300: Rise of an Empire – Fact and Fiction

The sequel to 300 lives up to its predecessor’s reputation, with more than enough blood, gore and sex to sooth the most fervent of fans. What set apart the first 300 movie was its manipulation of historical events to create a box office spectacle of the grandest kind. But the salient points of the last stand at Thermopylae were entirely accurate – Ephialtes may not have been a hunchback, but he sure as hell betrayed the Greeks, so much so that his name became a synonym for “nightmare”. Bearing that in mind, how does “Rise of an Empire” stack up to 300 when it comes to real history? Let’s take it step by step.

What Were the Crusades? – Part 1

“This crusade, this war on terror is going to take a long time.” – George Bush, 2001

“The people of Islam…are the main target for the Zionist-Crusaders alliance” – Osama bin Laden, 1996

The word “crusade” has taken on a life its own, weaving and bending its meaning to fit the need of the times. Today, it is used to paint a divisive picture of the war on terror, which many Muslims in the Middle East as a rerun of the crusades that ended over 700 years ago. This is obvious propaganda – today, Jews occupy Jerusalem, not the Catholics of the Crusades who massacred both the Muslims and the Jews of the city 900 years ago. Islamic terrorist groups like al-Qaeda murder far more Muslims in the so-called War on Terror than Westerners do. But the ability of men like bin Laden to spin the meaning of the Crusades so thoroughly reveals something of the deep hatred the Muslim world still holds for the long-gone knights of Europe who came sweeping down on their most holy of cities all those centuries ago. Even in the west, the Crusades have become a byword for unchecked militarism, and have been redefined as the forerunner of European colonialism. Yet while it was Europeans who launched the holy war, it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who emphasise its religious aspect more than ever.

To understand why the Crusades hold such a powerful and yet wildly different place in Islam and the West’s collective memory, we must examine four questions: why did they take place, were they justified, who won, and does it really even matter?

Why you should never march on Moscow

From left: King Charles XII of Sweden, French Emperor Napoleon I and Adolf Hitler. All would see their empires disintegrate in the Russian cold.

In the summer of 1941, after having conquered all of Europe, Adolf Hitler turned his sights upon the great rival he had left untouched: Russia. He had at his command the largest invasionary force in history, led by brilliant generals whose tactics of blitzkrieg, or lightning war, had toppled in just weeks such nations as France, Denmark, Norway and Greece. Success, all believed, was virtually assured.

We all know how the story goes. Four years later, instead of Germany’s Wehrmacht marching through the streets of Moscow, the Soviet Red Army had steamrolled its way into the heart of Hitler’s empire. As Russian tanks rolled through Berlin, Hitler dismissed his generals, swallowed cyanide, and, just to make sure, shot himself in the head. In those last moments, the most hated man of all time, despite all his flaws, surely must have regretted his one, brutal mistake. As well he should – for Adolf Hitler is only the last in a long series of conquerors who set out to do the impossible: to march on Moscow, and win.

Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: “Do not march on Moscow”.

That’s the advise of Bernard Montgomery, the famed British war hero. At the time, Nazi Germany’s great failure was still fresh in the mind;  but those words would have been reasonable even before the war, or a hundred years before it. Over the centuries, Russia’s vast expanse, frigid and rapidly shifting weather, unpaved dirt-roads, and, above all, its resilient population have reduced the greatest armies of their time to ragtag bands of stragglers. Yet its enemies still come. Here we review some of history’s would-be invaders who met their match in Mother Russia.

Why Scotland wants out of the United Kingdom

In 2014, Scotland will carry out a vote on whether to stay in the United Kingdom or leave to form their own country. Scottish independence is an idea that’s been gaining support for some time, and it seems there’s a good chance Scotland and the UK will go their separate ways. If they do, it will bring to a close more than four hundred years of shared history between two nations who never really saw themselves as brothers. But how did they get here in the first place?