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.

The massacre at Distomo remains to this day one of the most heinous crimes the Nazis committed against innocent women and children just months before the German occupying forces pulled out of Greece.

On June 10, 1944, Fritz Laufenbach, captain of the 2nd company of the 1st battalion of the 7th SS armored regiment, was ordered to move his troops from Livadia to Distomo, Steiri and Kyriaki to locate guerrillas on the western side of Helicon Mountain.

This move by the German soldiers was in retaliation for several troops whom the Greek Resistance had killed. As bait, the Nazis had used two Greek civilian trucks filled with SS men disguised as villagers. The two trucks were moving ahead of the main phalanx.

At the same time, the 10th and 11th Amphissa companies of the 3rd Battalion were directed to Distomo to meet the 2nd company. The German troops met outside Distomo without finding any resistance fighters, save for eighteen children hiding near the village. Six of the children who tried to escape were executed.

The Germans entered Distomo, and after intimidating the villagers, they discovered that there were Greek guerrillas at Steiri. The 2nd company headed toward the village, and at Litharaki near Steiri, they were ambushed by fighters from the ELAS resistance group.

The battle at Steiri was so bloody that the Germans were forced to retreat. Approximately forty of them were killed.

Cold-blooded massacre at Distomo

After the casualties they had suffered at Steiri, the Nazis entered Distomo with a clear intention of retaliation for their losses. The cold-blooded massacre of everyone they found in the village then began.

They went from door to door, killing anyone in sight. Their fury was such that they were careless about whether they killed women or children. The slaughter lasted into the night until the Nazi troops had to return to Livadia. However, they did not leave before burning the entire village to the ground.

According to survivors describing the atrocities, SS soldiers bayoneted babies in their cribs, stabbed pregnant women, and beheaded the village priest.

However, the Germans did not stop at Distomo. The executions continued all the way back to their base, as they killed any civilian they encountered on the way. The death count in Distomo amounted to 228 of which 117 were women and 111 men while 53 were children under the age of sixteen.

According to the testimony of International Red Cross Swiss envoy George Wehrly, who arrived in Distomo a few days later, about six hundred people were killed by the Nazis in the wider region.

Haunting pictures from Distomo

A few months after the Distomo massacre, LIFE magazine published a haunting report on the Nazi atrocity. Under the headline “What the Germans did to Greece,” the US magazine interviewed survivors and published photos of the town in ruins.

Among the survivors was Maria Padiska, who came to be known as the “Woman of Distomo.” She passed away in March 2009 at the age of 84.

Her photo adorns the Museum of the Victims of Nazism, located at the entrance of Distomo. The museum was founded in 2005 at the site of the old primary school. It was inaugurated by then President of the Hellenic Republic Carolos Papoulias.

The total area of the museum, which is roughly about 200 square meters, is divided into two levels. On the first floor, one can see photos of all the victims, and there is also a special area with photos of the ossuary, which is located intact at the Mausoleum on Kanales Hill of Distomo.

The museum also holds historical issues of newspapers and magazines of the time with related articles, photographs, and documents.