Sexual obsessives, sometimes paired with wickedness, dominated France for over four centuries. The French monarchy was characterized by continuous coitus from the time of the Valois in the 16th century to the time of Bonaparte, thru the Bourbons. It was a shindig of whores, homosexuals, transvestites, satyrs, rapers, incestuous people, and pedophiles.
King Henry IV, Who Had 70 Affairs
Henry IV was the most well-known of these serial philanderers. He was called “The Green Gallant” solely for his numerous mistresses. His biographers claim he had relationships with about seventy different women. This is likely an extremely low estimate because of the carnal nature of this man.
The behavior of Henry IV with women left the Italian canon Giovannini utterly shocked, witnessing a level of “chaos” he had never encountered before. Whether they were nuns, prostitutes, country girls, gorgeous or hideous, Henry IV didn’t care. He needed all of them.
When he saw a marquise or prostitute whose features caught his eye, he would immediately dismount and fondle her while she was leaning against a tree or in a barn.
The cheerful and joyous ruler was also extraordinarily generous when it came to rewarding his affairs later.
Louis XIV’s Sexual Appetite Began to Run Wild Early
Louis XIV was tall, muscular, handsome, physically fit, and played the guitar. Women flocked to the most attractive prince in Europe. It’s hard to put a number on the affairs of Louis XIV outside of the official fifteen.
The Sun King’s sexual appetite was reportedly ignited at the tender age of fourteen.
Not even his mom’s closest friends were safe from his lust. Regardless of matters of state, Louis XIV had the capacity to send his advisors away, seized by a sudden urge to indulge in revelry.
When he was almost sixty years old, Louis XIV still “paid respect” to the noblewoman Françoise Maintenon on a daily basis. His alleged extramarital affairs were said to have cost as much as Versailles.
Louis XV Inherited His Father’s Genes for Lust
Louis XV, Louis XIV’s illegitimate son, shared his father’s “fixation”. But until he was 24, ladies actually paid him no attention. Then he met the noblewoman Mailly-Nesle, whose boyfriend, Richelieu, arranged for them to sleep together. That sparked the whole sex addiction of Louis XV.
The monarch went from being a model citizen to opening his own brothel and engaging in pedophilia, and he didn’t stop until he died. According to French historians, Louis XV is without a doubt one of France’s most notorious adulterers, alongside Henry IV.
The isolation of being a monarch, the weight of responsibilities that would crush lesser mortals, and finally the comfort of authority (because nobody can refuse to obey a king) might all contribute to this rage among French monarchs. Sex eventually became a normal pastime for the French royal court around this time.
Considering the staggering number of bastards produced by this massive orgy, it’s possible that millions of French citizens have a trace of kingly blood in their veins today (this was not supposed to sound good).
On October 19, 1922, in the early afternoon, a diverse crowd gathered in the 5th arrondissement of Paris, near the Jardin des Plantes. The assembly consisted of soldiers, recognizable by their kepis and the medals adorning their tunics, as well as politicians in top hats. Amidst the sea of dark attire, men wearing hooded white burnouses, a typical North African garment, stood out. Among them was Si Kaddour Benghabrit, who would become the rector of the Grand Mosque. At 2 o’clock, he officially laid the first stone of the building.
One hundred years have passed, and a different crowd enters the entrance leading to the pleasant courtyard. Tourists flock to appreciate the beauty of this place of worship built in an Arab-Andalusian style. As for the faithful, they come to participate in prayers organized several times a day.
When the construction of the Grand Mosque was initiated a century earlier, the French Republic presided over an empire. From the Levant to Africa, the tricolor flag flew over the colonial administrations. In 1922, the memories of World War I were still fresh, with the bodies barely buried, and the Treaty of Versailles, which sealed the terms of Germany’s defeat, was only two years old. The authorities wanted to pay tribute to the sacrifice of Muslim soldiers who had died on the battlefield.
The Great Mosque of Paris is renowned for its stunning Franco-Islamic architectural style. This style combines traditional Islamic elements with French architectural influences, resulting in a unique and visually impressive design.
100,000 African Soldiers Died During World War I
The patio and Andalusian garden with fountains and stoops. Image:Photo si Kaddour Benghabrit
It was after the Battle of Verdun that the military authorities and then the politicians became aware of the sacrifice of these troops. The capture of Fort Douaumont during that terrible battle was an achievement credited to colonial regiments. In total, 500,000 African soldiers, predominantly Muslim, were sent to the French mainland to fight against the army of Wilhelm II. One hundred thousand of them perished, with 70,000 alone at Verdun.
Sultan Moulay Youssef at the opening of the mosque on July 16, 1926.
The other key figure in this construction was Edouard Herriot. The deputy mayor of Lyon, a member of the Radical Party, authored a parliamentary report advocating the creation of a Muslim Institute in Paris. He wrote, “If the war sealed the Franco-Muslim fraternity on the battlefields, then our country must take pride in marking its recognition and remembrance as soon as possible through actions.“
The bill was unanimously adopted on June 19, 1920. However, Charles Maurras, representing the Action Française, raised objections: “But, if there is an Islamic awakening, and I don’t think there is any doubt about it, a trophy of this Quranic faith on this Sainte-Geneviève hill where all the greatest teachers of anti-Islamic Christianity taught represents more than an offense to our past: it’s a threat to our future.” The protest of this far-right figure did not stop the construction of the Grand Mosque but did lead to a clever workaround.
The Grand Mosque Was Constructed Through a Clever Maneuver
General view of the Grand Mosque of Paris. Image: Wikimedia.
Since 1905, France has been a secular country, and the state cannot finance a place of worship. The construction of the Mosque was entrusted to the association of the Society of Habous and Holy Places, established in 1917 to organize the pilgrimage to Mecca. To circumvent the problem, the association’s headquarters were registered in Algeria, which was then a French department and not subject to the 1905 law. This allowed the state to grant funds. Money was also collected in the Arab colonies.
Thus, the state paid homage to these overseas soldiers through the construction of the mosque. More insidiously, it was also a way for France to assert itself strategically as a colonial Muslim power in a context of imperialism among Europeans and at a time when independence was beginning to be hoped for by anti-colonialists. The first rector of the mosque, Algerian Si Kaddour Benghabrit, served as a dual ambassador: one for Muslims in France and the other for France in the Maghreb.
In 1926, the mosque was ready to receive the approximately 20,000 Muslims living in Paris. For the occasion and for the only time, the call to prayer was launched from the elegant minaret, which rises to a height of 33 meters.
The mosque features beautiful Andalusian gardens, Moorish design elements, and a tall minaret. The prayer hall, adorned with intricate tilework and ornate details, is another notable architectural feature.
These Mosques Also Have Remarkable Histories
Mosque Missiri, Frejus, France.
Missiri Mosque in Fréjus: After the war, not all Senegalese colonial troops were repatriated. In the Caïs camp on the outskirts of Fréjus, the riflemen constructed a mosque to combat homesickness in 1928. They took the Djenné Mosque in Sudan (now Mali) as their model. The place served purposes beyond religious worship and included huts and termite mounds to provide the black riflemen with “the illusion of a setting similar to what they had left; they find it there in the evening during endless discussions and the echoes of the drum,” according to Captain Abdel Kader Medemba, the project’s instigator.
Noor-e-Islam Mosque in Saint-Denis, La Réunion.
Noor-e-Islam Mosque in Saint-Denis, La Réunion: Noor-e-Islam in Saint-Denis, La Réunion, was the oldest mosque in France until Mayotte was attached. This Muslim place of worship resulted from the efforts of merchants originating from Gujarat, India. “Our mosque will be surrounded by walls and arranged internally to accommodate the sensitivities of other faiths,” they wrote to the governor in 1897. Noor-e-Islam was inaugurated in 1905. Initially modest in size, it was expanded in 1960. Fourteen years later, a fire reduced it to ashes. It was rebuilt in 1979.
Eyyûb Sultan Mosque in Strasbourg: The Eyyub Sultan Mosque, currently under construction in Strasbourg’s Meinau district, is expected to be the largest in Western Europe, with 9,600 square meters and a capacity to accommodate over 4,000 worshipers. The project sparked controversy in 2021 when the Green Party mayor’s office announced a grant for its construction, made possible through the Concordat. However, Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin accused the Millî Görüs Islamic community, which is behind the project, of “foreign interference.” The association subsequently declined the grant. The mosque’s opening is planned for 2024–2025.
Several theories suggest the existence of a common language among all humans on Earth. One reference often cited is the theory from the Old Testament of the Bible, which deals with the Tower of Babel. According to this theory, all humans created by the divine spoke the same language. However, it does not name this language, which makes it a myth in the eyes of scientists. Therefore, it would be quite risky to assert, without tangible proof, that all humans spoke the same language. However, other studies have shown that early prehistoric humans, particularly Homo habilis, possessed language centers in their brains.
What Is a Language Center?
Anatomically, the language center, also known as “Broca’s area,” is a region of the brain located in the posterior part of the frontal lobe, near the brain responsible for tongue and jaw movements. This region is responsible for the production of spoken words, with words constituting “the motor component of language.” Next to this region, another area called “Wernicke’s area” assists in the comprehension of words and language symbols. This means that this area processes perceived speech. According to scientists, these two regions are connected by bundles of nerve fibers, a kind of arcuate fasciculus, facilitating communication and understanding during interactions.
Did Prehistoric Humans Speak?
In his scientific article on “Language and Communication Among Hominids,” linguist and member of the Royal Academy of Belgium, Guy Jucquois, cites a range of paleontologists and neuroanthropologists who have mentioned that early humans naturally possessed a language center in their brains. Among these authors, the most well-known is Dean Falk, an American academic neuroanthropologist specializing in brain evolution and cognition in higher primates.
She revealed that prehistoric humans could speak thanks to the language center defined above. But what language did these humans use?
What Language Did Prehistoric Humans Speak?
Several theorists agree that the prehistoric language was likely sign language when considering the potential complexities of history. Language, as suggested by paleoanthropologist Henry de Lumley, “does not fossilize.” This means that language does not leave a trace. Therefore, it is not easy to precisely determine the language of prehistoric humans. Moreover, for many linguists and paleoanthropologists, certain factors must be taken into account when determining the language used by early humans:
Biological considerations: development of the organs in prehistoric humans (oral cavity, cerebral cortex, pharynx)
Social and technological complexity: difficulty in communication due to differences and the absence of technology.
The first criterion is one to exclude because, as demonstrated above, humans have always possessed it. However, the second criterion, social and technological complexity, should not be overlooked. This factor supports the argument that prehistoric humans used sign language. Additionally, considering the first criterion, some studies have shown a gradual transformation of the larynx and body. This could potentially delay speech articulation in early humans. This is why the earliest evidence of speech dates back to the time of the Neanderthals, around 250,000 years ago. Some studies even reveal that these hominids could pronounce certain vowels like “a, o, i.”
What Was the First Language Spoken on Earth?
The question of the first language spoken in the world remains very complex, as mentioned earlier. Specialists debate it extensively. The first languages spoken leave no written records, making their identification extremely challenging. This leads many researchers to suggest that the first language may have been a sign language. Additionally, language is a cultural artifact in constant evolution, making it difficult to determine a precise “starting point.” Some schools of thought propose that the first language spoken might have been a form of mimetic language, imitating actions or objects, as observed in some primates mentioned above.
What Do Other Sources Say About the First Language Spoken on Earth?
Other researchers have turned to the study of current languages to trace their origins. For instance, linguists Franz Bopp and Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze contributed to the discovery of the Indo-European family, a vast group of languages sharing common features that could have their roots in Mesopotamia.
Geography also plays a key role in the emergence and diversification of languages. For example, a 2011 study traced the origin of human language to Africa by mapping and comparing the number and diversity of phonemes in 504 languages around the world.
From its original use in the Hebrew Bible, the word “Cushi” has come to mean a person with a very dark complexion (near black) who is of African lineage. As the 20th century drew to a close, this phrase was widely seen as racist or, at the very least, insensitive. As a word, Cushi’s negative meaning is actually subtle, although most Hebrew speakers use it in a pejorative context.
Original Meaning of the Word Cushi
Someone from Cush (possibly modern-day Sudan, the area south of Egypt) is called a “Cushi” in the Hebrew Bible. According to the Bible, Ham’s oldest son was also named Cush.
Due to an error in the translation of the Septuagint, Cush was mistakenly interpreted as Ethiopia in ancient times. The historical location of the Kingdom of Kush was in present-day Sudan, not Ethiopia.
This misunderstanding developed because the Egyptians referred to the country south of Egypt as “Cush,” while the Greeks referred to it as “Ethiopia.” This misconception was further cemented when the Coptic Kingdom of Aksum also adopted the name “Ethiopia.” Itiyopis, son of Cush, supposedly constructed the first capital of the kingdom, Mazaber, as recorded in the Book of Axum.
Usage of Cushi in History
1
The narrative of Canaan, son of Ham, being cursed by Noah can be found in the Book of Genesis in the Torah, where it is said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25). The Europeans used this scripture to legitimize their treatment of black Africans as slaves, despite the fact that the original curse was aimed at Canaan and not Cush.
2
Miriam and Aaron, Moses’s siblings, are mentioned in the Book of Numbers (12:1), where it is said that the siblings spoke out “against the Cushite woman whom Moses had married.” Marrying a Cushite was taboo among the Israelites.
Instead of supporting this plain meaning of the word Cushi, the French rabbi Rashi from the 11th century offers a more nuanced interpretation: “Cushite woman [in this verse] teaches that everyone acknowledged her beauty, just as everyone acknowledges the blackness of a Cushite.” He adds, “Cushite” in gematria is used as a word for beautiful.
3
As he was about to enter Egypt, Abraham told Sarah, his wife, “I know what a beautiful woman you are.” (Genesis 12:11), and Rashi explains that this means that they had “come among black and ugly people, the sons of Cush,” and that Abraham is terrified of them because he is not accustomed to seeing black people.
4
The prophet Amos asks the Israelites, “Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians [Cushi] unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord.” (Amos 9:7).
5
The Midrash Tehillim suggests that King David used a pejorative name for King Saul, the son of Kish from the tribe of Benjamin, when he wrote “A shiggaion of David, which he sang to the Lord concerning Cush, a Benjamite” (Psalm 7:1).
6
The prophet Jeremiah’s inquiry, “Can an Ethiopian [Cushite] change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.” is one of the most well-known uses of the word “Cushi” in Hebrew.
7
The phrase “The Cushite did his part; the Cushite can leave” is a well-known idiom that Friedrich Schiller coined for his play “Fiesco’s Conspiracy at Genoa” in 1783. When Isaac Salkinson produced the first Hebrew translation of “Othello: The Moor of Venice” in 1874, he titled it “Ithiel the Cushite.”
When Cushi Became a Racial Slur
Initially, the Israeli Hebrew word “Cushi” was not used in a pejorative sense. However, this has changed in recent times. Other terms, like “Schvartze” (Yiddish for “black”), also made disparaging use of skin color at the same time.
Cushi is also still being used positively in modern times. There is a “Cushi cat” in the popular 20th-century children’s book “Dira Lehaskir” by Leah Goldberg, which is sold on Amazon.
Another children’s book by the German writer Erich Kästner called “The Animals’ Conference,” translated by Miriam Yalan-Shteklis, makes reference to a “Cushi child,” among other examples.
In the 20th Century
The term “Cushi” acquired its pejorative connotations in the second part of the twentieth century. For many Israelites the word Cushi is often regarded as the most overtly racist and condescending word in the language.
This phenomenon can be attributed, in part, to the global influence of American culture. Many countries not only embraced the cultural elements of the United States but also adopted its negative attitudes and prejudices. There has been an identity created between the Hebrew word “Cushi” and the English word “Negro” in the last century.
The triumph of the African American civil rights movement in the United States during the 1960s caused the word “Negro,” formerly a suitable descriptor, to become inappropriate.
As the meaning of “Cushi” changed, so did its use in popular culture and the marketplace. Fearing it might impair ties with African nations, Kol Yisrael (Israel Radio) banned the children’s song “Kushi Kelev Kat” (Cushi Little Dog) in the 1950s. Israeli cheese, once known as “Cushi,” is now known as “Oshi,” while the chocolate-coated marshmallow treats “Krembo” was also formerly known as “Cushi.”
Cushi as a Slur Against Ethiopian Jews in Israel
The phrase Cushi Israeli was used by the Israelis for Ethiopians during their immigration to the country (“Ethiopian Aliyah”). In Ethiopian society, people of different skin tones are treated differently. Cushitic Ethiopians don’t identify as black since they’re descended from Semites, not Africans. Within Ethiopia’s borders, black Africans and Cushitic peoples lived in almost complete isolation from one another.
The Cushitic peoples (such as Habesha) also referred to people of African descent with dark complexions as “Tukur” (black). This was used by these groups, along with the Europeans, to enslave non-Cushitic Africans in Ethiopia (in Amharic, the Semitic language of Ethiopia, “Bariya” means “slave”).
About 5 million black Africans were killed by Emperor Menelik II (King of Shewa and Emperor of Ethiopia) with the involvement of Ethiopia in the imperialist race to control Africa.
Since Ethiopian people of varied skin tones were treated quite differently, Ethiopians (including Jews) often referred to themselves as brown (“Teim” in Amharic) or even red (“Kai”) if they were of a lighter complexion tone, rather than black (“Tukur”). People who identified as “black” were part of the slave content community. This provides context for their extreme sensitivity to the derogatory term “Cushi” in Israel.
King Solomon’s annual income from gold was $1.5 billion.
His powerful army included 10,000 horses and 3,000 chariots.
Solomon’s lavish palace featured pure gold utensils and opulent decorations.
No archaeological evidence supports Solomon’s legendary riches.
Israel’s King Solomon was a powerful and wealthy monarch. God endowed Solomon with knowledge, and the Bible portrays his reign as a time of extraordinary wealth. Estimates of his net worth range from $2 billion to $2.3 trillion. However, the median estimates put Solomon’s wealth at roughly $170 billion. The biblical king amassed 500 tons of gold from his mines, which translates roughly to $30 billion today. By monopolizing the major trade routes passing through Israel, Solomon amassed vast tax revenues.
Solomon received $60 billion in gold alone during his lifetime.
The Kingdom of Israel was a significant trading center connecting Africa, Arabia, and Europe.
Solomon’s fortified city was located on a busy trade route between prosperous civilizations. Merchants and travelers passing through the city had to pay a fee for passage, which was a significant source of income for his kingdom.
He also had a close alliance with the Phoenician city-state of Tyre, which provided him with access to trade goods.
He married the daughters of kings from neighboring kingdoms, which brought dowries and facilitated trade deals and his fame and reputation came from his belief in the rule of law.
Solomon had control over highly productive mines, possibly copper mines, located far away and accessible through a long sea voyage.
According to the Bible, Solomon’s annual base revenues were 50,000 pounds of gold. If we assume that the current value of a pound of gold is $30,000, then Solomon’s annual income from gold alone was about $1.5 billion in today’s money.
Therefore, in addition to the taxes paid by merchants, the profits from trade, and the tribute paid by the Arabian kings and the governors of the Israelite districts, King Solomon annually received over twenty-five tons of gold.
Since he inherited a strong monarchy and reigned for 40 years, this means that Solomon did $60 billion during his lifetime solely from annual gold payments. This wealth did not include other precious gifts he received from various nations.
34 tons of gold were brought to Solomon’s kingdom from Ophir.
Solomon restructured his kingdom into 12 districts that crossed ethnic lines in order to concentrate authority in Jerusalem. He maintained his father’s habit of marrying women from a wide variety of tribes and countries with whom he had alliances in order to appease the local populace.
During his reign, Solomon taxed his people heavily. However, he also amassed a fortune through the collection of taxes and customs from traveling caravans.
The Bible records (in I Kings, chapters 4–10) that 1,086 talents, or roughly 34 tons of gold, were brought to Jerusalem from Ophir (a port or region) by Solomon’s workers. About half of the ancient world’s known gold supply was thought to have been this amount in Solomon’s time. 34 tons of gold is equivalent to about $2 billion at today’s prices.
For comparison, in Old Testament times (2000–400 BC), one talent was worth around twenty years of average payment.
In addition to the taxes paid by merchants and traders, King Solomon also annually received over 25 tons of gold or 666 talents (a talent is about 75 pounds). There was also tribute paid by the Arabian kings and the governors of the Israelite districts.
Precious metals were measured in talents throughout Solomon’s reign, and this was also the standard unit of currency. A talent, or 75 pounds, was also a unit of currency used throughout the New Testament era (10 BC–100 AD) with an approximate value of $1,000 to $30,000. At today’s prices, 666 talents of gold is worth almost $1.5 billion.
Mines
Solomon supposedly amassed 500 tons of gold from the mines.
A victorious military campaign contributed to his rise to money and power. However, the mining of copper, iron, and gold also contributed to King Solomon’s net worth. Solomon mined gold from a location known as Ophir.
Hiram, king of the Phoenicians, dispatched his ships to Ophir in pursuit of this gold after forming an alliance with David and his son Solomon. Solomon received around 16 tons of gold from these ships. The commerce ships sailed often to Ophir and other destinations, returning once every three years with precious metals, animal parts, and other goods.
The Bible claims that King Solomon had around $2.3 trillion stashed away in his gold mines. The biblical king supposedly amassed 500 tons of gold from the mines.
On the other hand, there are many who believe that King Solomon of the Old Testament was really an Egyptian pharaoh and that his tale has been misconstrued.
Another major contributor to King Solomon’s riches was his ownership of the Timna copper mines in Israel. One of these ancient mines is still called Mikhrot Shelomo ha-Melekh (“King Solomon’s Mines”). This specific mine is about 1,000 feet long and more than 425 feet wide.
Trade
In addition to building the first temple in Jerusalem and running a kingdom, Solomon amassed vast wealth through his dominance of the spice trade.
The international trade activities of King Solomon contributed greatly to his wealth. Solomon formed trade alliances with states like Tyre and Egypt, and every three years, his fleets would return with precious cargo like gold, silver, and ivory, as well as peacocks and apes.
Direct economic benefits resulted from the expansion of his kingdom from the Euphrates to the Egyptian border. The spice market played a key role in Solomon’s enormous net worth. He was there to greet Queen Sheba of South Arabia when she arrived in Jerusalem, “bearing spices” on camels, along with gems.
There was a thriving spice trade in the area, with the Arabian Peninsula serving as a major export hub for all manner of aromatic resins, incense, and medicinal brews. Historically, the Eastern World was a major trading partner for Westerners interested in spices like nutmeg, ginger, cinnamon, clove, cardamom, star anise, turmeric, cassia, and pepper.
Almost a thousand years before the start of the Christian era, some of these spices made their way to the region controlled by King Solomon. Solomon controlled the market for the ancient world’s most precious commodities: frankincense and myrrh.
Free Labor
Around 150,000 forced laborers were ready to serve.
30,000 men made up Solomon’s levy of workers. 10,000 were dispatched to Lebanon in shifts, each working there for a month before returning home for two. Adoniram, Solomon’s tax collector who oversaw the system of forced labor, was in charge of this lucrative business.
Cedar wood was a kind of timber that many ancient cultures placed a high monetary value and symbolic importance on.
For the construction of the Temple, Solomon sent a work force of some 30,000 men to Hiram’s forests in Lebanon to harvest cedar and cypress trees.
He also had 3,300 managers and supervisors overseeing a labor force of 70,000 people who carried loads and another 80,000 who mined stone in the highlands.
Solomon employed this workforce to construct the city wall and fill in land on the east side of the city, in addition to constructing the temple and his palace practically for free labor. Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer were all reestablished thanks to his forced workers.
However, it appears that Solomon compensated the Israelites who were conscripted to work while he was king. This was in accordance with the prohibition against making Israelites into slaves found in Leviticus 25:44–46.
Examples of How Rich Was King Solomon
He was able to build grand structures, keep a strong army, and build and maintain an extravagant palace through his riches.
Solomon used his riches to many different uses. The gold used to construct King Solomon’s palace was the real deal. The Bible portrays it as a gorgeous building, complete with an ivory throne covered in pure gold.
The pure gold lampstands, flowers, tongs, bowls, pans, and dishes for carrying coals, the gold hinges for the doors, and the outer court were all items that Solomon specifically commanded to be made from gold for his palace, which took him 13 years to build.
His cups were made of gold, and he had 300 bucklers and 200 massive shields made of gold alloy at his disposal.
The Temple of the Lord
The Destruction of Solomon’s Temple.
The most prominent use of Solomon’s wealth was in the construction of the Temple of Jehovah (God/Lord) in Jerusalem. He organized a “donation drive” that raised almost $120 million in modern money. He spent 5,000 gold talents and 10,000 silver talents to build the temple. Gold paneling, containers, pillars, jewel-encrusted courtyards, silver, spices, animals, fabrics, bronze, cedars, etc., adorned this structure, also known as the First Temple.
The oracle altar and the floor of the Temple of the Lord were both covered in gold. Everything within the house, including the 15-foot-tall cherubs in the Most Holy and the altar of incense, was covered in gold. Gold leaf covered the cherubic figures, palm trees, and open flowers that adorned the structure’s walls. King Solomon’s great wealth was on full display.
Inside of Solomon’s Temple (The First Temple).
This was a biblical temple in Jerusalem that dates back to the 10th–6th century BC and goes by several other names. Designed as a shrine to God and a permanent residence for the Ark of the Covenant, it was commissioned by King Solomon. During the 587 BC Siege of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar II of the Neo-Babylonian Empire ordered the temple to be destroyed (2 Kings 25:8-9).
When Nebuchadnezzar’s soldiers pillaged the First Temple, the money they made helped keep the Babylonian Empire going, and then the Persian Medes absorbed Babylonia and used this wealth to expand their own empire.
Second Temple
For comparison, according to the value of stonework, labor, money, silver, incense, oils, annual revenue, and land, the Second Temple’s treasury would be worth nearly a trillion dollars by today’s standards. This temple was built in 516 BC, around 500 years later.
Historians justify the value of the Second Temple by associating it with the restoration of Roman power after the destruction of the temple in 68–70 AD. It was built at a fraction of the cost of the First Temple, despite its larger size. Because much less gold and more stone were present in the structure.
His 10,000 Horsemen and 3,000 Chariots
According to the Bible, King Solomon had a powerful army that included thousands of chariots and horsemen.
Solomon’s armies had around 10,000 horses and 3,000 chariots. Archaeologists at Megiddo have uncovered two royal stable complexes with stalls for 480 horses.
According to the Bible (1 Kings 9:15–19), he strengthened the defenses of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer because of their strategic locations and importance as chariot bases.
Solomon lived around 970–930 BC, and owning a single ancient Egyptian chariot in 1500 BC cost around 23 troy ounces of silver. For comparison, a Roman Legionnaire in 14 AD was paid around 32 troy ounces a year. Now add the cost of horses and the cost of maintaining them to this equation.
Imagine Having 700 Wives
Solomon lavished his many wives and concubines with extravagant palaces. It is said that King Solomon had a harem consisting of 700 wives and 300 concubines. The daughter of Pharaoh, women from Moab, Ammon, Edom, Sidon, and the Hittites were among the described wives. Although historical texts are vague on the subject, it’s assumed that he constructed lavish palaces for his many wives and concubines, similar to what Genghis Khan also did for his wives.
Extravagant Presents
The Bible portrays King Solomon as a wise and righteous leader who was beloved by his people; one of the reasons for his popularity was his lavish giving. He was quite generous with his money, and he was famous for lavishly rewarding his staff.
When the wealthy king was visited by the Queen of Sheba, she saw the elaborate feasts Solomon hosted and the elaborate sacrifices he made at the Temple, as well as the food he ate, the living quarters his officials occupied, the structure of his palace staff and the uniforms they wore.
Because she was so amazed by Solomon and all he had accomplished with “God’s aid”, the queen of Sheba presented him with 120 talents of gold, the equivalent of more than $48,000,000 at the time.
Utensils Made of Pure Gold
Solomon’s palace was one of the most opulent in history. The fine gold that adorned his throne set it apart as fit for a king. Everything in the House of the Forest of Lebanon, including his goblets and other utensils, was made of pure gold. This building likely served as the king’s palace’s main entrance in Jerusalem.
No silver was used in any of the utensils stored in his palace. In Solomon’s time, silver was not used for anything due to its low value. This exemplifies the richness of the kingdom under King Solomon. Solomon’s personal goldsmiths were the Tawils, who hailed from the city of Azech in Tur Abdin (present-day Turkey).
The throne had six steps leading up to it, and its back was rounded. Two lions stood at attention between the arms on each side of the throne. And there were twelve lions, six on each side, guarding the six stairs. Not a single kingdom produced something like.
Other Kings Who Also Possessed Immense Wealth in Gold
The Egyptian temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak was gifted around 13.5 tons of gold by King Thutmose III in the second millennium BC.
Solomon’s temple covered in gold wasn’t out of the ordinary in antiquity. The Egyptian pharaoh Amenophis III built a temple covered with gold to the deity Amun at Thebes. There were gold-plated fixtures, a silver-paved floor, and electrum inlay on all doors and windows.
In the seventh century BC, Assyrian king Esarhaddon had gold applied on the walls and doors of the Ashur shrine. Nabonidus of Babylon (6th century BC), when asked about the temple of Sin at Harran, said, “I covered its inside with gold and silver and polished it till it gleamed like the sun.”
Inscriptions from ancient Egypt reveal that King Osorkon I (early 1st century BC), gave the gods a total of around 383 tons of gold and silver.
More than 37 tons of gold were extracted annually from the Pangaion mines in Thrace under King Philip II (359–336 BC).
Alexander the Great (336-323 BC), Philip’s son, conquered the Persian city of Susa and looted its wealth, which included more than a thousand tons of gold.
There is no proof that Solomon’s Temple or the legendary kings David and Solomon ever existed. There are no historical records of such mighty rulers, so these people, after all, must be allegories. There is no archaeological evidence of the residences or reigns of the people described in the Bible as living in Solomon’s rich kingdom.
According to archaeological estimates, there were only around 6,000 people living in Judah in the tenth century BC, with about 2,000 of them residing in Jerusalem. No monarch could ever collect enough tax revenue from so few subjects to maintain the lavish lifestyle portrayed in the Bible. Neither could he have mustered a force strong enough to plunder the prosperous western city-states.
According to the Bible, King Solomon erected fortified walls around his capital city of Jerusalem, just like those in Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer. He also built an extravagant palace for himself. According to legend, he led a massive army consisting of 40,000 horsemen and charioteers and was so wise and wealthy that he was considered the greatest king in history.
These assertions portrayed Israel’s Golden Age, a time of rapid recovery from military setbacks and the establishment of a prosperous empire. Archaeological discoveries, however, cast doubt on such accounts. Studies conducted in the 1960s uncovered a palace beneath the alleged stables, indicating that the buildings were likely not built by Solomon but rather by King Ahab, the seventh king of Israel.
Subsequent excavations in the 1970s and 1980s revealed only fragments of pottery dating back to the 10th century BC and no evidence of Solomon’s purported golden palace or temple. For Israeli archaeologist Prof. Israel Finkelstein, there has been no discovery of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem.
This casts doubts about Solomon’s net worth and his status as a rich king in history.
The conflict between France and Spain, which had begun in 1635, ended with the Treaty of the Pyrenees. It pitted two great royal houses against each other: the Bourbons ruling France and the Habsburgs ruling Spain. The Spanish were forced to negotiate an end to the conflict after their defeat at the Battle of the Dunes in 1658. This was finalized on November 7, 1659, when Cardinal Mazarin and Don Luis Méndez de Haro signed the Treaty of the Pyrenees.
As a result of this pact, France was able to regain control of some territories in the north and southwest that had been under Spanish control. The marriage of Infanta Maria Theresa of Austria, daughter of King Philip IV of Spain, to Louis XIV of France was another consequence of this treaty. This marriage greatly strengthened France’s status on the European continent by making the French sovereign the most powerful monarch in Europe and weakening the Spanish monarchy.
What Was the Background to the Signing of the Treaty of the Pyrenees?
The war between France and Spain started in 1635. At the time, both Spain under the House of Habsburg and France under the Bourbons wanted to increase their sway over Europe. The bloody conflict between the two continental powers lasted over 25 years. It wasn’t until the Battle of the Dunes in 1658 that France finally managed to pull ahead. It occurred on territory controlled by the Spanish crown between Nieuport (Flanders) and Dunkirk. The Treaty of the Pyrenees was concluded on November 7, 1659, after extensive negotiations.
What Powers Did the Treaty Bring Into Play?
Don Luis de Haro y Guzmán, anonymous painting from the Uffizi Gallery.Portrait of Cardinal Jules Mazarin (1602-1661)
Both Spain and France were major powers in Europe during the 17th century. Several Germanic and Austrian rulers were enthroned by the House of Habsburg in Spain over the ages. On the French side, the Bourbon line wielded power. At the start of the war, Louis XIII was in charge of the French kingdom; Louis XIV took his place in 1643. France triumphed over Spain in their battle, and the Treaty of the Pyrenees was ratified by Cardinal Mazarin. King Philip IV of Spain had his Prime Minister, Don Luis Méndez de Haro, handle this responsibility.
What Did the Treaty of the Pyrenees Establish?
The geopolitical effects of the Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659).
The Treaty of the Pyrenees was an important moment in European history. The House of Bourbons finally triumphed over the House of Habsburg after decades of intermittent conflict that culminated in the Franco-Spanish War. The two reigning dynasties negotiated arrangements that favored France under the Treaty of the Pyrenees. Although talks had begun in 1656, it wasn’t until the French victory at the Battle of the Dunes in 1658 that the Spanish agreed to give as much ground as they did.
There were a total of 124 provisions in the Treaty of the Pyrenees, plus another 8 that were kept secret. There are certain articles that are more vital than others. Article 42, for example, delimits the frontier using the peaks of the Pyrenees as its boundary. Article 61 highlights Philip IV’s rejection of any right to the Alsatian provinces.
What’s in It for the Warring Powers?
French King Louis XIV saw the Treaty of the Pyrenees as a chance to cement his rule over the rest of Europe. The House of Habsburg was severely weakened, as was the Spanish crown. In particular, northern France and the Netherlands were two areas where Spain had to give up control. The Treaty of the Pyrenees, in particular, suggested to Spain that it was compelled to join a forced coalition.
Louis XIV married the daughter of Emperor Philip IV of Austria, Maria Theresa. The infanta and her heirs were legally required to give up their claim to the Spanish throne as part of the marriage contract. The marriage contract was amended by Cardinal Mazarin to include a dowry provision demanding that Spain pay 500,000 gold ecus. The sum was so enormous that it was a factor in Louis XIV’s claim to the Spanish throne and the subsequent War of Devolution.
Cardinal Mazarin adds a clause so that Spain is required to pay a dowry of 500,000 crowns for the marriage. A colossal sum that Spain will be unable to pay, which will later be used by Louis XIV to claim rights over the Spanish crown and will lead to the War of Devolution.
How Did the Treaty of the Pyrenees Redraw the Franco-Spanish Map?
Spain held extensive territory in what is now northern France and the Netherlands prior to the Treaty of the Pyrenees. The “Spanish Netherlands” was the name given to these territories. After defeating Spain in battle, France annexed the territory to its crown. South of it, it absorbed principalities like Catalonia, where modern-day Montpellier is situated.
The treaty resulted in significant changes to the border between France and Spain. France gained control of territories in Catalonia and Roussillon, solidifying its control over these regions.
The delineation of the French-Spanish border, however, was the most consequential event. In a rough sense, the Pyrenees serve as a border here. “The crests of the mountains that form the slopes of the waters” are all that is needed to define the boundary, according to the treaty. It was a complete and utter win for Louis XIV and France. The only concession granted to Spain was the renunciation of support for Portugal, then at war with its Iberian neighbor.
The main European monarchist nations have looked down on France ever since the French Revolution and the beheading of Queen Marie Antoinette (aunt of the Austrian Emperor); hence, the country has been at war with them ever since. Since his coronation as emperor in 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte has led the French imperial army in its fight against European invaders. France and the coalition countries (Britain, Prussia, and Russia) fought in the War of the Fourth Coalition between 1806 and 1807.
The Winter Campaign and the Battle of Friedland, which pitted Russia against France, eventually brought an end to this endless conflict after a string of decisive French wins. Napoleon I’s reputation was boosted by the peace pact that followed the fight. Unfortunately, the calm only lasted for almost two years before the War of the Fifth Coalition broke out.
Why Did the Battle of Friedland Take Place?
There was a string of conflicts leading up to the Battle of Friedland that occurred during the War of the Fourth Coalition. Through three wars, Napoleon’s empire grew and humiliated the rest of Europe.
Prussia joined forces with the United Kingdom and Russia in an effort to fight Napoleon and reclaim the continental supremacy it had lost in recent years. Prussia declared war on France because France refused to pull its forces back from the Rhine, which functioned as a natural border. In 1806, Napoleon launched an offensive against Prussia and Poland, defeating the forces of both European kings.
The imperial soldiers resumed their winter offensive to the east after taking Berlin. The Russians and the French clashed in several major conflicts. This fourth war lasted less than a year, from October 9, 1806, to July 9, 1807. The Russian army was defeated and forced to retire to Friedland, the final battle that ended the conflict.
Who Took Part in the Battle of Friedland?
Charge of the 4th Hussars at the battle of Friedland, 14 June 1807.
The Russian Empire and the French Empire faced off against one another at the Battle of Friedland. Napoleon I, who had been the French Emperor for less than three years, led France while Tsar Alexander I ruled Russia. One of Napoleon’s most faithful commanders, Jean Lannes, who was also well-versed in Russian tactics, was given leadership of the French army. For their part, the Russian armed forces were split between two veteran commanders: Levin August von Bennigsen and Piotr Ivanovich Bagration.
With just around 66,000 troops, France was vastly outnumbered. On the other side, Russia fielded close to 84,000 troops. Despite this numerical inferiority, France benefited from the prisoners of war captured during the Polish campaign, who helped maintain the armies and provided manpower for tactical maneuvers.
How Did the Battle of Friedland Unfold?
French and Russian maneuvers from June 5 to June 14, 1807.
On June 14, 1807, at Friedland, the Battle of Friedland started. Now called Pravdinsk, the city is part of Russia’s Kaliningrad Oblast, which is wedged between Poland and Lithuania. The day before, Napoleon’s soldiers, under the command of Jean Lannes, dispersed across the plains to prevent the Russians from reaching Friedland should they launch an attack. The French intended to hold off the Russians for as long as they could so that Napoleon’s reinforcements could arrive and bolster their numbers. However, the lay of the land, with its winding roads and hilly terrain, made the Russians’ advance invisible as they reached the town and established outposts.
Napoleon and his reinforcing army arrived on the night of June 14 from the left bank of the Alle. Both forces called upon their cavalry units to harass opposing positions and impede camp setup. In the afternoon, the two armies faced each other and the battle started. In order to begin their onslaught, the French sent troops straight into Friedland. As a result of the terrain and other factors, they decided to assault from the left side. The French army reached Friedland without opposition and the remaining French forces swiftly surrounded the Russian army. Heavy cavalry known as “dragons” played a crucial role in the victory by penetrating the Russian defenses from afar.
Who Won the Battle of Friedland?
Map of the battlefield on June 14. Image: Wikimedia.
France’s victory at Friedland may be attributed to two factors that ultimately convinced the Russians to sign their surrender. The first was the taking of Friedland, which would provide the French with a significant tactical advantage in terms of defense and reinforcement and thus should not be allowed to happen. The second was the surrounding of the outnumbered Russian armed forces. On the night of June 15 (after being pushed back), the Russians surrendered.
Both sides used a variety of military tactics in the war. Napoleon Bonaparte, known for his innovative strategies, used a combination of artillery, infantry and cavalry tactics. He opened the battle with a surprise attack on the Russian left flank, while the main French force attacked the Russian center. The crucial moment of the battle came when the French cavalry under Marshal Joachim Murat launched a series of devastating charges. Thus the Russian lines collapsed.
How Many People Died in the Battle of Friedland?
When the number of men participating in the battle is taken into account, the Russian side suffered a much higher loss of life than the French did. Nearly 12,000 Russians were killed or injured, while another 10,000 were captured as prisoners. This is more than 20% of Russia’s total military strength. Less than 1,645 Frenchmen were killed, and about 8,995 were injured. The 2,426 French prisoners taken during the battle were released after the French victory.
What Were the Consequences of the Battle of Friedland?
The Russian generals begged Tsar Alexander to request an armistice; the emissaries he sent to Napoleon on June 16 were well received. The same day, Königsberg fell to the French and three days later, the Grande Armée (The Great Army) reached the banks of the Niemen, but Napoleon felt unable to pursue the enemy beyond the river. Above all, he feared that Austria would join the coalition and attack the Grande Armée, so far from its bases. For his part, Alexander feared a peasant revolt in the Ukraine and an Ottoman offensive on the Danube.
On the 25th, Alexander met Napoleon on a raft in the middle of the Niemen, “The new frontier of the world“, exclaimed Napoleon. Alexander is said to have approached Napoleon, saying “Sire, I hate the English as much as you do“. Napoleon replied, “In this case peace is made!”.
On July 7, the two heads of state signed the treaty of the same name at Tilsit. Russia became France’s ally, relinquishing its territories in the Mediterranean, in particular the Ionian Islands, and adhering to the Continental Blockade. The treaty also included secret articles, such as the plan to dismember the Ottoman Empire. A similar treaty was signed with Prussia on July 9.
The treaty was catastrophic for the Kingdom of Prussia, which lost all its territories west of the Elbe to form the Kingdom of Westphalia, headed by the Emperor’s brother Jerome. Prussia also had to cede its possessions in Poland to form the Duchy of Warsaw and pay a heavy war indemnity. Napoleon and his empire became even more powerful.
Midway through the 1970s, António de Oliveira Salazar established the Estado Novo, a dictatorship. Following Salazar’s departure in 1968, his successor, Marcelo Caetano, followed an open policy while refusing to give independence to the Portuguese colonies, particularly Angola and Mozambique. The colonial conflicts engulfed Portugal, resulting in the deaths of numerous troops.
António de Spínola, deputy chief of staff of the armed forces, opposed the war, as did the young captains of the MFA (Movement of the Armed Forces). On the night of April 24 to April 25, 1974, the MFA staged a coup d’état, ending the Salazarist dictatorship. After two years, Portugal finally experienced political stability again in 1976, when democracy was restored.
The Carnation Revolution was led mainly by a group of Portuguese officers, including Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho, Salgueiro Maia, and Vasco Lourenço. These officers played an important role in organizing the coup. Political figures such as Álvaro Cunhal, leader of the Portuguese Communist Party, and other civilian opposition leaders also supported the revolution.
Causes of the Carnation Revolution
For the soldiers in Lisbon, the carnation in the barrel of the rifle became a symbol of the revolution.
After a military-led coup d’état in 1926, Portugal became a dictatorship. In 1933, a new constitution created the Estado Novo (“New State”), an authoritarian government led by António de Oliveira Salazar. Prior to that year, Portugal was ruled by the Ditadura Nacional (National Dictatorship).
Political opposition movements were not tolerated by the anti-democratic, corporatist, and Catholic dictatorships. The Council of Ministers served as the ultimate authority. Strikes were outlawed and labor unions were controlled by the government. The International and State Defense Police, the regime’s police force, monitored and suppressed political opponents. The Estado Novo was founded on the same colonial principles. Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau were all colonies of Portugal.
In 1961, the Portuguese military was sent into the colonies to quell independence aspirations. Salazar had a stroke in 1968. He was replaced as president by Marcelo Caetano. Meanwhile, the Portuguese army lost numerous men to the ongoing colonial battles. Soldiers like António de Spnola urged the government to engage with independence fighters because they believed they had lost the battle in the colonies. Portuguese officers organized the decolonization-supporting MFA (Movement of the Armed Forces) in 1973. The MFA orchestrated the coup known as the “Carnation Revolution” on April 25, 1974.
Salazar’s Dictatorship
António de Oliveira Salazar. Image: Manuel Alves San Payo.
The authoritarian system headed by António de Oliveira Salazar, President of the Council of Ministers since 1932, is often referred to as the Salazarist dictatorship. Estado Novo (literally “New State”) was a dictatorship that took power in 1933. Anti-communism, anti-socialism, anti-syndicalism, anti-liberalism—these were the tenets upon which it was founded. But it maintained some distance from fascism. The affluent landowners, bankers, and manufacturers of Estado Novo backed a corporatist, anti-democratic administration. “God, Fatherland, and Family” was the organization’s official motto.
There was just one legal political party, the National Union, which emerged in 1930. Trade unions and independent publications were also banned, along with the Portuguese Communist Party. The police of the dictatorship, who also engaged in censorship, detained dissidents. Salazar was a Catholic who signed a document expanding the Church’s authority in 1940 called the Concordat. The Salazarist regime also advocated a return to colonial ways of thinking.
Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau were all Portuguese colonies that the country fought hard to maintain in the 1960s. Salazar had a stroke in 1968. Marcelo Caetano, the leader of Estado Novo, succeeded him in office. In an effort to liberalize the nation, Caetano enacted a number of changes. He ignored mounting pressure from the military to end the conflict in the colonies, though.
Leading Figures of the Carnation Revolution
A crowd celebrates on a Panhard EBR armoured car in Lisbon, 25 April 1974. Image: Wikimedia.
Officers from the Portuguese army were behind the Carnation Revolution. As early as 1961, Portuguese armed forces intervened in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau to suppress independence movements. The Salazarist dictatorship wanted to maintain power in these “overseas provinces”. Faced with resistance from the independence movement, Portugal was forced to send more and more troops. By the early 1970s, casualties were high, and Portuguese troop morale was at an all-time low. Officers, including António de Spínola, the governor and commander of the armed forces in Guinea, tried to prove to the President of the Council, Marcelo Caetano, that the war was lost.
Caetano refused to negotiate with the independenceists. In 1973, a group of officers formed the MFA (Mouvement des Forces Armées—Movement of the Armed Forces) and initially strongly opposed a decree granting militias access to professional officer status. Composed mostly of young army captains, the MFA organized and called for an end to the war in the colonies.
In February 1974, António de Spínola’s book “Portugal and the Future” was published along these lines. On April 25, 1974, the MFA organized a coup d’état. And where were the carnations in all this? On that day, the army, supported by part of the population, gathered in Lisbon’s flower market. They were presented with red carnations by local shopkeepers and placed the flowers in the barrels of their rifles. It was this gesture that gave the events the name “Carnation Revolution”.
The Carnation Revolution is celebrated every year on April 25 as a national holiday in Portugal, known as “Dia da Liberdade” (Freedom Day). It is commemorated with various events, parades, and ceremonies throughout the country. The red carnation remains a symbol of the peaceful nature of the revolution and its role in bringing democracy to Portugal.
April 1974 Coup d’état in its Phases
Graffiti of the icon of the 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal, Fernando José Salgueiro Maia, on a Lisbon wall to commemorate upcoming 40th anniversary of this event. Image: Wikimedia.
MFA soldiers launched the coup on the night of April 24, 1974. The song Grândola, Vila Morena, forbidden by the regime, was broadcast on the radio after midnight on April 25. The uprising soldiers prepared to take control of the country’s vital points.
At 3 a.m., they took control of the Lisbon airport, the radio station, then the military headquarters and the Porto airport.
At 4.26 a.m., the MFA issued its first communiqué over the radio, calling on the police to stay in their barracks and asking the population to stay in their homes. Other communiqués issued in the following hours warned various military and police forces that any act of resistance against the MFA would be violently suppressed.
At 5.30 a.m., Captain Salgueiro Maia laid siege to Lisbon’s famous square, Terreiro do Paço. He surrounded the main barracks of the city gendarmerie, where the President of the Council, Marcelo Caetano, had taken refuge.
It is 16:00 when he surrenders on the condition that António de Spínola regains power. The MFA agrees.
At 5.45pm, Spínola arrives.
Then, at 7.30, Caetano Pontinha is taken to the command center.
At 8 o’clock, PIDE (Estado Novo’s secret police) opens fire on the crowd, killing four people. This was the only act of resistance to the revolution. After Spínola’s intervention, PIDE agreed to surrender.
At 1:30 a.m. on April 26, the members of the Junta de Salvação Nacional (National Salvation Junta) were introduced on television. This group of officers, headed by Spínola, was given the task of temporarily governing Portugal.
Consequences of the Carnation Revolution
The Carnation Revolution overthrew the Salazarist dictatorship. Portugal entered a period known as the “Ongoing Revolutionary Process (Processo Revolucionário Em Curso)”. For two years, the country was ruled by the Junta de Salvação Nacional. While Marcelo Caetano was exiled to Brazil, political prisoners were released, and dissidents returned to the country. However, the left-leaning MFA disagreed with António de Spínola, who advocated a return to the old institutions.
After the failure of the first provisional government in May 1974, the MFA wanted to limit Spínola’s actions. Spínola resigned and took part in the failed coup d’état on March 11, 1975. Meanwhile, the former Portuguese colonies gained their independence and the colonists were repatriated to Portugal. The MFA, supported by the far left, nationalized banks, insurance companies, and other sectors such as the steel industry. But it faced off against moderates who seized power at the end of 1975. Portugal adopted a new constitution on April 2, 1976, and became a democracy.
In 1378, the Great Western Schism emerged and lasted until 1417. The Catholic Church faced a grave problem because of this. There was a pope from the Avignon dynasty and another pope elected in Rome at that time. During the height of the struggle, the Church really had three heads since an antipope had been chosen in opposition to the other two. Internal problems made the institution’s credibility and power decline over time, particularly in relation to European politics.
The struggle was entangled with the Hundred Years’ War and went beyond questions of sacramental definition and religious theology. Reconciliation efforts began in the early 15th century, but they ultimately failed. The Council of Pisa initiated talks. But it was not until the Council of Constance in 1414 that a final decision was reached. The old leaders were condemned or deposed and a new pope was elected in 1417: Martin V.
Causes of the Western Schism
Map showing support for Avignon (red) and Rome (blue) during the Western Schism; this distribution is correct until the Council of Pisa (1409), which created a third group of claimants.
The Catholic Church was at the center of the Great Western Schism in the 14th century. Several factors contributed to this religious upheaval. To begin, the Hundred Years’ War weakened the political and economic structures of Europe. Concurrently, the 14th century was characterized by pandemics like the Black Death and famines due to poor harvests and other weather-related disasters. Significant changes in social structure were also present during the transition from feudalism to monarchy. Simultaneously, significant societal shifts were occurring. While the aristocracy’s economic standing improved, the Church’s elite looked out for number one: themselves.
The Church funded science and technology, but secular figures ultimately controlled its development. The Church went from being seen as a powerful, all-knowing entity to one that is hostile to reform. Other factors also contributed to the Western Schism. Political tensions and rivalry were stoked by events like the Visconti war and the Franco-Italian disagreement between Philip IV and the Papacy over the clergy tax, both of which were detrimental to Church unity.
Some of the key figures of the Western Schism include Pope Gregory XI, who brought the papacy back to Rome from Avignon, Pope Urban VI, who was elected as his successor, and the later antipopes Clement VII and Benedict XIII. In addition, the Council of Pisa tried to resolve the schism by electing a third pope, Alexander V.
How Did the Western Schism Occur?
A 14th century miniature symbolizing the schism.
The Great Western Schism began in 1378 and ended in 1418; it was a major crisis for the Catholic Church that lasted nearly 40 years. It can be divided into two main phases:
The first lasted from 1378 to 1394. In 1377, Pope Gregory XI left Avignon for Rome. He died the following year. However, this election signaled the division of the College of Cardinals. A double papal election followed. In Rome, Urban VI was elected. In Avignon, Clement VII was elected. During this period, Europe was in the grip of various conflicts. In addition to the Hundred Years’ War, Italy was the focus of numerous struggles for influence and control. The Great Western Schism led to conflicts in which kingdoms sided with Rome or Avignon, as in the Crusade of Henry the Despenser. The Holy Roman Empire also faced problems of political stability. Popes Urban VI (Urbanus) and Clement VII died in 1389 and 1394, respectively. However, the Western Schism continued.
The years between 1394 and 1417 saw the second phase of the Great Western Schism. Priests, church authorities, and rulers of kingdoms and empires struggled to find peaceful solutions to the Catholic dilemma that had reached an impasse. There was an initial failure. In 1409, at the Council of Pisa, a consensus was reached. Both popes, Gregory XII of Rome and Benedict XIII of Avignon, were deposed. In 1405, Alexander V became pope. He was now an antipope, since the previous two popes had refused to recognize their deposition.
With the choice of antipope John XXIII as Alexander V’s successor, the situation deteriorated further. There began to be talk of a church with three popes and three heads. The Western Schism was finally resolved at the Council of Constance in 1415. Until 1418, a number of significant events occurred. Gregory XII resigned, John XXIII fled, and Benedict XIII was deposed, although he did not accept this decision. In 1417, Martin V became the 206th official pope of the Catholic Church.
Consequences of the Western Schism
The meeting between the duke of Anjou and Pope Clement VII (seated) at Avignon, from Froissart’s Chronicles.
The Western Schism had a significant impact on the Western world. Antipopes such as Alexander V and John XXIII were elected as a result of the crises of the Catholic Church. The authority of the Catholic Church was eventually challenged. This concerned not only the structure of the Church, but also the degree to which the sacraments reflected different theological trends. Because of this and the subsequent crises that led to the formation of councils, the power and influence of the church was severely eroded. The idea of conciliarism was strengthened at the Council of Constance. The ecumenical councils were seen as more authoritative than the pope himself.
The dissolution of the Western Schism coincided with the rise of distinct national identities. The Church had a hard time asserting its authority after years of religious strife. Certain kings put some mechanisms in place. Under Charles VII, for example, the French Church gained greater independence. The clergy in France gained full independence. The Protestant Reformation had its roots in the Great Western Schism. It also helped accelerate the abandonment of the feudal system throughout Europe. A monarchical system was adopted, and kingdoms and empires were modernized.
The East-West Schism of 1054
A charter of Pope Leo IX. Vatican City, 1054.
In 1054, the Great East-West Schism took place. It marked the break between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in Byzantium and Rome, respectively. Political tensions and disagreements over the structure of the church and the meaning of religious scripture were primary factors. Cultural and linguistic differences exacerbated tensions over contentious issues such as papal primacy and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. In 1054, the legates of Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople excommunicated each other, separating their respective churches.
The schism severely damaged the already tense relations between the two Christian groups. There was often a palpable undercurrent of animosity between members of the two faiths. They chose to look the other way when tensions flared, especially during the Ottoman invasion of Byzantium. Although they had no intention of uniting, the excommunications were lifted in a “joint declaration” between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965.
Key Dates of the Western Schism
Tomb of Boniface VIII, Vatican.
September 20, 1378: Antipope Clement VII begins his pontificate
A council in Fondi elects Robert de Genève as antipope of Avignon. He takes the name Clement VII. This event marks the beginning of the Great Western Schism and the Church now has two popes: Clement VII and Urban VI. The second pope followed an authoritarian policy and gradually lost all his allies. Clement’s papacy lasted until his death in Avignon on September 16, 1394. He was succeeded by Benedict XIII.
November 2, 1389: Papacy of Boniface IX
November 2, 1389, was the date on which Boniface IX succeeded Urban VI as pope in Rome. Boniface IX, a Neapolitan nobleman, took advantage of his papacy to abolish the independence of the Roman Commune and regain control of the cities and castles of the Papal States. During his reign, Clement VII and Benedict XIII established a papal court in Avignon. Boniface IX, who was ill, died on October 1, 1404. He was succeeded by Innocent VII.
September 28, 1394: Benedict XIII begins his pontificate
On September 28, 1394, Pedro de Luna took the name Benedict XIII and assumed the Papacy of Avignon for a papacy that would last until his death in 1423. Considered an antipope by the Catholic Church, Benedict XIII succeeded Clement VII and counted among his allies to fulfill his duties: France, Castile, Portugal, Aragon, Scotland, and the Kingdom of Cyprus.
October 17, 1404: Election of Pope Innocent VII
Boniface IX is dead. Innocent VII (Cosimo Migliorati, born in Sulmona in 1336) became the 202nd Pope of Rome, a position he held until his death in 1406. As soon as his election against the Avignon envoy, the antipope Benedict XIII, was confirmed by the cardinals, the city of Rome was shaken by a Ghibelline rebellion, which King Ladislaus I of Naples tried to suppress. During his short reign, he failed to put an end to the Great Western Schism (1378–1417).
November 30, 1406: Election of Pope Gregory XII
Gregory XII (born Angelo Correr in Venice circa 1325) became the 203rd Pope of Rome. During his pontificate, which lasted until his resignation in 1415, he tried hard, but without success, to negotiate with the antipope of Avignon, Benedict XIII, to reduce the Great Western Schism. Despite his rejection at the Council of Pisa (1409), he did not resign until the Council of Constance (1414–1418), which ended the Great Schism with the election of Martin V (Martinus). He then became Cardinal-Bishop of Porto. In 1417, Recanati disappeared in the Marche.
February 18, 1407: Withdrawal of Allegiance to Antipope Benedict XIII
New decrees on the withdrawal of spiritual allegiance from Antipope Benedict XIII are established. The deposition of 1407, a French policy designed to force the rival popes of Rome and Avignon to abdicate in the wake of the Great Western Schism and administered by the University of Paris with the support of the Duke of Burgundy and the Parliament of Paris, was less successful than its predecessor of July 23, 1398. Confined to his castle, Benedict XIII refused to submit.
April 21, 1407: Agreement between Benedict XIII and Gregory XII
The delegate of the antipope Benedict XIII (1324–1423), who had taken refuge in the Monastery of Saint-Victor in Marseille after fleeing Avignon, receives the Roman delegate Gregory XII (1325–1417). The following June 11, the convention, ratified by King Charles VI of France, agreed to a meeting between the two popes in Savona to resolve the Great Western Schism. The talks ended in failure: Benedict XIII traveled to the Italian city on September 24, but was sidelined by Gregory XII.
June 1408: Convening of the Council of Pisa
Eight Roman cardinals gathered in Livorno (Tuscany) and seven cardinals from Avignon convened the Council of Pisa to resolve the Great Western Schism. Meeting from March 23 to August 7, 1409, the council deposed Pope Gregory XII of Rome (1325–1417) and Pope Benedict XIII of Avignon (1324–1423) and elected a third pope, the Greek Franciscan Alexander V (1340–1410). However, the two popes refused to abdicate, considering the council illegal, and even worse, a third (illegitimate) pope laid claim to the Holy See.
December 9, 1413: Sigismund I and John XXIII convene the Council of Constance
Fulfilling the request of Sigismund of Luxembourg, the antipope John XXIII issued a proclamation convening the XVI Ecumenical Council of Constance, scheduled to convene on November 1, 1414. Three popes had been vying for the Holy See since the Council of Pisa (1409) and demands for reform in Bohemia were being voiced. The Council, which lasted until 1418 and was presided over by Cardinal Jean Allarmet de Brogny, brought an end to the Great Western Schism.
November 16, 1414: Opening of the Council of Constance
To end the Great Western Schism, Antipope John XXIII called the 16th Ecumenical Council, which got under way in Constance at the request of his patron, Sigismund I of Luxembourg. The Germanic Roman Emperor thus decides to get rid of the College of Cardinals in order to organize the chaos paralyzing the Church. Since the Council of Pisa (1409), there have been three contenders for the Holy See: Benedict XIII, antipope of Avignon; Gregory XII, antipope of Rome; and the “Pisan” Alexander V, who succeeded John XXIII (died in 1410).
March 26, 1415: The Council of Constance Declares Itself Above the Pope
The Council of Constance begins its third session. Charged with the task of putting an end to religious anarchy, the Council declares that it will not leave until it has restored the unity and discipline of the Church by the decree of Haec Sancta (April 6), asserting its supremacy over the Pope. John XXIII, recognized as legitimate by the Council but already weakened by the new voting system (one vote per nation, not per person), was arrested and deposed.
July 4, 1415: Antipope John XXIII Resigns
At the Council of Constance, Gregory XII, Pope of Rome, was forced to resign by the procurator on the principle of “sacrificing his dignity for the peace of the Church”. Benedict XIII, after deposing John XXIII of Pisa, resisted, but he too was deposed. This allowed the Council Fathers to finally solve the problem of the Great Western Schism by electing Oddone Colonna of Rome as Martin V (November 11, 1417).
A Scissor is a sort of Roman gladiator known as a “slasher” in Latin. The thing with the Scissor gladiator is that, unlike other gladiator types, no one knows for sure what they look like; however, there are some clues and theories. They are also believed to be called Arbelas, also a gladiator class. In other sources, this rare gladiator is linked to Dimachaerus.
The scissor (pl. Scissores, literally: the one who cuts)
Origin of the Scissor Gladiator
The Scissor gladiator holds a dagger in his right hand and, in his left, the weapon of arbelas with a semicircular blade. White marble. 2nd—3rd centuries CE. Paris, Louvre Museum. Photo, M.E. Sergeenko.
One certain inscription from the 1st century BC describes a gladiator called a Scissor. According to this description, some historians link Scissor to a specific gladiator seen in gladiator reliefs. Yet, this identification is not conclusive.
Since the word “Scissor” wasn’t used again after the 1st century BC for any gladiator types, it’s safe to assume that these gladiators became extinct or were rebranded as Arbelas.
The Greek word for “shoe repairer’s knife,” “Arbelos,” inspired the name of this gladiator and there are six known ancient images of Arbelas.
However, Scissor might also be an evolution of Secutor (who was the evolution of Murmillo) that appeared as early as the 1st century. Because, just like Secutor, he bore the name “anti-Retiarius” and shared the same unique ocrea greaves and the same helmet.
What Gear Did Scissor Use?
Similar to Murmillo (a heavily armored gladiator with a fish crest), the Scissor gladiator also utilized heavy armor. This fighter always entered the arena well-armed. He was armed with a gladius, a small, iconic Roman sword, and a mezzaluna in his other arm. Therefore, he was not armed with the Roman Scutum shield, unlike most other gladiators.
The description of Scissor comes from an assumed gladiator depicted in some reliefs.
On his left arm, Scissor had what looked like a semicircular chopping blade (like a mezzaluna) connected to the end of a metal tube attached to his forearm. Since there are no known surviving instances of this strange steel tube weapon, all descriptions must rely on conjecture.
For better control and grip, the gladiator probably had a grip inside the truncated tube, like the one on an Indian Katar or Pata. It’s likely that both the outside and inner surfaces of its blade were honed, making it effective for both thrusting and parrying. The weapon’s primary use was to block the Retiarius’ net and trident, but it also had attacking potential.
Even a small contact with this crescent-shaped blade might inflict great injury; therefore, the gladiator could use his shielded arm to parry strikes and immediately respond.
Helmet: A full-face helmet shielded Scissor, while leaving two small openings for the eye slits—just barely enough room for his eyes. The Secutor, a later version of Murmillo, wore the same helmet.
Chest: Scissor’s upper body, from the waist down to the knees, was protected by scale or chainmail armor. He was well protected by this lorica squamata or lorica hamata.
Arms: On the arm where he brandished the weapon, Scissor wore an arm guard (the lorica manica).
Legs: In both legs, two protective greaves (ocrea or shin guards) also reached the knees.
Opponents of Scissor
Some eastern Mediterranean reliefs feature the Scissor gladiator in combat, either with a retiarius or another scissor (or arbelas).
Retiarius was a deadly enemy to Murmillo, whose fishing net often attached to the iconic fish crest of his helmet with ease.
But Scissor used his chopping blade to deflect this net, while Secutor (Murmillo 2.0) fought against Retiarius without a fish crest to balance the odds.
The term “dicastery” is used to refer to specific departments or organizations within the Roman Curia. The word comes from the Greek “δικαστήριον,” which means “tribunal of justice,” derived from “δικάστης,” judge or juror. The Greek word dicasterion was used to describe each of the 10 divisions of the justice tribunal of the heliasts (ἡλιασταί) of Athens, which is where the word “dicasterion” was first used (in Greek, dikastes meant “those who have sworn”).
The Roman Curia is the central administrative body of the Holy See, overseeing the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church.
Dicastery’s History
Creation of Congregations in the Roman Curia (1588)
In order to better organize the cardinal collegiates, Pope Sixtus V created fifteen congregations inside the Roman Curia in his apostolic constitution, Immensa aeterni Dei, on January 22, 1588. Although the word “dicastery” is not used in the Apostolic Constitution itself, it is generally used to refer to all congregations, tribunals, and offices within the Roman Curia. Sapienti consilio (“with wise counsel”), Pius X’s document reforming the Curia, includes the word dicastery only incidentally.
Establishment by the Code of Canon Law (1917)
The Congregations, Tribunals, and Offices that make up the Roman Curia were established by the Code of Canon Law in 1917. The Roman Curia is made up of congregations, tribunals, offices, and secretariats, although the apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiae universae by Pope Paul VI refers to all of them as dicasteries.
Its Usage in Subsequent Documents
When referring to the Roman Curia, the word “dicastery” is not used in either the 1983 Code of Canon Law or the apostolic constitution Sacrae disciplinae leges, both of which were issued by Pope John Paul II. The Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, the Congregations, the Tribunals, and other organizations, the formation and competence of which are specified by particular law, make up the Roman Curia as stated in Canon, Article 360.
Introduction to the Term “Dicastery” (1988)
Pope John Paul II first used the word “dicastery” in his June 28, 1988, apostolic constitution, Pastor Bonus (“The Good Shepherd”). Article 1 of the Constitution provides that:
The Roman Curia is the complex of dicasteries and institutes which help the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme pastoral office for the good and service of the whole Church and of the particular Churches.
The Holy See’s Secretariat of State is one of the dicasteries, along with the congregations, tribunals, pontifical councils, and offices included in this document.
Modern Structure
The Roman Curia is outlined in Article 12 of Pope Francis’ apostolic constitution, Praedicate Evangelium, issued on March 10, 2022. It comprises the equal and independent Secretariat of State, dicasteries, and institutions. There are both judicial and monetary institutions. As a result, the new dicasteries have taken on the roles formerly filled by the congregations and pontifical councils envisioned in the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus.
Therefore, the “dicastery” refers to specific departments or bodies within the Roman Curia that assist the Pope in his leadership of the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II first used the term “dicasteries” in 1988 to refer to a variety of congregations, tribunals, councils, and offices.
