The need of man to understand himself through his past, amply justifies the constant pursuit of the facts relevant to rebuild it, causes and factors that determined the steps, phases and rhythms that developed in human life.

However, the huge range of issues - temporal, spatial, anthropological, geographical, economic, political, social, etc. - that inform the past and the subjective situation of those who try to ordain them and expose them systematically creates difficulties sometimes insuperable.

Thus, pre-historic men, no writing, communicate orally only direct experience they need to survive and progress, when men of antiquity began to write, is still limited to the registration of facts deemed important by those who exert social influence absolute (princes and priests).

It is the era of chronic apologetic, when kings succeed and realize the facts of history, and mythology. This superficial view of history goes on during the Middle Ages with royal and ecclesiastical historiography.

The conditions for a critical position in relation to the past do not exist. However, since antiquity, some isolated individuals (Herodotus, Polybius, Pausanias) break the barrier of subjective bias and external data.

Study the geographical conditions that developed in the facts, seek political and social environment that determined by defining the former sources of history, geography, chronology, sociology (so embryonic Polybius).

Still do not understand the evolutionary process and the diversity of civilizations; America, Asia and Africa continents are largely unknown and historical frameworks are abstract and unilateral.

The  Middle  Ages  is  an  extension  of the ancient slave  society,  yet  understated. Only in the Renaissance, history reaches proportions objective, genealogy, numismatics, archeology and  linguistics  begin  to  be  considered  as  important  auxiliary. The combination of feelings, cultures and peoples through the discovery, commerce and science, help trace the historical process generally, the laws that govern it and the steps that form. Machiavelli, Vico and Montesquieu - albeit with a priori views - stand out among the great historians of the 15th century until the French Revolution.

The  great  social  changes,  political  and  scientific  of  the late  18th  and  19th  century,   foregrounds  historical  inquiry,  not  only as  knowledge  of  the  past,  but as attempt to  understand the future of  humanity  as  a  result  of  its  previous  history.

For the first time, we use objective sources, and with further study of the determinants of each process, overcome the old method of history horizontal (chronological listing military, political or diplomatic). The traditional division of history into ages (Antiquity, Middle, Modern and Contemporary) also entailed a large arbitrariness: emphasis on military events, the omission of historical changes that define   steps,  devaluation  of  the   influence  of  other  civilizations,  artificial separation  process  unit.

It covers a vertical history broader reality: economic history, social, cultural, etc.. The analysis, comparison and expertise are the reasons for large conceptions and historicalsummaries (Mommsen, Ranke). Born positivism (Comte) and materialism (Marx). In the 20th century, there are statistics, photography and audio-visual means. The great historical works of our time (L. Febvre, Toynbee, Bloch) are usually the result of teams of expertsunder the direction of a historian who summarizes and organizes the different elements.Today, the historical research is oriented in accordance with the philosophical currents that are discussed at the global level.

Historians regard Menes as the first pharaoh and founder of the first dynasty of ancient Egypt. A lot has been written about him and his reign. But history is never written in stone. It is never written with absolute finality.

There are still disputes among Egyptologists, for example, whether there was another king who held the throne before Menes. What gave rise to this speculation was a discovery made in 1897—a palette that contained the name “Narmer.” This Narmer is depicted wearing the joint crown of Upper and Lower Egypt.

It is hard to determine with certainty who unified Egypt or when it really happened. Historians put it between 3300 BC and 3100 BC because this was when hieroglyphics was invented. This was also when the renowned ancient Egyptian architecture surfaced. Because of its ambiguity, many scholars suspect Menes was only a legend.

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, who went to Egypt and chronicled his travels, Menes was truly the first pharaoh. But not so, said Manetho (280 BC). If this Ptolemaic historian is to be believed, then Menes and Narmer were one and the same individual. Manetho also clearly stated that eight pharaohs made up the first dynasty, which was in power from 3100 BC until 2890 BC.

Historical Accuracy: Is It Impossible?

What is history? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes”. Dictionary.com defines it as “the branch of knowledge dealing with past events”. Both of these definitions utilize the expression of either knowledge or record which indicates a presence of knowledge and comprehension while keeping external factors at a minimum. This idea of keeping external factors at a minimum is in itself is almost impossible, so therefore, creating an accurate account of any historical event that completely utilizes all viewpoints and perspectives is nigh impossible. Using the accounts of Darius and Herodotus as an example, one can see that there are many factors which can greatly influence the way one writes history. These factors include but are not limited to notions like bias, time period, experience, perspectives, viewpoints, and various other ideas.

In Darius’s account, he begins by stating his official rank, and which countries he controls. He then goes on to quickly mention how he rewards the honest and loyal while punishing the evil. Afterwards, he begins his account of how he came into power. He starts off by describing how Cambyses, son of Cyrus, slew his brother Smerdis in relative secrecy and then went to Egypt. While in Egypt, an imposter from Media named Gaumata, claimed he was Smerdis himself, and took the throne from Cambyses. Camyses then died, leaving no one to oppose Gaumata, or Smerdis, as he called himself. No one could overthrow him, and everyone feared him. When Darius finally came around, he went to his God Ahuramazda who helped him slay Gaumata. Darius and a few men then confronted Gaumata at a fortress by the name of Sikayauvati and slew him there. Darius then took the throne. He restored justice and order to the kingdom, and greatly rewarded those that helped him.

Herodotus, while having the same basic structure, had a slightly different account of what happened. The major differences between the two tales, is that two brothers that belonged to the caste of the Magi rose in rebellion, and one of the brothers who happened to have the same name as the deceased Smerdis, impersonated him. This fake Smerdis took over the throne and was somewhat accepted, even though Cambyses had already told his chief of the army that the real Smerdis was dead. Some disgruntled nobles did not agree with this fake Smerdis coming in an just taking over, so they sent the daughter of Otanes to feel the new King’s ears. She found out that he had none, and they knew that the fake Smerdis had his ears cut off for a crime in the past, and therefore they deduced that he was indeed an imposter. In light of this new revelation, Otaned and two other eminent Persians decided to plan an assassination. Darius was added to the plan at the last minute, and together they charged the palace and killed the fake Smerdis.

As you can see, the two accounts are relatively similar, but both have their specific differences. It can be surmised that Darius’s account is more historically accurate because he was actually there when it happened. Seeing as Herodotus has a different name for the fake Smerdis, I believe that his information is not credible. Since Darius was physically there, he would not have gotten something like a simple name wrong. If Herodotus can’t even get the names correct, then the rest of his account losses a lot of its credibility. I also believe that Herodotus did not have a true and thorough enough understanding of their culture to write an accurate account. Finally, I believe he may have received biased information form his sources and slightly pressured into writing a good story, rather than telling it for what it was from first-hand experience like Darius did.

There are many factors that may influence the accuracy and construction itself of historical accounts. These factors can completely change the way history is portrayed and recorded and can cause much confusion and misunderstanding. If historical accounts can be influenced so easily, the entire point of studying and learning from history can be diminished. The main influences when constructing historical accounts are bias/perspective and time period. All other influences branch off of or are a result of bias and perspective. Bias is probably the most obvious and apparent influence, as it changes the entire tone of an account and can really cause some accounts to be morphed into a completely different story. Take for example the account of The Holocaust. From an avid Nazi’s perspective, The Holocaust was a way to remove the evil Jews who were root of all Germany’s problems and ensure that the master race lives on. From this perspective, the Holocaust seems like a decent thing to do to ensure that a master race like the Germans survive and thrive. This same exact event can be seen and told a totally different way from a Jew’s perspective. A Jewish person would most likely describe the event as the single most horrifying and despicable event in the history of the world where innocent Jewish people were mindlessly worked to death or slaughtered for absolutely no reason by the evil and malevolent Germans. From this perspective, The Holocaust seems like a horrible thing that should never have happened and should never happen again. As you can see, something as simple as perspective can put a lot of bias into an account and completely change the way it is portrayed and received by the rest of the world. Where a historian gets his information from is also a major factor in the construction of a historical account. This goes hand in hand with perspective, because if a historian gets their information from a single source that is very biased or narrow minded, then your entire account will be biased and therefore not historically accurate. Finally, time period is a major influence on the construction of a historical account, because this changes the whole way something is portrayed also. The way a citizen in Darius’s empire sees the events that happened is much more realistic and true as he would have been there and able to fully understand the magnitude and cultural impact of what was happening at the time. If, instead, a man such as Herodotus who comes from a Greek society and culture comes along and tries to create and accurate historical account of what happened when Darius became king, his account would be different because he is only getting second hand information that has been passes down from generation to generation and who knows how many times it has been altered. Herodotus would also not fully understand the culture or situations of that time which prevents him from taking everything into consideration and creating a completely accurate account.

Because of these various influences and factors, it is quite difficult to determine the “truth” in history. When looking at any historical account, one must take a look at and take into consideration any influences and outlying factors that may have changed the account in any way. One must then try to remove all glamour and strip it down to its bare bones, without any bias or outside influence, and then one has a true historical account. It is very difficult to write a historically accurate account because of this, and therefore when reading any historical account, one must truly analyze and process the information being given in an account if one wants to know what really happened. It is usually best to read and have multiple accounts from various perspectives that one can use to try and even out any bias or influences. Once one has a truthful and accurate account of history, you can build upon it and try and determine the truth in other historical documents by using your first as a a reference point. Without a “true” historically accurate document, you can not understand all of history itself or understand what is to come.

In conclusion, I believe that there are many things that influence and affect how one constructs a historical account. Using Darius’s and Herodotus’ accounts as an example, one can clearly see that these influences really do make it difficult to determine the “truth” in history, and make it very hard to know what really happened. Sadly, it is almost impossible to create a historically accurate account.

Cat Goddess of India and Egypt

brotee mukhopadhyay

CAT GODDESS IN BUBASTIS

Women, particularly grandmothers and mothers, teach their children not to hit or torture any of their domesticated cats in the eastern region of India. They believe that a cat represents some goddess, Shastee Mother in their language, who takes care of children welfare. Mischievous kids, however, love to play with the cats and as these pets hardly return an attack they are frequently ill-treated by their honorable players.

Cats and especially wild cats are equipped with the art of finishing rats and many vermin in the agricultural fields and in the store houses of the farm. They are apt in killing snakes too. This might have been the reasons for which Egyptian people, between 2000 B.C. and 390 A.D., have worshiped cats with all seriousness. Bast is the name of the cat goddess of Egypt. People of Egypt have had such belief that the goddess cat can guarantee security, fertility and motherhood.

Long after the process of domestication had started on the banks of the river Nile cats began to show that they left much of their traditional ferocity. This restricted growth in the size of their brain and coloration of their beautiful furs lost much of possibilities. Needless to comment on the limitation occurred in the size of their body too.

Installation of the shrines of Bast or the cat goddess of Egypt began with much hype. Bubastis was an important city to the eastern side of the Nile and the city was built up as a site for worshiping the goddess Bast. It was built up by King Shoshenq 1 with great devotion. Bubastis became a vibrant marketplace and it developed as a center for annual religious festival where people used to assemble just to worship the goddess Bast.  This goddess was offered precious jewels and ornaments by the devotees every year.

Hype for cats was so irrational at some point that laws were framed to save and honor the cats living all over Egypt. A person was sure to be imprisoned and even was sure to face death penalty charges if a cat was killed by him or by his mistakes. One day an Egyptian cat was run over by a horse-riding Roman soldier. Pharaoh Ptolemy XII could not save his life and the Roman soldier was killed. This is a story of the first century B.C.

There were practices of mummification of the cats. Bubastis became a sacred site where cats were mummified with due respect. Death of a domesticated cat was greatly mourned. In order to share suffering of the diseased cat people even shaved their eyebrows. In the writings of the great Greek historian Herodotus one will find how cats in the Egyptian society were valued from religious point of view.

In 390 AD an Egyptian king banned this practice of worshiping of cats. People of Egypt do not worship a cat at present. The eastern part of India has never experienced any hype about worshiping of cats although this animal is considered as a goddess still by grandmothers and mothers in general.

DOMESTICATED CATS IN INDIA

    When I say “good”, I mean that as defined in chapter 4 of Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle. This is the idea that the good is happiness, not in the sense that the good is joy, but that the good is a life well lived [Ethics 1095a20-25]. Plato says that what is good for a man is whatever will make him more virtuous [Republic 335c4][Gorgias 468e]. So a rule which is good for someone will either make them more happy or more virtuous (or both) while it is going on. When I say “while it is going on” I do not mean a steady increase in how good the life of the ruler is, but that his life is more good during the rule than it would have been during the same period if had not been ruling. Moreover, I make a distinction between “living well qua man” and “ruling well (i.e.: being the best possible ruler)”, in that all men are happy in the same way regardless of their profession, and that is distinct from doing their profession well. I say this because there is more to life than profession.

    I feel that The Histories, by Herodotus (the Landmark edition, translated by Robert B. Strassler), is the best source to find the answers to these questions. In it are found many detailed examples of men making conscious actions to become rulers where previously they were not. The book contains accounts of speeches made by these men, and by those wishing to sway their opinions, about what courses of action are best. The book also contains descriptions of how these men lived before, during and after their conquests. This huge pool of data is exactly what I need in order to ask if they lived well before or after conquest and what they thought about their actions.    

    I intend to extract from the text incidents which give evidence either in favor of the rule benefitting the ruler, or against that idea, and to group some of these excerpts chronologically and others by theme. After each group of events, I will discuss what type of evidence they contain.

    Xerxes’ father, Darius, was defeated at Marathon in an attempt to attack Athens. Darius was attacking in revenge for Athenian support of several states which had rebelled against the Persian throne. After this defeat, Darius began preparations for a second attack and died at home while the preparations were under way. Xerxes ascended to the throne thereafter. During this time, Egypt rebelled and Xerxes marched the assembled force against them [Histories* 1 7.7], giving up any intention to attack Greece [7.5.1]. Right here, at the beginning of the story, we can see one of many examples of a ruler being constantly agitated and having to rush all about subduing rebellion. This does not strike me as a pleasant way to live, having one’s work always undone.

[*1 All future citations are from the Histories, I will therefore not specify which book they come from. The format is “book.paragraph.sentence”, with the notable exception that what were single sentences in the Greek have been broken into multiple sentences by the translator.]

    Mardonios, the first cousin of Xerxes who liked making trouble and also wanted to be governor of Greece [7.6], tried to convince Xerxes to complete his father’s war. He said to Xerxes “My Lord, it is unreasonable that the Athenians have inflicted great evils upon the Persians but have paid no penalty for it. Since you have enough on your hands right now, by all means, do subdue and punish Egypt first for its outrageous offense, but then you must march against Athens in order to gain a good reputation among men and to ensure that others will be wary of making war on your land afterword. [7.5.2]” He also spoke of the beauty and fertility of Europe [7.5.3]. Messages arrived from the ruling family of Thessaly, which lies between Persia and Greece, pledging support for any Persian attack on Greece [7.6.2]. Xerxes was finally convinced to attempt this conquest and announced a special assembly of the Persian nobility, for the purpose of making plans and giving orders [7.8].

    Xerxes said to the assembled nobles [7.8.α] “Persians, I am not about to introduce a new custom to you; instead I shall follow the tradition handed down to me. For as I hear from our elders, we have never been at rest or idle since Cyrus deposed Astyages and we assumed the sovereignty from the Medes. … after I assumed the throne, I pondered how I could avoid proving inferior to my predecessors in this honorable position, and how I could increase the power of Persia no less than they had. …

    “… I intend to bridge the Hellespont and lead an army through Europe to Hellas [(Greece)], so that we can punish the Athenians for all that they did to Persians and my father. … [7.8.β]”    

    He then told the assembled nobles that, when he called, they should each bring an army. He said “… whoever arrives with the army that is best prepared and equipped, to him I shall give the gifts that we regard as most valuable in our land.“ Then Mardonios spoke at length in favor of Xerxes’ plan, with a speech which combined flattery of Xerxes with denouncement of Greek fighting ability.    

    After that Artabanos, brother of Darius (who was Xerxes’ father), rose and spoke against the plan. Artabanos told Xerxes how he had warned Darius against fighting the Scythians, who defeated Darius when the King had ignored his brother’s advice [7.10.α]. Artabanos then went on to point out the parts of Xerxes’ plan which posed the most risk to the force. He also talked about how fierce the Greeks were in battle and how “… the God strikes with his thunderbolt those creatures that tower above the rest, and does not permit them to be conspicuous, … [7.10.ε].” He started his speech by saying “Sire, if no opposing opinions are expressed in the course of a discussion, it becomes impossible to try to choose and finally select the better one. …” This last idea is very important in my paper, as I will end up showing how Xerxes had no opportunity to think anything except that ruling was good.

    After all of that, Xerxes called Artabanos a coward for his opinion and told him that any other man would be executed for his cowardice if he had dared to say that, but that Artabanos would be spared because he was the King’s uncle. He sentenced Artabanos to stay at home and be denied any of the glory from the success instead, as a fitting punishment [7.11]. That night, Xerxes continued to ponder Artabanos’ advice and eventually came to see that he had been correct. In the few days after that, a dream vision came to Xerxes repeatedly, telling him to disregard Artabanos and maintain his plan to attack Greece [7.12]. Xerxes told Artabanos to pretend to be him for a day and to sleep in his bed [7.15]. That night, the vision came to Artabanos (who was sleeping in Xerxes bed), told him to recant his advice to Xerxes, and then threatened to burn out his eyes with hot irons [7.17]. After this, Artabanos told Xerxes how it must in truth be divine will that Greece must fall, and that his previous advice had been wrong. Xerxes then made Artabanos an advisor and brought him along on campaign [7.18]. It is clear from the reported speeches that Xerxes did not attempt to conquer Greece because he thought that it would be a good idea on his own. He was convinced to do it by others who had their own motives.

    There are many examples, both in the preparations for the campaign and in the attack itself, of Xerxes bending the very land and sea to his will [7.24]. In fact, Artabanos said to Xerxes while on campaign that the two enemies he had to fear most were earth and sea [7.49]. While marching, Xerxes’ army drank so much water that several rivers ran dry. No harbor could hold the entire Persian fleet, and so when a storm came up, they were unable to take shelter, and lost many ships. We can already see dynastic pressure on Xerxes in the way that he states his intentions to the assembled nobles. It is very reasonable to imagine a great desire in him to exceed the standard set by his predecessors, thus the huge extravagance of his army, since merely conquering would not in any way exceed his predecessors.

    Furthermore, Xerxes was born of Darius’s second wife, a woman whom Darius married only after ascending to the throne. Thus Xerxes could never have known life as anything but the child of a ruler. Thus, there is little reason that he would ever examine his intention to be his father’s heir. As Artabanos said during the planning for the Greek campaign, if only one option is available, then it will always seem good. If there are two options, then a man can choose the better. Since Xerxes never experienced life as a non-ruler, he had no way to choose whether it was better to rule or not to rule.

    Xerxes on campaign made an ostentatious spectacle. He ate such rich meals that one city ruler (Megakreon of Abdera) is recorded saying how thankful he was that the King only ate once a day [7.120]. Meals which are that rich are not made in that way for the enjoyment of the eater, they are that way to make a statement [7.119]. There is an anecdote from the end of the campaign (after the Persians had been defeated) of the Spartan general going to the captured Persian slaves, and ordering them to prepare a meal in the style which the Persian general ate. He then had his own servants prepare his normal, much simpler, meal. The Spartan general expressed a strong preference for his own fare [9.82]. Meals which are that complicated take time to prepare, so when he was hungry, Xerxes had to wait for his servants to finish the feast before satisfying himself.

    At one point in the narrative [7.40-7.41], Herodotus makes a point of describing the order of march of Xerxes forces. He says that half of the force marched in front of the King, and half behind, with a large company of bodyguards and holy icons clustered before and behind the king, separating him from the rest of the force. Herodotus is also explicit in saying that all of the bodyguards were Persian, making a contrast to the rabble of multi-national conscripts. It is very likely that Xerxes did not trust the conscripts, helping to explain the large number of bodyguards. Another possible reason for the large number of bodyguards was merely for ostentatious show. In front of Xerxes were 1,000 cavalry, and 1,000 infantry, and several moble shrines. Behind him marched another 1,000 infantry and another 1,000 cavalry, and then 10,000 more infantry. Herodotus also mentions the ornamentation on the weapons of many of the guards, which might have some religious significance. A little later, Xerxes made a huge sacrifice on the tomb of Priam, when the army marched past Troy. It seems from these descriptions that Xerxes had many religious duties which he was compelled to preform, at risk of rebellion by terrified masses. I would think also that living so closely surrounded by guards would make privacy and spontaneity both impossible, which seems a heavy detriment to living a happy life.

    At a later point, Xerxes sat on a mountain and watched his army march past [7.44]. As he saw the size of his force, he grew very happy, seeing how powerful he was. On a whim, he ordered his ships to compete in a race, which brought him joy. Then he began to weep, and Artabanos asked why he wept. Xerxes replied that he was sad because of the mortality of man, because life was so good, and no man could enjoy it for very long. Artabanos replied that life was hard for most people and that to most of them, death was a reward [7.46]. This makes it clear that Xerxes used the wealth and power of his Kingship to satisfy his desires, and thus he lived a comfortable life, although we can not yet say for sure whether he lived a happy one. It seems to me that if a man’s only way to make himself joyful is by satisfying playful whims, then he does not possess a deep level of contentment with his life.

    As the Persian force was marching through Lydia, Xerxes met a man named Pythios. Xerxes advisors told him that Pythios was the richest man in the empire besides the King himself. This led Xerxes to ask Pythios how rich he was. Pythios answered “Sire, I shall not conceal nor pretend that I don’t know the extent of my riches, … as soon as I learned that you were marching down to the Greek Seas, I investigated this matter because I wanted to give you money for the war, …” He had 2,000 talents of Silver, which is approximately equal to 114,000 lb of silver; and he had “… just 7,000 short of 4,000,000 Daric staters of gold.” Pythios offered Xerxes all of his wealth for the war. Xerxes accepted the silver, but let the man keep his gold and added to it from the royal coffers. Xerxes gave Pythios the 7,000 Daric staters which would make his fortune exactly 4,000,000 staters. Xerxes then declared Pythios his guest-friend (ξενια), and marched away [7.27-7.29]. The gold which Xerxes gave to Pythios would be measured as approximately 128 lb in modern measure. Herodotus tells us that the exchange rate between silver and gold is 13:1 [3.95], which makes the 114,000 lb of silver in Pythios’ gift equal in value to 884 lb of gold, which is more than Xerxes return gift, as one can expect. We can see in Xerxes return gift both a flair for ostentation, and a desire for neatness. This desire for neatness may have been part of what fueled Xerxes desire to “… make the boundary of the land of Persia border the lofty realm of Zeus. [7.8.γ.2]” After all, having some countries ruled together and others independent, some democratic and others monarchical, and choosing to only conquer some seems inherently messy. It is simpler to make all into one.

    Eventually Xerxes’ army reached the Hellespont river [7.33]. This is a wide waterway that drains the Caspian sea into the Mediterranean sea. It has a fairly steady current, and the wind blows counter to the current for about one day every fourteen. Xerxes had the ropes and boats for a pontoon bridge already built, and he ordered them assembled and put into use. When the bridge was nearly finished, a storm arose in the Mediterranean sea, and destroyed the bridge [7.34]. Xerxes flew into a rage, and ordered three hundred slave drivers to each administer fifty lashes to the river, all the while admonishing the river for daring to defy the mightiest man in the world. He ordered a hot branding iron thrust into the river, and a pair of shackles tossed into the sea at the river’s mouth [7.35].    

    While Xerxes was waiting for the second bridge to be ready, Pythios came to him and spoke to him [7.38]. Pythios told Xerxes that he had five sons, all of whom were serving in the army. He asked that Xerxes release his eldest son from service, so that his line could continue. Xerxes flew into a rage saying “You despicable wretch. How dare you even mention your own son when you are my slave and should be following me with your entire household, … …You once did me a good turn and promised more of the same, but you will not boast that your good services surpassed those of your King. … …Your hospitality will save you and four of your sons, but that one son to whom you cling the most will have to surrender his life as your punishment.[7.39]” He then ordered the boy killed and cut in half, and the halves placed on either side of the road. Then the entire army marched between the halves. This is a story of a reasonable request, from a man who has done good to the King, met with complete and extreme rejection. Xerxes may have seen the request as a challenge to his authority, or maybe he felt some desire for equality between his subjects. Most likely, Xerxes was only able to measure the difference in power between himself and those who were close to him in power. The fact that wealth can be turned into power, and Pythios had almost as much as Xerxes, may have made Xerxes feel less powerful. Thus, he might have a desire to humble Pythios, just to widen the gap between them, and make himself feel more powerful.

    We have here two tales of Xerxes attempting to show complete dominion over all of the people of the world, and over the world itself. He seems completely unable to alter his plans in response to the circumstances he encounters, instead he attempts to alter the circumstances to fit his plans. I think that this is a symptom of growing up as heir to a ruler as powerful as Darius was. The lack of this ability seems to me to be a very great failing. Furthermore, when the most powerful man in the world needs to use spite to make himself feel powerful, it seems to indicate that his life can in no way be a good one. I feel that a man who lived a good life, or whose life made him more virtuous, would be so content that he would be able to react to adversity without flying into rage, and would be happy without randomly ordering his ships to have races. As I said earlier, I think Xerxes misery came from a lack of contrast with which to compare his life.

    Darius, on the other hand, raised himself to rulership after experiencing life as a subject. Lets us ask if this was enough to say that he had enough options to make his choice well. Darius was the governor of one of the provinces of Persia, and so had experience ruling people. At the same time, the governors were subject to the king, and so knew limits to their power. However, Darius never knew a moment in his life when he did not bear the burden that rulership places on a ruler. Thus, he did not have full ability to make that decision accurately.    

    Darius took the throne by trickery [3.85] after he and six others conspired to stage a coup by assassination [3.72]. In fact, they killed the ruler because they found out that he was not the heir of Cyrus, but a pretender who had stolen the identity of the rightful heir [3.68]. This was possible because the rightful heir had been murdered, and this act was kept secret. So, we can see that Darius not only wanted someone other than the Pretender to be King, but he expressly wanted himself to be King. As governor or the heir of a governor since birth, he had nothing to compare ruling to, and thus it seemed good to him. Since ruling seemed good, he would naturally have thought ruling more would have been better.

    After the conspirators killed the pretender [3.78], the conspirators made speeches to each other in the process of deciding which type of government would be best to institute [3.80.1]. Otanes, who had founded the conspiracy [3.70], suggested Isocracy (rule by equals) [3.80.6], Megabyzos proposed Oligarchy (rule by the few) [3.81], and Darius proposed Monarchy (single rule) [3.82]. It is quite apparent that Darius intended himself as monarch from the moment that he proposed that type of government in the meeting, thus his speech is very helpful to our topic.

    In Otanes’ Speech, he brought up the risks and pitfalls of Monarchy, and these rested almost exclusively in the effect of ruling on the character of a man. He mentioned that Cambyses (who ruled for seven years before the pretender took power) grew outrageously arrogant [3.80.2], and how a ruler is never accountable to anyone [3.80.3]. I find it interesting that Cambyses was also the child of a conqueror.

    Otanes further said that even the best man, if placed in a position of power, will lose his mental balance, and that he will grow in both arrogance and in envy [3.80.3]. Otanes spoke about how a ruler’s arrogance will lead to reckless deeds [3.80.4], and we have seen how arrogance and recklessness were Xerxes’ major flaws. Next, Otanes spoke about envy, saying that the ruler envies the best men if they live near him, and derives pleasure from the worst people. He went on to say of the ruler “… his character is most inconsistent in nature, for if you admire him to a moderate degree, he is vexed that he is not being treated with sufficient deference, but if you treat him subserviently, then he becomes annoyed by your obsequiousness. … [3.80.5]”

    All of these things seem to indicate that rulership is, in fact, bad for the ruler. It appears that the ruling will make him less virtuous and less happy, which no man who is aware of the consequences would actually desire. However, Otanes goes on to make even more extreme claims, which cast doubt on his previous statements by showing a severe bias. He says that all rulers abolish traditions, and that they by habit rape women and order arbitrary executions [3.80.5]. While these things have been done by rulers, it does not seem that all rulers engage in such activity. Because Otanes made statements of questionable accuracy we are forced to question the truth of his entire speech.

    Darius, in contrast, talks about the efficiency and security of a Monarchy [3.82.2]. He then talks about how each of the other types of governments will eventually become Monarchies. What is more interesting, however, is that Otanes contrasts the best Democracy to the worst Monarchy, while Darius and Megabyzos contrasts the worst Democracy to the best of their favored governments.    

    Otanes talks about all of the errors that one man can make, and about how having the ideas of all people involved, the aggregate decision will be a better decision than any one man can make [3.80.6]. Darius contrasts that by suggesting that the best man should become the monarch [3.82.2]. If this could be done, it would be obvious that involving anyone else in the decision making process will cause the decisions made to be less just and to be made less quickly. I ask how one can be sure to only install the best man as your ruler. This brings us back to the distortions of character which ruling forces upon the ruler, as we have seen in the decadences of Xerxes. It appears to me that those decadences become more extreme the later in his rule we look. We begin with Subjugating the rebelling Egyptians, which is reasonable, and then we have Xerxes stated response to Artabanos during the planning for the Greek conquest (telling him that any other man who had dared to say such things would be executed). However, Xerxes did continue to think on that advice, and eventually was won over by good sense. Later, we have Xerxes’ lavish response to Pythios, which is less sensible than his earlier actions. Then, the flogging of the Hellespont is getting distinctly distorted, and that is followed by Xerxes killing Pythios eldest son and cutting him in half. There are more excesses and distortions in the later parts of the invasion, but I have not addressed them in detail, and therefore I will not mention them here. Clearly, ruling was not good for Xerxes.

    However, Cyrus (who created the empire) was remembered as being eminent in virtue both before and during his rule, which ended when he died in office. This leads to the questioning of how these distortions of character enter into a person when ruling, and what conditions may prevent them from occurring.

    The destined ruler was born the grandson of Astyages, King of Media. The King had several dreams indicating that the child of his daughter would overthrow him [1.107.1]. In order to prevent this fate he had her married to a Persian [1.107.2], a people which he considered so much inferior to his own that none with their blood could ever rule. When her first child was born Astyages ordered Harpagos, his most trusted servant, to expose the child [1.108.3-1.108.4]. Harpagos passed the task off the a cow herder [1.110], who kept the child as his own instead of killing it [1.111]. When the boy was ten years old, he displayed kingly traits while playing in the road of a nearby village with a group of other boys [1.114]. After offending the child of a local aristocrat with his play, the boy who would be called Cyrus was dragged before King Astyages, who recognized him [1.116]. The boy was sent to live with his real parents, who were at that time governors of Persia under Median rule. They gave him the name of Cyrus at this time [1.122].

    In punishment for failing in his assigned task, Astyages arranged to have Harpagos eat his own son, in such a way that he only found out the nature of his meal when he finished it [1.118-1.119]. This is only the most extreme of many acts of tyranny by which Astyages made his rule harsh, thus cementing public discontent with his rule [1.123.2].

    When Cyrus became a man, and succeeded his father in being governor of Persia, Harpagos began to court his friendship [1.123.1]. Harpagos told Cyrus to lead a revolt against the Medes, saying that he was sure that Astyages would make him general of the Median forces [1.124]. In the intervening years, the King had forgotten that he had alienated Harpagos, and that he should not trust the man. Cyrus did lead the revolt, and Astyages acted as Harpagos had predicted, making him the general of his forces. Harpagos took the first opportunity to defect to Cyrus side, thus making this half-persian the ruler of the empire [1.127].    

    The part of Cyrus life which is most relevant to my topic is how he was raised and how he came to rule, although the his actual reign is also very interesting. He was not the first West Asian to create an empire, or to die in battle when he over-extended his forces. What makes Cyrus interesting is that he knew personally whether peasant life was peaceful or harsh. Some would say peaceful, because one does not have to live up to the demands that all of the subjects place on a ruler. Others say harsh, because money is used to make life comfortable, and because the peasant has to accept any arbitrary order from those above him, while the noble is less subject to that, and the ruler not at all. After getting the first hand experience to truly make that decision, Cyrus became a noble, where he could experience the benefit of wealth, without the benefit of immunity from the will of superior men. While experiencing the benefit of wealth, he also experiences the burden of having to meet the expectations of a large body of subjects. Finally, when he was offered complete rulership by the hand of another, he took that opportunity, deciding that immunity from the whims of superior men was a greater good than the burden of a greater number of subjects would be. It seems to be this immunity that is both the greatest good of being a ruler and also the greatest evil in that life. A man can be kept virtuous either by an internal virtue, or by the watchful eye of his superiors. Cyrus had a strong internal virtue, which none of those who followed him had.

Positive Thoughts

The following well known individuals have provided these positive thoughts on knowledge. (All quotes are from “Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 17thEdition. A reference number follows each quote.)

John Adams

John Adams expressed knowledge as being the preservation of liberty.

“Liberty can not be preserved without a general knowledge among the people who have a right to know…” Page 350.17

Frances Bacon

Frances Bacon perceived knowledge to give pleasure, provide province, and to be power.

“For all knowledge and wonder (which is the seed of knowledge) is an impression of pleasure in itself.” Page 166.2

“I have taken all knowledge to be my province (or branch of learning).” Page 165.2

“Knowledge is power.” Page 166.1

Soren Kierkegaard

Soren Kierkegaard maintained knowledge was existence.

“All essential knowledge relates to existence, or only such knowledge as has an essential relationship to existence is essential knowledge.” Page 501.10

John Locke

John Locke perceived knowledge as protection against the world.

“The only fence against the world is thorough knowledge of it.” Page 286.12

John Henry Cardinal Newman

The perception of knowledge to John Henry Cardinal Newman was as a treasure and a reward for labor.

“There is a knowledge which is desirable, though nothing come of it, as being of itself a treasure, and a sufficient remuneration of years of labor.” Page 450.2

Socrates

Socrates defined knowledge as being the only good in life.

“There is only one good – knowledge, and there is only one evil – ignorance.” Page 72.6

All these thought about knowledge probably most of us would accept or agree are accurate descriptions of knowledge. But can knowledge be a problem for us? There are many great minds who will attest knowledge can be problematic.

Negative Thoughts

Frances Bacon

Frances Bacon considered the extreme desire of knowledge would be a person’s downfall.

“The desire of power in excess caused angels to fall; the desire of knowledge in excess caused man to fall.” Page 167.19

Chuang-Tzu

It seems like a lot of knowledge is problematic. Chuang-Tzu thinks too much knowledge is a curse.

“Cherish that which is in you, and shut off that which is without; for much knowledge is a curse.” Page 83.1

Bernard De Voto

Bernard De Voto believed new knowledge (or immature knowledge) is false.

“The dawn of knowledge is usually the false dawn.” Page 748.8

Herodotus

Herodotus believed knowledge without power was painful.

“This is the bitterest pain among men, to have knowledge but no power.” Page 71.26

T (homas) H(enry) Huxley

How much knowledge does one need have to be out of danger? T.H. Huxley asked the same question.

“If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much knowledge as to be out of danger?” Page 537.10

Lao-Tzu

Does excessive knowledge bring out a person’s stubbornness making them unruly? Lao-Tzu seemed to think so.

“”People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.” Page 59.13

John Milton

Knowledge is t he by product of much arguing and is born of opinion according to Jun Milton.

“Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making.”

Page 263.1

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Did you know doubt keeps pace with knowledge? Johann Wolfgang von Goethe believed it did.

“Doubt grows with knowledge.” Page 366.2

Johann (Christoph) Friedrich von Schiller

Could it be that death is knowledge? Johann Christopf Friedrich von Schiller considered this to be true.

“Life is only error, and death is knowledge.” Page 382.9

It seems to be repetitive that too much knowledge creates difficulties and problems. This many be the main negative to knowledge

However let’s look at another source for knowledge. We’ve read what some of the most brilliant minds of the ages have said about knowledge; now let’s see what God tells us about this subject.

The Bible’s “Take” on Knowledge

All scripture is from Revised King James Version.

Genesis 2:9 & 17 Tells us God created a tree that was called; The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”. God also told Adam he should never each of it, or he would die.

(Thus some knowledge can hurt us deeply)

And there are some things we will never understand or know in this earthly life.

Deuteronomy 29:20 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things that are revealed belong to us and our children forever that we may do all the words of this law.”

Does prosperity (wealth) follow on the heels of knowledge? If we consider Solomon it would definitely seem the case. I Kings 4:29-34

And certainly knowledge can be considered vain or useless.

Job 15:2 “Should a wise man answer with empty knowledge and fill himself with the east wind?

Proverbs 2:1-6 encourages us to desire and seek for knowledge, that by doing so; “…the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth comes knowledge and understanding.”

The Bible tells us there are the big four: wisdom, knowledge, discretion and understanding.

Proverbs: 2:10-12 “When wisdom enters your heart, and knowledge is pleasant to your soul, discretion will preserve you; understanding will keep you to deliver you from the way of evil.”

Understanding prompts us to seek knowledge.

Proverbs 15:4 “The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouth of fool’s feeds on foolishness.”

Strength comes with knowledge.

Proverbs 24:5 “A wise man is strong, yes, a man of knowledge increases strength…”

Knowledge is sweet (Verse 24) “…eat honey because it is good and the honey comb which is sweet to your taste; so shall the knowledge of wisdom be to your soul.”

And there is a downside to knowledge.

Ecclesiastes 1:18 “For in much wisdom is grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.”

Knowledge can be narcissistic.

Isaiah 47:10 “For you have trusted in your wickedness; you have said, “No one sees me”; your wisdom and your knowledge have warped you. And you have said in your heart, “I am and there is no one else besides me”.”

We read some profound thoughts from individuals considered to be intellectuals, yet even these lofty thoughts are pale next to God’s.

Isaiah 59:19 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways. And My thoughts than your thoughts.”

Knowledge should be acted upon.

John 13:17 “If your know these things, blessed are you if you do them.”

The difference between knowledge and love: 1 Corinthians 8:13a “Knowledge puffs up but love builds up…” And, 1 Corinthians 13:8 “Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies they will fail; whether there are tongues they will cease; whether there is knowledge it will vanish away.”

The Apostle Peter leaves us with a “tall order”.

2 Peter 1:5-7 “But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; to virtue knowledge; to knowledge self control; to self control perseverance; to perseverance godliness; to godliness brotherly kindness and to brotherly kindness love.”

The positive aspects of knowledge include:

* Pleasure

* Province

* Power

* Existence

* Protection (against the world)

* Only good

* Preserver of liberty

* Treasure

* Reward for labor

* Prosperity often follows

* Strength

* Sweet as honey comb

The negatives include:

* Painful

* False

* Death

* Excessive knowledge causes downfall, danger, stubbornness and unruliness, increases doubt and is a curse.

* Arrogance leading to narcissism

And a few facts about knowledge:

* Our knowledge is limited compared to God’s

* Knowledge gives way to conceit; love gives way to encouragement

* Knowledge needs to be acted upon

* Love lasts, knowledge vanishes

There you have it a crash course on knowledge. I trust this content won’t be like the story about the little girl who had to do a book report on a book about birds. She quite simply said, “This book told me more about birds than I ever cared to know.”

As follows are ten queen regnant from different historical periods ranging from classical antiquity to the Middle Ages to modern history:

Hatshepsut

The first female pharaoh to reign over ancient Egypt (1479 to 1458 B.C.). After her husband Thutmose II’s death, she became regent to her newly crowned young nephew Thutmose III, but would proclaim herself “Pharaoh” after a few years. An able leader, she conducted military campaigns in Nubia, re-established trade routes disrupted by the Hyksos invasion, and constructed the awesome temple complex at Deir el-Bahri.

Christina

“Christina on horseback” (1653) by Sébastien Bourdon

Queen of Sweden, dubbed “The Minerva of the North” for her love and patronage for the arts and culture. In 1632 when her father King Gustav II Adolf died in battle, she was immediately declared as “king” of Sweden at only six years of age. Educated as a prince, this very mannish but gifted ruler began to rule in her own right on her eighteenth birthday, and was able to effectively negotiate the Treaty of Westphalia bringing to an end the Thirty Years’ War in 1648. Overburdened by the pressure for her to marry, she relinquished the throne in 1654 in favor of her cousin Charles Gustav (Charles X), converted to Catholicism, and settled in Rome, where she died and was buried in St. Peter’s Basilica in 1689.

Artemisia I

“Battle of Salamis” (by Wilhelm von Kaulbach) in which Artemisia commanded five ships

The daughter of Lygdamis and tyrant queen of Halicarnassus, the only woman whom Herodotus attributed with manly bravery. In 480 B.C., she commanded five ships to assist her Persian ally under Xerxes in the Battle of Salamis; but when she found herself about to be captured by the winning Greek fleet, she deliberately crashed and sunk a Persian ship in order to deceive the Greeks into thinking she had changed sides, and thereby, to spare her life.

Razia Sultana

An unknown artist’s rendition of Razia Sultana

A thirteenth century Muslim ruler, the first female monarch to rule Delhi. She was chosen by her father, Iltutmush, over his many incompetent sons to be his successor. She started wearing man’s attire upon assuming the throne. She proved to be a capable leader both in the battlefield and in court, establishing law and order in her country, and successfully playing the game of politics to rally support to her side.

Septima Zenobia

Zenobia, portrait bust (Vatican Museum, Rome)

Queen of Palmyra (267 to 273 A.D), known for her exceptional beauty and courage. She was also well educated, able to speak Latin, Greek, Syriac and Coptic. She ascended the throne as regent of her infant son Vaballathus upon her husband Odenathus’ death. She personally marshaled troops into battle decisively vanquishing the Romans, conquered parts of Asia Minor and annexed Egypt claiming to be a descendant of Cleopatra and Marc Antony.

Maria Theresa

Portrait of the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria by Martin van Meytens

Archduchess of Austria and queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1740-1780), the only female empress of the 650-year history of the Habsburg dynasty. Being the eldest, she succeeded her father, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI; however, her accession triggered the War of Austrian Succession which was instigated by Frederick the Great of Prussia in his desire to claim the throne for himself. Strong-willed and ambitious, her many successful reforms included government centralization, establishment of the supreme court, abolition of capital punishment, power restrictions of local nobles, founding of military and engineering science academies, regulation of serf’s obligation and education support for the peasantry.

Catherine the Great

Catherine the Great (1783), painting by Dmitrij Grigorevic Levickij

Empress of Russia, well-known for the many lovers she had during her reign. In 1762, she, with the support of the Imperial Guard, took part in a bloodless coup that ousted her husband Peter III and had herself proclaimed empress. Under her rule from 1762 to 1796, she was able to annex Southern Ukraine and Crimea to Russia through warfare, promoted the arts and education and transformed St. Petersburg into one of the most impressive European capitals.

Elizabeth I

“The Ermine Portrait of Elizabeth I” (c1585) by Nicholas Hilliard

The daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife Anne Boleyn, nicknamed the “Virgin Queen” (as she never married) and “Gloriana.” Her 45-year reign (1558-1603), commonly referred to as the “Golden Age of England,” was an era of prosperity and great accomplishments, as follows: Church of England established; commerce flourished; North America colonized; Spanish Armada defeated and the world circumnavigated by Francis Drake; and arts and literature thrived with celebrated writers as Shakespeare, Marlowe and Spenser.

Isabella II

“Queen Isabella II of Spain” (1852) by Franz Xavier Winterhalter

The eldest daughter of Ferdinand VII by his fourth wife Maria Christina of Bourbon. She became Queen of Spain in 1836, because her father was able to persuade the Cortes Generales to set aside the Salic law which precluded all females from inheriting the throne. However, her corrupt handling of politics, military misalliances, tyranny and religious zealotry brought about the Glorious Revolution resulting in her exile to Paris in 1868 and her abdication in 1870 in favor of her son Alfonso XII, whose rule officially started in 1874.

Wu Zetian

The lone female emperor in China’s history. During the seventh century Tang Dynasty, she ruled with an iron hand, instituted a secret police force that did not hesitate to jail, exile or execute anyone who dared to oppose her. Though despotic, she was a capable ruler treating the peasants fairly; lowering taxes; improving infrastructure and agricultural productivity; recruiting qualified people to government through exams; and even allowing women to be educated. She initially reigned in her husband Emperor Gaozong’s and her sons’ name but would eventually declare herself “emperor” under the new Zhao Dynasty.

More History

• Warrior Women