The ancient Egyptians had three primary foreign enemies throughout their history: the Nubians, the Canaanites/Asiatics, and the Libyans. Of these three groups, the Libyans are perhaps the most enigmatic. The Egyptians rarely ventured into the Libyan homeland, just to the west of Egypt, for a number of reasons, including a lack of resources to exploit and the warlike nature of the Libyans. Still, the Egyptians and Libyans developed a complex relationship from an early period. The Egyptians would sometimes trade with and at other times fight against the various Libyan tribes. They also occasionally pitted one tribe against another for their own advantage. Eventually, massive migration brought the Libyans into Egypt’s Delta during the New Kingdom, forever changing the political landscape of the Nile Valley.   Egypt’s Neighbors to the West Modern 19th-century artistic rendition of ancient Libyans from the tomb of Seti I, Valley of the Kings, c. 1294-1279 BCE. Source: Theban Mapping Project   An examination of any group of people or peoples would normally begin with what they wrote or the material culture that they left behind. Unfortunately, the ancient Libyans were not literate when they first came into contact with the Egyptians and they have left very little archaeological evidence. Therefore, most of the evidence of the Libyans comes from Egyptian sources. Egyptian descriptions of ancient Libyan society painted a picture of tribal people who were divided into three primary tribes: the Tjehenu, the Libu, and the Ma or Meshwesh. The Tjehenu and the Libu played a more important historical role early, while the Ma were the dominant tribe later.   The ancient Libyans inhabited the land that is roughly equivalent with the modern nation-state of Libya, although they primarily occupied the oases. The earliest known Egyptian king to have contact with the Libyans was Djer (ruled c. 2900 BCE). This early contact was followed by several better-documented contacts during the Old Kingdom. Kings Sneferu (ruled c. 2613-2589 BCE), Sahura (ruled 2487-2475 BCE), and Pepy II (ruled c. 2278-2184 BCE) all documented contacts with the Libyans.   Bent Pyramid of Sneferu, Egypt, c. 2613-2589 BCE. Source: Jared Krebsbach   The Libu were first mentioned in New Kingdom (c. 1550-1069 BCE) texts and were often the Libyan archetype depicted in Egyptian art. Libu tribesmen were depicted with their hair cut at the nape, a sidelock, and often tattooed. All Libyan tribes were shown with light complexions and Caucasian features.   The Meshwesh or Ma, who possibly originated within the Libu tribe, were perhaps the most important of all the ancient Libyans. When Libyans founded a political dynasty in the Egyptian Delta city of Sais in 770 BCE, they called themselves the “Great Chiefs of the Libu.” These Egyptianized Libyans would also refer to themselves as the “Chiefs of the Ma,” indicating a connection between the tribes.   Libyan Migrations in the New Kingdom Granite Column Capital from Bubastis with the name of Osorkon II, Egyptian-Libyan, c. 874-850 BCE. Source: British Museum   The Libyans began migrating en masse into Egypt during the late New Kingdom, or from about the 13th through 11th centuries BCE. The reasons for the migrations are unknown, but it is believed to have been connected to the wider Late Bronze Age migrations that were taking place in the eastern Mediterranean. The migrations happened so quickly that within about 250 years, the Libyans ruled the Delta. As the Libyans were migrating into Egypt, they were followed and sometimes joined by some of the Sea Peoples tribes.   The initial Libyan incursions were met with force by the Egyptians. First, the 19th Dynasty king, Seti I (ruled c. 1297-1279 BCE), turned back major Libyan forces. Then Seti’s son and successor, Ramesses II “the Great” (ruled 1279-1213 BCE) successfully defeated even greater numbers of Libyans. But it was during the rule of Ramesses II’s son and successor, Merenptah (1213-1203 BC), when the situation reached a critical level.   A text from the 5th year of Merenptah’s reign documents how the Egyptians fought a combined force of Libyans and four Sea Peoples tribes.   Offering Stela dedicated by Ramesses II to the deities Seth, Isis, Osiris, and Ptah, Abydos, c. 1250-1203 BCE. Source: Louvre Museum   “The wretched, fallen chief of Libya, Meryey, son of Ded, has fallen upon the country of Tehenu with his bowmen… Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Luka, Teresh, taking the best of every warrior and every man of war of his country. He has brought his wife and his children… leaders of the camp, and he has reached the… western boundary in the fields of Perire.”   Merenptah temporarily saved Egypt from the threat of both the Libyans and the Sea Peoples. But the peace was short-lived, as both groups attacked the Delta again during the reign of Ramesses III (1184-1153 BCE) in the 20th dynasty. Like his predecessor, Ramesses III was successful in his defense of Egypt, although Egypt had been considerably weakened. Egypt was certainly suffering from an array of internal problems at this point, yet the Libyan and Sea Peoples invasions pushed the kingdom over the edge. Reliefs from Ramesses III’s temple at Medinet Habu depict Libyan families migrating into the Delta with their livestock, which was a sign of things to come.   Libyan Dominance of the Delta: The Third Intermediate Period Relief of a goddess offering a palm rib, Egyptian-Libyan, c. 825-773 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   The Egyptian New Kingdom collapsed for a number of reasons, one of which was the massive Libyan migration into the Delta. Perhaps somewhat ironically, those same Libyans established a number of dynasties and ruled as native Egyptian pharaohs. The Libyan-descended dynasties include the 21st dynasty (1069-945 BCE), the 22nd dynasty (945-717 BCE), the 23rd dynasty (818-715 BCE), and the 24th dynasty (727-715 BCE). The 22nd, 23rd, and 24th dynasties all coexisted with each other. An examination of Libyan-Egyptian texts and art indicates nothing of the period’s non-Egyptian origins other than some of their names: Osorkon, Sheshonq, and Takelot were all Libyan names.   The 22nd was the most important of the Libyan dynasties from the Third Intermediate Period. The capital of this dynasty was the Delta city of Tanis/Djanet/So, which was also the capital of the 21st dynasty. Perhaps the most historically important event to happen during this period was King Shoshenq I’s (ruled 945-924 BCE) campaign against Israel in 925 BCE. The campaign was mentioned in the Old Testament (1 Kings. 14:25-26 and 1 Chron. 12:2-9), where Shoshenq is referred to as “Shishak.” The campaign was also commemorated in inscriptions and pictorial reliefs at the Karnak Temple.   The Rise of Sais Statuette of Neith, patron goddess of Sais, Egyptian, c. 760-343 BCE. Source: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston   Located on the other side of the Delta from Tanis was the city of Sais (Egyptian Sau). Sais would become one of the most important cities in Egypt’s Late Period, but before that, it was the most important Libyan city in the western Delta. Although the Libyans dominated the Delta politically for most of the Third Intermediate Period, the Nubians took advantage of Libyan disunity to temporarily conquer Egypt.   As one of Egypt’s traditional enemies, the Nubians also had a long and complicated relationship with the Egyptians. When Egypt was weak, particularly during its intermediate periods, Nubia tended to be strong, which was the case during the Third Intermediate Period. The Nubian King Piankhy (ruled 747-716 BC) led a military campaign from Nubia into Egypt in 728 BC. After receiving the obeisance and fealty from the various Libyan rulers, Piankhy returned home to rule Egypt from Nubia. But as soon as Piankhy left, the Libyans of Sais began making political moves.   Granite statue of King Shabaqa, Egyptian, c. 8th-7th century BCE. Source: British Museum   According to the 3rd-century BCE Egyptian priest and historian Manetho, a dynasty formed in Sais during the Nubian 25th dynasty. Although Manetho’s writings are fragmentary and are only known through transmissions by later historians, such as Eusebius, modern Egyptologists use his dynastic numbering scheme. Manetho referred to this dynasty as the 24th dynasty, but only one king was listed, Bakenrenef. Little was stated about Bakenrenef other than “in his reign, a lamb spoke,” but he wrote more in the section on the 25th dynasty. He wrote: “Sabacon, who, taking Bocchoris captive, burned him alive and reigned for eight years.”   “Sabacon” refers to Shabaqa (ruled 716-702 BCE), the second king of the 25th dynasty. Shabaqa restored Nubian rule over all of Egypt and ruled in the country itself, perhaps to put down any potential problems from Sais. But Sais continued to be important under Nubian rule, with the nobles of the region remaining semi-autonomous and pitting the Nubians and Assyrians against each other.   The 26th or Saite Dynasty Faience figurine of Psamtek I, Egyptian, c. 664-610 BCE. Source: Louvre Museum   The political intrigues that the princes of Sais were playing came to a head when the Saite ruler, Nekau I, decided to accept Assyrian vassaldom. Generally speaking, this was a wise decision because the Assyrians were so efficiently brutal, but the Nubians were by that point garrisoned throughout Egypt. The Nubian king, Tantamani (ruled 664-656 BCE), responded by executing Nekau, temporarily sending his son and future Egyptian king, Psamtek I (ruled 664-610 BCE), into exile. The 5th century BCE Greek historian Herodotus mentioned the event in book II of his Histories. “Psammetichus,” Nekau I’s heir, “fled the country to escape Sabacos, the Ethiopian, who had killed Necos, his father.”   The Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal (ruled 668-627 BCE), would not let Tantamani’s act go unpunished. Ashurbanipal led a major campaign into Egypt that went deep into Upper Egypt, driving the Nubians back into Nubia, but they were unable to hold the land. The Assyrian Empire was at that point on its last legs and fighting for survival in the east against the Babylonians and Medes. The situation meant that Psamtek I could return to Sais and claim not only his home city, but all of Egypt thanks to the Assyrians.   Naophorous statue of Psamtekseneb, the governor of Sais, Egyptian, 664-610 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art.   Psamtek I was the first king of the 26th dynasty, which proved to be a bit of a renaissance for Egypt. The Saite kings re-established their political influence in the Near East, ushered in an era of renewed art and architecture, and were economically wealthy and stable. Perhaps most important, Egypt was unified under the Saite kings and their traditional Nubian enemies were kept at bay.   The Saites’ Libyan history, though, by that point was barely noticeable. The Saite kings certainly thought of themselves as legitimate Egyptians, even though they were all descended from Libyans who had migrated to the region hundreds of years prior. The Saites portrayed themselves as Egyptians in art and texts. In fact, one of the more interesting texts from the 26th dynasty is a historical stela that relates a military campaign Psamtek I led against the Libyans. The text states that Psamtek defeated a force of Meshwesh and Tjehenu in the 11th year of his rule, clearly positioning the Libyans as his enemy. By the time of the 26th dynasty, the only thing Libyan about its kings were a few of their names (Psamtek and Nekau).   Relief of Libyans and Nubians from the Tomb of Seti I, Valley of the Kings, c. 1294-1279 BCE. Source: Theban Mapping Project   The Libyans had a long and contentious history with the Egyptians. For the most part they filled the role as one of Egypt’s three primary enemies, at least in art and propaganda. The reality is, though, that the Libyan-Egyptian relationship was much more complex. Some Libyans engaged in peaceful trade with the Egyptians, while many more migrated to the Egyptian Delta for its fertile soil and culture. Eventually, the Delta Libyans became Egyptians and came full circle, fighting the Libyans, as the Egyptians before them had done.

    The roots of both the 674 and 717 Bosporus battles lay in the Umayyad Caliphate’s ambition to end Constantinople politically and religiously. In the 660s, the Umayyad Caliphate’s campaigns began to complete the initial Arab conquests. North Africa, Palestine, and Syria fell in succession in conjunction with a growing Arab navy. Simultaneous attacks began in Anatolia. The battles seesawed over time, but the Arabs kept the advantage. Twice, their armies reached the shores opposite Constantinople. Finally, the Arabs in 670 seized Cyzicus, a town nestled on the opposite shore of the Sea of Marmara yet only 120 kilometers distance. The Umayyad launched annual raids only to be defeated by Constantinople’s legendary Theodosian Walls.   674 The First Battle of the Bosporus Area Around Constantinople 7th Century Source: Wikipedia   The Arab fleet under the Umayyad Caliphate traversed the Dardanelle Straits to Cyzicus. With its protected harbor and peninsula, the town provided a decent and safe harbor. This stage evolved into a prolonged campaign rather than a single battle. By late spring 674, they launched pinprick attacks on defenses or checking Byzantine naval preparations.   A little-discussed fact is the Byzantine Navy held a qualitative edge. The fast and maneuverable dromond, a two-tiered galley, was the Fleet’s backbone. The Byzantines possessed a strategic view, with permanent bases, shipyards, and a tested strategy for defending the Bosporus and Constantinople. All this dated back several centuries, an inheritance from the old Roman Empire.   Byzantine army of Nikephoros Phokas capture Arab city, 13th century Chronicle of John Skylitzes. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Byzantine use of Greek Fire gave the Navy a terrible, unmatchable armament. This incendiary weapon spat fire through ship-mounted siphons. Greek Fire burned even on water and was nearly unquenchable.   The Umayyad Caliphate built a substantial navy, which won sporadically. In a shift during the summer of 674, the Umayyads attempted to blockade the Bosporus Straits. The Byzantines counterattacked, using their superior local sea knowledge, and burned the Arab ships, thereby maintaining open supply lines.    With no clear path to victory against the hated al-Rum (Romans), the Arabs withdrew to Cyzicus. The Byzantines also repelled the Umayyad army on the opposite side of the Bosporus. By 678, the combatants negotiated a treaty. The Arabs withdrew from Anatolia due to internal troubles.   A Rematch on the Bosporus Straits of 717 Constantinople’s Theodosian Defenses   Despite a decades-long gap between sieges, the Arabs always sought to capture Constantinople. Economically, a win meant controlling the Eastern Mediterranean. For Islam, winning would be a religious victory against Christianity by eliminating the largest Christian power. So, around August 717, the Umayyad struck again.   The Umayyad Caliphate prepared carefully this time, invading with 120,000 men and 1,800 ships. They crossed the Bosporus Straits and circled Constantinople with siege works. The wily Byzantines, led by Emperor Leo the Isaurian, knew of this imminent attack. For years, spies reported that thousands of Lebanon’s cypress trees were being harvested for ship construction.   Supplies and reinforcements came into the city prior, protected by its enormous Theodosian Walls. The Byzantine Navy attacked like the prior war. In the narrow Bosporus, Greek Fire annihilated this first fleet, breaking the blockade. The siege continued into a harsh winter, making the Arabs miserable. During the winter, supplies dwindled, and the ravaged countryside offered little. The Umayyad Caliphate’s army faced an unexpected entanglement during their siege-the Bulgars. The year prior, despite frequent conflicts, the Byzantines and Bulgars aligned. The Bulgars stood to lose potentially; if the Arabs conquered Constantinople, soon Muslim armies would march north.   A Victory on the Bosporus – 718 The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople, by Eugène Delacroix, 1840. Source: Eugene-Delacroix.com   Despite their numbers, the Arabs faced famine and disease during the winter of 718. Constant Bulgar raids, rear attacks, disrupted supply lines, and one significant battle only hastened any difficulties. This left the Arabs in a vice grip between new enemies and Constantinople’s city defenses.    On the Bosporus Straits in early spring, two large Arab fleets arrived. The first fleet’s crews, being Egyptian Coptic Christians, went over to the Byzantines.   Emperor Leo launched a naval attack on this news. Hindered by desertions and attacked with Greek Fire, Arab ships burned or fell into Byzantine hands. The unexpected victory left little food or weapons for the Umayyad Caliphate’s army and eliminated the naval blockade. The Byzantine Army added to the Arab’s misery by crushing a reinforcing army across the Bosporus Straits near Nicomedia. The Umayyad Caliphate army’s position only grew more desperate. To the Umayyad, they’d lost the battle. Starting in mid-August 718, the Arabs retreated, ending just over a year-long siege. In an ironic twist, a storm in the Sea of Marmara wiped out more Arab ships. In only sixty years, the Byzantines quashed two Muslim invasions, preserving their Empire until 1453.

  By the mid-4th century BCE, the political landscape of Greece looked markedly different from what it had been a century earlier. Then, Athens had been at its height and locked in war with her great rival, Sparta. Now, the supremacy of both states has been shattered. To the north, the growing power of Macedon posed a new threat. Confronting the challenge posed by Philip II and his son, Alexander, would cement the legacy of Demosthenes as one of Athens’ most important statesmen and certainly one of the most celebrated rhetoricians in antiquity.   Origins: Demosthenes’ Early Life Portrait of Demosthenes, by John Chapman, 1803. Source: British Museum   As a young man, Demosthenes endured a more difficult life than he perhaps would have first envisaged. Born in 384 BCE, he would be orphaned by age seven. His father, also called Demosthenes, had been successful, however, and left his son with a considerable inheritance: some 15 talents, according to Plutarch.   Unfortunately for orphaned Demosthenes, his father’s estate was badly managed by the men tasked with his guardianship. It was a desire to right these wrongs that led the young man down the route of learning rhetoric, the art of public speaking and persuasion. While undertaking actions against his guardians, Demosthenes had also engaged a certain Isaeus, a rhetorician with a specialism in inheritance cases, as a tutor.   Polyhymnia, Muse of Eloquence, the muse stands before a bust of Demosthenes, by Charles Meynier, 1800. Source: Cleveland Museum of Art   Demosthenes delivered a total of five orations against his guardians. Three of these were Against Aphobus (363-362 BCE) and an additional two invectives Against Onetor (362-361 BCE). Although the young orator was successful, he was only able to recover a portion of the wealth owed to him.   According to the sources that describe the life of Demosthenes, the young man was exceptionally dedicated to learning his craft. Plutarch describes how Demosthenes constructed a subterranean study for himself, still preserved into the biographer’s own time, the 2nd century CE. This is where the orator would go to train his voice. In fact, such was his commitment to honing his talents that Plutarch records how Demosthenes used to shave one side of his head. The embarrassment from this preposterous haircut deterred the young man from venturing outside and being otherwise distracted from his training.   Logographer: Demosthenes & Athenian Law A sketchbook drawing of Acropolis, seen from the direction of the Pnyx, by Sir William Gell from about 1801-1813, via British Museum   Having discovered his talents while attempting to recover his inheritance, Demosthenes set upon a career in the Athenian law courts. From about 355/4 onwards, he became a professional litigant, in which capacity he had two roles. Both helped secure Demosthenes’ reputation, not only in his own time but for centuries after. First, he was a sunegoros, or an advocate. He was employed to speak on other people’s behalf in court. Evidently, the time spent in his underground study had the desired effect on his voice.   He was also a logographos, or “logographer,” which more simply means that he was a speechwriter for legal suits. Because of the way Athenian politics was conducted at this time, politicians frequently found themselves indicted by their rivals. This led the way for Demosthenes’ entry into Athenian politics in the mid-4th century BCE.   Demosthenes on the Seashore, Eugene Delacroix, 1859 via National Gallery of Ireland   As an Athenian male, Demosthenes had previously been obliged to be involved in the politics of the polis. He had previously been a trierarch in 363 and 359 BCE, whereby he assumed the responsibility for the outfitting and maintenance of a trireme, the distinctive three-decked ships of the Classical Athenian navy. He had also been a choregos in 348 BCE, which entailed his paying for a theatrical production.   Perhaps inspired in part by his previous political responsibilities, the first political oration delivered by Demosthenes, On the Navy, in 354 BCE, called for reform in the funding of the Athenian fleet. Many of the orator’s early speeches reveal the chief concerns of Demosthenes, which would dominate his later political career and the history of Athens. Chief amongst these were foreign policy, with an emphasis on the significance of the navy, and Athenian honor.   Rhetor & Rebel: Demosthenes & the Philippics Macedonian Coin, head of Zeus with Philip II on horseback, 340-315 BCE, Source: The British Museum   The political landscape of Hellas was undergoing considerable change during the mid-4th century BCE. While the 5th century BCE had been dominated by the two great poleis of Athens and Sparta, both had had their influence curtailed by this time. Athens had faced ruinous defeat in the Peloponnesian War, while several decades later, the limits of Spartan power were shown by the Theban victory at the Battle of Leuctra (371 BCE). By the middle of the century, a new figure was emerging in Greek politics: the Macedonians.   Located to the north of mainland Greece, the Macedonians were ruled by Philip II, an ambitious ruler with aspirations for glory through conquest. The Athenians had been at war with the Macedonians since 357 BCE, ever since Philip seized the cities of Amphipolis and Pydna. The looming threat of Macedonian power, manifested in the figure of Philip, was to be the inspiration for the most well-known of Demosthenes’ speeches: the Philippics.   Athenians, Beware of Philip! (Demosthenes to the Athenians), by Honore Daumier, 1835. Source: Cleveland Museum of Art   A total of three Philippics were delivered against the Macedonian king by Demosthenes. The first Philippic, delivered in the aftermath of the Macedonian victory at the Battle of Crocus Field, was delivered in 351/350 BCE. It was a call to resistance, with Demosthenes warning his fellow Athenians of the threat to their autonomy posed by Macedonia. His speech also contained a warning to the Athenians that the growing power of Macedonia was a problem in part of their own creation: “even if something happens to him [Philip II], you will soon raise up a second Philip…”   A temporary peace with Philip was reached between 347 and 345 BCE, known as the Peace of Philocrates, following Philip’s crushing defeat of Olynthus. Demosthenes actually met the Macedonian king at this time, and it appeared that a recognition of Philip’s military might have led to a subtle change in the Athenian orator’s approach.   Intaglio with bust of Demosthenes, Dioskourides, c. 25 BCE. Source: J. Paul Getty Museum   This is not to say that Demosthenes was abandoning his fiery invectives against Macedonia. In 344, the Athenian traveled to the Peloponnese in an attempt to win over the poleis there to his cause. He was unsuccessful and unpopular. An embassy was sent to Athens to give voice to their grievances against the orator. This fired up Demosthenes, and in 343 BCE, he delivered the Second Philippic, an excoriating attack on Philip II, which nevertheless lacked the aggression that characterised the First Philippic.   Increasingly, the political entanglement of the Athenians and the Macedonians thrust Demosthenes to the forefront of the political landscape. His preeminence was confirmed in 342 BCE with the delivery of the Third Philippic. The catalyst had been an Athenian attack on Thrace, the region which Philip had been invading at the same time. Demosthenes convinced the Athenian council not to recall Diopeithes, the general who had so angered Philip by his actions in Thrace. In the Third Philippic, he called for resolution in the face of Macedonian aggression: it would be better, he claimed, for the Athenians “to die a thousand times than pay court to Philip.”   Might of Macedon: Demosthenes, Chaeronae & Alexander the Great Statue of a Lion on a pedestal in Chaeronea, erected on the orders of Philip II after his victory at Chaeronea in 338 BCE. Source: Rijksmuseum   Demosthenes’ continued haranguing angered the Macedonian king, and the tensions came to a decisive head in 338 BCE. The Athenians had established an alliance with a number of other Greek cities, including Achaea, Corinth, Euboae, and, most significantly, the Thebans. Philip had also courted the Thebans, but his overtures had failed after Demothenes himself was sent to the city by the Athenians.   After several minor skirmishes between the two sides, Philip was able to draw the armies together at Chaeronea. The outcome was decisive. The roughly 30,000 Macedonian soldiers devastated the combined Athenian and Theban forces. The entirety of the Thebans’ “Sacred Band,” their finest fighting men, were reputedly slaughtered at Chaeronea. They were honored by the erection of a grand lion monument where they fell.   Head of Alexander the Great or Helios, artist unknown, 2nd century CE or 19th century. Source: the MFA, Boston   Chaeronea confirmed Philip’s supremacy in the Greek mainland. However, he would not live long to enjoy this primacy. In 336 BCE, Philip was assassinated. He was replaced as king by his son, Alexander III, who was just 20 years old.   The recently defeated Greek cities saw the death of the Macedonian king as an ample opportunity to reassert their independence. Demosthenes took a leading part in the Athenian attempts to rid themselves of Macedonian influence. But they had misjudged the character of the young Alexander. Marching quickly, the future “Great” arrived at the gates of Thebes, which submitted to Macedonian power quickly. The Athenians, understanding that they were on their own, panicked. Alexander was begged for mercy and, perhaps surprisingly, demonstrated leniency to the city.   Mable head of Demosthenes, c. 2nd century CE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   Both cities would attempt to rebel again in 335 BCE while Alexander campaigned in Thrace. Funded by the Persians, the rebels could not compete with Macedonian power. Thebes fared worse, however, as Alexander ordered the razing of the city. Despite the clear power of the Macedonians, Demosthenes remained resolute in his opposition. In one of his final orations, On the Crown, Demosthenes asserted once more his belief in the righteousness of resisting Macedonia, even in spite of the weakened, weary state of Athens at the time.   Death of Demosthenes Figure of Demosthenes, by Enoch Wood, c. 1800. Source: Cleveland Museum of Art   Demosthenes’ opposition to Alexander and Macedonian power continued unabated, even after the death of the young king thousands of miles away in Babylon in 323 BCE. Their final attempt to break away from the Macedonians, the Lamian War, took place from 323-322 BCE. Alexander’s successor in Greece, Antipater, quickly quashed the revolt. It was to be the last hurrah of Athenian political power.   Antipater and the Macedonians demanded that Demosthenes, a key orchestrator in this final rebellion, be handed over. Aware of the precarity of their city’s position, the Athenian council had no choice but to condemn Demosthenes and the other ringleaders to death. Demosthenes fled the city. He retreated to the island of Kalaureia (modern Poros), well known for its sanctuary of Poseidon. The agents of Antipater were relentless, however. When he realized that he had been tracked down, Demeter committed suicide by poison.   Oratorical Inspiration: The Legacy of Demosthenes Medallions with portraits of Demosthenes, Cicero, Demetrius of Phalerum, and Marcus Antonius, by Reinier Vinkeles, c. 1789-1809. Source: Rijksmuseum   Making an assessment of Demosthenes generally comes down to whether he is considered as a politician or an orator. In terms of the former, assessments of Demosthenes can be ambivalent, both in antiquity and in modern analyses. For Plutarch, Demosthenes’ sustained commitment to his principles, mainly of Athenian independence, was to be lauded. The biographer commends Demosthenes’ resolution right up until his final breath: “he chose rather to forsake his life than his purpose.” Others, however, are less positive. They view his resistance to Macedonian hegemony, or at least the obvious military supremacy of their armies, as short-sighted or misguided. This is the case with Polybius, who records that it was only the mercy of Philip after Chaeronea that stopped the Athenians suffering catastrophic consequences despite the “policy of Demosthenes.”   Bust Of Demosthenes, via the University of Yale Art Gallery   As an orator, however, Demosthenes was, and remains, almost universally lauded. He was widely considered to mark the apogee of Attic oratory, and his skills, in terms of rhetoric and oratory, were commended throughout antiquity and beyond. For example, Juvenal, the Latin poet, described Demosthenes as an “overflowing fountain of genius.” He was also a continued source of inspiration for perhaps the most famous Roman orator, Cicero. Indeed, Cicero’s own political invectives against Mark Antony were called the Philippics in imitation of Demosthenes’ own. Plutarch noted the similarity between the orators and politicians in his parallel biographies of the pair, suggesting that it was so striking that it could have been the result of divine power!

  Beneath the foundations of the legendary Spartan political system labored the oppressed Messenians. Messenia, a prosperous corner of southwestern Greece, was conquered by the Spartans in the 8th century BCE. Its population, along with elements of the Spartan region of Lakonia, were transformed into slaves, known as the Helots. For centuries, the Helots did agricultural work and fed their masters, and the Spartans created their warrior elite. The Messenians endured over 300 years of occupation but remarkably survived and re-emerged as a free community, founding Messene, one of the most impressive archaeological sites in Greece today.   The Messenian Wars and the Hero Aristomenes Map of the ancient Peloponnese. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Messenia occupies the southwest corner of the Peloponnese peninsula in southern Greece. Its long coastline and fertile land made it a relatively prosperous region. In the 8th century BCE, Messenia was desirable in a country hungry for land. Some newly emerging Greek city-states sought solutions by colonizing distant lands across the Mediterranean. The Spartans fed their hunger by conquering Messenia (Cartledge, 2002, 99).   The Spartan conquest of Messenia in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE took place largely outside the historical record, with most of our information recorded centuries later and filtered through layers of myth. These stories tell us of an initial 20-year-long conquest at the start of the 8th century BCE, referred to as the First Messenian War, followed by an unsuccessful rebellion and a Second Messenian War in the 7th century BCE.   While we cannot be certain of the details of these events, the second conflict involved a key figure, the Messenian hero Aristomenes. The story of Aristomenes was likely embellished in later centuries, but he was said to have led the resistance to the Spartans for years. A series of daring raids, miraculous escapes, and mountaintop sieges became key elements in the Messenian narrative and, despite their eventual defeat, created a hero for the Messenians to later cling to.   Aristomenes’ heroics and the Messenians’ defiant stands at the mountains of Ithome and Eira in both wars created a legend, but by the late 7th century, Sparta was firmly in control of Messenia, making Sparta one of the richest city-states in Greece (Cartledge, 2002, 103). The Messenian Wars were transformative for both sides. To win and keep their new land and servile population, the Spartans had to become the militaristic society for which they were famed. For the Messenians, this meant the complete loss of their land and freedom.   Who Were the Helots? “Aristomenes fights his way out of Eira,” from Cassell’s Illustrated University History, 1882. Source: Wikimedia Commons   For the Messenians, the consequences of the Spartan conquest were devastating as they were transformed into a servile population known as the Helots. Much is unknown about exactly how Spartan society functioned, but the Messenian formed the lowest level in a highly stratified system.   The Helots were slaves, but they were very particular types of slaves. Slavery was common in the ancient Mediterranean and came in many forms. Within the Greek world, many slaves were people brought in from the outside through war or trading and so were often isolated individuals. Helotage was unusual, though not unique, in being a collective status for a native population imposed by another Greek community.   Agricultural work depicted by the Antimenes Painter, c. 6th century BCE. Source: British Museum   The Messenian Helots continued to live in family units and may even have owned some property, unlike chattel slaves (Alcock, 2002, 190; Cartledge, 2002, 141). While they always greatly outnumbered the elite Spartan minority, archaeological survey data paints a picture of a sparsely populated Messenia with a population concentrated in a few settlements (Alcock, 2002, 193). The Helots’ main task was to work the land and hand over some of their produce to their Spartan overlords.   For the individual Spartans, this produce was of the utmost importance as their citizenship rights depended on them contributing to a collective mess. That contribution came from the surplus produced by the Helots (Cartledge, 2002, 140). Their importance meant that the Spartan state regulated the Helots, though whether the Helots were considered state or private property is disputed. A Spartan could not sell their Helots beyond Messenia, nor were they allowed to free them. Only the Spartan state could free a Helot, which they sometimes did as a reward for military service.   By remaining in their country and maintaining a family and perhaps some property, the condition of the Helot was in some ways less severe than other forms of slavery. However, there can be little doubt that this was a form of oppression and exploitation maintained through systematic brutality. The Spartan state viewed itself as perpetually at war with the Helots and formally declared war on them yearly (Cartledge, 2002, 142). A notorious practice was that of the krypteia. The krypteia was a band of young Spartans that patrolled the countryside and were allowed, or encouraged, to kill Helots. The mass murder of Helots was also not unknown. Thucydides records a case during the Peloponnesian War (4.3.2). Fearing a Helot revolt, the Spartans asked for 2,000 of the best volunteers and quietly killed them all when they came forward.   Spartan oppression was so complete that in the late 5th century, the historian Thucydides referred to the country as the land that used to be Messenia (4.3.2). However, the Messenians had not disappeared as a people, and they took every opportunity to remind the Spartans and themselves that they continued to exist.   The Messenians Fight Back  A Spartan Shows a Drunken Helot to his Son, by Fernand Sabotté, 1900. Source: Beaux-Arts de Paris   When the opportunity arose, even with Sparta at the height of its power, the Messenians were capable of large-scale resistance.   In 464 BCE, a massive earthquake struck Lakonia, reducing the towns to rubble and killing thousands. The Spartans narrowly avoided being overrun by the Lakonian Helots before the rebellion spread to Messenia. Recovering from the initial disaster, the Spartans fought back but could not overcome the Messenian rebels who gathered around a stronghold used during the Messenian Wars, Mount Ithome in southern Messenia. With the Spartans lacking the knowledge of sieges necessary to take the stronghold, the rebels held out for years. Ultimately, the Spartans were compelled to allow the Messenian rebels to leave the country safely.   Mount Ithome, a view by Sir William Gell, c. 1801-1813. Source: British Museum   The revolt following the earthquake failed to free Messenia, but it had important consequences. First, it triggered a split between the Spartans and the Athenians, which became a long series of wars. Second, the Athenians, now hostile to Sparta, settled the Messenian refugees at Naupaktos in central Greece. This created a group of Messenian exiles who played a significant role in the Messenian story.   The Messenian exiles in Naupaktos maintained their sense of Messenian identity, and when the great Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE) pitted the Spartans against the Athenians, the exiles were ready to take the fight to Sparta. In 425 BCE, the Athenians landed around Pylos in Spartan-occupied Messenia. When the Spartans took the small offshore island of Sphacteria to evict the Athenians, they committed a critical error. The Athenian navy blockaded the island, and suddenly, dozens of Sparta’s increasingly small number of citizen soldiers were trapped. When the Athenians landed troops to capture the Spartans, a Messenian contingent from Naupaktos took a leading role. The Messenians found a way around the Spartan position, completing their encirclement. The Spartans were still basking in the glory of the heroic last stand at Thermopylae in 480 BCE, but now, surrounded on all sides, they laid down their arms and surrendered. According to Thucydides (4.40), the surrender of the invincible Spartans was a shocking event at the time. We can only imagine the pride the Messenians felt in having played a major role in bringing about this humiliation.   The Athenians allowed the Messenian exiles to base themselves at Pylos, from where they conducted a damaging guerilla campaign against the Spartans. With their knowledge of the land and the local dialect, the Messenians even raided Lakonia (Thucydides, 4.41.2). Unfortunately the Naupaktian Messenians were ultimately on the losing side of the war. When the Spartans and their allies overpowered the Athenians the Naupaktian Messenians were driven further into exile. Some were said to have fled to Sicily and as far away as Libya (Pausanias.4.26.2).   Messenian Liberation  Spartan shield taken from Sphacteria, 425 BCE, Ancient Agora Museum, Athens. Source: Copyright Neil Middleton   A generation later, prophesies and omens circulated among the Messenian exiles around the Mediterranean (Pausanias, 4.26.3). These were soon followed by the news that, in 371 BCE, the Spartans had suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Thebans at the battle of Leuktra. A year later, the Theban general Epaminondas marched a large army into the Peloponnese.   The Messenians may already have revolted from their masters (Cartledge, 2002, 254). At the very least, our sources do not mention that Epaminondas had to fight for Messenia. To permanently weaken Sparta, a decision was made to build a powerful city in Messenia. Calls went out for the scattered exiles to return, and a city was founded in 369 BCE under Mount Ithome, called either Ithome or Messene, with the latter name winning in the end (Luraghi, 2015, 287). The Messenians made it clear that they had no intention of being enslaved again as they constructed an impressive set of fortifications that enclosed 290 hectares (Luraghi, 2015, 289) and were described by Pausanias (4.31.5) half a millennium later as the strongest walls in Greece.   Almost three centuries after their conquest by the Spartans, the Messenians finally became a free community again. They had survived slavery, defeats, and exile. They were quick to remember and commemorate their long struggle and liberation. Safe behind the walls of Messene, the city was graced by statues of Epaminondas and the semi-mythical hero Aristomenes. Statues and religious practices were also brought over from Naupaktos as a reminder of that period of exile (Pausanias 4.31). With the Messenian Helots now free, Sparta’s time as the primary power in Greece was over (Cartledge, 2002, 254).   Free Messenia  Walls of Messene. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Messene seems to have flourished, allowing the Messenians to take their place as one free Greek community among many. While rarely at the center of great events over the next two centuries, the Messenians participated in the ever-changing world of late Classical and Hellenistic Greece.   In the early years following liberation, the former Helots, exiles, and new citizens probably formed a single political community, which may have created a federal structure for Messenia (Lurghi, 2015, 291). The surrounding region seems to have recovered, with indications of denser settlement compared to the era of Spartan domination (Alcock, 2002, 196). The initial concern of the Messenians was safety from a Spartan revival. To that end, they worked closely with Megalopolis, another city founded in the 360s, and the eternal Spartan enemy Argos, to keep the Spartans contained (Kralli, 2017, 17). Over time, the Messenian attitude to their former tormentors eased. In 272 BCE, the Messenians came to Sparta’s aid when Pyrrhus attacked, which ushered in half a century of peace (Kralli, 2017, 125).   Ruins of Messene. Source: greece-is.com   The Hellenistic Age brought new challenges. There was the ever-present danger of intervention by one of the great powers, Macedonia and Rome. Closer to home was the expanding federal state of the Achaians, which, by the mid-3rd century BCE, contained most of the Peloponnese. Among the states holding out were the Spartans and Messenians. We do not know enough about Messenia at this point to explore this position fully. Pausanias suggests one reason was to avoid the frequent wars between the Achaians and Spartans (4.29.6). Keeping themselves free from any potential dominating power in the Peloponnese has been identified as a long-term Messenian policy (Kralli, 2017, 326). Having been erased as a political community for so long, it is not surprising the Messenians were reluctant to compromise their autonomy by joining a federal unit.   Gradually this isolation became untenable. Messene lost control over some Messenian cities, which joined the Achaians. Finally, in 191 BCE, Messene was forced into the Achaian League. Still, the Messenians were not willing to settle for this arrangement and they revolted in 183/2 BCE. The revolt was a failure and may not have been backed by the whole of Messene, but it had an impact as the war led to the capture and execution of the great Achaian leader Philopoimen. The failed revolt was one of the last major events noted in Messenian history. Soon, the whole of Greece and the Mediterranean were swallowed up by Rome.   The Messenian story remains one of the most remarkable in Greek history. Their land occupied, the Messenians disappeared from the political map of Greece, subsumed by a seemingly unbeatable military power. However, the Messenians survived and returned to take their place in the Greek world. The walls of Messene, which largely still stand on the slopes of Mount Ithome, testify to the endurance of a seemingly defeated and dispersed people.   Bibliography   Alcock, S. (2002) “A simple case of exploitation? The Helots of Messenia” in P. Cartledge, E. Cohen, and L. Foxhall (eds.) Money, Land and Labour, pp. 185-199. Routledge.   Cartledge, P. (2002) Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History from 1300 to 362BC. Routledge.   Kralli, I. (2017) The Hellenistic Peloponnese: Interstate Relations: A Narrative and Analytic History, 371-146 BC. The Classical Press of Wales.   Luraghi, N. (2015) “Traces of Federalism in Messenia” in Beck, H. and Funke, P. (eds.) Federalism in Greek Antiquity, pp. 285-296. Cambridge University Press.

  In 218 BCE, war broke out between Rome and Carthage, the two largest powers in the Western Mediterranean. What Rome expected to be a quick and easy war turned out to be a long, bitter, and costly conflict that would claim the lives of many brave Romans. The Romans suffered several major defeats during the opening stages of the war at the hands of the brilliant Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca. One such defeat was the massacre at Lake Trasimene.   Before Trasimene: Hannibal Crossing the Alps Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Romans expected to fight the war not on Italian soil but in Carthage’s holding in Spain and North Africa. Hannibal Barca, however, did what many believed to be impossible. He gathered his army in Iberia (modern-day Spain and Portugal), numbering 50,000 infantry, 9,000 cavalry, and 37 elephants, and proceeded to cross the Pyrenees and then the impregnable Alps in late Autumn 218 BCE.   It was a grueling journey that cost Hannibal dearly in manpower. He suffered terrible losses in battles and ambushes by hostile tribes, and even more men were lost due to the devastating weather conditions. When Hannibal arrived on the other side of the Alps, he had a mere 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and only a small number of elephants left. Despite his losses, Hannibal caught the Romans completely by surprise, arriving in their backyard with an army ready to fight.   First Blood: The Battle of Ticinus Hannibal’s Army Crossing the Alps, by Heinrich Leutemann, 1866. Source: Wikimedia Commons   When Publius Cornelius Scipio, one of Rome’s two consuls and military leaders, learned of Hannibal’s arrival in Italy, he assembled his forces and marched out to confront the invading army. The two opposing forces set up their camps close to each other on the right bank of the Ticinus River. At the start of the next day, both armies sent out scouting parties for reconnaissance to learn the strength of the opposing army. The Carthaginian scouts consisted of Hannibal’s Iberian and Libyan heavy cavalry and his elite Numidian light cavalry. Scipio’s Roman force was a mixed force of Gallic and Roman horsemen supported by javelin-armed light infantry called velites.   When the two forces met, the Romans sent forth their velites to engage the enemy cavalry with their javelins. The Carthaginian heavy cavalry, however, charged down at the Roman light infantry, which barely cast a javelin, and drove them back onto their own ranks. The Roman cavalry, in response, charged the Carthaginian heavy horsemen. The cavalry on both sides engaged in a violent melee that got so fierce that many horsemen dismounted and fought on foot. The stalemate was finally broken when Hannibal’s Numidians rode around the Roman position, outflanking them and attacking from the rear. The Romans broke and fled, taking refuge in their fortified camp near Placentia.   Scipio was wounded and would have perished in the battle had it not been for the bravery of his 16-year-old son, also named Publius Cornelius Scipio, who saved his life. The defeat shocked the Romans, and the senate immediately recalled the army on its way to Africa, under Tiberius Sempronius Longus, to defend Italy. In the greater schemes of the Second Punic War, it was a minor battle, but it was a taste of things to come.   Trebbia: Battle on the Icy River Scipio Being Rescued by his Son at the Battle of Ticinus, by Silvestre David Mirys, c. 1750-1810. Source: Wikimedia Commons   When Sempronius arrived to reinforce Scipio, he was eager to battle the Carthaginians despite Scipio advocating for caution. Hannibal, however, took advantage of Sempronius’ impetuousness to lure him and his army into unfavorable battle conditions. The Romans had to cross the freezing Trebbia River in the heart of the winter to meet the Carthaginians, kept warm by their fires, on the opposite side:   “To make matters worse, men and horses alike had been hurriedly sent forward, without any food, without any protection against the cold, so they had no heat in them and the chilling blasts from the river made the cold still more severe as they approached it in their pursuit of the Numidians. But when they entered the water which had been swollen by the night’s rain and was then breast high, their limbs became stiff with cold, and when they emerged on the other side, they had hardly strength to hold their weapons; they began to grow faint from fatigue and as the day wore on, from hunger.” (Livy 21.54.8-9)   When the two armies met in the melee, Hannibal sprang yet another trap that he had set up the day before. He had hidden 2,000 handpicked troops in a dry riverbed, which sprang from their position and attacked the Romans from behind while the cavalry attacked their flanks, winning a resounding victory over the Romans.   The Marsh Crossing Map of the final stages of the Battle of Trebbia. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Carthaginian general had proven himself an enemy not to be taken lightly, having defeated two Roman consuls in a matter of a few weeks. His victories against Rome also convinced the Gauls to support his cause, and his army swelled as Gallic warriors flocked to his banner.   The senate responded by sending two large armies north to block Hannibal’s advance into central Italy. The idea was that whichever of the two armies Hannibal encountered would monitor his advance until the other could arrive to support them, effectively trapping Hannibal between the two armies. Hannibal, however, pulled the wool over Roman eyes by once again doing what many thought impossible. Hannibal marched his army through a marsh that most people believed could not be crossed. It was a difficult crossing, and many men and animals lost their lives. Hannibal himself suffered a severe eye infection, which cost him an eye. Despite these losses, Hannibal was able to outmaneuver the two Roman armies and marched past the army under the command of Gaius Flaminius into Etruria (modern-day Tuscany) completely unnoticed.   The Battle of Lake Trasimene Hannibal and his army in Italy, detail from a fresco by Jacopo Ripanda, 1510. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Once in Tuscany, Hannibal let loose his troops, who raided and pillaged the countryside. This was a strategic move that forced the nearby army of Flaminius to respond. Flaminius gathered his forces and marched out in the hopes of confronting Hannibal rather than waiting for the reinforcing army to arrive. Polybius tells us that once again, the Romans expected an easy victory and were thus eager to engage the Carthaginians:   “…bent only on falling in with the enemy, as though certain victory awaited him. For he had managed to inspire the people with such confident expectations, that the unarmed citizens who followed his camp in hope of booty, bringing chains and fetters and all such gear, were more numerous than the soldiers themselves.” (Polybius, Histories, 3.82).   Hannibal kept his army just out of reach of the pursuing Flaminius, giving the impression that the Carthaginians were fleeing before them. The Romans were thus even more eager to catch up with them. When Hannibal reached the northern shore of Lake Trasimene, he deemed the place the perfect setting for an ambush: a narrow road that ran between the hills and the waters of the lake.   Deployment of Hannibal’s Army at Trasimene. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Early the next morning, at the break of dawn, Flaminius hurried his army of 25,000 out of camp, hoping to catch the Carthaginians off guard. A thick mist blanketed the lake shore, shrouding the area in poor visibility. Furthermore, in his rush to catch Hannibal, Flaminius made little effort to scout the road ahead. Flaminius was leading his column of soldiers along the narrow path between the lake shore and the hills when suddenly they heard trumpets, followed by the terrifying war cries of thousands of warriors piercing the mist. Africans, Iberians, and Gauls rushed down the hills and crashed into the Roman column while the Carthaginian cavalry attacked the rear guard, cutting off the retreat:   “Flaminius was taken completely by surprise: the mist was so thick, and so many of the enemy were charging down from the upper ground, that not only were the centurions and tribunes unable to relieve any part of the line, but they were unable to get any clear idea of what was going on. They were attacked simultaneously on the front, rear, and both flanks.” (Polybius, Histories, 3.84)   Reenactment Group Portraying Hannibal’s Army, 2012. Source: Wikimedia Commons   What followed was a massacre. The Roman army was in marching formation, completely unprepared for battle. The soldiers were trapped between the lake, the hills, and the enemy. Those who were not cut down where they stood were forced into the lake. Many drowned under the weight of their armor, while others begged their comrades to run them through so that the enemy would not. The rest were killed by the Carthaginian cavalry who followed them into the water:   “But those who were caught in the defile between the lake and the cliff perished in a shameful, or rather a most miserable, manner: for being thrust into the lake, some in their frantic terror endeavored to swim with their armor on, and presently sank and were drowned; while the greater number, wading as far as they could into the lake, remained there with their heads above water; and when the cavalry rode in after them, and certain death stared them in the face, they raised their hands and begged for quarter, offering to surrender, and using every imaginary appeal for mercy; but were finally despatched by the enemy, or, in some cases, begged the favor of the fatal blow from their friends, or inflicted it on themselves.” (Polybius, Histories, 3.84)   Modern view of the northern shore where the Battle of Trasimene took place. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Polybius tells us that more than 15,000 Romans died in the battle. Among these was Flaminius himself. A group of 6,000 Romans in the vanguard of the column were able to cut their way through the Carthaginians. When they finally reached the safety of the hilltop and the mist had cleared, they looked back at the battlefield and only then grasped the full extent of the disaster that had unfolded. Rome had yet again suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of Hannibal. These 6,000 men took shelter in a small town close by. The next day, Hannibal surrounded the town with his light infantry and cavalry. Realizing the hopelessness of the situation, the 6,000 Romans surrendered.   Hannibal’s success was followed up with yet another victory over the Romans shortly after the Trasimene disaster. The second Roman army sent their 4,000 cavalry ahead to support Flaminius’ forces. Hannibal’s cavalry and light infantry were able to catch them off guard and killed about 2,000 of them, and the remainder were captured the next day.   Battle of Trasimene: Conclusion Statue of Hannibal Barca, by Sebastien Slodtz, c. 1655-1726. Source: Louvre   Trasimene was a master class in ambuscades that highlighted Hannibal’s military genius and strategic superiority. Ambushes are common in warfare between small groups of soldiers, but the scale of the ambush at Trasimene was unparalleled as Hannibal had managed to conceal an entire army of 50,000 men right under the noses of the Romans. The ambush was extremely effective, leaving 60% of the entire Roman army dead on the field of battle. Many more were captured, and even the 6,000 who did manage to escape the slaughter were captured the next day. The Carthaginian losses were minimal. Polybius states that only 1,500 Carthaginians died, the majority of whom were Gauls. Livy gives a higher number of 2,500. The battle is considered one of Hannibal Barca’s three great victories over the Romans, alongside Trebbia and his masterpiece at Cannae.   The tide of the war would only turn when the Romans stopped fighting Hannibal in Italy and took the war to Carthage’s home turf. The decisive victory would come at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE.

  Following Napoleon Bonaparte’s defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1825, the Congress of Vienna aimed to draw a new map of Europe. During the negotiation processes, the area of Moresnet, a small village in the province of Liège, modern-day Belgium, posed challenges as both the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Prussia sought to acquire influence over the resource-rich region. The solution was found in establishing the independent Neutral Moresnet in 1816.   The Congress of Vienna & Establishment of Neutral Moresnet The Congress of Vienna by Guillaume Nicoud. Source: Histoire Image   In June 1815, after the defeat at Waterloo and the first abdication of Napoleon Bonaparte, a long era of war in Europe came to an end. From September 1814 to June 1815, representatives of victorious countries (Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria, and Prussia), known as the great powers, and other sovereign states held the Congress of Vienna to redraw the map of Europe. The task was characterized by arguments and disputes over the distribution of territories. Among these debates was the issue of the small territory of Moresnet, located in modern-day Belgium.   In the 19th century, a small land named Moresnet was stretched between two great powers: the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Prussia. Both of these great powers were eager to incorporate the territory into their borders and were unwilling to make concessions during the negotiations at the Vienna Congress.   The reason behind this was that Moresnet held a rich source of a lucrative mineral: zinc. The mineral was in high demand at that time, as it was widely used to produce brass. Brass, in turn, was an essential component of many industrial processes, including ammunition and other military equipment production. Hence, seizing control over the tiny land of Moresnet was perceived as a strategic move, guaranteeing access to highly profitable and economically significant resources.   Mining, Metal Ores Zinc mine in Neutral Moresnet. Source: Meisterdrucke   Representatives from Prussia and the Netherlands met in neighboring Aachen (in modern-day Germany) in December 1815. The negotiations lasted several months. On June 26, 1816, the two powers reached an agreement. As the Congress of Vienna’s declared aim was to establish a balance of power and maintain peace in the world, the participating sovereign states decided to declare the territory a neutral zone indefinitely, and the term Neutral Moresnet was born.   Article 17 of the 1816 Treaty of Aachen stated:   “Since both commissions [of delimitation] have been unable to agree upon the way in which [the area would be separated], […] the above-mentioned town […] will be subject to a joint administration and shall not be militarily occupied by any of the two powers.”   The following factors led to the decision’s approval: By declaring neutrality, future conflicts between Prussia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands would be avoided. In a wider context, the economic benefits of the zinc mines could be enjoyed not only by the neighboring countries but also collectively. Third, neutrality was perceived as an innovative, experimental solution to the territorial disputes. If successful, it could assist great powers in resolving future conflicts over territories and preserving peace and stability throughout Europe.   The newly established Neutral Moresnet was tiny. Its territory was shaped like a triangle and encompassed only about fifty houses, which accommodated 256 people, a church, and the mine.   Administration of Neutral Moresnet Vieille Montagne. Source: Museum of Vieille Montagne   As determined at the Congress of Vienna, Neutral Moresnet was governed as a “condominium” under joint administration by the governments of Prussia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. A special joint committee, composed of commissioners from each respective party, was established to oversee the administration processes. Commissioners were also granted the right to elect a mayor of Neutral Moresnet.   Neutral Moresnet was governed under the laws of the Napoleonic Code. Moresnet had neither a law court nor a prison. Prussian and Dutch judges would come and, if needed, convict on the basis of the Napoleonic civil laws. To tackle pending administrative matters, a ten-member city council was founded in 1859, though it only maintained an advisory function. In 1830, following the successful Belgian Revolution for independence from Dutch rule, Belgium became Neutral Moresnet’s neighboring country.   Neutral Moresnet benefited from tax-free trading conditions as it was not subject to any country’s jurisdiction. Due to this profitable environment, the company Vieille Montagne, which owned and operated the zinc mines, experienced an unprecedented increase in revenue. Throughout Neutral Moresnet, the company ran banks, educational institutions, residential houses, stores, and hospitals.   Neutral Moresnet did not have its own currency. The French franc was primarily used for financial transactions. Additionally, the currencies of Prussia, Belgium, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands were also recognized as valid forms of payment. In 1848, local coins were minted but were not regarded as legal tender.   Street image from Moresnet, around 1900. Source: De Facto Borders   Moresnet was not required to have military personnel since it was a neutral country. Its residents weren’t compelled to enlist in the army as there was no legal justification. In 1854, Belgium requested its citizens who had relocated to Moresnet to serve in the army. Prussia followed in the footsteps of Belgium in 1874. Subsequently, the exemption applied only to descendants of the original inhabitants of Neutral Moresnet.   Information regarding the benefits and privileges of relocating to Neutral Moresnet quickly spread throughout the European continent, and just ten years after Moresnet’s declared neutrality, its population doubled. Some were interested in avoiding military service; others enjoyed a tax-free zone, no import tariffs and customs checks so they could boost their business profits; and because there was no law guiding the extradition procedures, criminals fled to Neutral Moresnet to find shelter and avoid being convicted. However, these benefits were obtained at the expense of being considered stateless; Neutral Moresnet’s citizens did not have voting rights.   Neutral Moresnet as a Micronation & the First Esperanto State Photo on the occasion of the founding of the Esperantist state Amikejo, 1908. Source: Trois Frontiers   In Europe, Neutral Moresnet was gradually gaining prominence. With its population increasing, Moresnet’s aspiration to form a national identity gained momentum. Among the most well-known individuals fascinated by the distinctive characteristics of Neutral Moresnet was Dr. Wilhelm Molly, the chief medical doctor of the Vieille Montagne zinc mine.   In 1895, Dr. Molly publicly initiated his plans for nation-building in the micro-nation of Neutral Moresnet. His desire to strengthen the residents’ sense of unity and national identity led him to personally design the flag, anthem, and postage stamp for Neutral Moresnet. Moresnet’s flag   featured horizontal red, white, and blue stripes. The anthem, composed in 1908, was named “Wilhelmus,” after King William I of the Netherlands. The postal stamps were never put into official circulation, yet collectors still find them incredibly valuable in the 21st century.   Since language plays a crucial role in forming a national identity, Dr. Molly proposed using the first man-made language, Esperanto, to establish the first Esperanto-speaking state named Amikejo instead of Neutral Moresnet. Amikejo meant “the place of friendship” in Esperanto. Neutral Moresnet would have been the world’s first complete Esperanto state had it been implemented successfully. Even though some Neutral Moresnet inhabitants began learning Esperanto, and Dr. Molly frequently used it during his medical practices, the linguistic revolution never materialized.   At the beginning of the 1880s, Neutral Moresnet’s zinc mine was running out of resources. Concerns regarding what might occur to its economy if the zinc mines were shut down surfaced. In 1885, the Zinc Mining Company of Vieille Montagne closed. They later resumed operating as a zinc smelting factory, continuing to be the principal employer of the inhabitants of Neutral Moresnet.   The Beginning of the 20th Century & the Demise of Neutral Moresnet The Vieille Montagne Museum in Kelmis, Belgium. Source: The Vieille Montagne Museum   At the beginning of the 20th century, the population of Neutral Moresnet gradually increased from just 256 in 1816 to about 4,500 inhabitants. Trying to keep up with the rapid industrialization in Europe, a new power plant was constructed in Moresnet. To increase and strengthen self-governance capabilities, a police force and fire brigades were established. In 1903, the first casino was built in Moresnet, hosting numerous guests from around Europe.   The threats of disappearance at the end of the 19th century due to the exhaustion of zinc and subsequent economic failure were soon reborn in the wider context of World War I. Already on August 9, 1914, Germany invaded Belgium and acquired the territory of Moresnet without any military confrontation. In just one day, Germany achieved what the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Prussia had long desired: Moresnet was no longer a neutral self-governing entity. Germany claimed control over its territories, though without international recognition.   World War I lasted until 1919. Germany was ultimately defeated, and the war-ending Treaty of Versailles decided to grant Belgium the territory of Neutral Moresnet in the form of the municipality of Kelmis, along with other German-speaking borderlands, as part of Germany’s reparations. All the neutrals received Belgian citizenship. The decision was enforced on January 10, 1920.   Map of Neutral Moresnet. Source: De Facto Borders   “It was a poignant end to a hopeful experiment, as the territory was consumed by the very conflicts its ‘neutrality’ was meant to avoid,” noted historian Lucien Kelm in his book Moresnet: Europe’s Forgotten Nation.   Despite its absorption into Belgium, Neutral Moresnet’s legacy endures. The Vieille Montagne Museum in Kelmis, Belgium, provides a rare opportunity for interested parties to experience the distinct characteristics of the first neutral territory, Moresnet, and houses exhibitions dedicated to the region’s industrial, cultural, and political heritage.   The history of Neutral Moresnet is often utilized in different theoretical approaches. Particularly for libertarians, “Moresnet demonstrated the possibilities that statelessness holds out for peace, prosperity, and good order,” US financial trader and economist Peter C. Earle wrote in a 2014 study, A Century of Anarchy.

  In 218 BCE, war broke out between Rome and Carthage, the two largest powers in the Western Mediterranean. What Rome expected to be a quick and easy war turned out to be a long, bitter, and costly conflict that would claim the lives of many brave Romans. The Romans suffered several major defeats during the opening stages of the war at the hands of the brilliant Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca. One such defeat was the massacre at Lake Trasimene.   Before Trasimene: Hannibal Crossing the Alps Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Romans expected to fight the war not on Italian soil but in Carthage’s holding in Spain and North Africa. Hannibal Barca, however, did what many believed to be impossible. He gathered his army in Iberia (modern-day Spain and Portugal), numbering 50,000 infantry, 9,000 cavalry, and 37 elephants, and proceeded to cross the Pyrenees and then the impregnable Alps in late Autumn 218 BCE.   It was a grueling journey that cost Hannibal dearly in manpower. He suffered terrible losses in battles and ambushes by hostile tribes, and even more men were lost due to the devastating weather conditions. When Hannibal arrived on the other side of the Alps, he had a mere 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and only a small number of elephants left. Despite his losses, Hannibal caught the Romans completely by surprise, arriving in their backyard with an army ready to fight.   First Blood: The Battle of Ticinus Hannibal’s Army Crossing the Alps, by Heinrich Leutemann, 1866. Source: Wikimedia Commons   When Publius Cornelius Scipio, one of Rome’s two consuls and military leaders, learned of Hannibal’s arrival in Italy, he assembled his forces and marched out to confront the invading army. The two opposing forces set up their camps close to each other on the right bank of the Ticinus River. At the start of the next day, both armies sent out scouting parties for reconnaissance to learn the strength of the opposing army. The Carthaginian scouts consisted of Hannibal’s Iberian and Libyan heavy cavalry and his elite Numidian light cavalry. Scipio’s Roman force was a mixed force of Gallic and Roman horsemen supported by javelin-armed light infantry called velites.   When the two forces met, the Romans sent forth their velites to engage the enemy cavalry with their javelins. The Carthaginian heavy cavalry, however, charged down at the Roman light infantry, which barely cast a javelin, and drove them back onto their own ranks. The Roman cavalry, in response, charged the Carthaginian heavy horsemen. The cavalry on both sides engaged in a violent melee that got so fierce that many horsemen dismounted and fought on foot. The stalemate was finally broken when Hannibal’s Numidians rode around the Roman position, outflanking them and attacking from the rear. The Romans broke and fled, taking refuge in their fortified camp near Placentia.   Scipio was wounded and would have perished in the battle had it not been for the bravery of his 16-year-old son, also named Publius Cornelius Scipio, who saved his life. The defeat shocked the Romans, and the senate immediately recalled the army on its way to Africa, under Tiberius Sempronius Longus, to defend Italy. In the greater schemes of the Second Punic War, it was a minor battle, but it was a taste of things to come.   Trebbia: Battle on the Icy River Scipio Being Rescued by his Son at the Battle of Ticinus, by Silvestre David Mirys, c. 1750-1810. Source: Wikimedia Commons   When Sempronius arrived to reinforce Scipio, he was eager to battle the Carthaginians despite Scipio advocating for caution. Hannibal, however, took advantage of Sempronius’ impetuousness to lure him and his army into unfavorable battle conditions. The Romans had to cross the freezing Trebbia River in the heart of the winter to meet the Carthaginians, kept warm by their fires, on the opposite side:   “To make matters worse, men and horses alike had been hurriedly sent forward, without any food, without any protection against the cold, so they had no heat in them and the chilling blasts from the river made the cold still more severe as they approached it in their pursuit of the Numidians. But when they entered the water which had been swollen by the night’s rain and was then breast high, their limbs became stiff with cold, and when they emerged on the other side, they had hardly strength to hold their weapons; they began to grow faint from fatigue and as the day wore on, from hunger.” (Livy 21.54.8-9)   When the two armies met in the melee, Hannibal sprang yet another trap that he had set up the day before. He had hidden 2,000 handpicked troops in a dry riverbed, which sprang from their position and attacked the Romans from behind while the cavalry attacked their flanks, winning a resounding victory over the Romans.   The Marsh Crossing Map of the final stages of the Battle of Trebbia. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Carthaginian general had proven himself an enemy not to be taken lightly, having defeated two Roman consuls in a matter of a few weeks. His victories against Rome also convinced the Gauls to support his cause, and his army swelled as Gallic warriors flocked to his banner.   The senate responded by sending two large armies north to block Hannibal’s advance into central Italy. The idea was that whichever of the two armies Hannibal encountered would monitor his advance until the other could arrive to support them, effectively trapping Hannibal between the two armies. Hannibal, however, pulled the wool over Roman eyes by once again doing what many thought impossible. Hannibal marched his army through a marsh that most people believed could not be crossed. It was a difficult crossing, and many men and animals lost their lives. Hannibal himself suffered a severe eye infection, which cost him an eye. Despite these losses, Hannibal was able to outmaneuver the two Roman armies and marched past the army under the command of Gaius Flaminius into Etruria (modern-day Tuscany) completely unnoticed.   The Battle of Lake Trasimene Hannibal and his army in Italy, detail from a fresco by Jacopo Ripanda, 1510. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Once in Tuscany, Hannibal let loose his troops, who raided and pillaged the countryside. This was a strategic move that forced the nearby army of Flaminius to respond. Flaminius gathered his forces and marched out in the hopes of confronting Hannibal rather than waiting for the reinforcing army to arrive. Polybius tells us that once again, the Romans expected an easy victory and were thus eager to engage the Carthaginians:   “…bent only on falling in with the enemy, as though certain victory awaited him. For he had managed to inspire the people with such confident expectations, that the unarmed citizens who followed his camp in hope of booty, bringing chains and fetters and all such gear, were more numerous than the soldiers themselves.” (Polybius, Histories, 3.82).   Hannibal kept his army just out of reach of the pursuing Flaminius, giving the impression that the Carthaginians were fleeing before them. The Romans were thus even more eager to catch up with them. When Hannibal reached the northern shore of Lake Trasimene, he deemed the place the perfect setting for an ambush: a narrow road that ran between the hills and the waters of the lake.   Deployment of Hannibal’s Army at Trasimene. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Early the next morning, at the break of dawn, Flaminius hurried his army of 25,000 out of camp, hoping to catch the Carthaginians off guard. A thick mist blanketed the lake shore, shrouding the area in poor visibility. Furthermore, in his rush to catch Hannibal, Flaminius made little effort to scout the road ahead. Flaminius was leading his column of soldiers along the narrow path between the lake shore and the hills when suddenly they heard trumpets, followed by the terrifying war cries of thousands of warriors piercing the mist. Africans, Iberians, and Gauls rushed down the hills and crashed into the Roman column while the Carthaginian cavalry attacked the rear guard, cutting off the retreat:   “Flaminius was taken completely by surprise: the mist was so thick, and so many of the enemy were charging down from the upper ground, that not only were the centurions and tribunes unable to relieve any part of the line, but they were unable to get any clear idea of what was going on. They were attacked simultaneously on the front, rear, and both flanks.” (Polybius, Histories, 3.84)   Reenactment Group Portraying Hannibal’s Army, 2012. Source: Wikimedia Commons   What followed was a massacre. The Roman army was in marching formation, completely unprepared for battle. The soldiers were trapped between the lake, the hills, and the enemy. Those who were not cut down where they stood were forced into the lake. Many drowned under the weight of their armor, while others begged their comrades to run them through so that the enemy would not. The rest were killed by the Carthaginian cavalry who followed them into the water:   “But those who were caught in the defile between the lake and the cliff perished in a shameful, or rather a most miserable, manner: for being thrust into the lake, some in their frantic terror endeavored to swim with their armor on, and presently sank and were drowned; while the greater number, wading as far as they could into the lake, remained there with their heads above water; and when the cavalry rode in after them, and certain death stared them in the face, they raised their hands and begged for quarter, offering to surrender, and using every imaginary appeal for mercy; but were finally despatched by the enemy, or, in some cases, begged the favor of the fatal blow from their friends, or inflicted it on themselves.” (Polybius, Histories, 3.84)   Modern view of the northern shore where the Battle of Trasimene took place. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Polybius tells us that more than 15,000 Romans died in the battle. Among these was Flaminius himself. A group of 6,000 Romans in the vanguard of the column were able to cut their way through the Carthaginians. When they finally reached the safety of the hilltop and the mist had cleared, they looked back at the battlefield and only then grasped the full extent of the disaster that had unfolded. Rome had yet again suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of Hannibal. These 6,000 men took shelter in a small town close by. The next day, Hannibal surrounded the town with his light infantry and cavalry. Realizing the hopelessness of the situation, the 6,000 Romans surrendered.   Hannibal’s success was followed up with yet another victory over the Romans shortly after the Trasimene disaster. The second Roman army sent their 4,000 cavalry ahead to support Flaminius’ forces. Hannibal’s cavalry and light infantry were able to catch them off guard and killed about 2,000 of them, and the remainder were captured the next day.   Battle of Trasimene: Conclusion Statue of Hannibal Barca, by Sebastien Slodtz, c. 1655-1726. Source: Louvre   Trasimene was a master class in ambuscades that highlighted Hannibal’s military genius and strategic superiority. Ambushes are common in warfare between small groups of soldiers, but the scale of the ambush at Trasimene was unparalleled as Hannibal had managed to conceal an entire army of 50,000 men right under the noses of the Romans. The ambush was extremely effective, leaving 60% of the entire Roman army dead on the field of battle. Many more were captured, and even the 6,000 who did manage to escape the slaughter were captured the next day. The Carthaginian losses were minimal. Polybius states that only 1,500 Carthaginians died, the majority of whom were Gauls. Livy gives a higher number of 2,500. The battle is considered one of Hannibal Barca’s three great victories over the Romans, alongside Trebbia and his masterpiece at Cannae.   The tide of the war would only turn when the Romans stopped fighting Hannibal in Italy and took the war to Carthage’s home turf. The decisive victory would come at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE.

June 30, 2025 — Today's Conservative Cartoon

It seems the whole world is rethinking the transgender procedures for kids. Peer-reviewed studies show their long-term harm. European countries are moving to ban the practice. And just last week, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Skrmetti that Tennessee’s law banning trans procedures for minors could stand. That landmark decision opens the door for future bans, and even caused The New York Times to warn that the case may have “set the movement back a generation.” But one group simply refuses to back down: the American medical establishment. The American Medical Association (AMA) recently reaffirmed its commitment to performing transgender procedures on minors, as The Daily Wire recently chronicled. President Trump tells NATO members to up their defense spending, a Democratic Socialist pulls ahead in NYC’s mayoral race, and the American Medical Association doubles down on transgender medical procedures for minors. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. Reporting from… pic.twitter.com/RCSuhDIXpW — Morning Wire (@MorningWire) June 25, 2025 They’re joined by a coalition of groups that essentially represent the entirety of the American medical establishment — including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — to say nothing of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which has long been at the forefront of the effort to make transgender procedures available to children. American Medical Association The AMA’s new president, Dr. Bobby Mukkamala, condemned Skrmetti, saying without a hint of irony that “all patients deserve access to high-quality, evidence-based medical care.” He added that decisions about medical treatment “must be made through a shared decision-making process between the patient and their physician.” Paul Morigi/Getty Images for PFLAG National Though the AMA has new leadership, the support for transgender procedures for children goes back years. About a year and a half ago, the AMA hosted a conversation on “what doctors should know” about so-called trans teens. The conversation was jarring, with one doctor claiming a child can know their gender is apparently wrong by age four.  “What we know about gender formation for all human beings is that young people really do know their gender by about age four,” Dr. M. Brett Cooper said. “It’s that young female assigned at birth that says, ‘Mom, I am a boy,’ or, ‘Mom, I’m like my brother. I’m a boy too.’ And they keep saying that, over and over and over again. Those are the folks that likely, but not always, will have a very firm gender diverse identity.”  Notably, in October 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Cooper, as well as other doctors, for prescribing “gender transition” drugs to dozens of Texas children in violation of Texas law. In 2023, the AMA passed a resolution to commit to working with legislators to oppose policies that curb access to these treatments or prioritize parental rights. The resolution also promised collaboration with other organizations to “educate the Federation of State Medical Boards about the importance of gender-affirming care.” The group also enthusiastically supported Dr. Rachel Levine’s nomination as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden. Levine, a male who identifies as a woman, is a proponent of all types of trans drugs and procedures for minors, and once talked about children going through the “wrong puberty.”  Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Levine — who transitioned *as an adult* — dismisses the question of why children can’t wait until they turn 18 to pursue sex change surgeries: “Adolescence is hard and puberty is hard. What if you’re going through the wrong puberty?” This… pic.twitter.com/vJAIwKE6Vl — Nicki Neily (@nickineily) July 18, 2023 Meanwhile, the gap between the American people and the medical establishment is continuing to widen. According to a recent New York Times and Ipsos poll, 71% of Americans believe children under the age of 18 should not be prescribed puberty blockers or hormones.  Fortunately for them, medical professionals who disagree with their profession’s trade groups are speaking out, and forming organizations that call for evidence-based medicine. One group, Do No Harm, has 16,000 members and is fighting to “curtail the unscientific and individually harmful practice of so-called ‘gender affirming care.’” The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, meanwhile, researches and questions trans procedures for minors and promotes non-invasive approaches for gender confusion, like psychotherapy.  These groups have a strong ally in President Donald Trump, who ran on this issue, and gained massive support for opposing trans procedures for minors and protecting girls’ sports. During his second week in office, Trump signed an executive order stating the United States will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support gender transitions for children.  Now, his administration is joining the fight. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. rescinded Biden-era guidance that promoted trans procedures for minors. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a memo in April that the Department of Justice would consider prosecuting doctors for mutilating children under the guise of “trans care.”  And, as The Daily Wire exclusively reported, the Federal Trade Commission will hold a workshop in July on transgender surgeries, hormones, and puberty blockers. An FTC memo said there’s reason to believe some doctors and medical providers are pushing these treatments on minors while “knowingly deceiving parents by exaggerating ‘benefits’ and downplaying…harmful side effects.” Related: ‘MAHA’ Report On Chronic Disease Will Cause Major Shift In Healthcare, FDA Chief Predicts

When self-described Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral Democratic primary, critics on both sides of the aisle began to wake up to just how problematic his meteoric rise could be. For those who don’t spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television — and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week’s worth of network and cable news media spin — The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed. The topic of conversation on many of the Sunday morning political shows — in addition to some conversation about Iran and the ongoing battle surrounding President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” — revolved around Mamdani, his history and proposed policies, and how mainstream Democrats who wanted to keep their House and Senate seats could go about responding to his win. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), for example, appeared to be uncomfortable when pressed on whether or not he intended to endorse Mamdani in the upcoming general election. It’s certainly possible that Jeffries hesitated because there may be three Democrats running — current Mayor Eric Adams, who won as a Democrat, has announced an independent bid for reelection; and disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), who lost to Mamdani in the primary, left the door wide open for a third party run. It’s also possible that Jeffries, who represents a district that is 11% Jewish, has concerns about Mamdani’s support for BDS — “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” — against Israel or his claim that, as mayor, he would have Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if he came to New York City. On ABC News’ “This Week,” host Jonathan Karl asked Jeffries to weigh in on Mamdani. “I congratulated him on the campaign that he ran, a campaign that clearly was relentlessly focused on the high cost of living in New York City and the economy. He outworked, he out-communicated, and he out-organized the opposition, and that’s clearly why he was successful,” Jeffries said — but added that he didn’t know the Democratic Socialist well enough to make an endorsement. “Well, our districts don’t overlap. I have never had a substantive conversation with him. And so that’s the next step in terms of this process to discuss his vision for moving the city forward and addressing the issues that are important to the communities that I represent,” he said, and called on Mamdani directly to “clarify” his position on Israel. “Globalizing the Intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing,” Jeffries concluded. “He’s going to have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward. With respect to the Jewish communities that I represent, I think our nominee is going to have to convince folks that he is prepared to aggressively address the rise in antisemitism in the city of New York, which has been an unacceptable development.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hesitated when pressed by @JonKarl about endorsing Democratic New York City mayor contender Zohran Mamdani. “I have never had a substantive conversation with him. That’s the next step in terms of this process.” https://t.co/XdRBpVxN5K pic.twitter.com/hM0H4CywiC — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 29, 2025 Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA) was far more conciliatory toward Mamdani, arguing that Democrats should learn from the way he made his case on economic inequality — primarily by offering his voters things like rent freezes and “free” public transportation. “If you’re a candidate who is laser-focused on bringing down costs, you’re hitting the right notes,” he said. . @RepDeluzio on lessons Democrats should learn from Mamdani’s stunning win in New York: “If you’re a candidate who is laser-focused on bringing down costs, you’re hitting the right notes.”@RepRileyMoore @ashleyrallison and @Alyssafarah join @jaketapper to discuss. pic.twitter.com/20C2AJH1Ag — State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) June 29, 2025 Mamdani himself joined host Kristen Welker on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” where he doubled down on policy proposals that would shift the tax burden to “whiter” neighborhoods. When Welker pressed him on that, Mamdani claimed that he was simply “describing” the demographics as they were, not suggesting that white people should be taxed more. “It’s not driven by race,” he claimed. “I’m just naming things as they are.” Mamdani is unapologetic about language in his plan that would tax “whiter” neighborhoods at higher rates: “It’s not driven by race….I’m just naming things as they are.” pic.twitter.com/Dnrtij9BxH — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) June 29, 2025 Given the fact that his tax plan also calls for higher taxes on top earners, Welker asked Mamdani whether he believed billionaires had a “right to exist.” Mamdani, laughing, said that he did not believe billionaires should exist “because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality.” ZOHRAN MAMDANI: “I don’t think that we should have billionaires.” pic.twitter.com/optpzkp28w — Open Source Intel (@Osint613) June 29, 2025 Welker also pressed Mamdani on his apparent stance with regard to Israel, asking several times whether he’d condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which she correctly identified as a call to violence against Jews — and while Mamdani insisted that those were not his chosen words, he did not outright condemn the phrase. “Do you condemn that phrase, ‘Globalize the Intifada?'” Welker asked, and asked again a short time later when it was clear he was not answering: “But do you actually condemn it … which a lot of people hear as a call to violence against Jews?” “For the people who … feel really concerned by that phrase, why not just condemn it?” Mamdani said a lot of words in his response to Welker’s query, but none of them were, “Yes, of course, I condemn it.” .@kwelkernbc to Mamdani: Do you condemn that phrase, Globalize the Intifada? But do you actually condemn it..which a lot of people hear as a call to violence against Jews? For the people who .. feel really concerned by that phrase, why not just condemn it? Mamdani’s reply ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/eZuhMSEO0c — Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) June 29, 2025 So what’s to be done? Democratic strategist James Carville warned that Mamdani’s primary win signaled trouble for New York City, but still seemed hopeful that the “Communist lunatic” — that’s according to President Trump” — could still be stopped on his way to Gracie Mansion. “There’s a lot of baseball left here. We’ve got a lot of baseball left to play,” he said.