Photo: Alamy A federal court of appeals made a new ruling on Friday regarding a gag order that was leveled against President Donald Trump in the ongoing federal election-based case… The post Trump weighs in on newest appeals court gag order decision in D.C. case first appeared on Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN).

Photo: Alamy President Donald Trump is the dominant Republican presidential primary candidate in 2024‚ and it looks like even the Republican National Committee is being forced to bend the knee… The post RNC bends the knee to MAGA‚ suspends involvement in primary debates first appeared on Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN).

Praying for America – December 7th‚ 2023 The post WATCH: Praying for America | The Trump Movement! – 12/07/2023 first appeared on Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN).

  Almost two thousand years before the birth of Copernicus‚ Aristarchus of Samos had proposed a model of the Universe with the sun in its center. According to his model‚ the Earth revolves around the Sun while also rotating around its own axis. This system was not widely accepted in Aristarchus’ time as most thinkers would trust the authorities of Plato and Aristotle‚ who had firmly supported the geocentric system‚ with the Earth at the center of the Universe.   Who Was Aristarchus of Samos (310 BCE – 230 BCE)? Aristarchus of Samos‚ monument at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Source: Wikimedia Commons   We do not know much about Aristarchus’ life since not many contemporaries wrote about him. We know that he was born in Samos‚ around 310 BCE‚ and he died around 230 BCE in Alexandria. Some authors sporadically mention details about Aristarchus’ life. For example‚ Archimedes writes that Aristarchus studied at the Lyceum under Strato of Lampsacus. A proponent of the Pythagorean school of thought‚ Aristarchus approached astronomy through mathematical models to calculate the sizes‚ distances‚ and movements of celestial bodies. He mainly focused on the nearest bodies: the Earth‚ the Moon‚ and the Sun. His goal was to determine the sizes of the Moon and the Sun‚ as well as their distance from Earth.   Aristarchus cleverly criticized certain aspects of geocentrism that could not be explained accurately. For example‚ the geocentric model could not explain the movements of planets that were assumed to orbit around the Earth. This was particularly true for the retrograde motion: at some point‚ certain planets would move in the opposite direction for a while‚ before going back to their original direction. Another problem of the geocentric model was the size of the planets: from time to time‚ they appeared visibly larger and brighter. This was difficult to explain if they indeed revolved around the Earth. Aristarchus’ answer to these issues was simple: the Sun‚ and not the Earth‚ was in the center.   “On the Sizes and Distances (of the Sun and Moon)” Lunar Eclipse‚ 2021. Source: NASA   While he is best known for his heliocentric model‚ Aristarchus did not always argue for it. In fact‚ he wrote an entire book on geocentrism with the title On the Sizes and Distances (of the Sun and Moon). The most likely theory is that this book was an earlier work before he had developed his heliocentric ideas. Another less popular theory was that he gave up on the idea of heliocentrism‚ probably because his contemporaries rejected it.   This book is Aristarchus’s only extant work and the oldest surviving document that uses geometric models to estimate the sizes and distances of the celestial bodies.   Aristarchus measured the size of the Moon during a total lunar eclipse when the Moon’s disc was entirely in the Earth’s shadow. Using calculations‚ he correctly concluded that the Earth was larger than the Moon.   Using geometry‚ he could estimate the sizes and distances between these bodies. First‚ he calculated that the distance between the Earth and the Sun is much larger than the distance between the Earth and the Moon. He was correct in this assessment‚ but his calculations underestimated just how huge this difference in distances is. Still‚ this calculation allowed Aristarchus to conclude that the Moon was much closer to the Earth than the Sun.   Calculation of the ratio of distances to Sun and Moon. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Aristarchus also calculated the sizes of the Moon and the Earth. He estimated the Moon’s diameter to be between a third and a fourth of the Earth’s diameter. For the Sun‚ he estimated its size to be 6 to 7 times larger than the Earth. Again‚ his calculations were off‚ particularly in the case of the Sun‚ whose diameter is about 109 times that of the Earth.   Aristarchus’ calculations were not precise‚ but his geometric methods for figuring out sizes and distances were correct. Later astronomers‚ such as Ptolemy and Hipparchus‚ made recalculations of Aristarchus’ model and arrived at more accurate values for the size and distance of the Moon. The Sun remained more of a mystery‚ and its size and distance were underestimated in antiquity.   Aristarchus’ incorrect calculations did not come from his faulty methods or ideas but from a lack of appropriate instruments that would allow for more accuracy. Because of this‚ his numbers were wrong‚ but his conclusions and geometry were correct. There is also a possibility that his goal was not to arrive at precise numbers but to develop a geometric model that would allow the measurement of the celestial bodies’ sizes and distances.    Heliocentric Model Heliocentric system from the Harmonia Macrocosmica by Andreas Cellarius’s‚ 1708. Source: RareMaps.com It is unknown how or when Aristarchus arrived at the idea of a heliocentric system. If his On the Sizes and Distances is indeed a work that precedes his heliocentric ideas‚ it is possible that its conclusions led him to rethink the relationships between the celestial bodies. Especially the realization that the Sun was the largest of the bodies and much bigger than the Earth. Aristarchus could have followed the principle that the smaller objects orbit the larger ones and since he had concluded that the Earth was smaller‚ the only logical explanation would be that the Sun was in the center.   Another possible inspiration could have been Philolaus of Croton (c. 470 BCE – c. 385 BCE)‚ who proposed the Central Fire as the center of the universe‚ with ten planets revolving around it. The ten planets included Counter-Earth (a concept he did not explain)‚ Earth‚ the Moon‚ the Sun‚ and then Mercury‚ Venus‚ Mars‚ Jupiter‚ Saturn‚ and the Fixed Stars.   Aristarchus indeed viewed the Sun as a central fire; the Earth orbits around it. He was also correct in his assertion that distant stars were similar fires: other suns that exist in the universe. The reason that we do not perceive them as suns explains Aristarchus‚ is because stars are much farther away than our Sun or the Moon.   Archimedes Thoughtful (Portrait of a Scholar) by Domenico Fetti‚ 1620. Source: Dresden Stat Art Collections‚ Dresden   Since no writings are preserved‚ only a few things are known about Aristarchus’ heliocentric system. We learn about his model through the writings of others‚ such as Archimedes and Plutarch.   In his work‚ The Sand Reckoner‚ Archimedes of Syracuse (c. 287 BCE – c. 212 BCE) writes about the Earth being in the center of the universe and mentions that Aristarchus proposed a different idea of a much larger universe. According to Aristarchus‚ Archimedes tells us‚ the Sun and the stars are immovable‚ the Earth revolves around the Sun‚ and the size of this universe is the sphere of the fixed stars‚ which has the same center as the Sun but is immensely larger.   Aristarchus’ calculations‚ 3rd century BCE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Plutarch mentions Aristarchus and his ideas along the concept of a “Hearth”‚ which probably refers to the Earth since it was seen as the center of the universe. Plutarch also suggests that Aristarchus’ work received negative reactions and a strong backlash from the scientific community‚ particularly from Cleanthes‚ an Athenian stoic philosopher‚ who claimed that Aristarchus was “disturbing the Hearth of the universe” with his heliocentrism.   Aristarchus could not prove his heliocentric views to his contemporaries. The problem was the limitation of the available instruments‚ as well as the mathematics of his time. Another issue was the popularity of the geocentric model with Earth in the center‚ a model that most thinkers in antiquity never doubted.   Aristarchus’ Legacy Nicolaus Copernicus Monument by Bertel Thorvaldsen‚ 1820-1830‚ Warsaw. Source: Wikimedia Commons     Aristarchus’ heliocentric model was not accepted. In fact‚ there are strong indications that it was quickly rejected. Since Aristotle‚ a strong (if not the strongest) authority during antiquity‚ supported the geocentric system‚ it is likely that Aristarchus’ heliocentric model was not fully considered by other scientists. It also seems that it was not even well-known. There are no mentions of it after Archimedes (until Plutarch’s brief comment). Some of these complaints could have been motivated by religion‚ since the Greek gods were believed to live on Earth‚ which was supposed to be the center.   As noted above‚ Athenian stoic philosopher Cleanthes was strongly against Aristarchus’ heliocentric model. Cleanthes claimed that Aristarchus’ model displaced the Earth. There is a possibility that Cleanthes even suggested that Aristarchus should be tried for his ideas‚ although this could be a later interpretation. It is also possible that the situation was the opposite: that Aristarchus himself was the one who suggested Cleanthes should be put on trial.   It is also possible that the reactions to the model were not as negative nor as aggressive as is often assumed. The clash with Cleanthes is sometimes described as more of a playful exchange of opinions between the opposing stances but not a serious call to silence Aristarchus. In any case‚ there is insufficient proof that Aristarchus suffered any consequences for his idea.   Claudius Ptolemy by Justus van Gent and Pedro Berruguete‚ 1476. Source: Louvre‚ Paris   However‚ it is evident that the idea of heliocentrism was not accepted. Aristarchus’ ideas were forgotten. Claudius Ptolemy (c. 100 – c. 170) solidified geocentrism in his treatise “Mathematike Syntaxis”‚ better known under its Arabic translation‚ “Almagest”. It will remain the leading model of the universe for centuries.   Heliocentrism did win in the end. In his 1543 book‚ “On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres” Nicolaus Copernicus formulated a heliocentric model that will be his legacy. In the early drafts of the work‚ he mentioned both Philolaus and Aristarchus as early proponents of heliocentrism. Unfortunately‚ these references were crossed out before printing‚ and Aristarchus is not mentioned in the published version of the book. Still‚ early drafts prove that Copernicus was aware of Ancient Greek thinkers who proposed heliocentrism. While the heliocentric model of the universe remains primarily Copernicus’ legacy‚ it is important to also remember Aristarchus and his work.

The Fall of the Titans‚ by Dutch painter Cornelis van Haarlem‚ 1596–1598. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Different interpretations exist regarding the creation of the world in Greek mythology. Historians and poets have differing accounts of how the universe‚ along with its gods and deities‚ came into existence. However‚ there is consensus on the existence of three generations of gods: the first generation comprising Uranus and Gaia‚ the second consisting of Cronus and Rhea‚ and the third and final generation including Zeus and Hera. The transition of power from one generation to the next was not always smooth‚ and the most brutal conflict for the throne‚ known as Titanomachy‚ occurred between Zeus and his father Cronus.   Before the Titanomachy: The First Three Generations of Gods Ceiling paining of Gaia in Academy of Fine Arts Vienna‚ by Anselm Feuerbach‚ 1875‚ via Bild   Before delving into the Titanomachy‚ it is essential to establish some conceptual distinctions and explore the events preceding the battle. Firstly‚ we must define what a myth is and then examine the different generations that existed among the gods.   Greek myths consist of narratives that revolve around the relationships between gods and humans. Myths represent one of the oldest and earliest means for humans to explain the phenomena that they saw in the world that surrounded them. Myths also offer explanations for the origins of nature. At times when people had very little scientific knowledge about the world‚ myths served as stories that fulfilled the human desire for a fundamental sense of direction. In this way‚ myths assist individuals in finding their place within the world‚ making them significant in the context of human history. They provide valuable insights into the history of human thought through the millennia.   Concerning the world’s creation in Greek mythology‚ there are multiple theories‚ with three of the most “reliable” versions of the myth being attributed to Homer‚ Ovid‚ and Hesiod. Homer states that Oceanus and Tethys are the parents of all other gods. On the other hand‚ Ovid believes that the world emerged from Chaos‚ which he describes as a chaotic mass of elements from which a divine being or a higher natural force brings order to the universe.   Homer and His Guide‚ William-Adolphe Bouguereau‚ 1874‚ via Milwaukee Art Museum   The theory presented by Hesiod around 700 BCE is particularly significant. According to Hesiod‚ the world originated from Chaos‚ which he describes as a state of pure emptiness. From Chaos‚ the first generation of gods emerged.   In this first generation of gods‚ we find Uranus and Gaia. Uranus represents the male deity associated with the sky‚ while Gaia symbolizes the female deity associated with fertility and the earth. Their union forms the concept of the “holy marriage” or “hieros gamos”.   The Titans‚ who constitute the subsequent generation of gods‚ are the offspring of this sacred union between Gaia and Uranus. This pattern of sacred marriage continues with their offspring Cronus and Rhea‚ who become the parents of the third generation of gods. Another iteration of the sacred marriage occurs with the union of Zeus and Hera‚ who are the successors of Cronus and Rhea.   Greek mythology tells us that the most intense battle unfolds with the ascent of this third generation of gods. This battle is called the Titanomachy‚ and it is a result of the conflict between Zeus and his father Cronus.   What Happened During the Titanomachy? Cronus devouring one of his sons‚ by Peter Paul Rubens‚ 17th-century‚ via Museo Del Prado   The Titanomachy refers to the brutal battle for supremacy in Greek mythology‚ wherein Zeus battled against his father Cronus. Cronus had previously dethroned his own father‚ Uranus‚ and now history seemed intent on repeating itself. Following the prophecy that one of Cronus’ own children would overthrow him‚ Cronus took precautions by imprisoning his siblings‚ known as the Titans‚ in a part of the underworld known as Tartarus. Cronus also decided to devour his own offspring as to avoid their rebellion.   However‚ Rhea‚ Cronus’ wife‚ who wasn’t very happy with the devouring of their children‚ managed to outwit him and save their youngest son Zeus. Rhea hid Zeus in a cave on the island of Crete‚ where he was raised secretly‚ nurtured by a goat named Amalthea. As Zeus grew to adulthood‚ he assumed the role of Cronus’ cupbearer‚ all the while concealing his true identity.   Zeus was cunning and devised a plan to trick Cronus. He prepared a concoction of drinks and potions‚ which made Cronus regurgitate the children he swallowed one by one: Hestia‚ Demeter‚ Hera‚ Hades‚ and Poseidon. Once all his brothers and sisters were liberated‚ Zeus rallied them together and persuaded them to wage war against their father‚ initiating the Titanomachy.   Hades‚ god of the underworld‚ mid-2nd century CE‚ via Wikipedia Commons   Zeus released the Hecatoncheires and Cyclops‚ who had been imprisoned by his father. He sought their aid in the battle‚ and they agreed to support him. The Hecatoncheires fought by throwing large stones‚ while the Cyclops forged Zeus’s lightning bolt‚ which became his most famous and formidable weapon. Among the Titans‚ Themis and Prometheus joined Zeus‚ while Atlas led the Titans loyal to Cronus.   The Titanomachy ensued‚ lasting an entire decade. This period was marked by intense clashes between the Titans and the Olympian gods. Zeus fought from Mount Olympus‚ while Cronus took his stand on Otrius‚ a Thessalian mountain. This conflict represented a struggle for supremacy and control over the cosmos. The Titans‚ renowned for their immense power and strength‚ were a formidable opposition. However‚ after fierce battles and engagements‚ Zeus and his siblings ultimately emerged triumphant‚ claiming victory in the Titanomachy.   The Aftermath of the Titanomachy Atlas and the Hesperides by John Singer Sargent‚ 1925‚ via Museum of Fine Arts Boston   Following the Titanomachy‚ the Titans who had fought against the Olympian gods were defeated and condemned to imprisonment in Tartarus‚ a dark and deep abyss within the underworld. This eternal confinement served as their punishment for daring to challenge the authority of the Olympians. However‚ it is worth noting that not all Titans faced the same outcome. Certain Titans‚ including Oceanus‚ Themis‚ and Mnemosyne‚ who had either helped Zeus or remained neutral and refrained from participating in the war‚ were allowed to retain their positions without being incarcerated in Tartarus. Although their influence and power were diminished‚ they continued to exist within the cosmos.   A few Titans were granted unique roles within the newly established cosmic order governed by the Olympian gods. Prometheus‚ renowned for his cleverness and intelligence‚ played a significant part in the creation of humankind and was spared from the severe punishment imposed upon the other Titans. Atlas‚ on the other hand‚ was burdened with the eternal task of bearing the weight of the heavens upon his shoulders. This penalty‚ often referred to as the “punishment of Atlas” or “Atlas’ curse‚” has been depicted in various forms of art and literature‚ portraying Atlas as an enduring figure carrying the celestial spheres.   Prometheus Brings Fire‚ by Heinrich Friedrich Füger‚ 1817‚ via Wikipedia Commons:   Although the Titans were commonly depicted as adversaries of the Olympian gods in Greek mythology‚ it is crucial to recognize that their role and significance extended beyond their defeat in the Titanomachy. The Titans represented an earlier generation of divine beings associated with fundamental forces and cosmic powers. They were often linked to the natural elements such as earth‚ sea‚ and sky.   In various interpretations‚ the Titans were considered personifications of natural phenomena and abstract concepts. For instance‚ Cronus symbolized time‚ while Atlas represented the celestial spheres. These associations underscore the broader symbolism and mythological importance attributed to the Titans in Greek mythology. Furthermore‚ the tales involving the Titans continue to inspire literature‚ art‚ and popular culture. Their conflicts‚ relationships‚ and interactions with both gods and mortals have fascinated human imagination throughout history‚ leaving a lasting impact on various works of fiction and creative expression.   Division of Power after the Titanomachy Sculpture showing Zeus holding a thunderbolt‚ via unknown artist‚ via Louvre   Following the Titanomachy‚ the victorious Olympian gods divided the universe among themselves. Zeus‚ as the supreme ruler‚ assumed the role of king of the gods and guardian of the heavens. Other gods were assigned specific realms‚ with Poseidon becoming the god of the sea‚ Hades ruling over the underworld‚ and various deities presiding over different aspects of the natural and supernatural world.   Mount Olympus‚ the highest peak in Greece that held particular mythical importance‚ served as the divine abode and gathering place for the gods. It was where they convened to discuss important matters and make decisions. The Olympian gods held great significance in ancient Greek society and were revered through worship‚ rituals‚ sacrifices‚ and prayers. Temples and sanctuaries were dedicated to them throughout Greece‚ and festivals and celebrations were held to honor their presence.   As immortal beings‚ the Olympian gods possessed powers and abilities far beyond those of mortals. They exhibited the characteristics and emotions typically associated with Greek mythological gods‚ with their actions reflecting their distinct personalities and the domains they ruled over.   The Titanomachy holds significant mythological importance as it represents the transition of power from the Titans to this younger generation of gods led by Zeus. It symbolizes the victory of order over chaos‚ a victory that would be repeated in the next episode of the story‚ the Gigantomachy‚ the battle between the triumphant Olympians and the Giants.

The Last Day of Corinth‚ by Tony Robert-Fleury. Source: Musée d’Orsay   The Achaian War can be described as either a brave stand in defense of independence or the result of madness. When the Achaians went to war with the Romans in 146 BCE‚ the former was a disunited and poor federal state in fractious southern Greece. The latter was about to confirm its position as the first power to conquer the Mediterranean. Bravery or madness? Both interpretations have an element of truth as the Achaians were backed into a war they had to fight but could not win.   The Achaian League  &; The Road to the Achaian War Achaian federal coin minted in Corinth‚ via British Museum   The expansion of Roman power east of the Adriatic Sea began in the late 3rd century BCE and expanded when the Macedonian king Philip V involved himself in Rome’s war with Carthage. The arrival of this new power forced decisions on the existing Greek states. This was the case for the Achaian League in the final years of the 3rd century BCE.   This federal state in the north of the Peloponnese peninsula had expanded in recent decades and‚ from the 220s‚ had been allied with the Macedonian monarchy. The presence of Roman armies and fleets sacking Greek cities and pushing back the Macedonians brought home Achaia’s sudden vulnerability. The subsequent debate among the Achaians was polarizing and almost split the league. However‚ in the middle of the 2nd Macedonian War (200-196 BCE)‚ the Achaian League switched sides. For the next half century‚ the Achaians were among Rome’s principal Greek allies.   The Triumph of Aemilius Paulus‚ Carle Vernet‚ 1789‚ via Metropolitan Museum New York   Though stable‚ the alliance of Achaians and Romans was by no means easy. For half a century‚ the relationship with Rome was polarizing. One faction within the Achaian League believed in almost complete obedience to the Romans. Their opponents never questioned the alliance but sought to exercise as much autonomy as possible. This difficult balancing act ultimately came crashing down over the question of the Spartans.   With its unique history and traditions‚ Sparta had long tried to be the principal power in the Peloponnese. Between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE‚ they had achieved that goal. This ambition was never renounced over the following centuries bringing the Spartans into conflict with the rising Achaians. However‚ by the early 2nd century BCE‚ Sparta had been incorporated into the Achaian League. The Spartans were one of the few communities forced into the federal state and their time-honored institutions and traditions were altered to fit the Achaian mode. Naturally‚ membership in this union never sat easily with the Spartans.   For many Greek states‚ the Romans were a useful ally in their local struggles. The Achaians‚ Aitolians‚ Athenians‚ Rhodians‚ and Pergamonians had all sought Roman aid. There was an incentive for every state faced with a local dispute to seek Roman intervention. The result was a constant stream of embassies and commissions crossing back and forth between Greece and the Roman senate. For a community unhappy with its current situation but not strong enough to deal with matters on its own‚ the inevitable step was to call on the Romans. When the Spartans took their dispute with the Achaians to Rome‚ they began a countdown to war.   What Caused the War? The ruins of Sparta‚ author’s photo   Scholars have suggested that the war the Achaians launched was actually directed against the Spartans rather than the Romans.   During their decades as part of the Achaian federal state‚ the Spartans had seceded and been forced back. However‚ some Spartans had worked within the league. The Spartan Menalkides was even elected to the league’s highest position‚ the annually elected generalship (strategos)‚ in 151 BCE. However‚ so weak were the ties between the two sides that within two years of heading the Achaian state‚ Menalkides was leading the Spartans in a round of armed conflict against the Achaians.   When the Spartans first appealed to Rome‚ the pretexts were often minor such as border disputes and legal jurisdiction‚ but they undermined the idea of the Achaian federal state. Each member of the league had considerable autonomy but they were meant to act in unison in foreign matters and certainly should not be sending their own embassies to a foreign power. Such actions eroded Achaia’s unity in the face of the outside world.   Funerary marker said to show Polybius‚ 2nd century BCE‚ via Louvre   As tensions in the Peloponnese mounted‚ the Romans were initially distracted. The third and final war with Carthage was looming‚ while to the north Roman forces were caught off guard when a man claiming to be a lost descendant of the Macedonian monarchy ignited a major rebellion. Roman responses to embassies were ambiguous. The Achaians pressed their advantage and invaded Spartan territory. When the Romans did send a commission led by Lucius Aurelius Orestes in 147 BCE to arbitrate‚ the situation escalated again. Orestes announced that Rome not only wanted Sparta separated from the league but several other cities as well. This would amount to a dismemberment of the league.   When this decision was made public‚ Achaians in the city of Corinth reacted violently and targeted anyone in the city suspected of being Spartan. The following year the Romans sent further envoys‚ but the Achaian general Kritolaos prevented them from meeting the Achaian popular assembly. When the Achaians did meet‚ Kritolaos persuaded the assembly to renew the war with Sparta. Though still directed against the Spartans‚ the breakdown in relations with Rome and the defiance of Roman wishes meant the Achaians were now embarking on a much larger war.   The Anti-Roman Movement in Greece Early Hellenistic Greek soldier‚ at the National Archaeological Museum‚ Athens‚ author’s photo   Alone the Achaians stood little chance in this war. Their hope lay in inspiring a wider anti-Roman sentiment in Greece. Truly‚ there were signs that other communities might stand with the Achaians. As much as Greek communities had leaned on Roman support in their own rivalries‚ the half-century of Roman interventions in Greece provided plenty of fuel for animosity. The Romans had sacked cities‚ sold populations into slavery‚ and broken up long-lasting states. Even as the war broke out in 146 BCE‚ the Roman general Quintus Caecilius Metellus was still finishing off a rebellion in Macedonia.   Our main ancient source for the Achaian War‚ Polybius of Megalopolis‚ stresses the influence of lower-class citizens in the build-up to war‚ which may indicate that the war was popular among the wider public. For Polybius‚ this was a sign of the madness of the times as ordinary people were wiped up by irresponsible and corrupt politicians creating a disastrous confrontation. Polybius’ account likely contains exaggerations and anti-democratic stereotypes but may also reflect reality. In the build-up to the war‚ Kritolaos took a number of popular measures. Debts and loan repayments were frozen (Polybius 38.9). Later war contributions would be gathered from the rich and slaves were freed and called up. Scholars point out that in the context of a war for survival‚ these were prudent measures‚ not a radical program. Debt relief had‚ however‚ long been a popular rallying cry in Greece and one the Achaian elite had long resisted.   Destruction at Thermopylae Roman Republican solider‚ 2nd century BCE‚ via Louvre   The Achaians were not without allies. The Boiotians offered support‚ and Achaian troops were also stationed in neighboring Phokis. The first action of the war was outside the city of Herakleia in Trachis. Though some distance from the Peloponnese‚ Herakleia had been a member of the Achaian League and was one of the communities the Romans ordered to be freed. Sitting next to the famous mountain pass at Thermopylae the city held significant strategic value.   Any thoughts of replaying the celebrated defense of Thermopylae by the Spartans in 480 BCE were dashed by the swiftness of the Roman reaction. Metellus‚ motivated‚ so our sources say‚ by fear that his replacement‚ Lucius Mummius‚ would soon arrive and steal the glory‚ pushed south and caught  the Achaians before they were ready. There was no defense of Thermopylae. Instead‚ the Achaian army was defeated to the south at Scarpheia‚ and Kritolaos died in or soon after the battle. A smaller Achaian contingent from the cities of Arkadia was soon after caught and beaten in Boiotia.   In one shift campaign‚ Metellus had ended the Achaians’ best hope. There would be no defense of central Greece and a building of alliances. Instead‚ the way was now open for the Roman advance on the Peloponnese.   The Battle of Corinth Ancient Corinth and its mountain fortress‚ Author’s photo   Before Metellus could lead the assault on the Peloponnese‚ his replacement Mummius arrived to take command. With Kritolaos dead‚ the Achaians turned to the previous year’s general‚ Diaeus. The new general pulled together what forces were available‚ including freed slaves‚ to gather just under 15‚000 men‚ according to Pausanias (7.15.7). Mummius‚ on the other hand‚ had over 26‚000 ready to march (7.16.1).   The Peloponnese is connected to the rest of Greece by the narrow Isthmus of Corinth which is protected by the city of Corinth itself. This commercial hub was one of the strongest positions in Greece‚ dominated by the Acrocorinthos‚ a mountain stronghold that towers above the city. Capturing Corinth from the Macedonians in the 3rd century transformed the Achaians from a provincial community into a Peloponnesian power. Holding it was the last opportunity to keep the Romans out of the Peloponnese.   The odds‚ always against the Achaians‚ were lengthening‚ but this decisive campaign started with a boost. The Achaians managed to win a skirmish against a Roman auxiliary force of Italians. Soon though the main armies of heavy infantry clashed. Despite being outnumbered‚ the Achaians are said to have put up a spirited resistance (7.16.3) and fought on for some time. Only once a small Roman force got around their flank was Achaian resistance ended. With the defense of Corinth breaking‚ Diaeus is said to have fled all the way back to Megalopolis in the interior of the Peloponnese. There along with his family‚ he committed suicide.   Some survivors of the battle did reach Corinth‚ but with their general having fled and the victorious Romans outside the gates‚ they slipped out of the city during the night. Corinth was left defenseless.   The Sack of Corinth The Last Days of Corinth‚ Tony Robert Flery‚ b. 1870‚ at the Musée d’Orsay‚ author’s photo   Though the city was now open‚ Mummius hesitated‚ fearing a trap. On the third day‚ however‚ the Romans moved in. The attack on the open city was brutal. Any remaining inhabitants were killed‚ and the woman and children were sold into slavery. The freed slaves who had fought with the Achaians were simply executed. The richly adorned city was plundered of its wealth‚ and artworks were shipped back to Rome and other allied cities. Corinth would remain uninhabited for almost a century until Julius Caesar re-founded the city as a Roman colony.   As Corinth was being destroyed‚ the city’s fate was shared by Carthage across the Mediterranean. The end of the 3rd Punic War (149-146 BCE) saw the city’s final destruction in a manner even more brutal than that of Corinth. The simultaneous destruction of two of the Mediterranean’s principal cities in 146 BCE marked the beginning of the era of Roman domination.   The Achaian War: The End of Greece The ruins of Roman Corinth‚ author’s photo   With its armies defeated‚ its generals dead‚ and a leading city destroyed‚ the war was clearly over for the Achaians. The Romans dismantled any remaining defenses and dissolved the Achaian League and perhaps other federal states. The leagues would return but only as local units within the Roman Empire. Soon there would be no free Greek states remaining.   In hindsight‚ it is easy to see why Polybius and other historians viewed the war as madness. The swift and total nature of the defeat underlined the hopelessness of the Achaian position. Achaia’s generals and citizens had failed to see that their community was being integrated into a new larger power whether they liked it or not. So‚ their resistance was labeled delusional and the result of selfish manipulation by populist leaders.   Hopeless as their cause was‚ the Achaians had good reason to fight. They were faced with the dismemberment of the community they had built up for more than a century. Whether they fought or surrendered‚ their state was going to be incorporated into the Roman world growing around it. Their decision to fight was the last opportunity to exercise what freedom remained.