identity under a Christian Frankish emperor, simply disappeared. By 822, their name no longer appeared in Carolingian records. With no Avar client kingdom as a political partner, Carolingian rulers lost their footing in Central Europe.

Reimitz notes that the religious ideology driving the conquest also made practical governance harder. Alcuin, a close advisor to Charlemagne and head of the palace school, warned that forcing rapid conversion on conquered peoples was a serious mistake.

He argued that Christianization required careful instruction, not battlefield compulsion.

When Christian laws drew a line across Europe’s east-west divide

The strict Christian rules the Carolingians imposed also blocked flexible diplomacy. Church guidelines even forbade Christians from dining or celebrating with non-Christians, cutting off a key tool for building political alliances.

These tensions deepened in the 860s when Byzantine missionaries Cyril and Methodius arrived in Central Europe with a Slavonic alphabet and liturgy, directly challenging Frankish church authority.

Frankish bishops accused them of using an unauthorized language. The dispute hardened the region’s divisions even further.

Reimitz concludes that the east-west divide born of Charlemagne’s conquest remained a powerful force shaping Europe’s politics well into modern times, from early conflicts against the Ottoman Turks to the Iron Curtain itself.

Wars are often remembered through battles, invasions, and casualty numbers, but many of history’s bloodiest conflicts began with something far less physical: a speech. A single address delivered at the right moment can inflame public anger, inspire nationalism, justify aggression, or convince frightened populations that war is unavoidable. Leaders throughout history have understood that before […]

The post 10 Speeches That Helped Push Nations Into War appeared first on Listverse.

The first interaction between the Jews and the Persians (the ancient Iranians) was a profoundly important and beneficial one. This initial interaction between the two nations was not a battle. Rather, the Persians freed the Jews from captivity in Babylon. What were the circumstances behind this event, and what exactly did the Persians do?

Why the Jews were captives in Babylon

The background to this event is that the ancient Babylonians attacked and destroyed the Jewish city of Jerusalem near the turn of the seventh century BCE. Consequently, the Babylonians took the surviving Jews captive, deporting them to the region of Babylon.

Despite not enduring the extreme hardships of slavery, as in their Egyptian bondage, they nevertheless faced harsh and unpleasant conditions. They were captives in the region, along with many other peoples whom the Babylonians had conquered.

This captivity lasted for several decades. According to the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible, there were ancient Jewish prophets who had foretold that this captivity would end and Babylon would fall. Historically, what occurred?

The Persian conquest of Babylon

Eventually, the Persians freed the Jews from Babylon. How did this happen?

During much of the sixth century BCE, the Babylonians ruled over a vast empire. It controlled essentially the entire Fertile Crescent, from the Persian Gulf to the Egyptian border. It also ruled over much of northern Arabia. Historians believe that the city of Babylon at that time was the largest in the world.

For that reason, its downfall was a shock to the world. In 550 BCE, King Cyrus I of Persia began conquering the Middle East with the defeat of the Medes. He then travelled to Anatolia, where he conquered the Lydian Empire. Finally, he turned his attention to Babylon.

In 539 BCE, Cyrus’s army marched towards the powerful and intimidating city of Babylon. They diverted the Euphrates River, which surrounded the city like a moat. This lowered the water level enough for the Persian army to wade across.

For some reason, the gates of the city had been left open, and the army simply marched in. The Babylonians were completely unprepared for a battle, resulting in a swift and definitive Persian victory.

The Persians freed the Jews

The Babylonians had a policy of never releasing their prisoners of war. The Persians, in contrast, had no such policy. Cyrus the Great—and the Persian Empire in general—is famous today for the relatively lenient position taken regarding subject peoples.

According to the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, in the first year of Cyrus’s rule over Babylon, he ordered the Jews to be released and return to their land of Jerusalem. Thus, the Persians freed the Jews from Babylon. In fact, rather than merely allowing them to go, Cyrus positively supported them in their return.

According to the Bible’s Book of Ezra, written in the fifth century BCE, Cyrus took the treasure of Jerusalem’s temple that the Babylonians had plundered and gave it directly to the Jews. He allowed them to take it back with them to Jerusalem.

Furthermore, when the Persians freed the Jews, they went even further in their support for them. The record in Ezra states that Cyrus encouraged his subjects to assist the Jews by giving them financial support for their return trip.

Did the Persians really free the Jews?

Did the Persians really free the Jews from ancient Babylon, or is the Bible’s account about this event fictional? Archaeologists uncovered an ancient artifact known as the Cyrus Cylinder in 1879. This dates to just after the fall of Babylon and describes Cyrus’ conquest of the city. Notably, it includes the following description:

“I returned to sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations.”

Although this does not mention Jerusalem and the Jews specifically, it does provide significant support to the Biblical narrative. As we can see, Cyrus claimed to have been responsible for the restoration of certain sanctuaries, or sacred temple sites, in distant cities.

He even specifically mentions returning the “images”, or idols, that came from those sanctuaries. This ties in very well with the Bible’s claim that Cyrus returned the Jews’ temple treasures to Jerusalem.

Furthermore, alongside the restoration of the temples, Cyrus claims that he returned the inhabitants of those cities to their respective sanctuaries. This aligns perfectly with the Bible’s assertion that the Persians freed the Jews and allowed them to return to Jerusalem.

All evidence indicates that the construction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem began only after the Persians defeated Babylon. This logically concludes that the Persians freed the Jews, thereby allowing them to return to their city and build the Second Temple.

When you think of medieval princesses, what comes to mind is probably some beauty locked in a tower, waiting around for a prince to show up. Well, Anna Komnene would have rolled her eyes at that stereotype. This 11th-century Byzantine princess had better things to do than wait for rescue—she was busy writing one of history’s most important chronicles!

Born in 1083 to Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, Anna grew up in the heart of the Byzantine Empire during one of its most turbulent periods. Instead of learning needlework like most girls her age, she was reading Homer and studying philosophy. Her parents, surprisingly ahead of their time, decided their daughter deserved a real education, something that was normally reserved for the male offspring. And when we say education, we don’t mean just the basics—we’re talking about advanced studies in history, mathematics, medicine, and literature.

This education paid off in ways nobody could have predicted.

Anna Komnene was more than Daddy’s little Princess

Anna’s masterpiece, the Alexiad, is her marvellous creation that chronicles her father’s reign with the kind of detail that makes historians rub their eyes from tears of joy. She was there for everything: the First Crusade (imagine those rough Western knights showing up at your doorstep), the Norman invasions, the constant political drama and machinations that kept the empire on the verge of falling apart.

Now, let’s be honest, once someone reads her chronicle, it is more than obvious that Anna worshipped her father. Reading the Alexiad, you’d think Alexios could walk on water. But even accounting for her obvious bias, the work is incredibly valuable to us all today. She provides simply unparalleled insights into Byzantine court life, military strategy, and cultural dynamics.

Her descriptions of the Crusaders are particularly entertaining, too. She thought these Western “barbarians” were crude and uncivilized, but she also recognized their military effectiveness and value when it came to battlefields. It’s like getting a sophisticated gossip column about one of history’s most significant events. That’s what her Chronicles feels like to scholars.

Anna Komnene wrote her way into history

What makes Anna truly remarkable isn’t that she wrote a good book—it’s that she dared to write it at all by herself. You see, medieval women weren’t supposed to be historians. They certainly weren’t supposed to have opinions about military campaigns or imperial policy.

Anna didn’t care about “supposed to.”

The Alexiad is bold, confident, and sometimes brutally honest about her era. She criticizes incompetent officials, praises effective leadership, and offers her analysis of complex political situations. It was serious scholarship demanding to be taken seriously, and it worked. The Alexiad became one of the most important sources for understanding this period of Byzantine history. Scholars today still cite her work, debate her interpretations, and marvel at her accomplishments.

Anna Komnene’s life wasn’t all intellectual triumph, though. After her father died, she found herself increasingly sidelined by those in court. She had hoped to see her husband become emperor, but politics didn’t work out in her favor. Writing the Alexiad partly became a way to preserve her family’s legacy and partly a way to assert her own importance in a world that preferred women to remain silent rather than take on the role of a protagonist in the Empire’s political affairs.

It is easy to understand her frustration coming through the text sometimes. Here was this brilliant, educated woman who understood imperial politics better than most of the men making decisions, and she was expected to just… fade into the background after her father passed away.

So, instead of remaining silent, she picked up her pen and made sure her voice would be heard for centuries.

Why Anna Komnene’s attitude is still relevant

Anna Komnene proved something that seems obvious now but was revolutionary at the time: women could be serious scholars, thoughtful historians, and compelling writers. She opened a door that had been firmly shut and wedged it open for everyone who came after. Every time a woman publishes a memoir, writes a historical analysis, or offers her perspective on current events, she follows the path that Anna Komnene created. Not that Anna gets credit for it—most people have never heard of her. But the precedent she set matters.

The Alexiad remains in print today, nearly 1,000 years later. Students still read it in history classes. Scholars still argue about her interpretations. That’s not bad for someone who was supposed to stay in her (luxurious) room and let the men handle the important issues.

She had something to say, and she said it. In a world that preferred women to stay silent, that was pretty revolutionary.

June 10 marks a sweet celebration cherished by dessert lovers around the world — World Ice Cream Day. Among the many holidays dedicated to sweets and desserts, this one undoubtedly enjoys universal appeal. The occasion serves as a reminder of the history behind the creation and global spread of ice cream. Few people remain indifferent to this dairy delicacy, while for children, ice cream has always been synonymous with happiness, treats, and summer joy. From Ancient Civilizations to European Royal Courts According to popular belief, mass sales of ice cream began in the United States on June 10, 1786. That date gave rise to the unofficial holiday now celebrated worldwide. Official recognition has never been necessary for such occasions. Once embraced by millions of people across the globe, a simple idea can become a worldwide celebration. World Ice Cream Day followed exactly that path.

Delphi offered more than prophecy in the times of the Ancient Greeks, as inscribed on the temple were a series of brief sayings with deep philosophical meaning known as the Delphic Maxims.

These concise statements distilled profound ideas about ethics, self-control, and human nature. Though short in form, they helped shape Greek thought for centuries and left a lasting influence on philosophers such as Socrates and Plato.

Among these maxims, two became especially well known: “Know Thyself” (Γνῶθι Σεαυτόν) and “Nothing in Excess” (Μηδὲν Ἄγαν). The Ancient Greeks did not treat these as simple moral slogans but rather as guiding principles for inner harmony and a philosophical pursuit of knowledge.

Delphi and the center of the Greek world

Few sacred places in the Ancient Greek world carried the same spiritual authority and symbolic weight as Delphi. Greeks from across the region traveled to the sanctuary of Apollo to consult the oracle, offer sacrifices, and seek divine guidance. Kings, generals, philosophers, and ordinary citizens all stood before the same sacred center, hoping to receive wisdom from the god.

The sanctuary was located on the slopes of Mount Parnassus in central Greece, and the Ancient Greeks regarded it as the spiritual center of the world. According to myth, Zeus released two eagles from opposite ends of the earth, and they met above Delphi. The famous omphalos, or sacred stone, marked this divine center. The sanctuary belonged to Apollo, the god of light, harmony, music, prophecy, and rational order. Pilgrims arrived from across the Mediterranean to hear the oracle delivered through the Pythia, Apollo’s priestess.

Yet Delphi also functioned as a philosophical and ethical center. Visitors encountered sacred inscriptions carved directly into the temple itself. Tradition often attributed the Delphic Maxims to the Seven Sages of Greece, legendary figures associated with practical wisdom and political insight. Various sources preserve differing lists, though names such as Solon, Thales, Bias, Pittacus, and Chilon frequently appear among them. According to tradition, Chilon of Sparta is credited with “Know Thyself,” while Solon or Cleobulus is often associated with “Nothing in Excess.” Regardless of authorship, the Greeks regarded the maxims as expressions of divine wisdom connected to Apollo himself.

“Know Thyself” and the common interpretation of the Delphic maxim

The maxim “Know Thyself” became one of the most influential phrases in Western philosophy. Most people interpret it as a call to humility. In this reading, the maxim reminds human beings of their limitations and the notion that mortals should not imagine themselves equal to gods. Pride, arrogance, and excessive ambition were seen as paths toward destruction.

This interpretation certainly existed in Ancient Greece. Greek tragedy repeatedly warned against hubris, the dangerous overestimation of human power. Delphi therefore urged visitors to recognize their finite condition. The maxim also encouraged a more practical form of self-awareness. A wise person understands both strengths and weaknesses, and this kind of understanding helps prevent poor decisions and reckless behavior. However, Socrates and Plato had a far more profound interpretation.

Socrates and the ontological meaning of “Know Thyself”

Plato’s dialogue First Alcibiades presents one of the most profound interpretations of the Delphic maxim. In the dialogue, Socrates questions the ambitious young Alcibiades, who is eager for political power and glory in Athens. Socrates asks Alcibiades a deceptively simple question: what exactly is the “self” that one must know?

Through careful reasoning, Socrates gradually argues that a human being cannot be reduced to the physical body alone. The body functions more like an instrument used by something deeper. Just as a musician plays a lyre, the soul uses the body. The true self, therefore, must be the soul rather than the body.

This interpretation transforms this Delphic maxim into an ontological and spiritual imperative. “Know Thyself” no longer refers only to recognizing personal limits. Instead, it becomes a call to discover one’s true essence and, in some readings, one’s divine orientation. For Socrates, self-knowledge forms the foundation of wisdom and political virtue. A person who does not understand the soul cannot govern properly because ignorance already governs from within.

In this sense, the Delphic maxim directs human beings toward inner awakening. Socrates takes the argument even further in First Alcibiades. He suggests that the soul knows itself by contemplating what is most like the divine. Wisdom, reason, and truth become the means through which the soul aligns with a higher reality. This idea deeply influenced later Platonic philosophy and Neoplatonism in which thinkers increasingly read the Delphic maxim as a spiritual path toward union with the divine intellect.

Within this framework, self-knowledge becomes sacred knowledge. To know oneself is to understand the soul’s origin, structure, and ultimate destiny. The Delphic inscription thus becomes more than an ethical reminder—it stands as a gateway into metaphysics.

The Delphic maxim “Nothing in Excess” and the harmony of the soul

Another great Delphic maxim is “Nothing in Excess,” which carried far deeper meaning than simple moderation. At a practical level, the saying encouraged balance and restraint. Ancient Greeks admired sophrosyne, or self-control. A wise person avoids extremes in pleasure, anger, ambition, and behavior.

Plato later developed this idea philosophically through his theory of the soul. In works such as Republic, Plato describes the soul as composed of distinct parts. Reason must govern spirit and desire in a balanced and harmonious way. When one part dominates excessively, disorder and inner suffering follow.

From this perspective, “Nothing in Excess” reflects a geometrical and proportional vision of the soul. Justice and wisdom arise through equilibrium. Greek philosophy often linked beauty itself to proportion and harmony. The Delphic maxim, therefore, expresses not only a moral principle but also a broader cosmic order.

The speech of Aspasia

Plato places a striking interpretation of “Nothing in Excess” into the mouth of Aspasia in Menexenus. This passage expands the maxim into a broader philosophy of inner independence and self-mastery. Aspasia declares:

“The saying ‘Nothing in Excess,’ spoken since ancient times, appears entirely correct. Indeed, it is the truest principle. The person who depends only on themselves and their own capacities for happiness, and who does not suspend their life on the fortunes of others, is best prepared for life. This individual is moderate, heroic, and wise. Whether they gain wealth and children or lose them, they remain faithful to this maxim above all. They will neither rejoice nor grieve beyond measure because they rely primarily on themselves and their inner strength.”

This interpretation reveals the ethical depth of the Delphic maxim. Moderation here is not merely quantitative but qualitative, shaping one’s entire way of living. It becomes a question of inner freedom.

A balanced person does not collapse under misfortune nor become intoxicated by success. Inner stability produces courage, wisdom, and resilience. Plato therefore connects moderation directly to philosophical strength.

One of the most remarkable inventions of Ancient Athenian democracy was a device used to randomly select citizens for public duties such as jury service and public office.

The kleroterion consisted of a stele with horizontal rows of slots on its front and a vertical metal tube attached to the side. Prospective jurors inserted small, flat bronze tokens known as pinakia into these slots, each engraved with their name, their father’s name, and their deme (municipality). Black and white metal spheres were then placed into a funnel and released into the tube in a randomized sequence.

Candidates whose pinakia aligned with a white sphere were selected as jurors, while those aligned with a black sphere were not. Multiple kleroteria (plural) were installed in front of each court to handle the selection process.

Developed in Classical Athens during the 5th century BC, the kleroterion embodied a radical principle for its time: that ordinary citizens, rather than elites or hereditary rulers, should take part in governing the state through equitable civic participation. Within the broader framework of Ancient Athenian democracy, it represented a systematic effort to formalize political equality.

Although the process may appear simple by modern standards, it was highly innovative in the ancient world. Instead of elections shaped by wealth, family influence, or popularity, the Athenians relied heavily on sortition, or selection by lottery. The kleroterion mechanized this system and significantly reduced opportunities for corruption. Eligible citizens would arrive at the court and place their pinakia into the appropriate slots of the kleroterion, with each column representing a tribe and reflecting the political organization of Athens established after the reforms of Cleisthenes around 508 BC.

Archaeological discoveries, particularly from the Athenian Agora, have confirmed ancient written accounts and revealed the sophistication of the system. The kleroterion ultimately illustrates how deeply equality, civic participation, and safeguards against corruption were valued within Athenian democracy.

The foundations of Athenian democracy and the kleroterion

The foundations of Ancient Greek democracy in Athens were established through the reforms of Cleisthenes in 508–507 BC and later expanded during the 5th century BC under leaders such as Pericles. During this period, Athens actively sought to prevent the concentration of political power in the hands of aristocratic elites. One of the key mechanisms used to achieve this goal was random selection. As Aristotle explains in Politics (Book IV, 1294b), the distinction between democracy and oligarchy was clear and fundamental: “It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election.”

This statement highlights the ideological importance of the kleroterion within Athenian democracy. Elections tended to favor wealthy and influential citizens who already possessed reputation, education, and good social networks. Random allotment, by contrast, gave ordinary citizens an equal opportunity to participate in governance. The Athenians believed that political equality, or isonomia, depended on broad participation from the citizen body rather than dominance by a small elite.

The kleroterion was particularly significant in the selection of jurors for the dikasteria, the large popular courts of Athens. Each day, thousands of jurors were chosen to hear legal and political cases. Aristotle also describes this procedure in The Constitution of the Athenians (63): “Each juror, after presenting his ticket, receives a staff and enters the court to which the lot assigns him.”

Random selection in the courts was designed to make bribery and manipulation far more difficult. Because no one could predict who would serve on a given jury, corrupt politicians and wealthy litigants found it harder to influence outcomes in advance. In this way, the kleroterion functioned as a safeguard against corruption and tyranny in Ancient Athenian democracy. In a society deeply wary of concentrated power, randomness itself became an essential democratic instrument.

The randomization process in Ancient Athenian democracy

The randomization process operated in several stages. Citizens first inserted their tokens into the designated slots of the kleroterion. Colored balls were then released from the attached tube in a randomized sequence. A white ball typically indicated that a corresponding row had been selected, while a black ball signaled rejection. Citizens whose tokens aligned with the selected rows would then serve on juries or councils.

This system helped ensure a fair distribution of civic responsibility across different tribes and social groups. Over the course of their lives, thousands of Athenians could participate directly in governing roles. Thus, political participation was understood not merely as a privilege but as a civic duty requiring active engagement.

Regular rotation of officeholders also helped limit the emergence of entrenched political elites. Ancient historians often emphasized the active role of ordinary citizens in Athenian political life. Thucydides, in his account of Pericles’ Funeral Oration in History of the Peloponnesian War (II.37), captures this democratic ethos: “Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people.”

Through the kleroterion, this ideal of collective governance was translated into practical reality. Ordinary citizens could be selected to serve on juries or councils at any time. A farmer, craftsman, or merchant might suddenly find himself serving alongside fellow citizens, reinforcing civic identity and strengthening a shared sense of responsibility for the polis.

Modern classicists on the significance of the kleroterion in Ancient Athenian democracy

Modern historians have long recognized the revolutionary nature of the kleroterion system. The classical scholar M. H. Hansen writes in The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: “The Athenians regarded sortition as the most democratic method of selecting officials because it gave every citizen an equal chance of holding office.”

Hansen’s observation underscores how differently the Athenians understood democracy compared to most modern states. Today, democracy is commonly associated with representative elections, but in Athens, elections were often viewed as less democratic precisely because they enabled wealth, status, and rhetorical skill to dominate political life. In contrast, the kleroterion directly challenged social hierarchy by affirming that ordinary citizens were fully capable of public service.

Hansen also emphasizes that the system reflected confidence in collective civic wisdom rather than reliance on specialized expertise. Offices assigned by lot were typically short in duration, and officials were subject to scrutiny both before and after their terms of service. This structure helped reduce the risks associated with inexperience while maintaining broad participation. In practice, Athenian governance depended less on professional politicians and more on the continual rotation of citizens through public duties.

Another modern scholar, Paul Cartledge, highlights the symbolic dimension of the kleroterion in Democracy: A Life, writing: “The allotment machine was democracy made stone.” Cartledge’s phrase captures the broader cultural significance of the device. The kleroterion functioned not only as an administrative tool but also as a physical embodiment of democratic equality. Each citizen’s bronze token occupied an identical slot, with no distinction between aristocrat and laborer once the allotment process began. In this sense, the machine itself stood as a tangible symbol of political fairness and civic equality.

Ordinary citizens in public office

The kleroterion also reflected broader Greek ideas about fate, equality, and civic order. Although the use of chance in political selection may seem unusual to modern observers, the Athenians believed that sortition helped prevent factionalism and personal ambition from undermining the state. Because officeholders could not easily manipulate or predict their selection, the process reduced political competition and eased social tensions.

As historian Josiah Ober explains in his book Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens, “Lottery selection was intended to institutionalize political equality and to minimize elite domination.” Ober argues that Athenian democracy succeeded in part because it actively integrated ordinary citizens into the institutions of the state. The kleroterion was central to this integration. By opening public roles to a broad cross-section of the citizen body, it encouraged loyalty to the polis and helped reduce the alienation often associated with political exclusion.

At the same time, the system had clear limitations. Citizenship was restricted to free adult males born to Athenian parents, while women, enslaved people, and foreigners were excluded from participation. As a result, the democracy supported by the kleroterion was limited according to modern standards. Even so, within the citizen body itself, it pursued political equality to a remarkable degree. The idea that ordinary individuals could collectively govern was profoundly innovative in the ancient world.

The decline of Athenian democracy in the 4th century BC and the subsequent rise of Macedonian power led to the reduced use of institutions such as the kleroterion. Nevertheless, its intellectual legacy endured. Political philosophers and modern democratic theorists continue to debate the value of sortition, and some contemporary scholars have even proposed reintroducing forms of random selection to modern governments as a way to counter corruption, polarization, and elite dominance. In several modern democracies, citizens’ assemblies selected by lot reflect renewed interest in these ancient practices.

Archaeological evidence has further enriched modern understanding of the kleroterion. Excavated examples, now displayed in museums, reveal the advanced administrative organization of Athens. These carefully constructed stone devices demonstrate the seriousness with which democratic participation was approached. Far from being primitive or chaotic, Athenian democracy relied on highly structured procedures to ensure fairness, accountability, and broad civic involvement.

The early modern Persian world produced a substantial body of occult-scientific manuals dedicated to one of humanity’s oldest political ambitions: world domination. This was a distinct genre of literature that promised access to universal sovereignty through mastery of the hidden forces governing the cosmos.

In his study “How to Rule the World: Occult-Scientific Manuals of the Early Modern Persian Cosmopolis,” historian Matthew Melvin-Koushki examines texts that reveal an intellectual culture in which political authority, scientific inquiry, and esoteric knowledge were deeply intertwined.

Between the 15th and 17th centuries, the Persian cosmopolis stretched across a vast geographical area, encompassing regions ruled by the Timurids, Safavids, Mughals, and Ottomans. Persian functioned as a language of administration, scholarship, and elite culture throughout much of the Islamic world. Within this environment, occult sciences held a prestigious position. Far from being marginalized superstition, disciplines such as astrology, lettrism, talismanic science, geomancy, and astral magic were widely regarded as legitimate branches of knowledge capable of revealing the hidden structure of reality.

Rulers across the wider early modern Persian world cultivated an image of themselves as universal, sacral, and cosmocratic sovereigns. In this context, Alexander the Great, famous for conquering much of Asia, served as one of the key historical models of world rulership.

Resāla-ye Ḥorūf (On the Letters) by Ebn Torka Esfahāni is an influential treatise on lettrism, the occult power of letters and language. It was written to support the ambitions of a Timurid ruler and presents an explicitly imperial application of occult knowledge. Kholāsat al-Baḥrayn (Epitome of the Two Seas) by Lotf-Allāh Nishāpuri Samarqandi is a Timurid manual combining geomancy and talismanic magic squares. The “two seas” refer to these two occult disciplines.

Historian of science Sonja Brentjes has argued that the traditional distinction between “scientific” and “occult” disciplines often obscures how knowledge was organized in pre-modern Islamic societies. Her research shows that astrology, astronomy, mathematics, and related fields frequently coexisted within shared scholarly frameworks. Rather than treating occult sciences as marginal pursuits, many learned communities regarded them as legitimate fields of inquiry tied to broader investigations of nature and causality.

World domination and universal kingship in Persian occult-scientific manuals

The central premise of many Persian occult-scientific manuals was that the universe operated according to precise correspondences linking celestial bodies, divine names, letters, numbers, and earthly events. A skilled practitioner could decipher these relationships and harness them for practical purposes. Political power was one of the most significant of these ends. Sovereignty was not understood solely as a matter of military force or administrative competence. It was also conceived as a cosmological phenomenon rooted in the proper alignment of ruler, heavens, and sacred knowledge.

One of the defining features of these manuals was their emphasis on universal kingship. Authors frequently addressed rulers who aspired not merely to govern territories but to establish dominion over the entire inhabited world. Such ambitions reflected broader political developments of the period. The rise of large imperial formations, including the Safavid and Mughal empires, fostered ideological visions of global sovereignty. Occult sciences provided a language through which these aspirations could be articulated and legitimized.

A notable example of such a text is Kāshefi Jr.’s Herz al-amān (Amulet of Safety from the Seditions of the Times), which promises to enable officials and bureaucrats to exert extraordinary influence over sovereigns even to the point of what the text frames as magical mind control. Asrār-e Qāsemī (Qāsemian Secrets) by Hosayn Vāʿez Kāshefi engages with illusionism and terrestrial magic.

These manuals typically promised access to what might be described as technologies of sovereignty. Through the manipulation of sacred letters, numerical formulas, planetary configurations, and ritual procedures, rulers could acquire charisma, victory, obedience, and divine favor. These techniques were often presented as scientific rather than magical. Their authors argued that they operated according to discoverable laws embedded within creation itself. Mastery of occult science thus became analogous to mastery of astronomy, medicine, or mathematics: a disciplined pursuit of knowledge that yielded predictable effects.

Importance of letters

A particularly important branch of this intellectual tradition was the science of letters (ʿilm al-ḥurūf). Drawing on centuries of Islamic mystical speculation, practitioners argued that letters constituted the fundamental building blocks of reality. According to this belief, just as God created the universe through speech, letters possessed creative and transformative power. By arranging, calculating, and invoking letters according to specific procedures, the practitioner could influence events in the material world.

Toḥfa-ye Rūḥānī (A Spiritual Boon) by Jalāl al-Din Davāni is a concise treatise on political letter magic. Written for a Khalji sultan in central India, it continued the Timurid tradition of applying occult knowledge to governance. Soʾl al-Molūk (Query of Kings) by Ebn Torka Esfahāni is a more extensive handbook of political letter magic intended to guide rulers seeking power and legitimacy through occult practices.

For rulers, the implications were profound. The science of letters promised more than personal enlightenment. It also offered practical written methods for governing subjects, defeating enemies, and securing dynastic stability. These occult-scientific manuals frequently contained instructions for constructing talismans, calculating auspicious moments for military campaigns, or invoking divine assistance through combinations of sacred names and letters. Books were more socially significant in early modern Islamdom than in Christendom and, as a rule, were considerably more encyclopedic in scope.

Melvin-Koushki argues that these texts should not be dismissed as irrational relics of a pre-modern worldview. Such interpretations impose modern distinctions between science and magic that did not exist in the same form during the early modern period. For many Persian scholars, the occult sciences represented advanced forms of natural philosophy. They sought to uncover causal mechanisms operating beyond ordinary perception yet still embedded within the natural order. Political success became inseparable from the ability to understand and manipulate the hidden architecture of existence.

This perspective helps explain why prominent intellectuals devoted considerable attention to occult subjects. Scholars who wrote on astronomy, philosophy, theology, and medicine frequently engaged with occult disciplines as well. Court patronage further elevated their status. Rulers sought astrologers, letter mystics, and talismanic experts not because they rejected rational inquiry but because they viewed these specialists as possessors of powerful forms of knowledge essential to successful governance.

Occult and the empire

The relationship between occult science and empire was particularly significant. Early modern rulers faced immense challenges, including administering diverse populations, maintaining military superiority, and legitimizing their authority across vast territories. Persian occult-scientific manuals addressed these concerns directly. They promised techniques for enhancing royal charisma, predicting political developments, and securing divine support for imperial projects. In effect, they offered a comprehensive theory of power that united metaphysical insight with practical statecraft.

At the same time, these manuals illuminate important dimensions of Islamic intellectual history that are often overlooked in conventional narratives. Modern accounts frequently emphasize legal scholarship, theology, or philosophy while marginalizing esoteric traditions. Yet the evidence suggests that the occult sciences occupied a central place within elite culture. These texts were copied, studied, translated, and circulated across political boundaries. Their practitioners moved between courts and scholarly networks, contributing to a shared intellectual world that extended from Anatolia to India.

The popularity of these texts also reflects broader transformations across early modern Eurasia. In many cultures, periods of imperial expansion generated heightened interest in universal systems of knowledge. European courts patronized astrologers and alchemists, Chinese emperors consulted cosmological experts, and rulers throughout the wider Persian world sought guidance from occult scientists. In each case, political ambition encouraged efforts to understand and control the forces believed to shape history. The pursuit of world rule was simultaneously a quest to master the hidden workings of the cosmos.

Liana Saif, a historian specializing in Islamic esotericism and the occult, stresses that practitioners understood occult operations as grounded in a structured cosmology. She notes that many authors viewed magical and talismanic practices as operating through hidden natural causes rather than supernatural violations of nature. In this interpretation, the occult sciences functioned as extensions of natural philosophy rather than alternatives to it.

Language and symbolism in Persian occult-scientific manuals

Noah Gardiner, a professor of religious studies specializing in Sufism and the occult, highlights the importance of language and symbolism in Islamic esoteric thought. He demonstrates that letter mysticism was not merely a form of speculative theology but a sophisticated intellectual tradition concerned with the relationship between divine speech, creation, and human knowledge. Such ideas helped support broader claims that mastery of letters could provide access to hidden dimensions of power.

Melvin-Koushki argues that the influence of Persian occult-scientific manuals should not be exaggerated. Their promises were often grandiose, and their practical effectiveness remains impossible to evaluate by modern standards. Historically, however, what matters is not whether their techniques worked but why educated individuals considered them credible. Their authority rested on coherent intellectual frameworks that integrated religion, philosophy, mathematics, and cosmology. Within these frameworks, occult science appeared neither irrational nor marginal but deeply meaningful.

This perspective helps explain why prominent intellectuals devoted considerable attention to occult subjects. Scholars who wrote on astronomy, philosophy, theology, and medicine frequently engaged with occult disciplines as well. Court patronage further elevated their status. Rulers sought astrologers, letter mystics, and talismanic experts not because they rejected rational inquiry but because they viewed these specialists as possessors of powerful forms of knowledge essential to successful governance.

The decline of these traditions resulted largely from changing epistemological assumptions introduced during the modern period. New distinctions between science and superstition gradually relegated occult disciplines to the margins of intellectual life. As a result, much of their historical significance became obscured. Recent scholarship, including Melvin-Koushki’s work, seeks to recover these traditions not as curiosities but as integral components of early modern knowledge systems.

Zelensky gave a Ukrainian military unit a new name. It reopened the most painful chapter in Polish-Ukrainian history, despite Kyiv's assurances that it was not meant to offend its western neighbors.

Most people today know of the Colossus of Rhodes as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, but there are many little-known facts about the masterpiece that may surprise you.

The ancient island of Rhodes, the kállistin (best) of the Greek cities as historians like to call it, has long attracted the attention of the world due to its beautiful beaches, rich history, and advanced civilization that stretches far back in time.

Rhodes was a city with philosophical and other schools, conservatories, markets, stadiums, harbors, and at least 3,000 public statues.

The masterpiece of all, though, was the Colossus of Rhodes, built between 292 to 280 BC. The huge bronze statue was about 30 meters (98.4 feet) tall and portrayed the god of the Sun, Helios.

The construction of the Colossus lasted for 12 years, but the statue was destroyed a few decades later in 226 BC by an earthquake.

Lesser known facts about the Colossus of Rhodes

The Colossus of Rhodes and the Statue of Liberty

Both monuments were built as symbols of freedom, and people have made the connection between both statues since the Statue of Liberty was created.

The Statue of Liberty has been referred to as the “Modern Colossus” and stands just a little higher at 34 meters (111.5 feet) tall.

There is also a plaque inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty that is inscribed with a sonnet title “The New Colossus, not like the brazen giant of Greek fame.”

The debate about the statue’s feet

There has been a debate among historians about whether the statue was standing with one foot on either side of the Rhodes harbor.

Some have discounted this theory and believe that he stood in a more usual Greek statue pose on one side of the harbor.

If the Colossus of Rhodes was built with its legs straddling the harbor, then the harbor would have had to have been closed for 12 years for the initial construction, and then it would have once again been blocked for years when the statue fell.

The statue has an iron skeleton

The statue was actually built with an iron frame like a skeleton over which the Rhodians placed carved and sculptured brass plates to create the outer structure of Helios, creating his muscle and skin.

Chares of Lindos designed the Colossus of Rhodes

We owe the design of the Colossus of Rhodes to Chares of Lindos. Chares was a student of the famous sculptor Lysippus, who had previously created a 19-meter (62 foot) tall statue of Zeus.

The metal used to construct the statue later scrapped, sold

In the 7th century A.D., the Arabs conquered Rhodes and dismantled any remnant of the Colossus of Rhodes after it was toppled by an earthquake and later sold the once beautiful statue as scrap metal.

It took approximately 900 camels to carry away all the scrap metal.

Was the destruction of the Colossus the will of the gods?

Finally, Ptolemy III, the king of Egypt, offered to pay for the Colossus’ reconstruction, but the Rhodians refused because they believed that Helios, having been angered by the construction of the statue, was the one who caused the earthquake that destroyed it.

By Tony Cross

Greece and its geology are a wonder of nature, with the nation a paradise blessed with high mountains, blue seas, and over six thousand islands. But it’s all a big geological accident, the result of millions of years of violent earth movements on a planetary scale.

Geology in Greece: in the beginning…

The story of Greece and its geology begins around 250 million years ago when the continents had all come together into one single land mass that geologists call Pangea.

The area that would one day become Greece lay on the southern shore of what would eventually become Europe and on the northern edge of a great ocean called Tethys. On the southern edge of Tethys lay the continent that would one day become Africa.

The Earth’s crust is not all the same, nor is it a single unit. The crust making up the continents is very thick—30 km to 40 km (18.6 to 24.85 miles) thick—and thicker still under mountain ranges. The crust under the oceans is quite thin, however, at only around 7 km (4.3 miles) thick.

In addition, the crust is not one single unit but is broken up into various-sized chunks known as tectonic plates. These plates move relative to one another because they are literally floating on the deformable layer of the upper mantle beneath them in much the same way that a ship floats on the sea.

In some places, these plates are moving together, and where oceanic crust is pushed into continental crust, the thinner oceanic crust is forced beneath the thicker continental crust and down into the mantle, where it begins to sink and melt. Geologists call this type of plate boundary a subduction zone.

The Greek landscape and geology that we see today is here because of a subduction zone. Without it, Greece would simply not exist.

The compressive phase

Around 150 million years ago, the great continent of Pangea started to break up. The African plate began to move northwards, and the Tethys Ocean started to shrink. The northwards movement of Africa meant that the oceanic crust beneath Tethys was subducted under the southern edge of the continental crust of Europe.

As the oceanic crust under Tethys slid beneath the continental crust of Europe, all of the rocks that had formed on the ocean floor over many millions of years were scraped off by the leading edge of the European continent. These rock scrapings, which would have been hundreds of meters thick and many kilometers long, were piled up one on top of the other on the southern edge of Europe.

This rock pile (geologists call it a nappe) was likely many kilometers thick in the end. It contained all the rocks that would eventually form Greece’s geology all piled up in the same place.

The photo shown here is of a large sea cliff near Kavousi on Crete. The rocks on the left are a gray color with clearly defined horizontal layers. Those on the right are a greenish brown color with a nearly vertical layering. Clearly, this cliff is composed of two very different rock types.

The rocks on the left are limestones while those on the right are phyllites. The compressional forces of the subduction zone forced the phyllites over and on top of the limestones. The junction between the two (known as a thrust fault) lies roughly in the center of the picture, running diagonally up from right to left.

Millions of years of weathering and erosion have ground both sets of rocks down so that to the casual observer today, they appear to be a single unit.

The tensional phase

Around 65 million years ago, the continent of Africa finally collided with the continent of Europe and closed the Tethys Ocean forever. It would eventually be reborn as the Mediterranean Sea.

When two continental plates come together, there is no subduction since they are both too thick. Instead, the continents themselves are deformed, and mountains are created. In the west, this collision formed the Alpine mountains while in it formed the Balkan mountains in the east.

In these mountain areas, the continental collision destroyed the subduction zone, but in the area in between, where modern Greece lies, the subduction zone remained active.

Even though Africa could no longer move northwards as fast as was previously the case, the oceanic plate in the area of Greece was still sinking into the mantle. As it sank, the subduction zone itself rolled back southwards. This rollback of the subduction zone put the nappe pile under enormous tension.

When rocks are placed under tension, they break, causing normal faults. One side of the fault moves downwards on a sloping surface to relieve the tension. Normal faults often occur in parallel and in swarms leaving alternating areas of high ground with lower ground in between.

The rollback of the subduction zone caused massive parallel swarms of normal faults in the nappe pile. Because the subduction zone is fixed in the east and in the west, the rollback created an arc that is ever expanding as the rollback progresses.

The photo above is of a small section of the north wall of the Corinth Canal. The rocks here are nicely layered; we can see yellow, white, red, and black layers.

The two diagonal lines in these rocks are normal faults, breaks in the rocks caused by tensional forces due to the rollback of the subduction zone. The rocks to the right of each fault have dropped down relative to the rocks on the left; this is clearly visible in the displacement of the colored layers of rock.

The total vertical displacement here is only a few meters, but in the massive regional faulting that shaped Greece and its geology, displacements are measured in kilometers.

The modern topography of Greece

Looking at a topographical map of Greece today, you can see how a subduction zone, starting roughly in the area of the north Aegean and rolling back southwards in an expanding arc would create the “ripped” and “torn” appearance of Greece today. You can also see how regional faulting created the alternating series of high mountain ranges and islands, with lower plains or sea in between.

The Pindus Mountains, for example, the backbone of mainland Greece, run southeastward in a gently curving arc. On both sides are lower plains. These mountains, like so many others in Greece, are bounded by massive regional faults.

The expanding arc of the subduction zone caused extensive local faulting, too. On Crete, for example, all of the mountain ranges are bounded by faults. They stand tall because the ground around them has dropped due to faulting. Such local, fault-bounded structures are widespread in Greece.

What about the volcanoes?

There are many volcanoes in Greece—on Santorini, Milos, Nisiros, Methana, and Sousaki among others. Some are active, like Santorini; most are dormant, like Milos, and one or two are extinct, like Sousaki.

If you look closely, all the Greek volcanoes sit on an arc that parallels the arc of the subduction zone but is north of it by about 100 km.

As the oceanic plate is subducted deep into the mantle, it begins to melt. Magma from the melting plate rises to the surface where it erupts, forming volcanoes.

The hot springs of Thermoplyae (of Spartan fame) sit at one end of this volcanic arc; the hot springs of Pamukkale in Turkey sit at the other. In between are all the Greek volcanoes, formed above the spot where, deep in the mantle, the subducted oceanic crust is melting.

Greece’s geology continues to change

The subduction zone today runs in a great arc down the western side of the Ionian Islands, around the Peloponnese and south of Crete, and then curves up northwards again past Kasos, Karpathos, and Rhodes.

Greece and its geology as we see these today are not an end point, however; this is simply the way things are right now.

The subduction zone is still active, and the oceanic plate is still descending as Africa creeps northward. The subduction zone is still rolling back, and the arc is still expanding. That’s why we have so many earthquakes in Greece—we’re still being torn apart by tectonic forces.

We don’t need to worry about this too much though, as these geological processes happen on a timescale that is measured in millions of years. Chances are, that beautiful Greek beach in the travel brochure will still be there when you arrive.

The formation of the Roman Empire was a gradual process, unfolding over several centuries. Nevertheless, there is one specific year that we can point to as arguably the single most significant year in the formation of the Roman Empire. This was the year 146 BCE. How did the events of this year lead to the creation of the Roman Empire?

The gradual formation of the Roman Empire

In an administrative sense, the Roman Empire was founded in the year 27 BCE. This was when Octavian, the son of Julius Caesar, became the emperor. The Roman Senate recognized him as possessing overarching military power and designated him Augustus in recognition of his new position as emperor.

Octavian established reforms to the constitution, officially changing Rome into an empire. Hence, in 27 BCE, the Roman Empire came into existence. Before then, it had been a republic.

However, although it only became an empire in an administrative sense in 27 BCE, Rome already controlled a vast empire before that. In the basic sense of “a group of countries ruled by a single person, government, or country“, Rome was already an empire long before the days of Octavian.

The Roman Republic conquered most of the territory that would constitute the future Empire. Therefore, to understand how Rome became powerful, we need to examine that era.

The acquisition of territory was a gradual process that took several centuries. However, the year 146 BCE, arguably more than any other, was crucial in the formation of the Roman Empire.

The Battle of Corinth

In 146 BCE, two significant events occurred for the Romans. One of these was the Battle of Corinth, marking the culmination of the Achaean War, which lasted only a single year.

At that time, the Achaean League ruled over the Peloponnese. They had recently assimilated Sparta into the league, which troubled Rome. Both sides were concerned with the other’s expansionist tendencies. Rome had conquered Macedonia in the early part of the second century BCE and had reconquered it in 150-148 BCE.

In the final year of the war against Macedonia, the Achaean League took control of Sparta, solidifying their hold on the Peloponnese. With tensions high due to the actions of both sides, war broke out two years later, in 146 BCE.

The war did not last long. The Achaean League was woefully unprepared, both militarily and financially, for a full-scale war against Rome. The Romans quickly subdued the Greek cities, many of which took the initiative to surrender.

A Roman consul and military general named Lucius Mummius led the Romans in their siege of Corinth. This was the climax of the war. The Romans successfully defeated and utterly destroyed it. Their brutality was noted even by ancient historians. With this victory, the Romans gained direct control of all of Greece.

The Siege of Carthage

The same year, 146 BCE, also marked the climax of another war. The war in question was the Third Punic War. This was the third war between the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian Empire.

Carthage was located in modern-day Tunisia. Rome had already defeated them in the Second Punic War, which had ended in 201 BCE. One of the terms of the treaty was that Carthage was prohibited from engaging in war without Rome’s permission. This allowed Rome’s ally, Numidian king Masinissa, to repeatedly invade Carthage’s territory.

Carthage’s decision to fight back and send an army against Masinissa in 149 BCE provided the Romans with a justification for a third war against Carthage. In reality, Rome harbored animosity towards Carthage and was merely seeking an excuse to destroy it.

When the Roman army arrived, the Carthaginians offered a complete surrender. Nevertheless, the Romans persisted and besieged the city. Eventually, after considerable brutality and bloodshed, the Romans utterly destroyed their enemy.

Just like Corinth in that same year, Carthage was completely, mercilessly destroyed, and the Romans took over the territory.

How the year 146 BCE led to the creation of the Roman Empire

Given this information, 146 BCE can be regarded as vital in the creation of the Roman Empire. The Romans achieved two major victories this year: the defeat of the Achaean League and the defeat of Carthage.

Both of these victories significantly expanded the territory of the Roman Republic. Rome took over control of all of Greece and also the core territory of the Carthaginian Empire in Tunisia. Granted, this was only a tiny portion of what later became the territory of Rome’s vast empire.

However, the main impact that this year had on the formation of the Roman Empire was not the territory gained. Rather, it was the geopolitical consequences of these victories that mattered the most.

Carthage and the Achaean League were both major powers in the Mediterranean. With their defeat, Rome became the undisputed master of that part of the earth. While it still had numerous enemies to confront, it no longer had a single, major, powerful rival.

Over in Anatolia, Pergamon was friendly with Rome. Ptolemaic Egypt was also their ally, with Rome exerting considerable influence over that region. With Greece and Carthage out of their way, Rome’s position as the dominant force in the Mediterranean was firmly established. It is for that reason that we can consider 146 BCE as such a crucial year in the formation of the Roman Empire.