by Greg Hunter, USA Watchdog: Scientist and inventor Weston Warren is back with a warning about the so-called Black Star or electromagnetic anomaly that has entered our solar system.  It’s slow moving, and it’s an event that only happens about every 4,100 to 4,300 years.  Warren says it will get close to earth but will […]

BIG: High-ranking Iranian source tells @amwajmedia that Trump team gave advance notice of bombings of nuclear sites and insisted they're intended as "one-off". Signs of Trump seeking repeat of Jan 2020 (Soleimani killing=>symbolic Iranian retaliation).https://t.co/wDfPbkKkET — Mohammad Ali Shabani (@mashabani) June 22, 2025

by Brian Shilhavy, Health Impact News: With the apparent beginning of WWIII and the conflict between Israel and Iran dominating the headline news this past week, many other significant news stories have seemingly flown under the radar of both corporate and alternative news sites this past week. On Friday during a 2025 1st quarter sales […]

  With the sack of Corinth in 146 BCE, Greek resistance to Roman power had been dealt a crushing blow. After Lucius Mummius had defeated the Achaean League, there was an influx of art and loot into the Republic. These treasures profoundly shaped Roman culture, as “captive Greece conquered her fearsome captor” (Horace). However, Corinth’s destruction was not the end of Greek resistance. Half a century later, the King of Pontus, Mithridates, rebelled against Roman power. Buoyed by his early successes, the Athenians cast in their lot with Mithridates. Led by Sulla, the Romans marched in retaliation, and their revenge against the pre-eminent Greek city would be terrible.   Prelude: The Mithridatic War Portrait of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, marble copy of a bronze original, c. 1st century CE. Source: Louvre   The Pontic Kingdom had been founded in the early 3rd century BCE by Mithridates I Ktistes (the Builder). His new dominion was one of a number of smaller kingdoms in Asia Minor that emerged during the diminishing power in the region of the Seleucid dynasty, one of the successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great. Over time, the territory ruled by the Mithridatic kings grew. By the reign of Mithridates VI Eupator (120-63 BCE), it had reached its greatest extent, and included the territory of Colchis (modern Georgia) and the Bosporan Kingdom (modern Crimea).   Tetradrachm of Mithridates VI Eupator with obverse portrait of the king, minted in Pontus, 76-75 BCE. Source: British Museum   However, the growing power of the Mithridatic kingdom under Mithridates VI set the Pontic Kingdom on a collision course with the Roman Republic. After Mummius’ sack of Corinth in 146 BC, and the annihilation of Carthage in the same year, Roman power in the Mediterranean appeared irresistible. Their power extended further eastward still, mainly through client kings. These were the rulers of small states in Asia Minor, several of which bordered the Pontic Kingdom. Despite Roman aversion to kingly power, they had no qualms about playing the role of kingmakers. These client kings owed their positions to Roman influence and were therefore loyal.   After Mithridates seized the kingdom of Bithynia, the Romans pressured the ousted king, Nicomedes III, to retake his territory. Nicomedes’ Roman-backed actions provided Mithridates with the justification he needed. In 89 BCE, he ordered his son, Ariarathes, to retake Cappadocia. It was an assault that Roman prestige could not withstand, and the Republic decided that something must be done to remove Mithridates from power. The First Mithridatic War had begun.   Rebels: Athens and the Roman Republic Athenian Tetradrachm with obverse bust of Athena and reverse image of an owl, minted after 499 BCE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Athens occupied a curious place in the collective psyche of the Roman Republic. Much as it would be later, notably during the reign of the emperor Hadrian, the city retained a pre-eminent position as a cultural capital in the ancient world. It was recognized for its artistic and cultural masterpieces, and long after the deaths of Socrates and Plato, it remained a city famed for its philosophy and intellectuals. Men of ambition and wealth from the Republic continued to visit Athens, often to take lessons in rhetoric and philosophy, and for many the polis evidently captured their affections. For instance, the biographer Plutarch describes how Cicero, after spending some time learning in Athens, resolved that, should his political career fail, he would “change his home to Athens, away from the Forum Romanum… and spend his life in the quiet pursuit of philosophy.”   Bust of Demosthenes. Source: Yale University Art Gallery   Perhaps partially as a result of this prestige, and perhaps in recognition of its previous status as an imperial power, Athens was also a very proud city. The Athenian citizens had a track record of defying those who would seek to curb the city’s traditional freedoms. In the 4th century BCE, the orator and statesman Demosthenes had become famous for his impassioned rhetoric against the expanding power of Macedon under Philip II, even going so far as to orchestrate a revolt against Philip’s son, Alexander. With the growing power of Mithridates in the eastern Mediterranean, compounded by Rome’s own troubles on the Italian peninsula during the Social War, the polis was encouraged to once again strike out against its oppressors.   As Mithridates’ forces made rapid progress in driving out the Romans from Asia Minor, there followed a terrible bloodletting. Reputedly suggested by the philosopher Metrodoros of Skepsis, a known hater of the Romans, Mithridates orchestrated a massacre of the Romans residing in Asia Minor, regardless of age or sex. Known as the “Asiatic Vespers,” estimates of the scale of the slaughter reached 150,000 killed. The massacres carried out in 88 BCE prompted a number of Greek city states to side with Mithridates against the Romans, including Athens. There, the Pontic king installed a puppet tyrant, Aristion, to rule on his behalf.   Rome’s Avenger: Sulla on the March Bust identified as Sulla, c. 1st century BCE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Although Rome’s power had been shaken by the combination of Mithridate’s advances, the massacres in the east, and the conflict with her Italian allies in the Social War, the response to the revolt of Athens and other Greek cities would be rapid. By 87 BCE, the Roman consul, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, had landed his forces at Dyrrachium (Illyria) and advanced south toward Greece. Aside from Marius, his great political rival, Sulla could lay claim to being the most respected general the Romans had. He had already excelled as a military leader in the Jugurthine, Cimbrian, and Social Wars, cementing his status as one of the leading men of his age.   Sulla’s arrival appears to have brought a number of Greek city-states back into line. Ambassadors from a number of major cities, such as Thebes, met with Sulla at Chaeronea, where they were told of the Roman intention to drive Mithridates out. Ambassadors from Athens at this meeting were conspicuous by their absence. Sulla and his forces marched on for Attica.   A City Under Siege: The Roman Sack of Athens The Sack of Corinth, by Thomas Allom, 1870. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Upon his arrival at Athens, Sulla realized that he would have to conduct two separate sieges. As well as the city itself, he also had to siege the port of Athens, Piraeus. The defence of Piraeus was being led by Archelaus, one of Mithridates’ most trusted generals, while Athens itself was being led by the tyrant Aristion. Sulla began by focusing his assault on Piraeus. Taking the port would allow him to starve the city into submission. The port did not surrender easily, repelling the first attack.   While this was underway, Sulla had dispatched his second-in-command, Lucius Licinius Lucullus, to build a fleet to challenge the Pontic navy in the eastern Mediterranean. The siege descended into a stalemate. The Athenians soon began to starve behind the walls of the city. This was to prove disastrous for Aristion’s popularity and hold on power.   Deserters soon snuck out of Athens and found themselves in Sulla’s camp. A number of these informed the Roman general that there was a hole in Aristion’s strategy. Specifically, part of the walls, known as the Heptachalcum, were neglected. Sappers were dispatched to this part of the walls and they began to mine the defenses. Soon, a large stretch of wall collapsed, and the Romans had their way into the city.   The sack of the pre-eminent city in the Greek world began in the spring of 86 BCE. It was a gruesome affair. After a five-month siege, abortive grandstanding and diplomatic attempts by Athenian ambassadors, and the memories of thousands of Roman deaths in the Asiatic Vespers, the Romans were not inclined toward leniency. The streets of Athens ran with the blood of the slaughtered. The city was burned as Aristion and his remaining loyalists fled to the Acropolis.   Lucius Cornelius Sulla, by Pieter Bodart, from Henricus Spoor’s Facissae Utriusque Antiquitatis, c. 1707. Source: British Museum   However, without the navy he required, Sulla was powerless to stop Archelaus and his forces escaping from the Piraeus. While Sulla turned his attention to Archelaus, he left Gaius Scribonius Curio, known by the nickname Burbulieus, to conduct the siege of the Acropolis. Although the Greeks were able to hold out for a while longer, Aristion’s downfall was almost inevitable. Their surrender, when it came later in 86 BCE, was prompted by the besieged Athenians running out of water and news of the defeat of their allies elsewhere. Knowing now that there would be no relief, Aristion and his men surrendered. Aristion, the tyrant of Athens, was dragged before the victorious Romans and executed.   Aftermath of the Sack of Athens View of the archaeological remains of the Roman Agora in Athens. Source: Wikimedia Commons   With Burbulieus orchestrating the final months of the siege of Athens, Sulla was free to prosecute the war against Mithridates. Before leaving Athens, he burnt the port of Piraeus, and then advanced west into Boeotia. It was there that Sulla’s battle hardened soldiers, veterans of the Social War, crushed the forces of Archelaus. The first defeat came at Chaeronea, also the site of a crushing defeat for the Greeks against Philip II. Now, in 86 BCE, the outnumbered Romans routed the Mithridatic forces. There was the same outcome a year later when Sulla and his men destroyed the armies of Archelaus at the Battle of Orchomenus. Greece once more found itself under Roman control.   Mort de Mithridate, by Frencois Boher, c. 1769-1825. Source: Louvre   Fortunately for Mithridates, however, the Romans were once again embroiled in their own, internal political strife. Sulla and his armies were not in a secure enough position to conclude the war. As such, a meeting between the two leaders was organised in 85 BCE at Dardanus, and the Pontic king accepted the terms offered to him. These included the return of captured territory, a large payment, and the loan of ships. This last condition was to allow Sulla and his men to return to Italy to confront his enemies in the Republic. Further wars between Rome and Mithridates would erupt throughout the 1st century BCE until the Pontic King was eventually defeated by Pompey the Great, who celebrated a Triumph to commemorate the defeat of this great enemy of Rome.   Sestertius of the emperor Hadrian, with obverse portrait of the emperor and reverse iconography celebrating the restoration of Achaiae (Greece) represented by the kneeling woman, c. 134-138 CE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Sulla’s siege of Athens and the decisive battles fought thereafter brought an end to ideas of Greek independence from Rome for the foreseeable future. Instead, the great cities of Hellas—Athens chief amongst them—reprised their role as places of culture and learning. Leading men of the imperial age, including the emperors themselves, would spend periods of their life in Athens, seeing the historic sites and taking on the instruction of rhetoricians and philosophers who resided in the city. Back in Rome, there was an enduring reminder of Rome’s supremacy over Athens from Sulla’s sack of the city. Marble pillars from the Temple of Zeus in Athens were looted and used in the reconstruction of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. As the poet Horace would later identify, Greek culture was now very much at the heart of Roman life.

  In the mid-4th century CE, the Roman Empire found itself in a precarious position. While the emperor Constantius II had been entrenched in a protracted war against the Sassanids in the East, the other Augustus, Constans, was murdered by the Germanic usurper, Magnentius. The power vacuum in the West prompted a significant rebellion, jeopardizing the Empire itself. Shorn of alternatives due to dynastic bloodletting, Constantius II ordered his young cousin, Julian, into the breach. With no military experience and an inclination toward philosophical pursuits, Julian soon forged a reputation for leadership, culminating on the blood-soaked fields at the Battle of Strasbourg.   Background: The House of Constantine Portrait of Constantius Chlorus, photographed by the author, Altes Museum Berlin; Marble portrait of the emperor Constantine I, c. 325-70 CE, Metropolitan Museum of Art   The Constantinian dynasty ruled over some or all of the Roman Empire since the early 4th century. Constantius I (also known as Constantius Chlorus) was part of the Tetrarchy, which Diocletian devised to restore some stability to the Empire after the various crises of the 3rd century.   In the Tetrarchy, imperial power was divided among four rulers: two senior rulers (the Augusti), and two junior partners (the Caesares). In 305 CE, Constantius Chlorus was elevated to the rank of Augustus of the West. It was a short-lived promotion. After his death, the soldiers in Britain acclaimed his son as emperor. This was to be one of the most fateful decisions in history: whether he was a historical “great” or not can be debated, but the historical impact of Constantine as emperor is irrefutable.   As emperor, Constantine effectively broke down the Tetrarchy system. The division of power was forgotten, and the Empire was again ruled by one man. The new emperor also ushered in a period of profound cultural and social change. This was not only a result of his acceptance (and later adoption) of the Christian faith, but also because of his decision to move the center of imperial power away from Rome by establishing a new capital on the Bosporus: Constantinople. However, despite the innovations of Constantine’s reign, it was plagued by very traditional political violence, as the emperor and those close to him vied for supremacy.   The so-called Missorium of Kerch, depicting the “triumph of Constantius II,” c. 4th century. Source: Hermitage Museum   Following Constantine’s death in 337 CE, the Empire was ruled by his two surviving sons: Constans (ruler in the West) and Constantius II (ruler in the West). In early 350, however, Constans had been killed by the usurpation of Magnentius, a Germanic commander. This was bad news for Constans. The notoriously cruel and paranoid emperor may not have felt much remorse at the loss of his brother (it was one potential rival less to contend with in the future), but the political situation in the Empire was deteriorating at an alarming rate. When his brother had been murdered, Constantius was engaged in a protracted war against the Sassanids in the East, and at the same time, there was severe unrest in the Balkan regions.   Although he was eventually able to restore some order, Constantius recognized the need to install a new ruler in the West, allowing him to return his attention to the Sassanids. This posed something of a problem for Constantius, however, who had butchered a number of the male members of his family in order to quell any potential rivals from emerging and challenging his authority. In the end, he turned to his young cousin, Julian, nominating him as his Caesar and giving him control of the forces in Gaul. For Julian, whose half-brother Constantius Gallus had been murdered on Constantius’ orders, it was an unexpected honor and a daunting challenge.   Foes on the Frontiers: The Alamanni Map of Germania, based on Tacitus and Pliny, Willem Janszoon and Joan Blaeu, 1645. Source: UCLA Library   Rome’s northern frontiers—the Limes—which bordered the vast region known as Germania, had for a long time been recognized as a testing ground. It was here that reputations could be made, but it was also here that legacies could be tarnished forever. For every emperor who claimed the triumphal title Germanicus Maximus to augment their glory, there was the grisly reminder of what had happened to Publius Quinctilius Varus, who was massacred with his legions in the Teutoberg Forest in 9 CE.   Over the course of the 3rd century, the makeup of Germania had shifted somewhat, with the groups in the region beginning to coalesce into larger federations. These included the Burgundians of central Germania, the Franks, located in the northwest, and the Alamanni, who resided in the southwest of the territory. The Alamanni had first come to the attention of the Romans in the early 3rd century when the emperor Caracalla waged a war against them in 213 (the strategic purpose of Caracalla’s campaign, beyond allowing the emperor to call himself Germanicus Maximus, remains largely unclear).   During the crisis years of the mid-3rd century (260 CE), the Alamanni actually captured the territory known as the Agri Decumates, which was between the Rhine, Main, and Danube rivers. If the territory was ever recovered—during the reign of Aurelian, perhaps—it was fleeting; it remained under Germanic control thereafter.   Copper coin of the usurper Magnentius, with obverse portrait of the emperor and reverse depiction of the emperor on horseback and kneeling enemy, Trier, 350-353. Source: British Museum   Sensing an opportunity after Magnentius had murdered Constans in 350, the Alamanni spilled over the Rhine frontier and into Roman territory. Fortifications along the bank of the Rhine were seized, and the Alamanni used these as bases from which to launch raids into the province of Gaul. Their assaults were orchestrated by two kings, Westralp and Chnodomar, with the latter very much presented as the driving force. He was a giant of a man (nicknamed Gigas by the Romans) and a charismatic, imposing leader.   By the time Constantius II elevated Julian to the rank of Caesar and tasked him with resolving the chaotic situation in Gaul, the Alamanni had devastated the region. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, a number of notable cities had already fallen to the invaders, including Mogontiacum (Mainz), Saliso (Seltz), and Argentorate (Strasbourg); only Colonia Agrippina (Cologne), which was heavily fortified, had held out. Across the countryside, bands of brigands roamed unchecked. It was such a perilous position that cynical members of Constantius’ court considered Julian’s posting to be fruitless: it was an easy, innocent way for the emperor to remove yet another potential rival.   Julian: Philosopher, Pagan, Princeps L’Empereur Julien, 1790-1860. Source: British Museum   As a young man, Julian had grown up in the fractious world of late antique politics. He was a nephew of Constantine the Great, and this positioned the young man within the extended house of Constantine. This also placed Julian in an environment that was frequently violent, as brothers and cousins transformed from allies to rivals, often with blood-soaked consequences. His cousin, the emperor Constantius II, had orchestrated a series of purges of the wider Constantinian dynasty during the 330’s CE, and victims included Julian’s father, Julius Constantius, who was executed in 337. Thereafter, Julian was kept under close supervision and far from the centers of power. He spent much of his younger years in Bithynia, and later Cappadocia, where he resided with his brother, Constantius Gallus, at the imperial estate of Macellum.   It was during his youth that Julian appears to have undergone the transformation for which he is most notorious. He rejected the Christian faith and instead worshiped the older, pagan deities. The process may have begun while he was at Macellum, as it was there that Julian had met George of Cappadocia. Although George was a Christian bishop, he had lent the young Julian a number of works from the classical tradition, which appear to have piqued the young man’s interest. Although he did become a lector (a minor official in the Church) for a brief period, because Julian was a prodigious writer during his life, historians know that, as far as the man himself was concerned, his conversion to paganism took place when he was around 20 years old.   Gold solidus of Julian, with obverse portrait of the emperor and reverse depiction of a soldier carrying standard and kneeling captive, Sirmium, 355-363. Source: British Museum   While Julian continued his education as a young man, absorbing philosophical ideas in the cosmopolitan cities of the eastern Roman Empire, his cousin Constantius II faced increasing challenges to his authority. Although he had quelled, for a moment, the uprising of Magnentius, the emperor evidently felt that he could only entrust the task of restoring and maintaining control in Gaul to a close member of his family. By this stage, only Julian was left as a viable option. In 355, the young man was summoned to the emperor’s court at Mediolanum (Milan) and made Caesar. Although he appears to have been initially reluctant to leave his former life behind, Julian—as it had been for other Roman leaders in the century before him—would make his name on the battlefields of Gaul and Germania.   Documenting the Battle: Ammianus Marcellinus Title page of the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus, by Willem Outgertsz, 1632. Source: Rijksmuseum   When it comes to sources for the reign of Julian, compared to other emperors, historians are rather spoilt in terms of literary sources. Although it can still be difficult to piece together the motives and causes for the more metaphysical aspects of Julian’s character, his many writings allow us a precious insight into the character of the man in a way that is not really possible with almost any other ruling figure from the ancient world. His works include his many letters, through to the mockery of his imperial ancestors in his Caesars, and his satirical riposte to the criticisms of Antiocheans, the Misopogon, or “Bead-Hater.” Alongside Julian’s own writings, there is also the history of Ammianus Marcellinus. His Res Gestae stands as the penultimate piece of classical historiography in the grand tradition that began with Herodotus and Thucydides and ends with Procopius.   Born in around 330 CE in the east of the Empire, Ammianus was a Greek-speaking official and soldier of the later Roman Empire. However, the history that he wrote was in Latin. Regrettably, the work does not survive intact. The Res Gestae began with the accession of Nerva in 96 CE following the assassination of Domitian and culminated in the catastrophic defeat of the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378, which cost the emperor Valens his life. However, only those books detailing the period 353 to 378 survive. The historian’s narrative therefore deals with the reign of Julian, and he is an enthusiastic supporter of the young emperor, likening him to an illustrious roll-call of the “good” emperors of old: to Ammianus, Julian was as good a general as Trajan, as calm as Antoninius Pius, and a conscious emulator of the stoic Marcus Aurelius. The two men would have first met in Gaul, when Ammianus was stationed in the province to help restore order and to assist with the establishment of Julian as the Caesar in the region. It is possible that the historian’s good opinion of Julian derives from their shared religious sentiment. However, the historian was shrewd enough to recognize the cruelty practiced by those devoted to both Christianity and paganism.   Julian’s Triumph: The Battle of Strasbourg Julianus Apostata, Romeyn de Hooghe, 1701. Source: British Museum   Now the Caesar in the west, Julian set to work restoring Roman order along the Rhine. Any optimism from early successes was soon tempered by the harsh lessons of a siege of Julian and his forces when they wintered at the town of Vernon in 356-7. Worse was to come in the following year. An attempted joint operation against the Alamanni was left in tatters when Julian’s own forces were delayed by an attack on Lugdunum. The forces of Barbatio, the magister peditum who had been advancing into Alamanni territory, did not proceed, and the proposed operation broke down. According to Ammianus, it was at this time that Barbatio simply decamped his soldiers and returned to the court of Constantius II. His actions, so far as they are recounted by Ammianus, are presented as part of a machiavellian scheme by the emperor to orchestrate Julian’s death in combat (to save the emperor the trouble of having another family member murdered).   Buoyed by the absence of the joint Roman forces, the Alammani king, Chnodomarius, advanced, sensing an opportunity to deliver a crushing blow against the heavily outnumbered Roman forces under Julian’s command. The two armies met near Argentoratum (modern Strasbourg) in the summer of 357 CE. Shortly after the two forces were lined up and prepared to engage, Chnodomar blundered. Listening to the entreaties of his men to lead his army on foot and from the front, he duly dismounted and took up his position. In doing so, he sacrificed the strategic advantage to Julian, who, mounted, had the maneuverability and speed to observe the course of the battle and react with haste and authority. Despite this, the initial charge of the Roman heavy cavalry was a disaster. The cataphracts sustained heavy losses and one regiment reputedly even refused to return to the fight despite Julian’s attempts to rally them. According to the later historian, Zosimus, the punishment for this cowardice was to be paraded wearing women’s clothes after the battle!   Funerary monument of two Roman equites cataphractarii, Aurelius Saluda and Aurelius Regethus, c. 234-5. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In the next phase of the battle, the German infantry advanced and actually succeeded in breaking through the center of the Roman line. Although this could—and frequently was—catastrophic, in this instance the Roman line was able to hold firm. A Roman counter attack by the elite legions in the rearguard halted the Germans and drove them back. The initiative was lost and soon the Roman forces turned on their flagging foes. As the sides of the Roman line continued to pinch inwards, forcing the Germans into a tighter and ever more deadly maelstrom, their courage eventually snapped. The German line collapsed, the battle was lost, and now they did all they could to avoid a rout.   The Rhine river in the rear represented a possible avenue of escape, but many men either drowned or were cut down by arrows or spears from the pursuing Romans. Ammianus reports that some 6,000 Germans perished at Strasbourg. As for Chnodomar, the defeated king had also tried to flee toward the Rhine and escape on some boats left there. However, he was captured by the Roman cavalry and brought before Julian. The Caesar duly dispatched the German king to the court of Constantius at Mediolanum. From there, he was sent to Rome, where he would die as a prisoner on the Caelian Hill.   After the Battle: Triumph and Fall of the Emperor Julian Iulianus the Apostate, Pieter Bodart, c. 1707. Source: British Museum   Despite his undoubted triumph, Julian’s victory at Strasbourg could have proven fatal. The soldiers under his command acclaimed Julian as Augustus (i.e. Constantius’ equal). With relations between the two already strained, news of this could have prompted the senior ruler to orchestrate Julian’s downfall. Julian, recognizing the danger, quashed the acclaim, reminding his soldiers that only Constantius had the powers to elevate him. Over the next few years, Julian busied himself with restoring order to the Rhine frontiers and Gaul. By 360, Roman control had been sufficiently re-exerted to allow Julian to dispatch a force to Britain to help drive out Pictish invaders from the north.   It was at this time that Julian received orders from Constantius to send a significant number of his men eastwards, in support of the emperor’s renewed war against the Sassanians. The soldiers threatened mutiny and again declared Julian Augustus. This time, he felt he had no option but to acquiesce. In 361, Julian took his forces and marched toward Constantius. Fortunately for the Empire—which was in no fit state for a sustained civil war—Constantius died suddenly in 361, leaving Julian as the sole Augustus.   Rather than consolidate his position, Julian opted to continue his cousin’s war in the East. It was a fatal error. At the head of an enormous army numbering some 65,000 men, Julian advanced into Mesopotamia. Despite an initial success outside the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon, the war was an unmitigated disaster. An advance into the Persian heartland caused supply issues, with the Roman forces harried the whole way. In June 363, a skirmish among Sassanians and the Roman rearguard at Samarra escalated into a full battle, and in the melee, Julian was mortally wounded. He died shortly after, just 31 years old.   Taq-e Bostan in Kermanshah city (Iran), rock cutting depicting the investiture of Ardeshir II, with Mithra (left) and Shapur II (right); the Sassanian triad stand over the slain emperor, Julian. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Julian’s immediate successor, a military officer called Jovian, was in no position to continue the fight against the Sassanians and was compelled to sue for peace. This was always a costly endeavor and rarely popular, and it is perhaps unsurprising that Jovian’s reign was brief. Perhaps more galling still, was the impact of Julian’s eastern war on Gaul, the site where he had triumphed. Such was the scale of the campaign against the Sassanians that men from the western frontiers were taken from their posts. It was these weakened defenses that Germanic invaders would soon again overrun. With cruel irony, Julian laid the foundations for the undoing of his own greatest triumph.

  Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece were two of the greatest civilizations of the Mediterranean world. They were brought closer together when the Macedonian king Alexander the Great established his grand empire across the Greek-speaking world and the Near East, including conquering Egypt, which he liberated from Persian rule in 332 BCE. When he died unexpectedly, less than ten years later, his generals fought among themselves for possession of the different parts of his empire. A general named Ptolemy, son of Lagus, took control of Egypt in 305 BCE and established a Greek-Macedonian ruling dynasty known as the Ptolemaic dynasty. Ptolemy immediately built a new capital in Egypt, Alexandria, and introduced new traditions to the old land while also upholding many elements of pharaonic culture. Ptolemy’s precedent was followed by his successors until the Roman general Octavian, better known as Augustus, conquered Egypt in 30 BCE.   Egyptian-Greek Relations Relief depicting Ketifu (figure to the right) delivering tribute in the Tomb of Menkherperaseneb, Egyptian, New Kingdom, c. 1479-1400 BCE. Source: La Civilta Egizia   Long before Ptolemy ruled in Egypt, the Greeks and Egyptians had a deep history of peaceful relations. Archaeological evidence shows that the Egyptians and Minoans traded and probably had diplomatic contacts with each other as early as the Middle Kingdom (c. 2055-1650 BCE). Later, in the early New Kingdom (c. 1555-1186 BCE), the Egyptians were in contact with the Mycenaeans. A relief in the tomb of Menkheperraseneb at Thebes depicts Aegean people bringing tribute, including linen and a bull’s head vessel, referred to by the Egyptian word “Keftiu.” Egyptologists believe the word refers to Minoans and Mycenaeans collectively. Egyptian interactions with classical Greece began in the 26th or “Saite” dynasty (664-525 BCE).   The first Saite king, Psamtek I (ruled 664-610 BCE), hired Greek mercenaries to augment his military. Greek merchants also began relocating to Egypt in great numbers at this time, eventually establishing a Greek quarter in the capital city of Memphis. According to Herodotus, Book II.178, the Saite king, Amasis (reigned 570-526 BCE), allotted Greeks the coastal city of Naucratis and a monopoly on sea trade. Later, the Athenians helped the Egyptians expel the Persians, allowing them to install the native Egyptian king, Amyrtaios (ruled 404-399 BCE).   Bust of a King, probably Psamtek I, Dynasty 26, 664-610 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York   The Achaemenid Persians reconquered Egypt in 343 BCE but were then vanquished for a final time by Alexander of Macedon (reigned 336-323 BCE) in 332 BCE. By the time of Alexander’s conquest, the Egyptians and Greeks were well acquainted with each other. Ironically, both ancient cultures traditionally took a more dim view of other cultures, but in this case, there appears to have been a level of mutual respect. Alexander was proclaimed the son of the god Amun by the oracle of Siwa. The Macedonian king then traveled to Memphis, where he was crowned as the next neesu (king/pharaoh) of Egypt.   The Diadochi and Egypt Map of Diadochi Kingdoms by Simeon Netchev. Source: World History Encyclopedia   When Alexander died in 323 BCE, his generals, who became known as the Diadochi, divided his empire among themselves. The generals met in Triparadeisos, Syria, in 320, but there was one minor problem: Alexander’s son, Alexander IV. The Diadochi had little respect for Alexander IV, whose mother was the Bactrian princess, Roxanna. With that said, the Diadochi kept up appearances to a certain extent, publicly accepting their subordinate status while engaging in three major wars against each other. This all changed when Alexander IV was assassinated by the Diadochi Cassander in 310 or 309 BCE.   When the smoke cleared, the eastern Mediterranean and Near East were divided into several kingdoms, with those of Antigonus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy being the most important. Antigonus was ruler of most of Greece, Seleucus was given Mesopotamia, and Ptolemy acquired the wealthiest of the kingdoms, Egypt. Before Ptolemy officially assumed the throne in 305 BCE and became Ptolemy “Soter” or “savior,” he had to defeat one final enemy.   Silver Tetradrachm of Seleucus I, Hellenistic/Seleucid, c. 305-281 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York   According to the 1st century BCE Greek historian and geographer, Strabo, Ptolemy defeated the Diadochi Perdiccas, at least in part, by taking control of Alexander the Great’s body.   “The Sema also, as it is called, is part of the royal palaces. This was the enclosure which contained the burial-places of the kings and that of Alexander; for Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, forestalled Perdiccas by taking the body away from him when he was bringing it down from Babylon and was turning aside towards Aegypt, moved by great and a desire to make that country his won. Furthermore, Perdiccas lost his life, having been slain by his soldiers at the time when Ptolemy attacked him and hemmed him up in a desert island.” (Geography, XVII.48ff.)    Building Alexandria Panoramic view of the modern Alexandria harbor. Source: Copyright Jared Krebsbach   After defeating his enemies on the battlefield, Ptolemy concentrated on solidifying his legacy through a number of ambitious construction and social programs. Alexander founded his eponymously named city in 331 BCE, but it was Ptolemy I who made it a world-class capital. In addition to the palace, Alexandria became known for its Lighthouse, which was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, and its Library and Museum. Although Ptolemy I’s son and successor, Ptolemy II, is generally given credit for the construction of these buildings, many scholars believe that the idea was Ptolemy I’s. Alexandria quickly became a trade and cultural center.   Another notable construction project that Ptolemy I probably started, which his son finished, was a canal that linked the Nile River to the Red Sea. The earliest canal that connected the Nile River to the Red Sea was probably completed during the reign of Senusret III (c. 1870-1831 BCE). Later canal builders likely used Senusret’s as a template. A canal was later built by the Achaemenid Persian king, Darius I (521-486 BCE). According to Strabo and the 1st century BCE Greek historian Diodorus, the “Ptolemaic kings” later recut the canal to connect the Nile to the coastal city of Arsinoe.   Building a New Culture Bust of Ptolemy, c. 305-283 BCE. Source: British Museum   Ptolemy and many of the other Diadochi were ardent believers in the idea of Hellenism. Hellenism is a broad term that has been defined variously, but is generally viewed as the spread of Greek culture to the East. As Ptolemy and the other Macedonian generals took control of ancient Near Eastern cultures, they imported Greek religion, philosophy, politics, and Greek-speaking peoples to those lands. But as the Greeks were influencing those ancient cultures, Greek culture was also influenced, creating new hybrid cultures.   When Ptolemy became both the Egyptian pharaoh and the Greek king of Egypt, he immediately enacted a program of Hellenization that created a new culture. Ptolemy I opened the doors for Greek speakers from around the Hellenistic world to settle in the new city of Alexandria and throughout Egypt. Within the first 100 years of Ptolemaic rule, Alexandria was more ethnically Greek than Egyptian. Then, in the middle of the 2nd century BCE, many Jews immigrated to Alexandria, making it a true multicultural city. Despite its ethnic diversity, the Alexandria of the Ptolemies was divided into distinct ethnic districts: Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish.   Calcite statue of Serapis, Roman, c. 200-299 CE. Source: Louvre Museum, Paris   The mosaic of people in Ptolemy’s new kingdom presented a number of challenges. Each group followed its own laws and had its own ideas about citizenship. Ptolemy generally followed traditional Greek models of citizenship in the predominantly Greek cities, based on tribes and local units, or demes. This system gave preference to Greek speakers. On the other hand, criminal and civil laws were often applied to the ethnic group of those in question. The Greeks were, for the most part, unable to penetrate the powerful Egyptian priesthoods, so Ptolemy I established a hybrid cult.   Ptolemy’s idea was to merge the cult of the primary Greek god, Zeus, with the popular Egyptian animal cult of the Apis bull. The Apis bull was viewed as the living incarnation of Osiris, the god of the dead, and its worship became popular in the Late Period (664-332 BCE). In order to pull this feat off, Ptolemy would need the help of a Hellenized Egyptian priest.   The Egyptian priest Manetho is today best known for his history of Egypt, which was written in the 3rd century BCE. Although Manetho’s work only survives in fragments from later writers, it was the first history that divided Egypt into dynasties, later becoming the standard among Egyptologists.   The ruins of the Serapeum in Alexandria, Ptolemaic-Egyptian-Roman, c. 300 BCE-300 CE. Source: Copyright Jared Krebsbach   But before Manetho wrote his history of Egypt, he helped Ptolemy I create the cult of Serapis. Unlike the Apis cult, which was located in Memphis and whose worship was focused on an actual bull, the primary temple of Serapis was in Alexandria. There was no bull associated with the Serapis, but instead, Serapis was depicted as a human-like anthropomorphic figure, a divine form considered acceptable in Greek religion.   One final, interesting Hellenistic innovation that Ptolemy I introduced to Egypt was a celebration known as the “Ptolemaieia.” In the style of many Greek festivals, it was held every four years in Alexandria in honor of Ptolemy I. Games and athletes were imported from around the Greek world, but perhaps the most unique aspect of it was the parades. The highlight of the parades was a mechanical float that carried a 13-foot-high statue that poured milk from a golden vessel. Other mechanical wonders were documented in the parades along with musicians and people dressed as satyrs. The Ptolemaieia was a strictly Greek affair, but as Ptolemy ruled, he was keen to recognize native Egyptian concepts of kingship.   Preserving Egyptian Kingship Roman Amphitheater in Alexandria, Roman, c. 4th century CE. Source: Copyright Jared Krebsbach   Although Ptolemy and his successors championed Hellenic virtues and Greek culture, they were Macedonian and therefore quite fine with an absolute monarchy style of government. Yet Ptolemy soon learned that it was no easy task to be a Macedonian-Greek king and an Egyptian king at the same time. The ethnic Greeks who migrated to Egypt were his first constituency, although he also had to keep the native Egyptians happy, or at least placated.   In order to do this, Ptolemy carried out a two-part program. On the one hand, Ptolemy protected and even patronized the native cults. For example, despite devising the Serapis cult, Ptolemy continued to patronize the Apis cult in Memphis. Ptolemy I also had temples to native Egyptian gods built. These include the addition of the Horus temple in Tanis, the construction of a new temple for Sobek in Tebtynis, and the first phase of a temple in Sharuna, among others. The later Ptolemaic rulers followed and expanded on Ptolemy I’s attitudes and ideas toward the native cults.   Votive Stela depicting an offering to the Apis Bull from the Serapeum in Saqqara. Source: Louvre Museum, Paris   With that said, Ptolemy I also restricted the power of the Egyptian priests. Ptolemy no doubt viewed the immense economic power that the native priests held in Egypt as an obstacle to his absolute power. The religious cults owned large tracts of land and were largely responsible for the distribution of the food supply. Ptolemy simply directed many of the native priests’ prerogatives to the royal palace in Alexandria, thereby centralizing even more power.   Ptolemy I is often overlooked in terms of Ptolemaic rulers. His son and successor is credited with the greatest building projects of the dynasty, while Cleopatra’s name is known to nearly everyone in the world. Yet, it was Ptolemy I’s efforts to become king, create Alexandria, and meld Ptolemaic Egypt into a new culture that ensured success for the later Ptolemaic rulers.

  With nicknames like “The Soldier’s Friend” and “Hero of Two Worlds,” Marquis de Lafayette went down in history as a man of means who used his resources for good. Involved in causes such as the American Revolution, French Revolution, and human rights for all, he was a soldier, statesman, and writer who is remembered with respect on both sides of the Atlantic. Though it may seem that he had everything handed to him on a silver platter, the Marquis proved that wealth and effective action can go hand in hand.   1. He Had an Impressively Lengthy Name Marquis de Lafayette statue by Raul Josset, located at the William Reilly Memorial for Revolutionary War heroes. Source: Association for Public Art   Known commonly as Gilbert du Motier, the man who later became addressed as Marquis de Lafayette was born with a rather impressive name. He was dubbed Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roche Gilbert du Motier, and shared a first name with his wife, Marie Adrienne Francoise de Noailles, a member of one of the wealthiest families in France.   2. Lafayette Was Orphaned Lafayette’s birthplace, Château de Chavaniac, in 2016. Source: Clement Bardot / Wikimedia Commons   Lafayette was born into a family with a lengthy history—longtime members of the French nobility. The men in his family made up a line of military men, serving France as far back as the Crusades. His mother traced her genealogy back to King Louis IX. Despite his family’s status, prestige, and wealth, Lafayette was left an orphan (albeit a rich one) at the age of twelve.   His father, Michel, was killed at the Battle of Minden, part of the Seven Years’ War, right before Lafayette’s second birthday. The young Lafayette was educated by a local priest, then received a classical education in Paris, guided by his mother and paternal grandfather. Unfortunately, in 1770, when he was only twelve years old, his mother died suddenly from an unrecorded cause. Tragically, his grandfather perished just weeks later, leaving the young man heir to fortunes from both sides of his family, along with the title of Marquis.   3. His Motto Illustrated His Free-Spiritedness A portrait of Lafayette by Jean-Baptiste Weyler, date unknown. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In 1775, Lafayette adopted a motto to place on his coat of arms. “Cur non” was his chosen saying, a Latin phrase meaning “why not?” It was added to his family’s historical coat of arms after Lafayette went against the French king’s wishes and sailed across the Atlantic to join the Revolutionary War. The phrase is still used today at Lafayette College as a maxim to encourage students to think outside the box and follow their dreams.   4. He Joined a War in Which He Had No Stake, Then Helped Start Another in His Home Country Lafayette in his continental army uniform by Charles Willson Peale. Source: Independence National Historical Park / Wikimedia Commons   Lafayette earned his nickname “The Hero of Two Worlds” due to his involvement in both the American Revolution and the French Revolution. After learning about the American cause, Lafayette was inspired. The revolutionary ideas of young America captured his heart and led him to enlist in the Continental Army. At age nineteen, the Marquis was given a commission, and he offered to serve without pay. He arrived in America in 1777 and was appointed a Major General. He first saw action at the Battle of Brandywine, where he was shot in the leg but recovered.   At the conclusion of the Revolution, he returned to France with a reputation as a national hero. In 1789, he served in France’s National Assembly and wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man, playing a key role in launching the French Revolution. Despite his status as a wealthy military man, Lafayette was firmly on the side of the revolutionaries, looking to bring the freedom he’d helped the United States gain to France. Nevertheless, he fled France as the revolution became violent and was briefly imprisoned. His fortune was confiscated, and many family members and compatriots were killed. However, at the end of the revolution, he returned to his estate near Paris and regained his status as a French hero.   5. George Washington Was a Father Figure A depiction of Lafayette and Washington at Mount Vernon, 1784, by Louis Remy Mignot and Thomas Prichard Rossiter. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art / Wikimedia Commons   The commander of the Continental Army, General George Washington, took an instant liking to Lafayette. The two shared many of the same ideals, such as a belief in a strong central government. The young general assured his superior that “I am here to learn, not to teach” and saw the older man as a mentor. When Lafayette was shot at Brandywine, Washington entreated the doctors to “treat him as if he were my son.” Lafayette became an important part of Washington’s core advisory team, which included men like Alexander Hamilton. After the war concluded, the Marquis would return to visit his friend at Mount Vernon.   6. He Spent His Own Money to Keep His Soldiers Comfortable   Washington & Lafayette at Valley Forge by John Ward Dunsmore, 1907. Source: Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons   Lafayette earned the moniker “The Soldier’s Friend” during the terrible winter that the Continental Army spent at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, in 1777. The winter brought snow and cold temperatures to an encamped army that was desperately short on supplies. Men were barefoot, and disease was rampant. Desertions were common, and the leadership of the army was eager to turn the tide and bolster the men’s spirits. Lafayette took it upon himself to experience these hardships with his men rather than sequester himself in the comfort that his rank permitted. He purchased muskets and clothing for his men and was popular with the troops as a result of his generosity.   7. Lafayette Was an Anti-Slavery Hero Portrait of Lafayette in his military days by Joseph Boze. Source: Massachusetts Historical Society   Lafayette and Washington did disagree on one topic. Lafayette believed that a goal of the new United States should be the immediate end to slavery. The Marquis was an anti-slavery advocate until his death, believing the practice should be outlawed on an international level. His Declaration of the Rights of Man, published in 1789, begins with “men are born and remain free and equal in rights.” To this, he also believed there should be no racial separation. This document would lead to the eventual development of a French Constitution. He was a supporter of women and their rights and spoke out against solitary confinement in prisons. He was against capital punishment and supported religious freedom.   8. Napoleon Bonaparte Freed Him From Political Imprisonment Lafayette by Joseph-Desire Court, painted in 1834. Source: Palace of Versailles Collection Wikimedia Commons   After fleeing the violence in his home country during the French Revolution, Lafayette was imprisoned in Austria and Prussia for a five-year period. Foreign governments were concerned about his radical ideas and the potential threats they could pose to the status quo. Napoleon Bonaparte allegedly arranged for his release, and he was able to return to France. Despite Bonaparte’s support, Lafayette recommended that the emperor abdicate after his loss at Waterloo in 1815.   9. His American Farewell Tour Was a Hit A Currier & Ives image of Lafayette and Washington. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art / Wikimedia Commons   Lafayette made a Farewell Tour of America in 1824 as the nation prepared to celebrate its 50th anniversary. He was invited by President James Monroe and was welcomed warmly by Americans in 24 states. He was the last of the significant generals of the American Revolution to survive at this time and met with many past and future presidents, including Thomas Jefferson.   Parades, dances, and lavish dinners were held in the Marquis’ honor over the next year before he returned to France in September of 1825. The boat that transported him home was named the USS Brandywine in honor of his first battle.   10. He Could Have Been a Dictator A Lafayette Statue in Washington, DC. Source: APK / Wikimedia Commons   During the July Revolution in France in 1830, King Charles X was overthrown. During this time, Lafayette was given the opportunity to take the role of dictator and rule the country. However, this would have gone against the beliefs he had fought for his entire life, and he refused the position. Louis-Philippe became dictator instead, and Lafayette took command of the National Guard. He died only four years later after suffering from pneumonia.   11. He Was Made an Honorary US Citizen An older Lafayette, painted by Rembrandt Peale in 1825. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art / Wikimedia Commons   On August 7, 2002, the US Congress made Marquis de Lafayette an honorary citizen of the United States. He currently shares this distinction with only eight other individuals and is one of only two who earned the designation via a direct act of Congress. He became the sixth honorary citizen 39 years after the first, Winston Churchill, was announced in 1963. An American flag has flown over his grave in France ever since his death.   12. A College Was Named After Him The Williams Visual Arts Building at Lafayette College in 2023. Source: Dutch Treat / Wikimedia Commons   James Madison Porter proposed naming a new college in Easton, New York, after Lafayette, after meeting him in 1824 on his Farewell Tour. Lafayette College matriculated its first graduating class of five in 1832. In 2010, the college awarded the Marquis the honorary degree of Doctor of Public Service at its 175th commencement ceremony.   The college maintains a collection of Lafayette artifacts, including his sword, which was confiscated upon his imprisonment in Austria. The sword is brought out annually for graduation ceremonies. The college earns top rankings from a number of media outlets, including Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. It offers degrees from an interdisciplinary program that combines the unusual bedfellows of liberal arts and engineering. Currently, 51 majors and 41 minors are offered to students.   Almost 3,000 students from 44 states and 60 countries around the world attend the college.

  Shaolin kung fu, or Shaolinquan is one of the oldest extant styles of martial arts and one of the most influential. It has existed since the 6th century CE as a means of self-defense and exercise for Buddhist monks. Over time it spread throughout Eastern Asia. Even many modern systems of Chinese martial arts can claim descent from traditional Shaolin and they often use the name as part of their advertisement, for better or for worse. For those curious about this martial art, we’re here to provide a brief history and overview of Shaolin fighting systems.   Origins of Shaolin Kung Fu Shaolin monks training. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The earliest versions of this system of fighting are thought to derive from the teachings of the Indian monk Batuo (originally named Buddhabhadra), the first abbot of the Shaolin monastery, in the 5th century CE. Shaolin kung fu is not the oldest martial art or even the oldest in China (that distinction likely goes to Shuai Jiao), but it is the most widespread.   Monastic life involved long periods of meditation; to counteract the potential negative effects of sitting still for long periods (e.g. blood clots in the legs), martial arts were introduced as a means of exercise and to foster wakefulness during Buddhist meditation. At first, the Shaolin were taught a series of simple forms known as Luohan Shiba Shou, or 18 Arhat Hands.   Although the common story is that the monk Buddhadarma taught the Shaolin the Indian martial art of kalaripayattu, no historical mention was made of him until the Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE), two centuries after the temple was built.   Many Chinese martial arts are characterized by poetically-named techniques and large-flowing movements. So let’s explore some of the most well-known forms.   The Five Animal Styles White Crane Style Kung Fu. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The various forms of kung fu inspired by the Shaolin are thought to be derived from the monks watching the movements of animals when expanding on the original 18 Luohan techniques that were created during the Sui Dynasty (581-618 CE). Legend has it that they would mimic the behavior and “spirit” of the movement, exemplifying the desired qualities of a martial artist such as power, balance, or flexibility as expressed in the animals’ movements. This may be the case for most of the forms; one of the five forms is that of the dragon and it is safe to say no monks were mimicking dragons from first-hand experience.   Although different traditions have their own take, the five most commonly accepted animal forms are the Tiger, Crane, Leopard, Snake, and Dragon. Here are their commonly accepted characteristics:   Tiger: Powerful strikes with the hands often through palm strikes or clawed fingers, low and broad stances. Crane: Precise strikes to soft targets using the fingertips. Focus on evasion using swift, yet balanced movements. Snake: Sinuous movement, attacking from deceptive angles. Leopard: Quick aggressive motions that strike from oblique angles, but not overly powerful. Dragon: Broad sweeping motions powered by solid biomechanics and proper breathing. Incorporates elements from the other styles.   Conditioning of Shaolin Trainees Shaolin Iron Palm Practice. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Practicing any form of martial art requires a degree of physical fitness. A strong core enables a stable posture with proper form and drives the movement of the limbs. Strong muscles and bones allow for explosive movement and can endure the force of attacking or defending from blows performed at full speed. Flexibility and speed allow fluid motion from any position without loss of power. It is said that the ideal feeling of, for example, a punch, is with the fist as a hammer on the end of a whip. For cardiovascular conditioning, vital for prolonged activity, running, jogging, and other exercises—especially up stairs or steep mountain paths—work well.   Some of the most well-known training exercises performed by the Shaolin include the “Iron Palm” which involves striking hard surfaces, “Iron Body,” which involves being struck repeatedly for the purpose of body hardening, and the famed water-bucket carrying exercise for endurance. They also sometimes use weights on their arms and legs—not too much, for fear of damaging ligaments and tendons—as a method of resistance training.   Training of the Shaolin consists of equal parts cardiovascular conditioning, strength, and flexibility training, and martial training to learn the movements. As a part of meditation, the monks practice deep breathing exercises to cultivate qi, or life energy (which is derived from proper oxygenation and healthy eating and sleeping, nothing supernatural or mystical).   Weapons Dao with scabbard, Chinese, 18th century. Source: The Met Museum   Not only do Shaolin trainees train to great skill levels in unarmed fighting, but they also attain proficiency in several weapons. The weapon most associated with the traditional Shaolin is the gun, or staff similar to the Japanese bo. The gun is held more like a European quarterstaff, with one hand at the center and the other near the tip. The techniques of this weapon bear close resemblance to battlefield spear techniques. The Buddhist beliefs practiced by the Shaolin prohibited them from killing except out of necessity, so the staff and the pudao, or the monks’ spade, were the preferred weapons when venturing outside the temple and are therefore part of Shaolin training still.   Because the Shaolin knew that they could be targeted by someone wielding anything, they trained to defend themselves against a variety of swords, daggers, and other weapons. Styles that descended from the Shaolin traditions incorporated the teaching of these weapons for use by soldiers or police officers.   Northern and Southern Kung Fu Man Practicing Northern Shaolin Kung Fu. Source: Wikimedia Commons   No fighting style is developed in a vacuum. Tactics and weapons evolve to meet the needs of the prevailing culture as well as the environment. In this vein, Shaolin styles and other Chinese martial arts often fall into two broad geographical categories: Northern and Southern. The division between these two regions is either the Qian mountain range or the Yangtze River.   Northern China has vast open stretches of flat terrain. Martial arts from Northern China focus on broad movements, upright stances, and kicks, practiced in flowing patterns. They also incorporate more weapons-based training as a holdover from ancient military drills with spears.   The original Shaolin Temple, located in Henan Province, influenced the majority of Northern styles.   Southern China, meanwhile, is mountainous. A slip on treacherous terrain could lead to one falling to their death. Therefore, Southern styles focus on stances that are low to the ground for stability and short, close-range movements. The close movements also serve well in tight quarters, such as urban combat or aboard ships, e.g. fighting the Japanese pirates of the 16th century. The Southern Shaolin-influenced styles came from a sister temple in Fukien.   Notable Lineages Chi Sao Wing Chun form. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Virtually every modern Chinese martial art can in some way trace its lineage back to the Shaolin Temple, to the point that it’s impossible to list them all. We’ll focus on several of the most notable.   Hung Gar: Created during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 CE), Hung Gar is a Southern Shaolin style focused on low stances, specifically the horse stance. Its wide footwork facilitates blows driven by the rotation of the torso and kinetic linking from grounded stances. It includes Tiger and Crane techniques in its repertoire of hand movements, as well as the use of the staff and broadswords.   Wing Chun: Wing Chun is another Southern Shaolin style. Unlike Hung Gar, Wing Chun is focused on tight movements with the hands held close to the center of the body. The main characteristic of Wing Chun is its speed. Skilled practitioners can throw lightning-fast punches to vulnerable points and simultaneously defend themselves. Wing Chun is one of the styles that Bruce Lee incorporated into Jeet Kune Do.   Long Fist: Also called changquan, this fighting style of the Northern Shaolin excels in leaping, acrobatic kicking techniques, and broad movements that involve more rotation. It also has an extensive weapons curriculum that teaches the gun, the qiang (spear), dao, and jian (straight sword), as well as over a dozen others. The extensive variety of movements and their acrobatic nature make it well-suited for exhibitions.   Xingyiquan: This Northern Shaolin-derived style bears the closest resemblance to military drills. Its movements are sharp and linear as if fighting from within a tight formation. Staff and spear movements feature heavily in Xingyiquan. The motions occur at short ranges and are single-time — that is to say, attack and defense occur in the same instant.   Modern Shaolin Kung Fu Shaolin Temple Entrance. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Shaolin Temple still stands after having been destroyed and rebuilt several times over its history. It is an immensely popular tourist destination in China, with visitors from all over the world coming to observe the monks — or even to live and train with them. Of course, to be allowed to do this requires that one speak fluent Chinese: there are few if any willing translators at the temple. Those wishing to join the temple can apply on their website, filling in all medical information, food requirements, and personal, passport, and visa information.   Shaolin kung fu is practiced all over the world, so anyone wishing to learn need not necessarily go to China. Monks, upon gaining a recognized degree of skill, are allowed to start their own schools.