|
歷史學 – 開欄文
|
瀏覽6,594 ｜回應36｜推薦3 |
|
|
|
我在《 政治學 – 開欄文》一文中提到：年輕時我因為「急功近利」；對政治學的興趣不大。也由於同樣的原因，雖然初、高中時讀過幾篇《史記》的選錄，我對歷史學也一直興趣缺缺。
家父2004年過世後，他的藏書幾乎都捐給了武漢大學圖書館。我保留了20本左右；陳序經教授的《中國文化的出路》之外，大概有10本以「歷史哲學」為主題的著作。我保留和閱讀它們的原因在於：家父雖然以「政論家」聞名，但他把自己定位在歷史學家和歷史哲學家。在他老人家逝世10周年的紀念演討會上，我發表過一篇《胡秋原史學方法論》；可惜文檔不慎遺失。
所以，我在60歲以後才開始重視歷史學。近20年來我發表過關於「歷史」的看法以及轉載過一些史學論文；相形之下，寥寥無幾。
本文於 修改第 6 次
|
|
十字軍簡介--James Osborne
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請至原網頁觀看相關油畫、版畫、和照片。
Who won the crusades? The causes, death toll, and number of medieval holy wars explained
Who won the crusades, how many were there, and what caused them? Medieval expert Rebecca Rist answers these major questions, exploring how centuries of religious conflict reshaped the medieval world
James Osborne, 11/24/25
The crusades were a centuries-long sequence of era-defining medieval holy wars that transformed dynamics of power and religious ideas across Europe and the Middle East.
But who won the crusades, and just how many crusades were there?
Those are two of the questions answered by professor Rebecca Rist, an expert on the crusades and their broader medieval context. Speaking about the topic on an episode of the HistoryExtra podcast, Rist steps into the dust of medieval roads and the heat of besieged cities to explain why these campaigns erupted, what the major expeditions set out to accomplish, how those ambitions played out on the ground, and how the long arc of conflict finally came to an end.
Who won the crusades?
Overall, the Muslim forces won the crusades, and the Christians lost.
However, as Rist explains, while that was the final state of play, the granular details were far from that simple.
More like this
"The final bastions of the crusader states were lost in 1291 (having been founded originally in 1099) to Muslim forces. In that sense, obviously the Muslims won the crusades and the Christians were defeated.
"However, the crusades span a very long period of time, starting with the First Crusade in 1095 and ending with the loss of Acre in 1291. There were many individual crusades within that period, some of which were won by the Christians – by the Western Franks, like the First Crusade – and others by Muslims. For example, the Muslim forces were successful in the Fifth Crusade in capturing Damietta."
In other instances, Rist says there were greater degrees of complexity. "In some crusades, we have partial victories. If we take the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart was partially successful, in the sense that he was able to take and maintain Acre. But, of course, he didn't win back Jerusalem with a military victory."
\
How many crusades were there?
"There were eight crusades during the period from 1095 to 1291 in the Near East," says Rist.
However, Rist is careful to caveat this: it's a number that's subject to debate, as what precisely counts as a full-scale crusade is difficult to define.
Still, according to Rist, the eight major crusades were broadly as follows:
"The First Crusade (1095–99), is where the crusaders take Jerusalem and set up the crusader states.
The Second Crusade (1147–50), is a subsequent response to the fall of the first crusader kingdom of Edessa (the crusader kingdom in the north).
The Third Crusade (1189–92) is launched to try to win back Jerusalem and is perhaps the most famous because it involved Richard the Lionheart.
The Fourth Crusade (1202–04) doesn't end up in the Holy Land at all, but the crusaders instead sack the town of Zara and then Constantinople.
The Fifth Crusade (1217–21) is an attack that the crusaders make on Egypt, on the town of Damietta in particular (and this ends in failure).
The Sixth Crusade (1228–29) is very interesting because it's not authorised by the papacy, but it’s a crusade where emperor Frederick II, goes out under excommunication. He has a lot of success and makes a truce with the sultan and gets Jerusalem back for 10 years.
Finally, I like to think of the Seventh (1248–54) and Eighth (1270) Crusades, which are the two crusades of Louis IX, launched respectively at Egypt and at Tunis."
In addition to these eight core crusades, there were other conflicts that need to be recognised.
"There were also many more minor expeditions [with] small groups of fighters between these major crusades as well. So we can think of the Barons’ crusade of 1236, for example, or the crusade by Edward, prince of England, sometimes called the Ninth Crusade (1271–72). These little ventures are going on between these major responses [when] great papal calls are put out, and very large armies take up that call."
How many people died in the crusades?
The crusades' death toll likely came in at around 5-6 million, possibly reaching as high as 9 million, according to Rist.
But, once again, there are serious caveats to consider.
"It's very difficult to estimate [the crusades' death toll] because of the source material. We're dealing with very unreliable sources: medieval chroniclers are notoriously unreliable when they give figures of battles and losses."
Despite the problems with the sources, it's still possible to come to a very broad conclusion.
"There are figures ranging from 1 million to 9 million over the whole period from 1095 to 1291. John Robertson famously, in his Short History of Christianity – a very old but seminal book first published in the early 20th century – had that really huge figure of 9 million. But I've seen other historians estimate much lower numbers. When I'm giving these figures, I'm including Christians, Muslims and all those who followed the armies, not just the combatants.
"Historians generally prefer to try to give estimates for individual battles rather than for the crusades overall, and I think that gives us a better sense of the carnage and the losses. Regarding the overall estimates between 1 million and 9 million, certainly one million seems far too few to me."
She concludes, "I would go for a much higher figure: 5 or 6 million."
What caused the crusades between 1095–1204?
The motivations behind the crusades were a mixture of: "religious, political, social, and economic," says Rist.
"To highlight a few definite motivating factors: I think the papacy granting a ‘remission of sins’ in the 12th century is a driving force. People want to be free from their sins, to try to wipe the slate clean, and they know that crusading will assure them that spiritual privilege. There is another religious motivation: to help fellow Christians. The pope had called for the First Crusade to help the Byzantines in the east. The Byzantine emperor, Alexius Comnenus, had asked for help from the west because the Byzantines were struggling against the Seljuk Turks at this time."
But it was far from just religion that motivated the conflicts, as Rist explains.
"There are many other non-religious motivations, such as the charismatic preaching that we see happening with these crusades. Take a figure like Bernard of Clairvaux on the Second Crusade. He preaches all over Europe drawing large crowds, and influences kings to ‘take the cross’.
"I think crusaders were also spurred on by the idea of the glory that can pertain to their families if they take part in these great expeditions. Certainly, kings and emperors think it will do their ‘PR’ no harm. They take the cross often when they become kings. Often, it's a way of showing that there is a new reign and that they’re different from their fathers.
"There's no doubt that there were also ideas of adventure. At the time of the First Crusade, there had been very bad harvests; there was famine in Europe, so people wanted something different and new. Of course, when they get out there, they didn't necessarily like it. But there were all kinds of romantic and adventurous ideas associated with the crusades."
Ultimately however, Rist stresses that the motivation behind crusades was neither singular, nor homogenous.
"An individual crusader doesn't just have to have one motivation. He can be conventionally very pious. He can also be hoping to be in favour with his lord. He can be hoping that there might be some land parcelled out to him. He can be inspired by charismatic preaching."
How did the crusades end?
The crusades ended in 1291 "when the Mamluks captured Acre," says Rist.
She concludes, "For decades, Acre had been the centre of what remained of the kingdom of Jerusalem – and so it was the most important city that was still left of the crusader states. It fell to the Mamluk Sultan Khalil in 1291. In the days that followed, the rest of the remaining crusader towns – Beirut, Haifa, Tyre, Tortosa – all fell in a domino effect."
Listen to all episodes now
James Osborne is a Digital content producer at HistoryExtra
相關閱讀
Is the world still living in the shadow of the crusades?
5 things you (probably) didn't know about the Crusades
Did the crusaders fight for God or gold?
Join The First Crusade (詳請請至原網頁聯絡該網頁編輯)
Member exclusive Walk in the footsteps of the first crusaders, witnessing the hardships they faced, meeting the people they came across and seeing the landscapes they traversed through their eyes.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
參與諾曼地登陸中國海軍軍官日記 -- John Leicester and Kanis Leung
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
珍貴的第一手歷史資料。希望台灣海軍總部檔案室也能找到相關紀錄。
Read what a Chinese officer wrote of D-Day in his diary salvaged in Hong Kong
A long-lost diary from a Chinese officer is shedding light on a lesser-known part of D-Day history
John Leicester and Kanis Leung, 10/16/25
France D-Day Chinese Officer's Diary
OUISTREHAM, France (AP) — The captain of the giant Royal Navy battleship called his officers together to give them a first morsel of one of World War II’s most closely guarded secrets: Prepare yourselves, he said, for “an extremely important task.”
“Speculations abound,” one of the officers wrote in his diary that day — June 2, 1944. “Some say a second front, some say we are to escort the Soviets, or doing something else around Iceland. No one is allowed ashore."
The secret was D-Day — the June 6, 1944, invasion of Nazi-occupied France with the world’s largest-ever sea, land and air armada. It punctured Adolf Hitler’s fearsome “Atlantic Wall” defenses and sped the dictator’s downfall 11 months later.
The diary writer was Lam Ping-yu — a Chinese officer who crossed the world with two dozen comrades-in-arms from China to train and serve with Allied forces in Europe.
For 32-year-old Lam, watching the landings in Normandy, France, unfold from aboard the battleship HMS Ramillies proved to be momentous.
His meticulously detailed but long-forgotten diary was rescued by urban explorers from a Hong Kong tenement block which was about to be demolished. It is bringing his story back to life and shedding light on the participation of Chinese officers in the multinational invasion.
As survivors of the Battle of Normandy disappear, Lam’s compelling firsthand account adds another vivid voice to the huge library of recollections that the World War II generation is leaving behind, ensuring that its sacrifices for freedom and the international cooperation that defeated Nazism aren’t forgotten.
“Saw the army’s landing craft, as numerous as ants, scattered and wriggling all over the sea, moving southward,” Lam wrote on the evening of June 5, as the invasion fleet steamed across the English Channel.
“Everyone at action stations. We should be able to reach our designated location around 4-5 a.m. tomorrow and initiate bombardment of the French coast,” he wrote.
Breakthroughs
Sleuthing by history enthusiasts Angus Hui and John Mak in Hong Kong pieced together the story of how Lam found himself aboard HMS Ramillies and proved vital in verifying the authenticity of his 80-page diary, written in 13,000 wispy, delicate Chinese characters.
Hui and Mak have curated and are touring an exhibition about Lam, his diary and the other Chinese officers — now on display in the Normandy town of Ouistreham.
One breakthrough was their discovery, confirmed in Hong Kong land records, that the abandoned 9th-floor flat where the diary was found had belonged to one of Lam’s brothers.
Another was Hui’s unearthing in British archives of a 1944 ship’s log from HMS Ramillies. A May 29 entry recorded that two Chinese officers had come aboard. Misspelling Lam’s surname, it reads: “Junior Lieut Le Ping Yu Chinese Navy joined ship.”
Lost, found and lost again
Lam’s leather-bound black notebook has had a dramatic life, too.
Lost and then found, it has now gone missing again. Hui and Mak say it appears to have been squirreled away somewhere — possibly taken to the U.S. or the U.K. by people who emigrated from Hong Kong — after the explorers riffled through the apartment, salvaging the diary, other papers, a suitcase, and other curios, before the building was demolished.
But Hui, who lived close by, got to photograph the diary’s pages before it disappeared, preserving Lam’s account.
“I knew, ‘Okay, this is a fascinating story that we need to know more about,’” he says.
“Such a remarkable piece of history ... could have remained buried forever,” Mak says.
They shared Lam’s account with his daughter, Sau Ying Lam, who lives in Pittsburgh. She previously knew very little about her father’s wartime experiences. He died in 2000.
“I was flabbergasted,” she says. “It’s a gift of me learning who he was as a young person and understanding him better now, because I didn’t have that opportunity when he was still alive.”
A lucky escape
Lam was part of a group of more than 20 Chinese naval officers sent during World War II for training in the U.K. by Chiang Kai-shek. Chiang led a Nationalist government in China from 1928 to 1949, fighting invasion by Japan and then Mao Zedong’s communists, before fleeing to Taiwan with the remnants of his forces when Mao’s insurgents took power.
On their long journey from China, the officers passed through Egypt — a photo shows them posing in front of the pyramids in their white uniforms — before joining up with British forces.
In his diary, Lam wrote of a narrow brush with death on D-Day aboard HMS Ramillies, as the battleship’s mighty guns were pounding German fortifications with massive 880-kilogram (1,938-pound) shells before Allied troops hit the five invasion beaches.
“Three torpedoes were fired at us,” Lam wrote. “We managed to dodge them.”
His daughter marvels at the lucky escape.
“If that torpedo had hit the ship, I wouldn’t be alive,” she says.
Through ships’ logs, Hui and Mak say they’ve confirmed that at least 14 Chinese officers participated in Operation Neptune — the 7,000-vessel naval component of the invasion which was code-named Operation Overlord — and other Allied naval operations as the Battle of Normandy raged on after D-Day.
Operation Dragoon
Some of the officers, including Lam, also saw action in the Allied invasion of southern France that followed, in August 1944.
“Action stations at 4 a.m., traces of the moon still visible, although the horizon is unusually dark,” Lam wrote on Aug. 15. “Bombardment of the French coast started at 6, Ramillies didn’t open fire until 7.
“The Germans put up such a feeble resistance, one can call it nonexistent.”
France awarded its highest honor, the Légion d’honneur, to the Chinese contingent’s last survivor in 2006. Huang Tingxin, then 88, dedicated the award to all those who traveled with him from China to Europe, saying “it was a great honor to join the anti-Nazi war,” China’s official Xinhua News Agency reported at the time.
Lam’s daughter says their story remains inspirational.
“It talks about unity, talks about hard work, about doing good,” she says. “World War II, I think it shows us that we can work together for common good.”
Leung reported from Hong Kong.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
地緣政治史兩個「巧取」案例 - Hamza Farooq
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
The West Used This Dirty Trick to Rule. Now Karma Is Biting Back.
Hamza Farooq, 09/08/25
This is a photo of a huge geopolitical shift. 請至原網頁觀看照片
It was taken in 2002. The workers are Chinese. The place is Dortmund, Germany.
These Chinese workers were there to dismantle the Dortmund-Hörde steel plant, one of Germany’s largest steel production facilities. They eventually moved it to China and reassembled it there, piece by piece.
The Chinese workers didn’t ‘invade’ the Dortmund-Hörde. It happened with the full consent of the plant owner, the ThyssenKrupp Group. It was a simple commercial deed.
Rising labor and environmental costs had made local steel production an unprofitable business in Germany. So, ThyssenKrupp decided to sell its Dortmund-Hörde plant.
China was the best-suited candidate for buying it.
After all, in China, labor costs were among the lowest in the world, environmental protection had little value, and the booming local construction industry was steel-hungry.
And above all, it was a win-win situation. China could accelerate its industrial growth, while Germany could shift to cheaper steel imports, reducing expensive homegrown production.
Consequently, China’s Shagang Group purchased and relocated the plant to its Handan steel production site, subsequently upgrading it with advanced equipment from other European suppliers to further boost its output capacity.
Today, the Handan Steelworks is among the top steel producers in China. It has created thousands of local jobs and helped China become the global steel superpower.
The craziest part is that over the last two decades, China’s steel production capacity has grown so huge that even if the steel output from every Western nation is combined, it doesn’t even come near to what China makes.
Back in Germany, the apparent ‘win-win’ deal soon revealed its other side.
The place where the Dortmund-Hörde steel plant once stood is almost unrecognizable. Not to mention, Dortmund had been Germany’s steel-producing and energy-generating economic muscle before the departure of this plant.
In fact, it’d not be wrong to say that the steel and coal industries were the face and pride of this city. And this face and pride don’t exist anymore.
The Dortmund-Hörde steel plant had been functioning for almost two centuries. It produced a job boom. At its peak, the plant, combined with the booming coal energy sector, employed more than 75,000 locals.
So, naturally, joblessness in Dortmund increased after 2002. Germany attempted to address this unemployment issue, but the results were not so fruitful. After all, mass job changes for people who have only one specialized skill isn’t a good idea.
Now, the site of the former steel plant is home to a recreational artificial lake. Some of the steelworkers once employed there have transitioned to jobs as yachtsmen. But they tell visiting journalists that this new line of work doesn’t suit them. They were born for steel, not sails.
So in the long run, this simple commercial deed proved to be a loss for Germany. Today, its steel industry is declining, while that of its adversary has reached new heights.
But zoom out to a bigger picture, and similar simple commercial deeds have now amassed into some of the biggest headaches not just for Germany, but for the whole West.
China, now an undisputed steel hegemon, overproduces steel, and the government subsidizes it. This makes China’s steel very cheap.
This cheap steel is then sold to the West, where it hinders the growth of the domestic steel industry. After all, why wouldn’t someone prefer cheaper imports from China over expensive local steel?
And here’s the even bigger problem: What will happen to the West’s infrastructure projects and gigafactories if China suddenly turns off the tap?
US President Donald Trump once summed up this issue precisely:
“If you don’t have steel, you don’t have a country.”
So, selling the Dortmund-Hörde eventually proved to be a big strategic blunder.
And the West’s strategic blunders were not limited merely to selling some steel plants.
According to some estimates, the US alone lost almost 2.4 million jobs between 2000 and 2010. These jobs were deliberately transferred to China.
Again, cheaper labor was the key factor. Not to mention the Forbes report that if Apple had continued making iPhones in the US instead of China, they could’ve cost at least $30,000 each.
When so many critical jobs moved to China, it did more than just boost China’s economy. It also slowly started giving China a major technological advantage over the West.
Consequently, now we often hear the rhetoric from the West’s political circles that “China stole our jobs.”
China didn’t seize these jobs or steel plants by force. These were willingly traded by the West.
If someone is to be blamed, it’s the West itself. It didn’t see what was coming.
Had the West not sold any of its jobs or steel plants, it wouldn’t have felt threatened by China today. It’s that simple.
China’s only ‘fault’ is that it didn’t ‘warn’ the West that these simple commercial deeds could make China so strong that the West would live to regret it. That’s it.
Not paying any heed to the consequences and blinded by the greed of cheap labor, the West fell into the Chinese ‘trap’. China is now well on its way to gaining significant leverage over the West to influence its behavior.
Had the West realized the severity of the issue at least by the 1990s, it would’ve never sold even a single job or steel plant to China.
But it might be too late. Now, only regret and guilt remain.
And now, to hide its own strategic blunders, the red-faced West is passing the buck. It’s framing its own failures as a ‘dirty trick’ by China.
Knock knock.
A similar story comes to mind, except in that case, the ‘dirty trick’ was orchestrated by the West itself.
This is no random stock photo of some houses in a hilly area. This is a photo of a huge geopolitical shift. 請至原網頁觀看照片
This photo was taken almost a century ago. The place had been part of the Abu Gosh village in Mandatory Palestine. The houses belong to the Zionist settlements that would later form the Israeli city of Kiryat Anavim.
Zionist settlers didn’t ‘invade’ Abu Gosh to build their settlements. It was sold by Palestinian politician Musa Al-Husayni. It was a simple commercial deed.
Al-Husayni is believed to have sold many pieces of land to the Jewish National Fund, an organization established in 1901 in Switzerland to encourage Jewish settlements in Ottoman Palestine through land purchases.
In fact, records show that he was designated as a noble on a 1937 Zionist-compiled list of Palestinian landowners who sold property to the Jews.
Al-Husayni might have had no idea that a century later, the same Jewish National Fund would also be gearing up to purchase land in the occupied West Bank, a commercial deed illegal under international law that would worsen troubles for coming generations of his people.
Anyways.
Al-Husayni was not alone. Several Palestinians sold their lands happily and with full consent.
However, it’s important to note that these sales were tiny. When the British left, Zionists owned only 4.5% of the land. Of that, only about 1% was sold to them by local Palestinian Arabs. They got the other 3.5% mainly from absentee landlords or as grants from the British government.
The Palestinians who sold their land likely did not foresee that their simple commercial deals were a major strategic blunder. The settlements they themselves enabled would play a huge role in the establishment of the State of Israel. A state that would eventually occupy 100% of their land and put the question of their freedom on the back burner.
At a mere 1%, the land sold by Palestinians was not a big deal, and it was one of the least critical direct factors in the Zionists’ claiming the land of Palestine. The military defeats of Arabs and the forced mass migrations of Palestinians were far heavier factors.
But these commercial deeds played a big role indirectly.
First, Zionists successfully amplified these minor land sales into a powerful narrative. They promoted the claim that Palestinian Arabs willingly sold their land, while downplaying the role of military invasion. This created a pervasive myth that is now often repeated: “The Arabs sold the land. Jews didn’t invade. Jews bought it with their own money. So Jews have a right to build a state here.” It’s a narrative now frequently echoed in Western media and widely accepted as truth.
Secondly, unlike land that was taken by force, the purchased areas gave Zionists the time and stability they needed to nurture their culture and develop a sense of nationalism with relative ease.
But by the middle of the Mandatory era, Palestinian Arabs appear to have recognized the gravity of their simple commercial deeds.
That’s why the first Palestine Scholars Conference issued a unanimous fatwa (an Islamic religious edict) that prohibited the sale of any land of Palestine to Jews and declared the sellers apostates.
An Arabic newspaper issued a stark warning to its readers, reminding them:
“We are selling our lands to Jews without any remorse… One looks at the quantity of Arab lands transferred daily to Jewish hands, one realizes that we are bound to go away from this country…”
Ironically, the statement then goes on to say:
“But where shall we move to? Egypt, Hijaz, or Syria?”
Soon after, Nakba occurred. And today, the descendants of those same settlers whom some Palestinians initially welcomed are now proposing to send Gazans to South Sudan.
But the realization was too late. Nothing could’ve been done by then.
Now, only regret and guilt remain.
They didn’t realize that the settlers they accommodated would later demand the destruction of Palestinian towns.
They didn’t realize that the very settlers they accommodated would one day kill Palestinians openly and then justify those murders.
They didn’t realize that the settlers would one day commit a slow, methodical genocide against their future generations. The settlers would deny it, claiming, “Look, this is no genocide; if it were, we would’ve killed everyone at once with an atomic bomb.” And the world would accept this logic, precisely because the violence was slow enough to be disguised.
They didn’t realize that the future conflicts with the same settlers would be so devastatingly one-sided, with over 80% of the Palestinians killed being innocent civilians, among them so many women and children.
They didn’t realize that the settlers they welcomed would eventually withhold food and starve them, all while openly asking the world not to stop them. And the world will dance to their tunes.
They didn’t realize that the settlers they were accommodating would build an army that would one day set a grim record for killing more women and children in a single year than any other recent conflict, and the victims would be none other than their own descendants.
They didn’t realize that the settlers would one day wage war on the journalists reporting their suffering, to the extent of killing more reporters than were killed in both world wars combined.
They didn’t realize that the settlers’ ultimate goal was to eventually remove Palestinians from their land. Nor did they realize that these settlers would then go after their Arab neighbors’ lands and openly admit their intentions of forming a “Greater Settlement” with no fear of being stopped.
The Ottoman rulers of Palestine were much smarter. At first, they did not let foreigners buy land there. They seemed to know that if Zionists bought the land, they might someday try to form their own country on it.
But in the 1850s, the Ottoman treasury fell into a spiral of debt and often demanded loans from European countries. The Europeans provided those loans, but asked in return to allow foreigners to purchase land in Palestine.
The Ottomans gave in.
Written by Hamza Farooq
Writer, SEO specialist. Politics, IR, technology, religion, & food. hamzafcontent@gmail.com
Published in The Geopolitical Economist
In The Global geopolitics, truth is one, but the wise interpret it differently.— Here, we interpret these diversions
相關閱讀
The West Doesn’t Want You to See This Photo From Iran
And some mind-blowing facts… and the obsession with hijab…
China Is Using This Unbelievably Simple Formula to De-Dollarize the World
And the West itself is to be blamed for that.
Opinion: This Country Should Pay for Rebuilding Gaza
Sometimes, legacy becomes a haunting reminder.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
19個被信以為真的歷史烏龍 -- Julia Corrigan
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考以下視頻：
33 Dumbest Historical "Facts" That Are Actually Epic Lies
並請至原網頁觀看相關照片。
19 Of The Biggest Historical Lies People Somehow Still Believe Despite All Evidence To The Contrary
Julia Corrigan, 08/11/25
Recently, a post from Reddit user Repulsive-Finger-954 on the popular Ask Reddit forum caught my eye. In it, they asked people, "What is the biggest historical lie that many people believe?" and the answers were both entertaining and informative. I decided I had to share; so, here are some of the best:
1. "Vikings didn't wear horned helmets."
2. "People believe that Napoleon was this abnormally short man. He was 5'6, which was pretty average back then. I'm pretty sure it was this smear campaign of sorts that painted him as this weirdly short, unpowerful guy."
3. "George Washington's dentures were not made of wood, but rather a combination of teeth from slaves, ivory (hippopotamus, walrus and/or elephant), animal teeth, and metals."
4. "While Paul Revere is often credited with being the sole rider to warn the colonies of the British, he was actually one of five riders who alerted colonists on the night of April 18. Revere's mission relied on secrecy, and he didn't shout 'The British are coming!' as the phrase would have been confusing to locals who still considered themselves British. Instead, Revere's network of riders, signal guns, and church bells effectively spread the alarm."
5. People believe that the Nazis were hated and opposed for their treatment of Jewish people from the beginning. There has been plenty of narrative building through the years around the idea that the Allies were seeking justice for the Jewish people from the start. It was only when we witnessed the extent of the Holocaust that the villainy of the Nazis became more widely recognized and acknowledged."
"Antisemitism was very common in the West prior to WWII, and the Holocaust got that far in part because nobody wanted to house Jewish refugees."
6. "The idea that people used to believe the world was flat. In elementary school, I was taught that no one wanted to fund Columbus's voyage because they thought he'd just sail off the end of the world. Utter nonsense."
"Since at least Ancient Greece, it was believed the world was a sphere. I mean, you look up at the sky at night, and see nothing but other round bodies, it makes sense you’d assume that you’re on a round body as well."
"Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth and was only about 3% off. Roughly 250 years before the birth of Christ, he did this. Truly remarkable."
7. "People believe that Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb. He did not. Several other men pioneered it before him."
8. "People believe that women stayed home and only men worked. For the poor, which was the vast majority of people throughout history, everybody who could work worked, even the kids. If you didn't, the whole family would starve and die."
"You were working your own land, working your lord's land, working as itinerant laborers. If you weren't doing physical work, you were cooking and you were spinning, constantly spinning, and weaving and sewing. Constant work.
Women worked down mines, worked as servants, and they were working in factories as soon as there were even proto-factories.
Wealthy women also worked. They ran the households; for a wealthy family, this could be 100 people she was in charge of. She oversaw organizing supplies, ensuring that food was cooked, that they had accommodations, and food stores; she made the medicines and tended the ill.
Women have always worked. How the hell do people think men could confidently ride off to war and know that everything was being looked after while they were away fighting for years on end?"
9. "People believe that the US Civil War was over states' rights."
"I mean, it was. It was over states' rights to allow their residents to own people as property. But I totally get where you're coming from."
10. "People believe that MLK was socially acceptable to white people during the 1960s, and not in favor of radically changing the socioeconomic order of the US. He was a socialist who was widely reviled by the white culture of the time. He's been re-imagined by white people as someone willing to accept slow electoral solutions to racial problems."
11. "Many people still believe that Marie Antoinette said, 'Let them eat cake.'"
12. "The myth that there ever was a famine in Ireland. It was a genocide, and the English were exporting enough meat and grain from Ireland to feed three times the Irish population."
13. "People in ancient and medieval times lived past 30 or 40 on a regular basis. The 'life expectancy' was low due to child mortality."
"Infant mortality brought the mathematical average for life expectancy down. It’s usually thought today that in the past, if you DID make it past 10, you had as much chance of living to a ripe old age as anyone today."
14. "The idea that Galileo was imprisoned because of the heliocentric model. Nope, it was because he pissed off the pope, who was funding his research."
"Galileo didn’t follow the steps that were required to declare the heliocentric model as valid; he got angry and started talking shit about the pope. The heliocentric model wasn’t his idea; many people way before him were talking about the heliocentric model, and none of them were imprisoned because of it."
15. "There is a myth that the US has never experienced an authoritarian government. In actuality, a large portion of its history has been authoritarian. The Jim Crow South was an authoritarian government that existed until 1964."
"It wasn't until fairly recently that constitutional rights were 'incorporated' to apply to state laws. For a large portion of our history, the Constitution applied to federal laws.
State government restricted behavior on a very wide basis: interracial marriage, homosexuality, birth control, pornography, anything deemed offensive, offensive comedy, etc. were all regulated or illegal."
16. "The myth that carrots give you good eyesight. That lie came from Britain during WWII to hide the fact that they had a new technology called radar."
17. "The idea that Catherine of Aragon failed Henry VIII because she didn’t have a son and heir. She and Henry had — at least — three sons."
18. "That Samurai despised guns and saw them as 'dishonorable tools.'"
"The Samurai as a class not only were the first to embrace gunpowder weaponry in Japanese history, but Japan as a whole developed its own domestic industry surrounding gunpowder weapons, including many original designs and tactics that not even Europe would have an equivalent to until decades later."
19. And finally: "That nothing much happened in the 'Dark Ages.'"
What are your thoughts? Let me know in the comments. Better yet, tell me your own historical pet peeves that drive you up the wall!
If you have something to share but prefer to remain anonymous, feel free to check out this anonymous form. Who knows — your comment could be included in a future BuzzFeed article!
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
東印度公司沒落簡史 -- Mark Cartwright
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
對中國近代史有興趣的學生對東印度公司的大名應該都有印象，但未必知道其歷史、業務、或運作等細節。我對它略有所知(該文第2.3-1)小節)，主要是因為彌爾曾任職該公司。轉載下文，做為參考資料。
Fall of the East India Company
Mark Cartwright, 10/26/22
The British East India Company (1600-1874) was the largest and most successful private enterprise ever created. All-powerful wherever it colonised, the EIC's use of its own private army and increasing territorial control, particularly in India, meant that it faced ever-greater scrutiny from the British government in the late 18th century. Restricted by several successive acts of Parliament over many decades because of allegations of corruption and unaccountability, the EIC's independence ended with the chaos of the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857-8. The British Crown replaced the EIC's board of directors as the rulers of British India, and Parliament officially dissolved the EIC in 1874.
East India Docks The British Museum (CC BY-NC-SA) 請至原網頁觀看照片
A Trade Giant
Founded in 1600 by royal charter, the East India Company was established as a joint-stock trading company to exploit opportunities east of the Cape of Good Hope where it was granted a trade monopoly. Crucially, to conduct this trade, the EIC was permitted to 'wage war'. Although the EIC did not hold sovereignty in its areas of operation, it was permitted to exercise sovereignty in the name of the English (and then British) Crown and government. This subtle distinction became even more blurred as the company became more powerful, and therein lay the problem and the source of its ultimate demise.
The company made a fortune for its shareholders from its global trade in spices, tea, textiles, and opium. In order to protect its interests, the EIC paid for its own private armies in India, headquartered in Bengal, Madras, and Bombay (Mumbai). It also hired out on a long-term basis regiments of the regular British Army. From the mid-18th century, starting with Robert Clive's victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, these forces allowed the EIC to take over territory from the decaying Mughal Empire and Indian princely states. The EIC then administered these territories, extracting taxes and duties to further enrich its shareholders and maintain its armed forces.
Increasing Criticism
The EIC had many enemies, not only rival European trading companies and rulers in India but also back in Britain. It was criticised for its monopolies, harsh trading terms, and corruption. The company's trade was so large it was responsible for a serious drain of Britain's stock of silver. Its directors returned to England with vast new wealth that upset the established hierarchy of British society. This nouveau riche was disparagingly called 'nabobs' (from the Indian term nawab for ruler). The EIC was not popular for the damage it did to the English wool trade through its cheap imports of Indian-made textiles. Later, Indians would be equally disturbed by the import to India of even cheaper cotton cloth manufactured by the large mills of industrialised England. Finally but by no means least, the EIC swept away rulers that stood in its path, relentlessly siphoned off resources, and was not doing enough (or anything) to spread Christianity amongst the peoples living within its vast territories.
British Conquest in India c. 1857 Simeon Netchev (CC BY-NC-ND) 請至原網頁觀看地圖
In effect, the EIC was a state within a state, now even collecting its own taxes and dispensing justice through its courts. It was an entity with sovereign powers, but one which was not accountable for its actions to anyone but its shareholders. As the celebrated Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723-1790) noted in his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, a sovereign that was holding a trade monopoly could not possibly rule with fairness to all its subjects, the two ideas were simply not compatible. Parliament, although with over 100 members actually in the employ of the EIC at one point, was also raising uncomfortable questions: Was the EIC suitably representing British interests abroad? Did its trade monopoly not infringe upon the potential growth of other British companies?
Increasing Regulation
1773 Regulating Act
One of the first ominous signs for the EIC directors that their long process of enrichment might be coming to an end involved the return of Robert Clive (1725-1774) to England. With rumours rife that the former Governor of Bengal's vast riches had largely been gained through corruption, Parliament set up an inquiry into Clive's affairs in 1773. In the end, Clive was honourably acquitted, but his advice to Parliament to take over the EIC was not heeded. There was, though, a restructuring of the management of the company. The 1773 Regulating Act resulted in changes. The leverage acted upon by the government was that the EIC needed a loan despite the fact it had just awarded its shareholders a 12.5% dividend. There was the appointment of the first Governor-General of the EIC, Warren Hastings (1732-1818), who now governed with a board of four advisors. Additional restrictions are here summarised by M. Mansingh:
The Court of Directors in London was required to hold elections every four years, with one-fourth of its membership replaced annually, and shareholders of £1,000 or more stock entitled to vote. Further, the Directors were required to submit copies of all correspondence to and dispatches from their factors [traders] in India to a Minister of the Crown, that is the Secretary of State for India…A Supreme Court was established in Calcutta with appeals only to the King in Council.
Robert Clive & Shah Alam Benjamin West (Public Domain) 請至原網頁觀看油畫
The British government had at least gained some influence on the military, financial, and political decisions in the territories administered in its name by the EIC. The greater interest the British government began to take in India was likely a direct result of the loss of its colonies in North America in 1783.
Hastings was specifically charged with reducing corruption, mostly the convention of traders indulging in private trade and accepting bribes from future contract holders. All private trade by EIC employees was prohibited, and salaries were increased. Hastings also attempted to stop the worst of the abuses carried out by local EIC agents on indigenous peoples.
Rather ironically given his original brief, Hastings was himself investigated for corruption when he returned to England in 1785. The Whig politician Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was particularly scathing of what he regarded as yet another 'nabob'. Even worse in Burke's eyes, Hastings had sullied the name of Britain in India and on the international stage by stealing on a grand scale and acquiring for the EIC "all the landed property of Bengal upon strange pretences" (Wilson, 132). Once again, prominent members of the British Parliament were aghast at lurid tales of the EIC's policies in India, and many sought to bring the company under much greater scrutiny and control. Reform was not straightforward, though, when dealing with such a commercial giant. Many MPs remained in EIC employ or were shareholders (23% in the 1770s). Further, the British monarchy was not in favour of infringing on private property. Still, the burning question of the day was why was this private company with private interests being allowed to conduct itself like a state but without any of the constraints of an electorate or any of the scruples of justice. The atmosphere of the time was relevant here. Political philosophers were now influencing politicians in Britain with their thoughts on the importance of individual liberty, government by consent, and rule through justice.
The Trial of Warren Hastings Unknown Artist (Public Domain) 請至原網頁觀看繪畫
1784 India Act
The 1784 India Act (often called 'Pitt's India Act' after the then prime minister William Pitt the Younger, 1759-1806) did restructure the top management of the EIC once again, and Parliament installed one of its representatives on the now all-powerful Board of Control based in London. The India Act stipulated that the Board of Control "superintend, direct, and control all acts, operations, and concerns, which in any wise relate to the civil or military government or revenues of the British territorial possessions in the East Indies" (Barrow, 63). For the moment, government interference remained largely limited to oversight rather than regular intervention, but the cumbersome bindings of red bureaucratic tape were growing ever tighter on the liberties long taken by the EIC.
In 1787, Hastings was impeached by Parliament and charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors." The case was heard in Westminster Hall under the auspices of the House of Commons, and the public and press could attend. Just like Clive, Hastings was ultimately acquitted of any wrongdoing during his time in India. This time, though, the dark affairs of the EIC had come under a very bright and public spotlight of scrutiny.
1813 Charter Act
The next wave of regulation came with the Charter Act of 1813. From now on, any new territory captured by the EIC would come under the direct sovereignty of the British Parliament. In addition, the EIC's trade monopoly in India was ended, and it had to end its ban on missionaries in its territory (although they required a license to operate). Further control came following the global economic crash of 1825. The EIC got itself into financial difficulties and required a bail-out from the British government. The loan was forthcoming, but the catch was further regulation of EIC affairs. MPs were considering yet more drastic action against the EIC:
The broad questions before Parliament were whether the Company should continue to exist, whether it should retain its monopoly of trade to China, and what the role the Company should play if allowed to continue to exist but without its monopoly. (Barrow, 110).
As one MP, Mr James Silk Buckingham, noted in 1830, "The idea of consigning over to a joint stock association …the political administration of an Empire peopled with 100 million souls… [was] preposterous" (Dalrymple, 390).
Copper Coin of the East India Company Billjones94 (CC BY-SA) 請至原網頁觀看圖片
1833 Charter Act
The 1833 Charter Act further tightened the noose around the neck of the EIC. The Act removed all limitations the EIC had set on immigration to India. The company's monopoly on trade with China also came to an end. The judicial system – woefully behind in terms of cases being heard – was centralised and future regular issues of new codes attempted to homogenise the laws and their application in India. Perhaps most importantly, this charter enlarged the ruling Council and gave it and the Governor-General the power to create legislation applicable to everyone resident in EIC territory. In 1835, for the first time, the Company issued a coinage that was legal tender in all its presidencies (administrative regions) and in the Indian princely states.
The new Company coin symbolically established the British - not just the Company - as the dominant power in India and created one of the conditions for the emergence of a national economy…it could be said that the unveiling of the Company rupee was also the unveiling of the colonial state. (Barrow, 113-14)
The coins carried a portrait of King William IV of the United Kingdom (r. 1830-1837).
1853 Charter Act
The 1853 Charter Act reduced the EIC's powers again so that the EIC was "now nothing more than a managing agency for the administration of India subject to the British government's direction in matters of policy" (Spears, 148). The great trading company was very much like a British colonial administration elsewhere in all but name. It could raise taxes, had an army and a vast civil service, all connected monetarily by its coinage and physically by a network of railway and telegraph lines. Further, the very idea that Britain was both in charge of and responsible for India had become an accepted one in the minds of colonial administrators and the British Parliament. It had been a long and progressive process to reign in the EIC, but the final closure came in one climatic and bloody disaster.
The Mutiny & Crash
In 1857, the EIC was rocked by the Sepoy Mutiny (aka The Uprising or First Indian War of Independence), which started with Indian soldiers (sepoys) in the EIC army rebelling against their officers. The unrest quickly spread to involve several princely state rulers and Indians of all classes. The causes of the rebellion were many and ranged from discrimination against Indian cultural practices to Indian princes not being allowed to pass on their territories to an adopted son, but the initial spark came from the sepoys. Sepoys protested against (amongst other things) their much lower pay compared to British EIC soldiers. At this point, the EIC employed around 45,000 British soldiers and over 230,000 sepoys. The sepoys took over important centres like Delhi, but their lack of overall command and coordination meant they could not win against the superior resources of the EIC, especially when 40,000 troops were shipped into India by the British government.
The Recapture of Delhi Bequet Freres (Public Domain) 請至原網頁觀看油畫
After the mutiny was quashed, the sentiment in Britain was that such an important colony as India could no longer be left in the hands of a private company. The general mood was captured by the Illustrated London News in the following article extract of July 1857:
The state of affairs in India may well exercise the alarm of the nation…Our house in India is on fire. We are not insured. To lose that house would be to lose power, prestige, and character – to descend in the rank of nations…Whether it were desirable that we should win India by the sword is no longer a question. Having won it we must keep it. (Barrow, 167-8)
The British Crown took full possession of EIC territories in India with the Government of India Act of 2 August 1858. The EIC armies were absorbed into the British Army, and the EIC navy was disbanded. The most aggressive and utterly ruthless private company ever yet created was effectively nationalised. So began what is popularly termed the British Raj (rule) in India. A new Secretary of State for India was appointed and made responsible directly to Parliament, while a Viceroy represented the Crown. The Viceroy led a cabinet of ministers, and they collectively supervised the daily administration and judicial operations. India was divided into governorships, which were in turn split into deputy governorships. On 1 June 1874, after generously allowing its shareholders to reap yet more dividends for 16 years, Parliament formally dissolved the EIC. In 1877, Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India. The East India Company was no more.
Follow us on YouTube!
Book Recommendation：The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire；by Dalrymple, William；published by Bloomsbury Publishing (2019)；$9.99 請至原網頁觀看此著作封面
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
迦太基帝國素描-Daisy Dunn
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文是「書評體裁」；它著重於討論迦太基的文化。迦太基帝國全盛時期對應於羅馬的共和時代(該欄2025/07/26)。漢尼拔在202 BC的第二次布匿戰爭中被羅馬將領阿菲芮咖諾斯擊敗於扎瑪城。
Forget Rome – this was the ancient empire that made the modern world
Daisy Dunn, 07/22/25
Hannibal Crossing the Alps by Jacopo Ripanda, c. 1510 – Getty 請至原網域觀看油畫
Napoleon is relatively unusual in western history for aligning himself with the brutal Hannibal – not Hannibal’s Roman enemy, Scipio Africanus. The Frenchman’s interest in the Carthaginian bordered on obsessional. He read every book about him he could find, including the Latin histories of Livy, and made copious notes. He could work examples from Hannibal’s life into conversation with ease, and when he crossed the Alps in 1800, he knew precisely whose footsteps he was following in. Hannibal was more than a man: he was, like Napoleon, a god.
Hannibal was no stranger himself to self-mythologising. His name meant “he who is favoured by Ba’al”: Ba’al Hamon being the chief god of the Carthaginians, who reached the apex of their global powers from their city near Tunis (in modern Tunisia) in the third and second centuries BC. Hannibal had the air of an immortal, but also believed that he enjoyed the protection of Melqart, the Phoenician equivalent of Hercules. Melqart was often equated with the sun itself. Such confidence in one’s divine credentials can only breed an appetite for risk-taking.
Hannibal was clever, charismatic and fair. His success as a commander, argues Eve MacDonald in her comprehensive new book, Carthage: A New History of an Ancient Empire, “rested in his soldiers and their loyalty to him”. The general was known for distributing bounties to his soldiers – a professional army drawn from many territories, including North Africa, Iberia, Greece and Italy – and following with further payments. The Romans, of course, despised him as the apparently unbeatable foe. The phrase Hannibal ad portas (“Hannibal is at the gates”) gained currency during the Punic Wars between the two ancient superpowers, epitomising the fear as well as the awe he inspired in his adversaries.
But has Hannibal’s fame eclipsed that of his civilisation? This is one of the questions MacDonald, a senior lecturer in Ancient History at Cardiff, poses in Carthage. The fact that Greek and Roman sources dating from soon after Hannibal’s time focus so heavily upon him, she suggests, “tends to skew our evidence about Carthage around the life of one man and his great deeds and adventures.” As a result, wider-ranging historical interest in the region “gets lost in the appetite for daring deeds of great soldiers”. Napoleon’s fascination is a prime example. MacDonald’s history, then, is not so much revisionist as expansionist. Its subtitle might have been: “Who Were the Carthaginians?”
Inhabitants of the ancient city were committed to comfortable living. Men – we know far more about them than we do the women – wore long tunics and earrings for pierced ears. On the evidence of Aristophanes, the Greek comedian, we can conjecture that they were mainly circumcised. From as early as the third century BC, the wealthier members of society had bathrooms with cisterns in their homes. They dined well on fish and a porridge consisting of grain with eggs, curd and honey. Meat was consumed mainly after religious sacrifices. One very early banquet, the remains of which were recently uncovered in the former Carthaginian city of Utica (near modern Bizerte), featured goat, oxen, pig, horse, and even turtle and dog.
The ruins of Carthage’s Antonine baths in modern-day Tunisia – Getty 請至原網域觀看照片
The architects of Carthaginian cities gave some consideration to the breeding and keeping of animals. MacDonald, who draws effectively upon her background in archaeology, describes stabling for horses and spaces inside the double “casemate” walls of Carthage for raising elephants. Before Hannibal famously led 37 of the beasts across the Alps, Pyrrhus, King of the region of Epirus, introduced 20 to Italy, prior to his expedition to expel Carthaginians from Sicily. Having seen elephants in action, the Carthaginians were smitten, and went on to use them during their conquests of the Iberian Peninsula. The animals provided unparalleled cover for their retreat during a river-crossing beset by an hostile Celtic tribe. There’s no consensus over which species the Carthaginians used, but a combination of African and Asian elephants is likely.
The Carthaginians would not have been nearly so famous had they not fought with Rome. And the Romans might never have created their enduring empire had it not been for Carthage, which they mercilessly destroyed in 146 BC following a lengthy siege. The difficulty for the modern historian is that, in putting Carthage on the map, the Romans cast shadow on its virtues.
It’s a typical story of history being written by the conquerors. MacDonald’s ambition to retell the history of Carthage from a Carthaginian perspective, then, is hampered by the limitations of the written material. This is unavoidable and only to be expected. No historian of the ancient world should be taken to task over the gaps in the sources; it’s how they navigate those gaps that matters.
MacDonald pieces the material together admirably and succeeds in creating a thickly-layered portrait of a culture that has often struck readers as peculiar and violent. She takes a particularly sensitive approach to the interpretation of phenomena such as child-sacrifice. An open-air sanctuary in Carthage has been found to contain thousands of urns filled with the cremated bodies of babies, young children and animals. It is known as a tophet – from the Hebrew name of a valley in Jerusalem where the Philistines were said to “sacrifice their children through fire”. Greek and Roman writers wrote with abhorrence of Carthaginian children being rolled into flame-filled pits.
Dido Building Carthage by J.M.W. Turner, 1815 – Getty 請至原網域觀看油畫
Were children sacrificed in prayer for the wellbeing of the city? Or are these the dedicated remains of infants who died from natural causes? Most were very young when they died and we know that the rate of infant mortality was high. MacDonald draws attention to the inscriptions upon the stelae erected next to the urns, and particularly to the words, “because he / she heard our voice”. This looks very much like a divine offering in fulfilment of a vow or an answered prayer. While it remains unclear exactly what was happening here, it is interesting to observe, as MacDonald does, that similar sanctuaries have been discovered in Malta, Sardinia, Sicily and elsewhere in north Africa.
MacDonald is more vehemently myth-busting in her examination of the foundation of Carthage. According to the legend elaborated in Virgil’s Aeneid, the city was established by Dido (known to the Carthaginians as Elissa), who fled her home in the Phoenician city of Tyre (in modern Lebanon) to escape her tyrannical brother Pygmalion. Having made landfall on the coast near Tunisia, the beleaguered Dido requested a piece of land only as large as an ox-hide. Her wish was granted, and she proceeded to chop up a hide into skinny strips, which she laid end to end to encompass a sizeable area for her new city. The citadel at Carthage was known thereafter as Byrsa, from the Greek for “ox-hide”.
It’s a brilliant story, and according to MacDonald, calls on the well-known concept of “using an ox to plough an area of land to mark out boundaries”. That sounds plausible. One thing the ancient writers did get absolutely right was that Carthage was founded in the 9th century BC and had Phoenician origins. The earliest inscription found at Carthage – on a gold pendant placed in a tomb – dates to then and even refers to a “Pygmalion”. Radiocarbon dating further supports a foundation date in the 9th century BC.
MacDonald writes clearly and frankly, and has produced an enjoyable and readily digestible introduction to Carthage. Hers is not a book of stylish prose or vivid description. The closest we come to the latter is in the opening pages, which recount the final destruction of Carthage, and in a survey of the aftermath of the Battle of Cannae, when “steam rose in the morning off the still warm bodies of the dead and injured”. Some readers will favour such an information-over-atmosphere approach, and there is much to be said for giving it to us straight. But there were moments in which I felt that MacDonald could have let go a little. If Hannibal has one lesson for writers, it is surely that triumph is dependent upon risk.
Daisy Dunn is the author of books including The Missing Thread: A New History of the Ancient World Through the Women Who Shaped It. Carthage: A New History of an Ancient Empire is published by Ebury at £22. To order your copy, call 0330 173 0523 or visit Telegraph Books
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
歷史上可能真有過特洛伊戰爭 - Jessica McBride
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Archaeologists Make New Trojan War Discovery That May Rewrite History
Jessica McBride, 07/16/25
The Trojan War was celebrated by legendary authors like Homer, who told the tale of the large wooden horse that tricked the soldiers of Troy.
In the stories, Paris, the son of a Trojan King, ran away with a Spartan's wife named Helen; the Spartan's brother then "led a Greek expedition against Troy," according to Britannica.
War raged for a decade before the Greeks pretended to withdraw, hiding soldiers in the horse.
But was the Trojan War real? It's described by Britannica as a "legendary conflict between the early Greeks and the people of Troy in western Anatolia," probably in the 12th or 13th century. That's present-day Turkey.
According to BBC, it's generally believed that the Trojan War was a real event, despite its appearance in various works of literature.
Now a new excavation is shedding more light on that. The dig has already unearthed 3,500-year-old "sling stones" that match the right time frame, and that's not all.
Memnon against Achilles, detail of the Trojan War, relief, east frieze of the Siphnian Treasury, 530-525 BC, from Delphi, Greece. Ancient Greek civilization, 6th century BC. DEA / ALBERT CEOLAN/Getty Images 請至原網頁觀看照片
They're providing clues that could flesh out the storyline of the Trojan War, and, thus, illuminate and potentially even rewrite history.
The sling stones "offer valuable insights into Bronze Age defense and attack strategies," according to Hurriyet Daily News.
Archaeologists have "resumed excavations at the ancient city of Troy in modern-day Turkey, hoping to uncover new evidence" of the Trojan War, according to a July 9 article in Greek Reporter.
The Trojan War. Bildagentur-online/Getty Images請至原網頁觀看照片
According to Greek Reporter, the lead archaeologist Rustem Aslan is focusing on "layers from the Late Bronze Age, specifically those associated with the city’s destruction around 1200 B.C."
That's the time period of the Trojan War, and the archaeologists want to "investigate areas between the agora, palace, and city walls," the site reports.
The X page Arkeolojihaber (or "Archaeology Talks") shared photos and wrote, "At the Troy Ancient City, included on the UNESCO World Heritage List, this year's excavations focused on the Late Bronze Age and traces of the famous Trojan War."
The site quoted Aslan as saying, "Our main goal this year is to uncover archaeological findings that point to the Trojan War, which everyone talks about and has been debated for centuries."
The earliest days of the excavations produced "3,500-year-old sling stones" in front of a "palace structure," the site reported, adding that "archaeologists are now searching for more evidence of the war in a destruction layer dated to around 1200 BC, which bears traces of fire. Arrowheads, war tools, and hastily buried skeletons carry traces of Troy's dramatic past."
According to Indian Defence Review, the excavation has discovered "destruction layers, filled with war tools and human remains that suggest signs of conflict," quoting Aslan as saying, “These destruction layers contain war tools and disturbed human remains that could indicate conflict.”
Unearthed "weapons, charred remains, and other destruction debris" provide clues that "a violent event that may have led to Troy’s fall," the site noted.
Related:
Archaeologists Say They've Found a Legendary Pirate Ship, Rewriting History
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
|
|
「黑龍會」的肇始
「黑龍會」的肇始來自樽井藤吉（1850～1922）的啟發。
樽井藤吉是民權派東洋社會黨的創始人，他於1893年出版了一本
《大東亞合邦論》的書，他在這本書中提出：「團結全亞洲民族，
結成同盟軍，共同防禦白種人帝國主義的侵略，挽回東亞危機，
亞洲民族應以日本為盟主，建立大東亞同盟……」的主張
。這本書最大的特色就是：強調中日同盟的重要性。
但隨著1894年中日甲午戰爭，中國的戰敗，日本民權運動
因此退潮，取而代之的是國權主義的興起，於是繼承樽井藤吉思想
的內田良平（1874～1937）於1901年2月在東京成立了「黑龍會」，
提倡「大亞細亞主義」，後又與玄洋社的首領頭山滿結為一體，
成為日本軍國主義組織的右翼核心。另外會取名為：「黑龍會」
的寓意，就是在於謀取黑龍江流域為日本領土。為了達到侵吞
中國領土的目的，因此他們階段性的支持孫文所領導的革命黨，
共同圖謀推翻清朝政府。在黑龍會的斡旋幫助下，各派中國革命組織
於1905年7月30日在東京黑龍會總部共同成立了「中國同盟會」。
日本投降後，美軍解散了勢力龐大的「黑龍會」。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
歷史真相都藏在小說裡!
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
看紅樓夢
就知道歷史真相都藏在小說裡!
有人曾經引述一句名言:
歷史除了人名,事情都是假的!
小說除了人名,事情都是真的!
稗官野史隱藏真相!
|
|
俄、烏族群小史 - Darius von Guttner Sporzynski
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Why does Putin insist Ukranians and Russians are ‘one people’? The answer spans centuries of colonisation and resistance
Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, 04/15/25
Russian president Vladimir Putin does not seem interested in peace: Sunday’s missile strike on Sumy, the worst civilian attack this year, proves he is determined to expand into Ukraine at any cost.
This is a war of ideas, narratives and myths – one that can be traced to the mid-1500s, when Ivan the Terrible, Grand Duke of Muscovy declared himself the first “tsar” of all Russia.
As part of his quest for power, Ivan the Terrible challenged King Sigismund I of Poland, who as Duke of Rus, ruled over territories that now comprise parts of modern-day Ukraine.
Russian rulers have often repurposed history to build their power, according to historian Orlando Figes. Putin wrote a well known essay in 2021 that called Russians and Ukrainians “one people”. He was relying on old beliefs that Russia has the right to “restore” or reunite lands it once ruled.
Ukraine has survived bans on its language, forced assimilation policies, and famines like the Holodomor, orchestrated by Stalin in the 1930s. The country declared independence from Russia in 1991. Now, teachers, artists and local leaders have joined soldiers in resisting Russia.
Ukrainian servicemen react after returning from captivity during a prisoner of war exchange between Russia and Ukraine. Efrem Lukatsky/AAP 請至原網頁觀看照片
Empire and a holy mission
A broad expanse of the former medieval kingdom of Kyivan Rus incorporated territories in present-day Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, including Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv. From 1386 until 1772, the majority of these lands came under the rule of Poland-Lithuania, governed by the Lithuanian Jagiellon dynasty, and their successors.
Today, Russia often points to Kyivan Rus (which lasted from the 9th to the 13th century), claiming it is reuniting these ancient lands, as Ivan the Terrible claimed in the mid-1500s.
Grand Duchy of Lithuania, ruled by the Jagiellon dynasty in the 13th to 15th centuries. Wikipedia, CC BY 請至原網頁觀看地圖
In 1547, Ivan declared Muscovy a tsardom and Moscow to be the “Third Rome” – in other words, the latest centre of true Christianity, after Rome and Constantinople. This idea made conquest seem like a holy mission. By the late 1700s, the Russian Empire had destroyed Poland-Lithuania in a series of territorial annexations and wars. It had spread far to the south and east, and now bordered with Prussia and Austria.
Ukraine, with its rich farmland and cultural connection to Kyivan Rus, was a top prize. Russian leaders called Ukraine “Malorossiya”, or “Little Russia”, to claim it was just a small part of a larger, Russian whole. They banned Ukrainian-language publications, forced the Orthodox Church of Ukraine to answer to Moscow, and tried to stamp out any sense of a separate Ukrainian identity.
However, Ukraine developed its own cultural identity, shaped by its Cossack traditions, its history under Polish–Lithuanian rule, and its separate experiences. Many Ukrainians argue their culture existed long before Muscovy evolved into an empire.
Winter Scene in Little Russia. Ivan Constantinovich Aivazovsky/Wikimedia Commons 請至原網頁觀看繪畫
Meanwhile, Russia had expanded into its next-door neighbours, then pretended these lands had always been part of Russia. Historian Alexander Etkind calls this process “internal colonisation”. This strategy helped Russia become a vast empire. But it also built lasting resentment, particularly in Ukraine.
Famine and ‘fascists’
The Soviet Union (USSR), established in 1922 in the wake of the successful Bolshevik Coup in 1917, claimed to be a union of equal republics. But in practice, Moscow stayed firmly in control.
Ukraine had the label of “Soviet Republic”, but had little genuine independence. Soviet leaders demanded enormous amounts of grain, coal, and labour from Ukraine to support the rest of the USSR.
A postcard printed in Germany by Ukrainian Youth Association for the 15th anniversary of Holodomor, 1933. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 請至原網頁觀看插圖
One of the darkest periods in Ukrainian history was the Holodomor, an orchestrated famine that spanned 1932–33, in which millions of Ukrainians died of hunger, after Stalin’s government seized huge amounts of grain from farmers. These policies aimed to break Ukrainian resistance and nationalist feelings.
The Holodomor was an act of genocide against Ukrainians, though Russia disputes this interpretation.
After World War II, the Soviet Union took over the Baltic states and parts of Poland, including regions now in western Ukraine. Although Ukraine became one of the more industrialised parts of the USSR, genuine displays of Ukrainian culture or independent thought were often met with harsh punishment. People who spoke out were labelled “fascists”, a term still used in Russia’s modern propaganda.
Starved peasants on a street in Kharkiv during the famine. Widener Library, Harvard University 請至原網頁觀看照片
Reclaiming Ukraine
The USSR fell apart in 1991. Ukraine, along with other former Soviet republics, became independent nations. This was a major blow to Russia’s idea of itself as a world empire. For centuries, Moscow had seen Ukraine as central to its identity.
The 1990s brought tough economic reforms and political changes in Russia. Then Vladimir Putin rose to power in the early 2000s, promising to restore Russia’s influence. He described the former Soviet states as the “near abroad”, suggesting Moscow still had special rights over these regions.
In 2008, Russia went to war with Georgia. After winning, it recognised two breakaway provinces in Georgia, effectively keeping troops there.
In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, claiming it was protecting Russian speakers. It also backed separatists in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region. The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 68/262 in March 2014, declaring Russia’s annexation of Crimea illegal. The Kremlin continued its policies regardless.
A Putin supporter celebrates the 2014 annexation of Crimea in Sevastopol, Republic of Crimea. Sergei Chirkov/AAP請至原網頁觀看照片
‘Denazifying’ Ukraine?
In February 2022, Russia expanded the conflict by launching an invasion of Ukraine. It described its actions as a mission to “denazify” the country, accusing Ukraine’s government of being controlled by Nazis – although president Zelenskyy has Jewish heritage.
There was no evidence to support these claims. Still, Russian leaders used these slogans to justify their aggressive push. They also spoke of “traditional values” and “Orthodox unity”, painting themselves as defenders of a shared Slavic culture.
The military objective was to capture the Donbas completely, create a land bridge to Crimea, and maybe advance further to Transnistria in Moldova, a pro-Russian separatist region.
What Russia hoped would be a quick victory has become a long, brutal conflict. For many Ukrainians, independence is more than just avoiding control by Moscow. It is about creating a society built on democracy, human rights and ties to Europe.
These values inspired the Euromaidan protests in Kyiv in 2013–14, where demonstrators demanded less corruption and closer links to the European Union. Russia used these protests to justify seizing Crimea in 2014.
Ukrainians mark the first anniversary (in November 2014) of the Euromaidan Revolution. Sergey Dolzhenko/AAP 請至原網頁觀看照片
A message of self-determination
The Kremlin’s insistence that Ukrainians and Russians are the same mirrors the older imperial model: expand, absorb and claim these territories were always part of Russia. Breaking free from this “mental empire” demands a deep shift in how Russians, Ukrainians, and the world view Eastern Europe’s past and present.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, many hoped for a new era of cooperation in Eastern Europe. Instead, authoritarian politics and old beliefs about empire have led to a devastating conflict.
By refusing to be pulled back into Russia’s orbit, Ukrainians send a message about self-determination. They reject the claim bigger nations can absorb smaller ones simply by invoking a shared past.
Darius von Guttner Sporzynski is a historian, Australian Catholic University.
Disclosure statement
Darius von Guttner Sporzynski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners
Australian Catholic University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.
View all partners
We believe in the free flow of information
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.
Republish this article
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
