Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

  1. #1
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi



    ContentsMythology by Narf.
    A Tale of Terror by Banned.
    Early Macedonian Warlords – The predecessors to Philip & Alexander the Great by grouchy13.
    Games With a Sense of Humour by rez.
    Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part V and A New Age: The Ease of Knowledge by Lord Rahl.
    Monarchies, and why they're still applicable by Copperknickers II.
    The Problem with Fish: Part 1 by Incesticide.
    The Romance Languages: Ancient Italia by Boustrophedon.






    From the Editor:

    Dear all,

    It has been roughly a year since I took over as editor of The Helios, and I'm happy to say that 9 issues down the line we're doing better than ever; the ranks of the staff have swelled to include some extremely competent and interesting writers with true expertise in the fields that they're writing on, and this edition I'm extremely pleased to tell you -- although you can see from the contents above -- that we have a grand total of 9 articles for you to sink your teeth into, all of a very respectable length and the highest quality. Therefore I suggest that you take this edition of The Helios to be your bumper summer issue to commemorate a year of me in the job (if that's really worth celebrating) and the fact that everyone will be on holiday soon and the sun has finally put in a proper appearance.

    I've been on holiday, more or less, since the end of May, having finally finished my 4 years of toil in Edinburgh to obtain my degree. I'm looking forward to champagne and pats on the back at graduation, followed by my foray into the real working world. I hope that your past years have been equally fruitful, and that for the next year you will continue to use The Helios as your source for all things factual on TWC. This editorial may turn out to be something of a bland stream of consciousness type of thing because for the first time in quite a while I'm at a loss for something to say. I did the whole Arab Spring optimism thing a couple of issues back, and as I read about the ongoing events in Syria and Libya, my optimism takes a beating with every article I come across. On the front page of the Guardian's website at the moment is the headline reading: "Bombs Alone Will Not Budge Gaddafi", and fresh brutality by Assad's security forces seem to always be on the news. Jordan is enjoying some degree of success, as the king, Abdullah II, warily eyeing what has been going on around him, has agreed to amend the constitution and give a lot more power over to the parliament. Hopefully others will see which way the wind is blowing and follow suit, but then I'm always something of an idealist when it comes to these sorts of events, even when I try and be a realist in most other things. I want, fervantly, for the Middle East and North Africa to throw off the shackles of dictatorship, and I wish that Western intervention did not take place, regardless of the motives behind that intervention, although I'm always torn on the "duty to protect" argument which has been invoked in order to try and stop madmen like Gaddafi from murdering their own people.

    It's time to get off my soapbox, slink back to the Mudpit with these views where they belong, and let you get on with what must be one of the longest (in fact as I write this I'm having to hastily shuffle articles onto a 2nd post as I'm 400,000 characters over TWC's limit; this is the first time this has happened to me) and highest quality editions I've ever had the pleasure to publish, perhaps even in the entire history of The Helios. Please give as much praise as possible to my writing staff for their excellent work and reward them how you see fit.

    Jom




    Narf
    Making her writing debut for The Helios is Narf, with an article which considers the meaning behind the word "myth", and what it evokes in the minds of those who hear it, along with its cultural importance for the culture whose myth it is.

    Mythology
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    The word 'myth', as it is commonly used today, dates from the ancient Greeks. No other language has an equivalent word, and therefore the best way to understand what mythology is all about is to look at the word's original meaning. With origins centred in the very notion of speech, 'myth' appeared in the fifth century to define a story or an idea of events.

    The historian Herodotus, who wrote an account on the war between Greeks and Persians, was eager to record everything about this great controversy, although some of the stories had to be regarded as myths and legends. He admitted that he was unsure whether they were unfounded or not, but they were so interesting that they could not be ignored. It was up to his readers to decide what was true, and what was not. This view of a myth as a great story, a work of fiction rather than an expression of fact, was redefined and developed by the philosopher Plato, who was eager to distinguish between what we accept as being true and what we can not accept as truth.

    Just because reason and logic arose in ancient Greece did not mean they undermined its mythological significance, because the Greeks realized that myths were stories handed down through time and expressions of the Greek-speaking world's cultural heritage. They contain what a modern mythological researcher would call 'fundamental patterns of thought' with what the ancient Greeks saw themselves as: An independent people. One might add that the strength of Greek mythology, like other great traditions, lay in its collective nature. Unlike a story written by a single author, myths always speak of the same event but can be told differently, with a story and characters, easily recognizable to those who listen to the storyteller, poet or playwright, making use of these stories called myths.

    For example, when the Athenians witnessed the spectacle performed every year for their religious celebrations, they knew beforehand of the events that Aeschylus or Sophocles would choose to talk about. The tragedy of Oedipus never relaxed its hold on the fascination and attention of the audience. Oedipus, after being aware of his terrible deeds (the murder of his father and his acts of incest) chose to die in the sanctuary at Kolonos near Athens, which made his tragedy the subject of intense local interest. Sophocles’ play 'Oedipus at Kolonos' can with the final deliverance of the blind and Deposed Theban King show the Greeks view on crime, punishment and fate.

    In the fourth century BCE went Euhemeros, a philosopher at the Macedonian court went so far as to claim that all myths and legends related to historical events, and that the gods were originally men who had achieved great success and, after their death, attributed divine status by a grateful people. Such a rational viewpoint does not seem quite wrong when it comes to the Trojan War: in the nineteenth century, the ruins of a major city excavated in Asia Minor, where the Trojans were thought to have inhabited. Agamemnon, Ajax, Menelaus, Helen, Paris, Achilles, Hector, Nestor, Odysseus, Priam - the big names in homers two epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey - had participated in a historical conflict that unfolded there.

    The problem with the aforementioned epics is that there are parallels drawn between Homer and other authors, particularly between the Iliad, the report on the fall of Troy, and the Ramayana, Rama’s campaign for Sri Lanka to regain his kidnapped wife Sita. Both Greek and Indian storytellers have drawn on a common Indo-European heritage, which has since undergone changes due to the different historical experiences associated with migration and resettlement respectively; namely to Greece and India.

    Even if Agamemnon was truly a Mycenaean king, the stories about his leadership of the Greek armies were absorbed into a story of divine rivalry, about gods and goddesses that determines their personal conflicts by either supporting the Trojans or the Greeks. "Myths are often shaped by the religion around them, particularly on the Epics of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Helen of Troy is a central character of the Iliad who, on closer reading of the text, is found to be a daughter of Zeus and a mortal, Queen Leda of Sparta and was born of an egg.. This shows that she was not necessary a mortal but was tied to her fate by the will of the gods - her role as a capricious queen is superseded by her divine heritage. This is further emphasised in noting that some scholars draw similarites between her and a Minoan diety which was associated with abduction and recovery"(two strong themes in the Iliad). Equally, her husband Menalaos, king of the Spartans, is also known to have had his own shrine in Ancient Greece; linking him to divinity as well. It is not unreasonable to assume that Menalaos has been made to Agamemnon's mortal brother during countless retellings of the story, which Homer eventually wrote about in the Iliad. This more complex view of Homer should remind us of the multiplicity of forms in which a myth survive.

    It can be handed down almost unchanged as sacred narrative related to theology and ritual, or in altered form as historical narrative that has lost touch with the original sacred acts and instead deals with mundane events. Epics, sagas, Puranas - these are perhaps the most magnificent examples of mythology and are a large part of our knowledge from the writings of the past mythologists. Much of the Old Norse and Germanic mythology would be lost if it were not for the learned Icelandic politician Snorri Srurlason.

    Srurlason wrote, in the early thirteenth century, a handbook of the bards of the Old Norse world and gave detailed explanations of their myths. He recalled the Viking sagas from the period ca. 750-1050 CE as a vigorous tradition arose around the one-eyed Odin and Thor Jotunslayer's wisdom and accomplishments. Myths bringing the divine into focus and their themes inevitably affect the very existence of the gods. In ancient Sumer, in the third millenium BCE, today's southern Iraq, the oldest surviving myths tell us that the kingdom "came down from heaven," and that the king was chosen and deployed by the assembly of gods. This made the king like the local god, and he was perceived as a beneficial owner of each Sumerian city in lieu of the gods themselves, and his or her temple owned and farmed most of the irrigated land, with the result that the king was almost a manager who managed the god's goods. The temple located on a high brick platform served as the house where the god-king was entertained,clothed and received worshippers.

    In the city of Eridu the temple was called Apsu after the freshwater sea that was believed to be underground. Because of the dry climate in Summer there was insufficient rain for grain cultivation and to supply parks and gardens, where cropping was only possible through irrigation. Small-channel systems grew gradually to large, interdependent systems that required constant monitoring, cleanup and repair fractures of the levees to keep it going. It is therefore not surprising that the divine ownership of Apsu temple was called Enki or 'Productive Steward of the Earth'. Characteristic of Enki was his cunning, because of disputes with other, usually more powerful gods such as wind god Enlil or Ninhursaga, the goddess of fertility. He was victorious with the help of his wits, never using force.

    The sly Enki trumphed Ninhursaga in a myth of human creation. It is said that even the gods originally had to work and stand for the hard grind of irrigated agriculture. They complained, and Enki and his mother Nammu created man to rescue them from the trouble. At a party where this was celebrated, the gods drank heavily and Ninhursaga boasted that she could make people's constitution good or bad depending on her will. Enki took up the challenge and said that whatever she did, he would offset it so that everyone could still earn a living. Ninhursaga created deformities and ailments to afflict the people, all of which were remedied by Enki; allowing them to still be effective members of society.
    Then Enki challenged Ninhursaga and asked her to match the creature he would create, switching their roles in this divine competition. What he made was a decrepit old man, so broken down by age, that he was unfit for anything. Ninhursaga gave up in despair, unable to find use for him.

    In the Babylonian and Assyrian periods which followed Sumer's decline after 2000 BC, the gods in the region became more like national gods, which was identified with their nations' political ambitions and that their fare became tied with that of their nation. Thus, the Babylonian god 'Marduk' and the Assyrian 'Assyr' in turns took the dominant position as the states waned and waxed in power. The old gods holdings continued however to be retold. In a parallel to the biblical story of the flood was attributed to the Sumerian god 'Enlil' as part of a series of attacks on humanity. The population of the towns had grown so much that the noise kept Enlil awake at night. Well annoyed he spoke to the assembly of gods to send a plague to Earth to decimate the population and thereby reduce noise. But a certain man named Atra-Hasis (sometimes Utnapishtirn or Ziusudra) consulted Enki (or Ea) and learned about the terrible threat.
    Man was ordered to be quiet, and so much was sacrificed to Namtar, the plague god, that he dared not show.

    When the crisis was over and Enlil again observed an increase in noise level, he sent a drought that brought mankind to the brink of starvation. Enki again intervened to save many shoals of fish by driving them into riviers and canals left untouched by the drought. But he realized there was only a short respite, since Enlil next time would bring about the full power of heaven against humanity. Therefore, he advised Atra-Hasis to build a ship to escape a deluge that lasted for seven days and seven nights. When the rain ceased, the only survivors were Atra-Hasis, his family and the animals he had taken on board. Unlike Enlil, the other gods were shocked by destructions extent as to almost abandon the world until the pious Arta-Hasis eventually went ashore and made sacrifices to them. When the gods noticed the smell of the sacrifice, they gathered "like flies around the priest and his offering."

    These two myths of the ancient Near East can be characterized as cosmological, because they deal with big things like people's creation and their destruction with the exception of a single family. Most mythological traditions have stories about events of similar importance, but the majority of myths are often more mundane. They are about ordinary human problems and conflicts, behind which divine activity nevertheless appears. Among the things considered in the myths are misfortune, success, cruelty, love, death, family relationships, betrayal, old and new, youth and age, magic, strength, fate, war, madness, hunting and travel. This abundance suggests a very deep origin of the human mind. Although experts are in no way in agreement of an explanation, it seems the view put forward by Carl Gustav Jung in the early twentieth century, to be the most likely.

    According to the Swiss psychologist, man holds both a personal and a collective unconscious. The personal unconscious is full of experience peculiar to the individual, while it contains collective psychic energy in the forms and patterns that have crystallized over the entire history of mankind. This common heritage, claimed Jung, is the cause of the prototype, "which brings our consciousness an unknown psychic life belonging to a distant past." The mental life is our distant ancestors' minds, the way they viewed life and the world, gods and humans. Such a rich source of stories is bound to fascinate every generation, and especially our own, who are so fortunate to have access to traditions from around the world.

    This Helios article invites you to explore the links and contrasts between these traditions in a global perspective, providing the best possible introduction to mythology diversity and still unfathomable depths.


    Banned
    It’s great to have a current affairs writer in the person of Banned, because I think that any factual publication that’s worthy of its title should include some commentary on what’s going on at the moment. To that end, Banned has penned an article on the demise of Osama Bin Laden, something that may turn out to be one of the defining events of the century.

    A Tale of Terror

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Prologue

    It was hundreds of years ago when for the first time men renounced their faith in truth and spread an idea that everything that originates from human mind is permitted in the eyes of divinity. The followers of this new principle stood for justice and defense of population, but the coming generations would nurture it for their own agendas. They would use it as a tool to dominate the common people of their times, to coerce them into accepting their beliefs, and to make them suffer if they opposed. This idea would eventually incline young minds towards a conception that inflicting carnage upon defenseless people was the only way their beliefs could be protected. They would bring war in times of peace, mutiny in times of prosperity, and agony in times of harmony. Some of them would desire religious supremacy while others would possess political aims. They would be the harbingers of fear who would not care about the value of human life. Their weapon would be unlawful warfare and it would have no patience for either authorities that contest their ideological take or valorous men who would be pitted against them. They would have no real families or friends, and their only friends would be those fighting for their cause. They would even not have any concern for their own presence in this world, and would blindly follow a path leading to certain death. Then there would come a time when they would create a web of their ilk spread over the entire globe, from the far-west to the far-east. Their objective would be common and entail killing of innocent men and women. They would be recognized by the terror they wreck upon mankind.

    It is that terror wrecked upon the general public of all races which has become a disquieting issue of our times. It claims thousands of lives every year across the world. Its spreaders are gullible men turned vile from mostly troubled and uneducated lands. These men are trained to fight in the name of religion or aggression. Their minds and bodies are conditioned to respond violently in the most poignant circumstances. Their every act of murder represents an utter lack of trepidation. They have no purpose except sacrifice for the greater good. They do not take interest in the loss of innocent lives, they enjoy every moment of it. But we as responsible citizens of this globe realize that our existence can only be truly peaceful if they are undone. That is why we understand the need to fight against terrorism and its supporters in one way or the other. We support those who throw down the gauntlet and know that it is important to purge the world of these dangerous elements that are always ready to cause a massacre. We recognize that there is no wise text in this world that deems violence against innocents appropriate. It has been and will remain one of the most undesirable notions of all time. It is a curse that has been perpetrating damage upon the very soul of humanity. Its deep roots are so difficult to track down that saving our generation from its far-reaching claws is unfortunately a blind expedition in spite of the unceasing effort of our most adept soldiers to obliterate its sources once and for all. But the disease of terrorism has no cure; there are always people who can be brainwashed and made to follow a path that leads to destruction. It is, however, our duty to keep trying harder.

    Modern terrorism is the indiscriminate use of violence against people to meet a religious or political ambition. The terrorist groups of modern era are clearly bent on achieving their goals through the most brutal ways imaginable. The most infamous of those groups is the al-Qaeda or the focal point of the famous War on Terror. This tale now begins with the very first chapter concerning the origins of this inhumane organization.


    The Beginning of an End


    Everything has a beginning. The journey of al-Qaeda had a beginning as well. One of the most feared organizations in history did not emerge from naught or the netherworld; it was the outcome of events that shaped the history of our globe. As new ideologies sprang up from existing beliefs about the status quo of the world after Second World War, there were new conflicts that rose between neighboring nations and superpowers. A global organization was formed in the midst of incredulity in human actions left by the war that took millions of innocent lives. It stood for resolving issues between countries but was not enough to stop the wars that would shock the world. The United States and the Soviet Union started getting involved in conflicts that gradually became important to all. One of them was the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, coming into existence after the independence of Israel on 15th May 1948, which remains unsolved till date. The United States supported Israel and was the first to recognize its sovereignty. Under the aegis of one of the superpowers of a new era, Israel received endless funds every year to maintain a strong position in its war against the Arabs. Later, the war continued through decades, and while the rest of the world fulminated against Israel’s relentless attacks on Palestine, the United States remained a silent spectator of the arena. The entire Arab world watched the incessant parade of warfare that was both shocking and insolent to the ideals of Islam. As a result, many fundamentalist groups arose in the wake of atrocities committed against their countrymen. Osama bin Laden, a firm defender of Islam, was one of those who were strictly opposed to the idea of western involvement in Arab issues. His resentment against America for being their enemy’s main benefactor quickly popularized him among the Muslims. This was the starting point of his struggle against Non-Muslims.

    The subsequent scene on the stage of war was the Saur Revolution in Afghanistan, which started on 27th April 1978. According to Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan had been the only true state of Islam, and its defense was one of the utmost priorities of the Muslim world. When the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan took power there were rebellions throughout Afghanistan. Native fighters or mujahedeen took up arms against the party that had moved to prohibit traditional practices of Islam like veil-wearing and forced marriages. But there was a greater threat to the rebels from the Soviet Union which had an interest in keeping the communist party in power. The result was its long occupation in Afghanistan against the interests of mujahedeen who were now fueled by Osama bin Laden’s arms and armament and American funds through the Inter-Services-Intelligence in Pakistan. On the same grounds Abdullah Yusuf Azzam and bin Laden established the MAK or Maktab-al-Khidmat to support the cause of war which was now primarily against the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan, the then President of the United States called bin Laden a hero for fighting against foreign occupation, and many of the western countries were supportive of his actions during the Afghan Civil War. But that is what provided him leverage for founding an extremist organization that stood against foreign participation on Islamic soil.

    Al-Qaeda, which was initially a secret group of believers of Islam who took a strong umbrage against infidels, was established in August 1988, near the end of Soviet activity in Afghanistan. Taking inspiration from the Soviet Union’s collapse due to attrition caused by over-involvement in global issues, its chief objective was to make the United States, a principal ally of Israel, suffer from the same fate. It would purport stimulating the populace of the Middle-East against the allies of the United States, training young people to fight against unbelievers, and spreading their message of jihad globally by creating a large network of operatives in dozens of countries. Following in the footsteps of al-Qaeda, a large number of independent groups were formed after the fall of Soviet Union. Even though the communist party ruled Afghanistan for three more years, its effect was now beginning to fade and getting replaced by the traditionalistic principles of a more sinister group called the Taliban. In the year 1996, Taliban became the state government of Afghanistan and al-Qaeda became one of its states. During the early 90s after the end of the Saur Revolution, it began to display the true nature of its war against west.


    The Claws of a Tiger

    The Mujahedeen of Afghanistan were geared up to attack any foreign elements that would dare to intrude in the matters of their land. The radical presence of Taliban based on Islamist fundamentalism was starting to add fuel to fire by inspiring young minds into joining a religious war against any people of different faith. New training camps started getting established in various regions in and around Afghanistan to create capable “Soldiers of God” who were ready to sacrifice their lives for the greater good. It meant more destruction on the face of earth.

    However, there was something else stirring up somewhere else which had unforeseen repercussions on the future of al-Qaeda and Taliban. Saddam Hussein, the then president of the Republic of Iraq, launched an invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 due to reasons including the controversial theft of Iraq’s petroleum reserves by Kuwait and Iraq’s failure to pay a large debt of $80 billion which was borrowed from Kuwait for the Iran-Iraq War. Kuwait lies in the Middle-East and shares its border with Saudi Arabia, a country popular for holding the richest petroleum fields in the world. The ruler of Saudi Arabia, King Fahd became concerned about the safety of his own country in the face of a threat so close to the border. The situation grew more intense as Saddam’s forces came closer and it became certain that the House of King Fahd would require external assistance. Both Osama bin Laden and the United States offered their services to protect Saudi Arabia from the foreign menace, but the king declined the offer made by the latter. The fact that his offer was rejected by a Muslim leader did not enrage him as much as the fact that foreign troops were being deployed in a land sacred to the Muslims. Subsequently, he vehemently opposed US participation on Muslim soil for which he was exiled from Saudi Arabia, his place of birth. He ended up in Sudan with the help of a double agent Ali Mohamed who used to work for an Egyptian Islamist group called al-Jihad. Most of his operations were solely based on his wealth. His ability to maintain a large force spread over more than 40 countries and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing prove that he received a substantial sum of money from his family. But after a couple of years, his family expelled him from its businesses, making it almost impossible for him to obtain funds for his organization. His citizenship was also revoked. Bin Laden received an immense setback at this point but it did not prevent him from obtaining financial support from people close to him.

    Following the establishment of Islamic Emirate by the Taliban movement in Afghanistan in the year 1996, al-Qaeda became stronger and more active at planning attacks on America and its allies. Bin Laden, earlier that year, issued a Fatwa or a religious decree demanding the killing of United States personnel. Based on the orders of their leader, several incidents of terrorism took place which claimed hundreds of lives. Places like Dar es Salaam and Nairobi that had never received a blow by the claws of terror were attacked by al-Qaeda. The US army suffered heavy losses in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen. On top of that, the biggest terrorist attack in human history was initiated by bin Laden and his followers.


    The Heart of a Jackal

    The surroundings of a man influence the course of his life, but it is in his own hands to follow the path that is right. Osama bin Laden was born an ordinary citizen of Saudi Arabia in the vernacular city of Riyadh. He attended educational institutions that were no different than the schools and colleges where western culture is prominent. He was also not a notorious student who received bad grades. His family was as important to him as to any person in this world. He was a mild-mannered and serene gentleman to both friends and strangers. His young life was not marked by criminal acts but by education. He was a self-denying and self-modeled person who followed the ideals of his religion. He was also a very generous person often involved in charitable work. But beneath all these positive traits he had a great weakness called susceptibility through which the ideas surrounding him were able to manipulate his thoughts and behavior. He was an extremely religious man who had seen the installment of an Islamist state in West-supported Iran, the capture of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and the involvement of French forces in its liberation, the everyday violence caused by the Israeli-Arab conflict, and many other political and religiophilosophical events of his time. He was a Wahhabi who absorbed many of the teachings contained within the books written by the Islamic theologian Sayyid Qutb, one of his primary sources of inspiration. Such factors made him develop a harsh view of the major powers and their policies in times of war, forcing him to fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

    The winds of the Mediterranean and the storms of the Atlantic would cease to blow away the sands of the Middle-East if there was no hue or cry caused by the religious war waged by bin Laden and his allies. Had he been a stoical figure of chivalry, as expected by his kin, the course of Arab history would have been entirely different. But we cannot close our eyes to the all-pervading truth and ignore for a moment the fact that he was responsible for the largest terrorist strike in human history. The hearts stopped beating when the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York suddenly got hit by two planes on 11th September 2001. The horror of that moment can never be forgotten, nor can it be described precisely. Some people who were present at the scene described it as the inception of an apocalypse while others believed that the United States was at war. The collapse of the towers was an unimaginable period of two hours for those who witnessed it while being horrifying for those who experienced it. Of the 3000 people who ultimately died as a result, only a few lived long enough to know who caused the catastrophe. The al-Qaeda leader, while the entire world was dreaded by this shocking event, was sitting beside a radio, praying to Allah and eventually thanking him for making it possible. The kind of terror he brought upon the people of this world makes it impossible to take his past virtues into account while assessing his character. He was the catalyst of what can be called a mini judgment day for the people of America. His actions would not be condoned.


    The Wings of an Eagle

    The years following the 9/11 attack comprised a period of vengeance. It is indubitable and completely reasonable that the US administration was infuriated by the actions of al-Qaeda. There was a series of investigations to reach the truth. The authorities, however, shortly after the attack, claimed at precisely 1100 hrs that the al-Qaeda leader was the mastermind of the whole operation. After a few weeks, the US army invaded Afghanistan in a hunt for Osama bin Laden and his associates who helped plan the attack. The ground troops of the joint forces of Taliban and al-Qaeda were defeated in just a matter of weeks while the leaders were cast out of Afghanistan. But bin Laden, whose capture was the primary target of the invasion, was practically an inexistent figurehead. Other al-Qaeda leaders including its chief ideologue Ayman al-Zawahri were also on the run. Nonetheless, the forces of good prevailed for the most part and were able to slay or capture more than half of the organization’s representatives in Afghanistan. The Taliban government was finally destroyed and replaced by the democratic Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Within three succeeding years the commoners of the troubled country were able to elect their own leaders including Hamid Karzai who became its 12th president. The Afghan economy finally started to grow after years of stagnation under the repressive rule of the Taliban. This was a period of reforms for the country that has been caught in the horrific clutches of war many times in history. The US occupation, though, was still a necessity for maintaining peace and diminishing any chances of rebellion.

    Despite his organization being overrun at major positions in the Tora Bora Mountains during the early stages of the war, bin Laden managed to prevent an encounter with the forces of Operation Enduring Freedom. Knowing the dangers that lied within his realm and the inability to operate from remote locations, he escaped to Pakistan, a country that has long been known as the safe house of prominent terrorists. He began to reside in a solid compound in the city of Abbottabad which lies about a 100 miles from the border of Afghanistan. Its 12-to-18-foot-high concrete walls and security cameras at the entrances were apparently constructed or set up to keep any invaders at bay, but they also made the compound a probable location housing an important individual. It also did not have an internet or telephone connection despite its size and the prosperity of its residents, which implicates that they were hiding from someone and could be involved in drug trafficking. Aside from its design, the residents of the compound exhibited an aloof attitude towards their surroundings, arousing the suspicion of the locals. They used to burn their garbage within the so-called Waziristan Haveli unlike others around them who kept it outside their homes for collection. Their women and children never participated in any festivals or events and were seemingly forbidden from leaving the house. Bin Laden himself stayed on the third floor of the building while the women and children resided on the first and second floors. Bin Laden’s courier Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, who was locally referred to as Arshad Khan, and his brother with the alias Tareq Khan, were considered the owners of the mansion. They described themselves as Pashtuns with a hotel in Dubai generating wealth.

    The United States intelligence was searching for bin Laden in Afghanistan while he was hidden and protected in an obscure location in Pakistan. Regardless, there is a great significance attached to the location of the compound which remained unknown to the US for almost a decade; it lies just 0.8 miles southwest of the Pakistan Military Academy, which suggests that Pakistan could be involved in giving protection to the highest-value target of the United States. The city of Abbottabad is a usually peaceful place close to the capital which would indeed act as a perfect location for a hideout but not so much ideal for a high-profile mansion with all the security measures. Bin Laden succeeded in avoiding the US forces for ten years but it was not possible for him to give an impression of being hidden forever. He would shortly live the final day of his life.


    The Mark of a Seal

    The Central Intelligence Agency of the United States undertook an expensive initiative in August 2010. It involved acquiring information on the compound which was expected to be the residence of bin Laden based on the information gathered from al-Qaeda members. Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, the most trusted courier of bin Laden, ironically, led the agency straight to the compound without any knowledge of being tracked. High-end surveillance equipments like the stealth drone RQ-170 Sentinel helped the intelligence gather information on the compound by high-altitude monitoring. A three-dimensional imagery of the compound was constructed using latest technology which helped the operations command develop an effective strategy for a possible raid. It became certain based on visible evidence that the compound held an individual of high value, but it was still a difficult decision for President Obama to order an attack on Pakistan soil. Such an act would mean a breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty while there was a mediocre probability of success due to the absence of an unquestionable proof linking the compound to the presence of bin Laden. The Obama administration also could not ask Pakistan for a free passage because of the notoriety of its authorities for supporting terrorism. After months of information gathering and meetings, a covert operation was believed to be a necessary course of action.

    Consequently, on 2nd May 2011 at 0100 hrs local time, 24 United States Navy SEALs under the command of the CIA were dispatched from the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to conduct a counter-terrorism operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Its objective was to capture Osama bin Laden dead or alive. The leader of al-Qaeda was finally within arm’s reach of the United States military. The SEALs flew in modified Black Hawk helicopters that ensured the covertness of their raid. They entered the compound using C4 explosives and found to their surprise a building full of women and children. Suddenly they encountered an element of resistance -- Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, the person inadvertently responsible for the raid, was ready to give up his life for the safety of his leader. He was killed with his brother and wife in the ensuing firefight. The rest of the residents offered little resistance. The way to the room sheltering bin Laden on the third floor was clear. Then one of the SEALs caught a glimpse of a heavy-bearded man wearing a loose dress gazing down from the third floor ledge. This was the moment that turned doubt into conviction. Thereafter they followed the man into his room and shot his enraged wife in the leg who apparently charged at them for protecting her husband. Osama bin Laden, amazed and bewildered, was shot twice. The al-Qaeda leader responsible for thousands of deaths was finally dead. His body was transported to the US aircraft carrier Carl Vinson and buried at sea.


    The Invincibility of an Idea

    The thoughts and ideas of an individual are perhaps his only assets that subsist after his demise. The fortunate (or unfortunate, you decide) death of al-Qaeda’s founder signified nothing more than the end of the life of a person responsible for many wrongs. His death was glorified by many including the common people of the United States and NATO. On the other hand, the news of his death was met by small scale demonstrations and incidents of violence in certain tribal regions of Pakistan. Al-Qaeda itself vowed to avenge his death. His leadership was replaced by another. Saif al-Adel, the person who took his position, is a capable explosives expert responsible for the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa and the establishment of an al-Qaeda training facility at Ras Kamboni in Somalia. The 51-year-old leader even authored a book called “The Al-Battar Military Camp” for training militants against easy targets. His fanaticism was pronounced in the form of a major bomb threat against the United Kingdom as an act of vengeance. At the end of the day, the outcome of the hunt only proved that the war on terror was far from over.

    There are still thousands of militant camps in this world hidden from the eyes of the eagle. They still recruit men of exceptional valor and turn them into impervious machines of terror. The death of the man who founded their organization does not denote the end of their jihad. It was alive before him and will continue to exist in their minds. It could also take a more dangerous shape and make their creed more vicious and indifferent. They could found an entire nation whose primary objective would be the total annihilation of unbelievers. They could even make us extinct by disbelieving everything that exists. The possibilities are endless while the quantity of human lives is limited. We can do nothing but hope that the consequences will not be that detrimental to human interests.


    The End of an Undying Journey

    It is practically impossible to end something that is either out of control or simply endless. Human life is sometimes under control and can be brought to an end with a weapon, but it is rarely possible to end the life of an idea or message related to it. That idea when acquired by an individual is all that is required to gain inspiration and change the course of human history. The foundation of al-Qaeda was based on an idea of spreading terror constructed from the events that were long dead. The idea of maintaining its objective held by its founder was then acquired by his successor. Even the elimination of each and every element of the al-Qaeda terror network would not promise the end of that idea. It will virtually live forever. But it does not imply that we should not act against its followers. Our actions can weaken terrorism by reducing their efficiency and prevalence. We can promote our own ideas of peace and happiness. We can force them to think twice before killing innocent civilians. Our endeavors can change the lives of people living under constant terrorization. We need to continually believe that a few more steps can really make a difference.

    The war has just started. This is not The End.


    ~Verbalcartoonist


    grouchy13
    Another new face on The Helios team is grouchy13, one of a growing number of historical writers for the team. As you already know, or rather should know, rez is also a regular contributor to this publication, but seems to eschew his traditional area of expertise. To this end, grouchy13 has taken up the cause of being the ancient history writer for this edition, and has written a fine piece of those most tenacious of warriors the Macedonians.

    Early Macedonian Warlords – The predecessors to Philip & Alexander the Great
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The history of the Macedonia of Phillip II and of Alexander the Great is well documented and well known, but the bloody fratricidal history of their predecessors is however less well known. Who were these men who governed this remote mountainous kingdom beset by warring faction and intrigue surrounded by hostile neighbours, the men who would establish a kingdom that would eventually conquer not only the city states of ancient Greece but also the mighty Persian Empire?

    Foundation

    In understanding these men it is important to understand the environment that forged the Macedonian character. Ancient Macedonia is located in the northern regions of Greece, situated North of the Kingdom of Thessaly and located between Thrace, Illyria and Epirus. Around the 8th Century BC, during the Archiac Dark Age of Ancient Greece, in one of the great migrations from the established Polis of the Peloponnese and Attica, a group of settlers ventured north from the ancient polis of Argos. Moving through Thessaly, the first Macdonian Ruler Karanus settled the migrants around the mountainous area north of the great Mount Olympus. The rugged landscape was an important factor in moulding the Macedonian people, as exposure to this environment and the constant threat from their barbaric neighbours meant that the early Macedonians soon became accustomed to warfare and external dangers. The Kingdom itself was split into two by area and by tribal division: the area of Upper Macedon was a fierce isolated hinterland initially ruled by a collection of independant tribes of Macedonian descent who would at times produce threats to the authority of the Royal House established by Karanus in around 800BC known to history as the Argead Dynasty who were based in the cattle-rich coastal plain of Lower Macedonia.



    An Image of the principle regions that made up Ancient Macedonia and those of their immediate neighbours.



    A view of Macedons position in the larger world of the Ancient Greeks

    Macedonian society was heavily influenced by its southern Hellenic neighbours however it also retained a tribal aspect to its culture and was effectively ruled by a small nobility who formed the military elite while the lower classes would be called upon in times of great danger to serve as light infantry, a style that suited the mountainous terrain of the region and to tend to livestock in peacetime. Little is known about the first rulers, but what is known is that the backdrop to the first generations of the Argead Dynasty rule was the near constant incursions into both the upper and lower Macedonian Kingdoms by their barbarian neighbours, and that succesive generations of Argead rulers fought and died in battle either in defence of the two Kingdoms or in the slow but steady expansion out of Lower and Upper Macedonia.

    A Kingdom at War

    The sixth ruler of the Dynasty Philip I of Macedon was famed amongst the initial rulers not only for his wise leadership but also his bravery in battle, a fact attested to by his heroic death leading the Macedonian forces against the Illyrians during one of their many incursions in 602BC. The death of Philip threw the dynasty and the kingdom into turmoil, for his son Aeropus was just an infant and too young to lead the kingdoms. Sensing weakness and an opportunity for an easy conquest, the Illyrians were joined in their invasion by the Thracians. With a dual invasion in both kingdoms and a series of military defeats, the Macedonians were in dire need of a victory. At this time their desperation led them to believe their only chance of victory over their enemies was for their forces to carry the infant Aeropus into battle, believing that only an army led by a legitimate King of Macedon could bring them the victory they so desired . In an unknown battle the presence of Aeropus stiffened the Macedonian’s resolve, victory was theirs, and the Illyrians and Thracians fled the battle field eventually evacuating Macedon completely.

    An Example of the Mountinous Macedonian Terrain that helped shape the early Macedonian Warrior and provided an important barrier to Macedons many hostile neighbours.

    From here Aeropus disappears from history but Macedonia was in good enough hands that the kingdom passed to his son Alcetas. Alcetas is remembered as being a calm and stable ruler, who abandoned the policies of slow encroachment of Macedon's borders and preserved his kingdom peacefully. Alcetas son Amyntas began the process of Hellenization of the Macedonians. While strictly Hellenes through their Argive ancestry, the Macedonians were considered an uncouth and barbaric people by their cousins in the south and were excluded from many of the Hellenic traditions carried out. Amyntas’s diplomatic relations included an alliance with Athens, against the Tyranny of Hippias who were expanding the reach of their Polis into the Hellespont and more worryingly towards the end of his reign the reduction of Macedon from an initially independent ally of the Persians under Darius the Great to a vassal client kingdom following the Ionian revolt and the subsequent Persian invasion of Greece proper under Mardonius, an act hastened by the murder of Persian envoys by Amyntas son, Alexander.

    Enter Persia

    The backdrop to Alexander I’s reign were the monumental events of Xerxe’s invasion of Greece, following his father’s submission of Macedon to a vassalage status Alexander adopted a duplicitous policy that leaned towards the pan Hellenic cause. While the tide of war favoured the Persians, Alexander aided his Persian overlord sitting as his representative at the general Mardonius peace talks following the Athenian victory at Salamis. However he also provided supplies and information to the Greek city states who resisted the Persian invasion. His policy led him to provide the Greeks with the battle plans of the Persian offensive that culminated in the battle of Platea. Upon the attempted retreat of the Persians back to Asia minor Alexander seized his chance and won not only Macedonian independence but also great renown and respect for the Macedonian Kingdom from the Polis of Greek city states a point proven by Alexander being allowed to be the first Macedonian to participate in the Olympic games, a sign that the Macedonians were considered true Hellenes by the other Greeks. Alexander was also held in high regard by the Athenians, leading to him being bestowed the honour of Proxenos or as being considered a great friend of the Polis and representative and benefactor of Athenians in the region. Also a patron of the arts, Alexander could boast poems dedicated to his honour by the renowned poets Pindar and Baccylides. All in all Alexander can be considered a great ruler who did much to strengthen the Macedonian Kingdom. However, following his death in 454BC his Kingdom was to suffer the first in the many cases of fratricide that would stain the Argead Dynasty.

    Macedon and the Peloponnesian War

    Alexander’s successor, the alcoholic Alcetas II, was unfit for rule, and after 6 years of kingship he was murdered by his nephew Archelaus, whose father Perdicas II ascended to throne. Perdicas II rule was, however, far from secure, his other brother Philip contested the throne, and in moves representing the growing influence of Macedon the pretender Philip appealed to outside powers to support his claim, Philip finally secured the backing of the Athenians whose influence in the region was on the rise following their absorbtion of Amphipolis, Chaldace and Potidea into their new empire and later an alliance with Sitacles, King of the unified Thracian tribes. Perdiccas II response to these manoevrings was to incite rebellion within the Athenian controlled settlements in the region. Potidea a colony founded by the Corinthians rebelled in 432BC an act supported by Perdiccas. The rebellion was in part down to Athenian worries over the loyalties of the Polis and it's pro Corinthian leanings something that worried them considerably since Athens was at loggerheads with Corinth over Corcyra, another former Corinthian Colony in the East. Corinth looked to expoit the Potideans greviences to subvert Athenian intrests in the northern extremities of their Empire and thus deny the Athenians of access to the abundant timber resources in the region, something essential to the Naval power of the Athenian Empire Athens submitted demands for the Potideans to destroy it's walls and submit to full Athenian authority a demand the Potideans rejected, Athens acted in kind to the rebellion and to Perdiccas support of it by sending an army of 1000 Hoplites and a fleet of thirty ships to attack Macedon in full support of the pretender Philip culminating in the capture of the city of Therme and the investment of the Macedonian Capital of Pydna in siege. At this juncture the Corinthians responded to the plight of their colony by despatching a force to support them in there rebellion, Athens then concluded a peace with Perdiccas and removed their support for Philips claim to the throne in return for Perdiccas was required to give assitance against the Corinthians and rebellious Potideans. No sooner had the Athenians evacuated Macedonian territory then Perdiccas abandoned the alliance, supporting the Potideans once again and resuming his policy of supporting the factions within Athenian held cities that sought independence. The Athenians overcome these difficulties, defeated the rebelillous Potideans in battle outside their city walls and settled in to to take the city by siege.

    The following year Athens entered into an alliance with the great Sitacles King of the unified Thracian tribes, in further negotians the Atheninas returned Therme to Perdiccas in return Perdiccas offered to support the Athenians this time again against the Chalcidians, the people he had originally persuaded to revolt. Playing both ends to the middle and taking advantage of the situation the Peloponnesian War Perdiccas in his trademark style once again abandoned the alliance and threw his lot in with the Spartans. Perdiccas despatched a force to assist the Spartan assault on Acarnania, his troops however arrived too late to provide any real assitance. This move provoked the Thracian King Sitacles to mount a massive invasion of Upper Macedonia in 429BC with 150,000 troops, the plan being to rendevous with the Athenians and remove Perdiccas and install Philip as ruler. The Athenian assitance never materilized most likely due to the fear the Greeks had of the Thracian host and it's strength and the fear that with the removal of the Macedonian buffer the great Sitacles may be tempted to move further south, eventually a lack of supplies forced the great army to retreat, Perdiccas then entered into negotiation with Sitacles and promised the hand of his sister in marriage to the nephew of Sitalkes thus removing the great Thracian threat to his Kingdom.

    The Peloponnesian War would see Macedonian forces fight on both the Athenian and Spartan sides at one time or another, The duplicity of Macedon greatly strengthened it's own position as a local power in Northern Greece.

    Having out-manoeuvred Athens and removed the pretender Philip, Perdiccas continued his policy of supporting the Spartans, joining the great Spartan commander Brasidas in his successful assault of Amphiplois in 424BC. This act deprived Athens of one it's most important resources: timber, something Macedon was abundant in. The Spartans accordingly supported Perdiccas’s expansion of his borders, that year the Spartans and Macedonians, with a supporting force of Illyrians, attacked King Arrhabaeus of Lyncus. The Illyrians, suspecting Perdiccas territorial ambitions, switched sides and attacked Perdiccas and Brasidas troops, and during the night the Macedonians fled abandoning the Spartans, such was Brasidas skill he was able to safely remove his army from the potentially disastrous situation but the Spartan/Macedonian alliance was finished and Perdiccas, departing from his necessary interests, looked for a way to quickly make peace with the Athenians and get rid of Brasidas. During the later stages of the War Perdiccas switched sides again joining the Spartan/Argive alliance. However, in a final betrayal, he joined the Athenians in their successful assault of Amphipolis in 413BC. Perdiccas duplicity during the Peloponnesian War greatly strengthened his Kingdom, as not only did the Athenians influence wane in the local area but he also secured Athens’s reliance on Macedonian timber for their navy, something his successor Archelaus exploited greatly following the crushing defeat of the Athenian expedition to Sicily.

    Such was the scale of the defeat and the loss of naval material Athens became tied to the Macedonians ever more strongly, and Archelaus upon his ascendancy in 413BC was able to set the price of the timber, such was the Athenians desperation. He was able to use the income wisely to mint an abundance of good quality coinage. He embarked on a large building program constructing a number of strongholds, cut straight roads to allow his forces to move faster throughout the Kingdom and oversaw the organization of the military, particularly the cavalry and hoplite infantry. Also a man of culture, he continued the Hellenization of the Macedonians having a number of poets, playwrights, musicians and painters in his new royal court in Pella. As a keen charioteer he also took victories in the Olympic games.

    A Game of Thrones

    In 399BC the steady hand of Archelaus was removed, as murder again blighted the Argead Dynasty. Crateruas, a royal page, murdered the King during a great hunt and ushered in a period of great civil strife to the kingdom in which a series of Kings ruled for short periods. Crateruas with sufficient backing ascended the throne, however his reign was cut short after four days, as Archelaus son Orestes and his guardian Aeropus avenged the murder of the rightful king and Orestes ascended the throne with Aeropus as regent. SIx years later, however, Orestes died and in 393BC his brother Archelaus II became King. Assasination also cut short the reign of Archelaus II , once again the great hunt provided the assassins with the oppurtunity to strike the King down. This time the crown fell to Pausinias son of King Orestes regent Aeropus. But a year into his reign the assassins knife once again struck at the Macedonian throne this time Amynatas III took advantage of the confusion and seized the throne. Amyntas III was father to Philip II and and grandfather to Alexander the Great, his own reign saw an end to the considerable instability following the death of Archelaus I.


    The Great Hunt was an important part of Macedonian Culture, it provided the Macedonian aristocracy with an oppurtunity to hone their martial skills, but more often than not would become the backdrop to the fratricidal assassinations of Macedonian Kings.


    At the start of his reign Amynatas III saw off considerable threats to his position, at one point his rival Argaeus II secured the support of the Illyrians and forced Amyntas to flee holding onto the throne for a year before himself having to vacate the throne following Thessalian support for Amynatas III. He regained the throne and defeated his rivals unifying both Lower and Upper Macedonia and thus strengthening greatly the bonds of friendship with Thessaly. In response to the Illyrian threat, Amyntas negotitiated an alliance with the resurgent Athenians and with Cotys I King of the Thracians. Once the threat to his throne was contained with Argaeus in exile and with the Illyrians neutralized the demand of Macedonian timber for Athenian Navy saw the Amynatas III coffers filled with wealth. However, a diplomatic reversal saw Macedons rival Olynthus, a growing power in the region join the Athenians and Thebans. Once again the rivalries of the southern Polis factored into Macedonian interests, and Amynatas in true Macedonian style took advantage of the rivalry between Sparta and the Athenian/Theban alliance for Hegemony of all Hellas. In a successful campaign the power of the Olythians was reduced, Amyntas then made terms with Athens supporting them in their claim over Amphipolis and once again trade continued between the two powers.

    Amyntas rule bought much needed stability to Macedon and ended with his death in 370BC. His three sons Alexander, Perdiccas and Philip would all in time succeed him his eldest Alexander II would be the first as the eldest son however his young age and the arrival of an Illyrian invasion in Upper Macedonia seriously undermined his authority, no doubt all parties were looking to take advantage of Amyntas III death including a Macedonian nobleman Pausanias who attempted to usurp the throne, therefore Alexander faced considerable dangers upon on his ascendancy to the throne. Alexander called on Athenian support to first secure Upper Macedonia and then to take on Pausanias, who had seized a number of towns and threatened Pella. Pausanias subsequent defeat solidified Alexanders position at home and emboldened by his victories Alexander waded into the civil war wracking Thessaly. Moving south he was able to take control of a number of towns most notably Larissa while supporting his Aleuadae allies. In true Macedonian fashion he then refused to relinquish control of these cities to his allies, however the Aleuadae had more friends aboard, most notably the great power of the Theban Hegemony. Thebes responded to this act of territorial expansion by moving into Thessaly, forcebly removing the Macedonian garrisons in Thessalian towns and supporting Alexanders brother in law Ptolomy in his designs on the throne. Suitably humbled Alexander, was compelled to accept humiliting terms, including the abandonment of his expansion policy and the provision of hostages to Thebes, the young prince Philip being the most notable, an incarceration that would provide Philip with an opportunity to see how the Hegemon of all Hellas operated militarily and socially, an experience that left an indelible mark on the young Philip. Alexander was able to cling on to the throne for another year, in the end the ambition of Ptolomy grew sufficent enough for Alexander to be assassinated at a festival in 368BC.

    The life & death struggles for possesion of the Kingship would become a hallmark of the Macedonian aristocracy, many Kings and pretenders would fall to Assassins blade during the Argead Dynasties hold on power.

    Perdiccas Amyntas III second son suceeded his elder brother with the nefarious Ptolmy as regent, an arrangement that lasted for 5 years until Perdiccas arranged the assassination of Ptolomy and thus avaneged the murder of Alexander II. Periccas III during his short reign made war upon the Athenians in relation to Amphipolis and sought to retake a portion of Upper Macedonia lost to the Illyrians under their great King Barydyllis. In this campaign Perdiccas was struck down and the Macedonian attempt to unite the two regions failed. Philip returned from Thebes as regent for Perdiccas young son Amynats IV. On his return, however, he usurped the throne and took control of Macedon himself. Philip in time would revolutionize the Macedonian armed forces, and eliminate once and for all the Illyrian threat defeating Barydyllis in battle in 357BC. Philip would then expand Macedons borders, make war upon the Athenians, Thessalians and eventually destroy the Theban Hegemony and make Macedon the dominant power of all Hellas, his son Alexander would then go on to conquer the greatest Empire in the World and build his own Empire that would encompass much of the then known world.

    Conclusion

    Through the highs and lows, numerous invasions and fratricidal murders Macedon had prevailed, something at which Karanus would have marvelled. Through the machinations of greats kings like Alexander I, Perdiccas II and Archelaus I the Macedonian Kingdom had survived, it is only fitting we remember these great men and salute their great achievements that are so often overshadowed by their illustrious heirs Philip II and Alexander the Great.


    rez
    rez seems to have adopted the position of video games writer, which I suppose is only appropriate on a website that is first and foremost dedicated to a series of video games. This edition, he continues his analysis of the industry in general, writing about the humour to be found within games.

    Games With a Sense of Humour
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I play a lot of videogames and I watch a lot of comedy. Re-reading that sentence I now realise more than ever why I am single. But we're not here to swap stories of that debilitating terror which beautiful women seem to evoke in us (ok... me). This month we're looking at the use of comedy in videogames, or rather I'm going to rant about it and hope it turns out somewhere near readable.

    I suppose we should start with what I dislike about the sense of humour a lot of games display and the best and a very early example of a poor showing was Duke Nukem 3D. Of course at the time I thought it was the pinnacle of creativity and it still holds a special place in my heart but after taking off the rose tinted, 80's style, massive frame sunglasses its actually quite cringeworthy. I think we all go through a phase in our childhood where we think murdering strippers is funny but then we eventually grow out of it forever unless we're lucky enough to become rich and powerful and try it out for reals. The puerile gore and boobs could be excused in DN:3D as a bit of a laugh but the later Duke titles such as Land Of The Babes and Time To Kill didn't even attempt to distance themselves or build on the 1-trick platform that Nukem had created. The worst part is that they continued the portrayal of Duke as a muscle bound, womanising, one man army without a hint of irony of self awareness. The latest title Duke Nukem Forever appears to have adressed this problem by seemingly satirising Duke's, now outdated, characterisation with self aware parody. And whilst I do look forward to playing it when it finally hits the shelves I'm not sure the running joke of Duke parodying himself will stay funny all the way through the game.

    Duke also fell down in the overwhelming use of one liners but he's hardly alone in that sad sack of poorly thought out characters. Videogames inherited the one liner curse from the 80's trend of action heroes and their somehow acceptable ability to rattle off witty puns after they're done taking lives. But these days One liners are only fun to laugh at and the nature of repetitive gameplay only makes matters worse when your player character makes the same three remarks every time he dispatches an enemy. I've found this to be a particular problem in superhero games and Spiderman seems to have been the main culprit over the years. This is largely to do with the comic style characters but also the fact that most of these games are fairly low on the ESRB rating and whilst Spiderman is allowed to beat someone unconcious his range of post-beatdown insults are somewhat hampered by the production team's desire to market the game to a wide audience. What we're left with is essentially a very repetitive, very tame commentary of events as they unfold and if it wasn't funny the first time around it just gets plain annoying by the end of the game. No videogame suffers from this problem more than Madworld because they did try quite earnestly to produce a genuinely funny commentary for the duration of the gameplay. They hired excellent voice talent and had a free hand to let the dialogue match the intensity of the on screen violence. However, they were still forced to rely on the commentary mechanic and thanks to the very one dimensional gameplay of Madworld every piece of funny dialogue was forced into the recycling pool before you could say 'dismemberment'. I found this dissapointing because the Madworld team did record a hell of a lot of good commentary but the problem will always be that videogames are non-linear and prone to repetition which means hanging dialogue off of gameplay mechanics will end up annoying your players with repeat performances.

    The last major irritation in the quest for comedy is the over-use or just mis-use of reference humour. We're all quite familiar with the principles of reference humour having by now at least heard of Family Guy and its heavy use of supposed parody but often simply recreating scenes from 80's and 90's movies with their own characters instead. Videogames are almost never as longwinded with their references but they can be every bit as lazy with them and somehow expect you to actually laugh along with them. In the old days it was actually quite fun to see a game like Sonic 3 reference Star Wars with their 'Death Egg' because nobody expected to see legitimate entertainment and popular culture surface in the ilegitimate and unpopular sub-culture of 90's videogames. But now games have evolved enough to have their own limelight and are responsible for creating their own damned humour. Yahtzee's review of Castlevania: Lords of Shadow did a far better job than I could of pointing out the ludicrous nature of the game's Portal reference but it bears repeating that an out of context line of text thats simply repeating a joke word for word from another, more successful, game is so unfunny that it goes beyond the vacancy of a poor joke and actually becomes an infuriating slap in the face as you think to yourself 'I payed money for this.'

    So what are we left with? A dismal picture of the videogame industry's attempts at humour? Well yes but thats hardly suprising. I don't imagine many of the popular and socially competent members of society are desperate to start a career of programming code in darkened rooms with little to no sustenance beyond Pizza and fizzy pop. But some of them really do know what they are doing or in some cases, I'm looking at you Japan, have such an odd sense of humour that their attempts are so surreal as to be worth a chuckle. I don't think I'll soon forget re-playing through Onimusha 3 with the player character wearing a giant Panda suit for the duration of his war with a demon army. The Japanese version of comic juxtaposition is kind of funny but wears thin very quickly for me. I feel this is probably something of a cultural distance issue as many of the things the Japanese find funny, exciting or, dare I say it, sexy simply don't translate very easily to countries that have a reasonable age of consent.

    The cases where developers are on the right track are seemingly always when they ditch the stereotype of the player character as an unflappable hero. Uncharted's Nathan Drake has a horrible habit of delivering cheesy one liners but there are quite a lot of occasions where he screws up or is generally having a tough time and these sympathetic moments let his wisecracks carry a little more comic weight. The Grand Theft Auto series was only marginally better than some with its use of rude words in the place of big business names and advertising but the GTA satire on society and popular culture that steadily grew in the later games has really given the games a true comic edge to the violence. The Left 4 Dead series allowed for a great deal of humourous parodies of internet forums in the messages written on saferoom walls but the real comic gem of this game was the interaction between sympathetic and believable characters. There didn't need to be genuine punchlines or witty one liners because the very charismatic characterisation of the first 4 survivors was enough to lend a little comedy to even mild jibes at each other. This fell down in the sequel as the survivors were nowhere near as well constructed but they at least did not fall into the same pitfalls as most games. The final and practically untouchable example of developers getting it right is Portal. I don't think there will be any suprises there since the game was universally praised for its dark humour and physics based gameplay. The sequel seems to be holding up the standard well with the introduction of a new character voiced by Steven Merchant. He comes across as genuinely sympathetic with his overwhelmed and muddled outlook on a very serious situation but I'm only halfway through Portal 2 so I can't say if the game manages to hold itself up all the way to the end. But what makes the Portal series so successfully funny is that they firstly have an excellent understanding of dark humour, great voice actors and writers that know not to over indulge an idea. Secondly, and most importantly, Portal, like Madworld, is essentially using the gameplay to drive a narrative commentary but unlike Madworld it doesn't rely on any dialogue inducing mechanics that can be repeated. So we have a linear commentary written and voiced by some great talent that has no possibility of becoming repetitive? Valve does it again.


    Lord Rahl
    Here's the next piece of Lord Rahl's colossal essay comparing the two franchises, and don't worry: there's still plenty more where this came from. I think there may be at least 2 more parts, but happily for those Rahl fans who aren’t actually trekkies, Rahl has also provided us with another article on the ease of gaining knowledge in the modern era we live in.

    Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part IV
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Space Combat (Strategy and Tactics)

    If you've viewed enough hours of SW and ST you'll quickly understand there are striking differences between the strategies and tactics in space combat of the franchises. I've already touched on this subject above so this shouldn't take too long to explain.

    It's not too hard to understand what happens during SW space battles. Every movie has massive capital ships slugging it out with their massive and countless turbolasers while fighters are launched and battle each other. As previously stated, capital ship combat does not seem to be overly intellectual. It seems more like a ships of the line slugging it out. Basically you've got overly massive and barely maneuverable ships shooting as much as they can at each other. I doubt any sort of tactics are involved since sub-light speed and maneuverability seem to not have any effect on combat effectiveness. Heck, Han Solo made two Star Destroyers run into each other! How dumb are those commanders! That was a cool scene though.

    I'm not sure what fighter tactics are. In fact, I don't know why fighters exist because it seems as if capital ships are absolutely impervious to most anything fighters can throw at them. Fighters are good for taking out Death Stars though. I don't know what more to say about SW space battle strategies or tactics. We see a lot of battles but basically nothing to explain how they are done. This isn't necessarily a fault of the movies, as they didn't focus on the "whats" and "hows" of their ships and space combat, but it certainly doesn't help SW's (I guess that should actually be without the "s" but then that'd look weird) case for having superior war strategy and battle tactics.

    ST, on the other hands, has countless examples of strategy and tactics. In ST the captain is highlighted and is often the one who is the reason why their ship survived and the other didn't. Granted, ST often involves only two ships, and rarely more than that, in a battle but at least we get to see the intelligence, courage, and cunning of captains (and their crew). I can provide many examples. In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Spock figures out how to fire upon a cloaked Bird of Prey, in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Khan is as cunning as ever but Kirk delays Khan while they figure out how to take down the Reliant's shields and later they have a great battle in the Mutara Nebula where a three dimensional maneuvering is key, there is Picard's...Picard Maneuver (getting bested by Data is nothing to be ashamed about), the Riker Maneuver (don't ask me why the idiot who posted the video dubbed his own idiotic voice for the dialogue [and just don't pay attention to the obvious video game joystick Riker uses to manually steer the Enterprise ]), and many more examples. Needless to say, space combat in ST at least shows that the captains and their crews are very intelligent and use their intelligence to live for one more day.


    The Picard Maneuver? Oh, oops. Wrong one!

    Perhaps the best example of space combat tactics in ST is seen in Star Trek: Nemesis where the Enterprise (and later two Romulan Warbirds) has(have) to fight against a much more formidable ship that has a virtually perfect cloak. Here is a video that's the best I can find of the battle that shows what happens, including: using phasers to hit the cloaked ship and then firing torpedoes according to the phaser hits, flipping the Enterprise so that the ventral shields can take hits because the dorsal shields were failing, and showing the ship crews, including captains, understand a three dimensional battlefield (as well as ramming when all else fails ). I also stated before that in ST ships can target specific areas or parts of an enemy ship. For example, perhaps you wish to capture the enemy, so you take out their engines and weapons instead of simply destroying the ship. This is something lost in SW, or at least it's not shown at all. Add to this the maneuverability of ST ships. They're big starships themselves, most of them being a few or several hundred meters long, and yet they are also like giant fighters that are constantly maneuvering at hundreds or thousands of kilometers per hour. This makes one wonder if SW capital ships could adequately target and hit ST ships because of the superior maneuverability of ST ships compared to SW ships and their turbolaser turrets.

    As far as space battle strategy and tactics are concerned, ST ends up on top. SW may have a gargantuan advantage when it comes to ship numbers, size, and firepower, but the franchise lacks entirely in other areas where ST excels such as crew and commander competency, battle creativity, ship maneuverability, and inherent tactical possibilities because of ship design.

    That about sums up starships and space battles! PHEW!

    Ground Combat

    This is another difficult area to compare and argue simply because SW is rife with land battles whereas ST hardly shows any sort of large scale land battles throughout the entirety of the franchise, and I do mean the entirety. There are certainly huge and devastating wars (in space and on land) but the biggest number of combatants on land I've ever seen in an episode or movie was never more than a few dozen. In SW we see hundreds and thousands of troops and huge land battles, especially in the prequels. I am not too certain but my best guess is that SW's numbers for armies and their power is greater than that of ST. After all, the Empire controls most of their entire galaxy so they must have billions upon billions, and probably trillion, of troops. So automatically SW wins as far as land battles are concerned...


    The clone army kicking butt on Geonosis.

    ...except for this: Ewoks! Now, I understand pretty much everyone who likes SW, including myself, loathes seeing stupid fur balls taking out what the Emperor himself deems, "An entire legion of my best troops," but the fact remains that the movie has it and it can't be ignored. Maybe the forest got to the troops, maybe they were dressed poorly for combat in a forest (walking around in shiny white armor isn't the most inconspicuous way of marching around), or maybe the Ewoks took some crazy drugs before they attacked, but that's no excuse for an elite fighting force (of 10,000?) that is touted by the Emperor himself and is part of a military force that has conquered most of the galaxy to be defeated by Han Solo, Leia, Chewbacca, and hundreds(?) of Ewoks. I don't care if there were a billion Ewoks. The legion should have turned them all into foul-smelling lumps of burning fur.

    One minor note about troop weapons: In SW there is no explanation or presentation of how powerful blasters or blaster rifles or...whatever are. In Ep. IV a stormtrooper uses the stun setting to disable Princess Leia. In ST phasers have multiple settings that range from stun to kill to "maximum setting" which can incinerate targets. They can also be used to warm rocks for warmth in the wilderness or can be overloaded to create a large explosion.

    There isn't much more to say here. The SW franchise clearly dominates as far as land power is concerned, even though ST hardly touches on the subject in any significance and there being a case where an Imperial legion is defeated by a pre-industrial race of furry mammals. Beating an obvious dead horse? Yeah...I know I am.

    The Fantastic

    I've now gone over what I think is the "meat" of the SW vs. ST debate. So what's left? We've got the fantastic, as in things in both universes that is more fantasy than science fiction. After all, this epic nerd debate is so "big" that it'd be ridiculous not to include the fantastic...no matter how ridiculous it is.

    The most obvious example is the Force. Over the six movies we've all seen various uses of the force like telekinesis, the ability to have a non-corporeal self after death, enhanced physical abilities, choking someone without physical contact, and shooting lightning out of the body, among other abilities. Certainly this makes some SW individuals very powerful. That is why many SW fans will use the existence of the Force as an argument to say SW could/would best ST. I will admit that ST does not have the Force, or at least there is no mention of it whatsoever.


    Emperor Palpatine using force lightning, much to his evil pleasure.

    But does ST not having Jedi or Sith mean that SW has the advantage? That's a difficult judgment. Why? Well, there is one glaring question that must be asked. Does the Force even exist in ST? There is no mention of any similar force or power in all of ST. The Force is never directly referred to nor is anything resembling the Force. And to be more specific, and I hate to use this example, the Force is supposedly related to midi-chlorian count in the body. We see constantly the incredibly advanced medical devices in ST that can detect the most minute and incredible variety of micro-organisms in a human or alien body and yet midi-chlorians are never detected. So if the Force does exist in ST it is virtually undetected by known science as well as...anything else. If the Force does not exist in the ST universe then that certainly means the Force can't be of use in the ST universe (the Milky Way galaxy).


    Picard has no patience for the Force on his bridge.

    So, if you're a Star Wars fan and wish to use the Force in the SW vs. ST debate then they have two problems to consider: 1) If the Force exists in SW does it also exist in ST? 2) If it does exist in ST then is it exclusive to only SW characters? In my opinion SW fans can't have a "yes" for the first question and a "yes" to the second question as well. It's one thing to point out obvious advantages of SW but it is another to use SW-exclusive powers and restrict it from ST even though it technically does not exist in ST.

    But for argument's sake, I'll accept the Force does exist in ST. If that is to be assumed then I will also assume the Force exists in different ways. My point is that the Force is SW's fantasy power but ST has its own examples of fantasy powers itself. So, if the Force is allowed in SW vs. ST then so should fantastic ST examples. Force-like powers or abilities of ST races include mental telepathy of Betazoids, shape-shifting of Changelings, using illusion via mental powers of Talosians, the ability to heal someone or bring them back to life of Zalkonians, as well as many other examples of telekinesis and telepathy, among other abilities. With all of these examples I think it is safe to say that, while ST may not have the Force in its universe, there are many powers or abilities in ST that are comparable.

    But if we're talking about things fantastic, there is one thing that is the most glaring...to a Trekkie/Trekker: Q. He is an omnipotent being, actually a member of a race of omnipotent beings, who one day decided that he would mess with humanity because he thought humans had progressed beyond their limits. I talked a bit about him in Helios 55. Some would say that Q wouldn't interfere with a SW/ST clash but I differ in opinion. If Q had enough interest or curiosity to interfere with humanity just because he thought they had progressed too much then certainly the entire galaxy at war with another would be more interesting to him. What are Q's powers? Basically he can do anything he wishes. He can manipulate both time and space, matter...anything. So, if the SW universe was at war with the ST universe then Q could decide to wipe out all of SW....if he wanted to (and if the Q Continuum agreed as well [I think]). If there is one trump card Trekkies wish to pull it is that of Q.


    Q as God.

    A New Age: The Ease of Knowledge
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    It's been over a year since I graduated from college. Recently I was at a friend's house and asked him a question that I had been thinking about for awhile. My friend graduated with a Technical Writing degree while I graduated with one in History with Secondary Education Certification. While drinking a few beers and grilling some red meat, as any good red-blooded, meat-loving American would and should do, I asked him if he thought he had really learned anything in college, as in learned a skill or skills that he thought were not something he could learn on his own. After all, college is supposed to be a higher form of education where students learn skills that cannot be learned outside of the university. My friend gave me an answer I guessed he would. He said, "No." I am not sure exactly what courses my friend had to take and what exactly he learned, but as for myself, I've thought many times about the education that I received. Not that the education was bad overall. Certainly there were some classes earlier in my college career where the professor cared little of teaching the subject as best they could, but I did very much enjoy my junior and senior history classes and was impressed by my professors' wealth of knowledge (overall).

    What made me ask my friend that question was me thinking about what exactly I had learned in college. I did learn quite a lot in my history classes as well as my education classes. After all, the classes I took earned me my degree. But after I graduated I thought about what exactly I had learned over the entirety of my time at college, and not just in class. I also read many books for my own pleasure. They just happened to be history books as well. And then comes the internet. So what about the internet? Well, the internet is a wonderful thing. Not only does it allow millions of men effortless sexual gratification...it's also a treasure trove of information out there, including history. What conclusion did I come by? I believe I learned more history on my own time with reading books and spending time on the internet than in my college classes. I actually attribute most of that learning to TWC through discussing historical events with fellow members.

    I think this understanding, that information is so easily available, is something that people take for granted today. I think of when my parents were in college. What did they have to gain knowledge? Books, magazines, TV, newspapers, and the radio. Our parents had a lot of information out there to ingest but their ability to take in that information was not nearly as insanely easy as it is now. Today we have the internet and with it the recent astronomic rise of social networks that makes the transfer and expedition of information so completely undemanding that us finding and learning information is all too easy. This means people today know much more than earlier generations, especially those who didn't grow up with the internet. In my opinion this has a significant effect on education.

    I tell my students to use the internet as much as they can because I understand the internet is an unmatched source for information. The only problem with using the internet as a resource is that it's unfiltered. Basically anyone can post anything without restriction. This means a lot of information will be biased, misleading, and/or even completely wrong. In that respect I don't wish for my students, or anyone for that matter, to take everything they read as the truth. However, I also want my students, and anyone (again), to be exposed to everything so they will experience the biases and incorrect information. That is a problem that many people have. They don't try to think for themselves when they watch TV or read something on the internet. They simply take in the information and accept whoever said it. That is one side effect of the internet. When reading an academic book, you're forced to take the time to read its intelligent writing. Reading a short article on the internet hardly requires any thinking. That's why a lot of people on the internet, and they seem to pop up everywhere on internet forums , will say a lot and act like they know what they're talking about...when in reality they don't really know much. In some ways I think our ability to get information quickly has made us a bit impatient when it comes to reading things academic. Why go to a library or check some online academic journal if you can look it up on Wikipedia or simply Google websites with quick information?

    This brings up my next point, that the difference between the academic/college degree person and your average Joe are less these days. Before the internet learning things was much more dependent on other people teaching or taking the time to read a book. Now, with an incredible amount of knowledge literally at everyone's fingertips, there is much less dependence on others or having to taking time to read hundreds of pages. So, when your grandparents tell you that you're so smart, a lot of that has to do with the ease in which you can get wanted information. That's an ability your grandparents never had.

    We live in an interesting time, when we can learn of breaking news immediately and then send that news to our friends within seconds. Just think of how quickly people became aware of Osama's death (and yes, he was killed you conspiracy idiots). I think I was one of the first people to know out of my friends on Facebook and I remember checking Twitter as it updated at an insanely quick rate with the news. So what does this mean for education? I'm not sure. If I thought I learned more in college about history outside of the classroom then what is my History degree really worth? What does that mean for the academics? Just something to think about...
    Last edited by Jom; April 24, 2012 at 02:58 PM.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  2. #2
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Copperknickers II
    Monarchy and whether it still has a role to play in the 21st century is always a favourite debate, especially amongst some of the posters at TWC. With Prince William and Katherine Middleton getting married, and Elizabeth II’s husband, Prince Philip, reaching 90, this debate has flared up again in the media. In this piece, Copperknickers examines the institution and argues why they still have a role to play.

    Monarchies, and why they’re still applicable

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Since the last issue was published, several things of immense significance have happened. Unfortunately, the one I'm going to write about was somewhat overshadowed a couple of days afterwards by a certain event which comrade Banned will go into further detail on.

    So, where was I... people celebrated in the streets, the whole of London rang with wedding bells, and Glasgow partied in the traditional style by having a medium sized riot in which at least three people were hospitalised with head injuries; William of Windsor, son of the Prince of Wales and Crown Prince of the United Kingdom Charles, married Kate Middleton, an unasssuming yet elegant and photogenic public school girl, ensuring the continuance of our Royal Family into the 21st Century. This wedding, despite assurances that it would be in keeping with the tight-fisted times, was a rather elaborate affair, one that made no bones about the fact that it was a spectacle, a display meant to be watched by the entire world, putting the 'Great' in 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (and a good
    800 million people are thought to have tuned in). However it raises an issue which, like a BNP thread in the Mudpit, is never too far over the horizon: why do we have a monarchy?

    Monarchies and oligarchies are the oldest form of government: since man learned to walk on two legs he has made others kneel and submit to his authority. It is natural then, to believe, as for example many Americans and Europeans do, that they are backward and contradictory to the value put by the Western World on democracy and equality. The Queen sits on her Golden Throne and, through no virtue nor skill nor even foul play, has an amount of power afforded to her, in theory, that could with a single motion lay waste to any opposition. Of course, she doesn't use these powers, for if she abused her position she would find her significant symbolism translates little into
    unquestioning loyalty from the armed forces which she commands.

    Her purpose is to be our head of state: to give speeches and make public appearances and sign pieces of legislation with more or less complete impartiality and lack of interfering of any kind in the running of our country. Her houses are a series of palaces dotted around the country, from London to the Highlands of Scotland. She is the earthly head of the Church of England and its associated churches, and the head of numerous organisations such as the Knights of Malta. She heads the privy council, a throwback to the days when the monarch ruled over England with the help of a group of trusted advisers. Indeed, I could go on listing her ceremonial duties and titles all day. However that one may criticise this vast and somewhat undeserved status, one can certainly not accuse her of uselessness: afterall, imagine how many people would have to take on all of these jobs in a republic. For an elderly lady the fact that she can do any of this is impressive, and for me easily justifies the fact that she is alotted a certain amount of tax revenue - she is effectively the country's most senior civil servant. But of course, the question of why she was put in such a
    position in the first place remains.

    The U.K. is just one of the world's 44 sovereign states with a monarch as their head. These countries are dotted around the globe, from Tonga to Thailand, Jamaica to Japan... they share no particular common features: the power of the monarch varies from absolute in places like Qatar and Oman, to somewhat negligent in most of the commonwealth, many of which have not even been visited by the Queen. All sorts of cultures are represented: the only continent without a monarchy is South America, and religions vary from Christianity to Islam to Buddhism. There are indeed only two similarities (the second of which is rather tenuous and subjective for which reason I leave it to the end to argue): the first is the obvious one, that they each have as their head of state a single non-democratically elected leader. The reason
    for this usually has its roots in religion: Jean Bodin, a French philosopher from the Renaissance period, popularised the idea of the divine right of kings, i.e. the idea that the monarch is answerable only to God. Although a Christian doctrine, this idea is no different to the belief of Islam's and Japan's original monarchies. Indeed, the idea harks back to the dawn of civilisation, the most famous example of antiquity being the ancient Egyptians' Pharoahs, who were believed to be themselves divine. Bodin himself took his theory primarily from Imperial Roman law. But today, this idea is seen by most, especially in the First World, as rather archaic. Too many kings have oppressed their populaces and pushed the limits of their power to bursting point, with the French revolution being probably the most famous example of a monarchy
    being abolished.

    However, clearly the idea is still popular, which means there must be some benefits: tourism is one often cited. Impartiality is also a great advantage: the Queen has no political agenda so allows a valuable insight to the politicians when she convenes with them. Let's not forget that although it
    there are undoubtedly dangers with giving so much power to a single person; people such as Mao, Hitler and the Bolsheviks were all to an extent democratically elected. However, in a constitutional monarchy, this power is if anything safer than if it were solely in the hands of the elected representatives: the U.K. made the move of taking power away from its monarch early, and it was probably this which saved it from the ravages of the Early Modern period: by putting the greatest position of power and symbolism outside the reach of the normal person, we avoid the rage of the populace being directed at the system itself, but merely at a single political party which can easily be remedied by replacing them through due process without affecting the Queen. She, who sits in the background and acts a constant, a reminder that our country's eternal spirit lives on behind the day to day squabbles of the politicians.

    The second similarity is that almost all monarchies, particularly constitutional ones, are comparitively more successful than their neighbours.This is a rather bold statement to make, and I don't mean to say for a second that having a monarch is the sole cause of this, or that it is universally applicable that monarchies will always surpass their non-monarchical neighbours. But in general, monarchies tend to have good human rights records, good quality of life and are largely very progressive despite their outside conservative appearance. Countries such as Canada, Japan, Norway and Australia are all shining examples of monarchy, and even the more questionable ones such as the U.K., the U.A.E and Thailand, despite their social problems, are still extremely progressive and economically powerful, with an equally powerful
    image projected to the rest of the world. This image, this sense of identity, this unity of national spirit, is what I believe to be the greatest strength of monarchy: a monarch is like a magnifying lens to a source of light: just as the light converges into a thin beam, so the people's energies are focussed through the medium of the figurehead and brought together for a common cause. Whatever the statistics, I am proud to live in a monarchy; I revel in the historical aspect, but I also see the Queen not as some forlorn symbol of a bygone age, but as a beacon, a silent symbol of everything which was and still is great about my country, and although I am losing faith in the U.K. itself, I would never have us in Scotland relinquish such an important part of our heritage and a valuable asset for our future.


    Incesticide
    Taking up the position of resident science writer for The Helios, Incesticide has decided to write on a fairly unusual subject: fish, and the problems surrounding the fishing industry. While this may not be of interest to everyone, I’ve always wanted The Helios to offer as wide a range of articles as possible to appeal to as many different people as possible, something that makes it all the more unique amongst the TWC publications.

    The Problem with Fish: Part 1

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    In early 2009, I remember receiving a text message from my older sister, who at the time was working at the EU Commission for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs. It was the contents that struck me. She asked me to explain, via text message, what the difference between phytoplankton and microalgae is to the then EU Commissioner, Joe Borg - which (despite all the limitations of text messaging) I did.

    I thought, surely the man in charge of the EU fisheries policy, the man in charge of something as economically important and biologically complex as the marine ecosystem would at the very least have a basic background of the topic. I was worried, it was as if we were entrusting the post of finance minister to someone with no knowledge whatsoever of financial matters. Worse, as a scientist, I felt as if scientists as a group were being somewhat bypassed.

    While I have since revised my views, and acknowledge the fact that what an economically important industry needs is a good manager who can think independently (as Joe Borg was and the current commissioner, Maria Damanaki is), I believe the point remains valid. The amount of conflicting information supplied by people with completely different agendas is a problem, particularly with regards to the public.

    The complexity of fisheries is something I would like to discuss over the next few editions of Helios. This article should hopefully serve as a basic introduction to fisheries along with some examples of fisheries collapse and recovery. Following this I shall deal with regime changes, ecological equilibria, fishing down trophic levels and an example of a specific ecosystem; The North Sea/Atlantic. Finally, my third installment will cover the fisheries industry proper, how catches are regulated and how these can be improved - I will also mention some management strategies that have met with success.


    Introduction:


    "To understand the data supplied in what follows, you must have a mental picture of a metric ton (mt) and of a million metric tons (mmt) of fish, crabs or squid. One metric ton is the mass of pure water it would take to fill a square box with sides of 1m. That is about the volume surrounded by a small desk. A metric ton of fish, then, is an amount that might all be tossed into one large fish box and hoisted from a fishing boat up onto a processing plant dock. It's an amount you can visualise. Do that.

    A million metric tons can be visualised in a similar way. It is about the amount of fish it would take to fill a box sitting on two, side-by-side soccer fields (each 100 x 50m) to a height of 100m. Find a picture of Memorial Coliseum in Pasadena, California. It would hold about 2mmt of fish. The present, annual, world catch of fish and other marine animals is about 90 ą 3mmt, about 90 stadia full of fish, crabs, shrimp, oysters and squid. It is not an inconceivable amount, just a great deal. Now you are ready."

    Miller (2004)

    As is well-known, the fisheries industry is a multi-billion (name your favourite currency here - as long as it isn't the Zimbabwan dollar) industry. It is an important source of income and protein, particularly in the developing world. More than 50% of all consumed fish and shellfish is now farmed and only a select few marine species are of commercial value. The largest catches (40-50% of the total) are made up of small pelagic (pelagic means the open sea) fish, such as herring, anchovies, sardines, mackerel and capelin. These are small, plankton-feeding fish that for huge schools over continental shelves or offshore in upwelling areas [1]. Most is not directly consumed by humans, but is ground up into fish meal - a protein supplement to feed poultry, cattle, and farmed fish. Some is made into fish oil which is used in margarine, paints, pet foods, cosmetics and fertilisers.

    At the present time, China is the number one fishing nation. It has risen to that rank by dramatic increases since 1980, mostly concentrated around its own coast and very broadly distributed among many species. Moreover, China has more than matched its increasing fishing effort in expansion of pond (and rice paddy) culture of carp and Tilapia. Extending fisheries and aquaculture has made China self-sufficient for high-quality protein. The capacity of commerical fishery interests to push the total catch upward has been astounding. So far as we know, few new resources exist that might be exploited to increase fishery production. However, it doesn't pay to say that such a ceiling has been reached; leave it to the Japanese fishing masters to find more edible stocks.



    Unit Stocks and Hydrographic Containment:


    The "unit stock" is the basic unit used by fisheries scientists, policy makers and fishermen. Although it is a highly idealised unit, it nonetheless gives us a useful picture of the numbers of fish in a given population. I use the word population (rather than species) quite on purpose simply because a species might not necessarily contain a single population - quite often there are several, geographically isolated sub-populations, yet not diverse enough to be considered different species.

    So, what is a unit stock?

    A unit stock is a reasonably strict breeding group of a biological species, always just one kind of fish, squid or shrimp, etc. The notion that there are such groups arises partly because a very large number of species participate in migrations during short seasonal periods to restricted spawning locations in the sea that are remarkably consistent from year to year. It is these mating meetings that define distinctive sub-populations that have a countable (at least in principle) number of individuals, both in terms of size and age structure. These groups also have enough homogeneity in behaviour and other aspects of biology to make them manageable under harvest. Such stocks have persistent proportions of variant genotypes (such as blood types, protein variants, or DNA sequences) and they vary in these proportions from groups that mate in different areas, or at different times. Genetic markers can therefore help define the limits of unit stocks.

    David Cushing (1995) offers the term "hydrographic containment" as one explanation for the above. Now, if you'll pardon for a moment the penchant of scientists for coming up with long phrases meant to impress people, I will explain what this means too, by using an example.

    The North Sea plaice gather over a small region in the southwest corner of the North Sea to spawn (See Figure 1). Individuals travel long distances to reach this site. Selection has "promoted" this site for plaice to mate and spawn because the most suitable place for juvenile plaice to grow is the Dutch Waddensee, and the drift of the larvae from the English channel will bring them to just outside the Texel Gate, the entry to the Waddensee as they reach the juvenile phase, making larval loss minimal. This is the meaning of hydrographic containment.





    Figure 1. Hydrographic containment in North Sea Plaice [Adapted from Miller 2005]


    There are countless other examples. Gulf of Alaska pollock meet in March - April to mate just off Kodiak Island, producing a larval drift through the plankton-rich Shelikoff strait. Other pollock stocks are associated with other spawning sites at times, for instance, one such group tends to spawn on the Eastern end of the Bering Sea. Atlantic cod on the other hand have about a dozen major spawning sites from Lofoten in Norway to Georges bank, where breeding groups gather for relatively short spawning seasons. These stocks tend to be genetically distinct although there is some debate about the precise make-up of these groups and just how distinct they are. One such example was studied by Fevolden and Pogson (1997), who studied the pantophysin gene (a gene which codes for a protein) which has two forms - A and B. They developed a technique to distinguish between the two, and found that 90% of cod caught offshore and in the Barents Sea had the "B" gene, while 80-90% of cod captured in fjords and along the coast of Norway had the "A" gene. Such a level of distinction could only be the result of breeding structure. Of course, in the case of cod, there is a very complex literature that deals with the various levels of genetic distinction among Atlantic cod in detail, but I will not go into that here.

    Naturally, fish do not recognise national boundaries and migrate from local to oceanic scales. Some larger species with slower growth rates and late maturity tolerate a much lower rate of fishing than smaller, faster growing species. The importance of having good knowledge of the lifecycle of your species of interest, and where it spends the different stages of its lifecycle cannot be stressed enough. It is pointless to introduce a management system in one geographical area, when, say, the larval stages of your species are being spent in another.



    Collapses/Recoveries of Fish Stock and their Effects on Ecosystems:



    • Peruvian Anchovetta in the 1970's - The collapse of Peruvian anchovetta (Engraulis ringens) fishery occurred due to a mixture of overfishing and a lack of information on the age structure of the target species. Fishing removed the larger, older fish from the population and thus fishing gradually shifted the age structure to smaller, younger and less reproductively fecund fish. Of course, since the fishery was now established, there was tremendous pressure to allow capture of younger and younger fish. In the end, their egg output was not great enough to overcome the low larval survival caused by the 1972 El Nino and the fishery crashed. The stock finally came back in the late 1990's and is again being heavily fished. An attempt by managers to close the fishery in response to the 1998 El Nino held for about 10 days before political pressure reopened it.


    • East Pacific Salmon - In about 1976, there was a fairly sudden warming across the entire northern reach of the Pacific, at least a 0.5℃ increase in mean surface temperatures. This was beneficial to salmon at the northern end of their range so that catches in the Northern Gulf of Alaska climbed to unheard of heights - and stayed there. Meanwhile, with warming, there was less primary production in the waters of Washington and Oregon and this reduced the survival of salmon there. Stocks became inadequate to support fishing. Not only that, but prices had now gone down due to the excellent catches in Alaska. The result was a disaster in the south - boats were sold, processing plants closed. In Alaska, on the other hand, the opposite happened. In about 1999 there seems to have been another shift, at least off the Oregon and Washington coasts. Ocean survival, particularly of Coho salmon rebounded, and in 2001 a record number of salmon were recorded returning to Columbia river - quite probably since ocean fishing had not yet caught up with the change.


    • Canadian Cod (1980-1990) - During the late 1980s and early 1990s, numbers of cod and other large predators in the benthic (i.e. bottom of the sea) fish community declined sharply. The result of this was that large predators as a group were almost entirely eliminated in that ecosystem, the reason being that as a result of over-fishing, the ecosystem had been permanently changed. Frank et al. (2005) noticed that numbers of benthic invertebrates such as the northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis), the snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio), and of small pelagic fishes had increased markedly following the collapse of their former predators. This in turn led to a change in the structure of the zooplankton community - large-bodied zooplankton species (>2 mm), which are the preferred food of pelagic fish and early stages of shrimp and crab, declined, while the abundance of small-bodied species remained unaltered. In the meantime, phytoplankton had become more abundant due to reduced grazing pressure by zooplankton, and the abundance of phytoplankton reduced the nutrients in the sea further. What occured off the coast of Canada is a textbook example of "top-down control".


    • Orange Roughy Fishery - Some deep-water fish stocks have been exploited for many years, and the long-line technique developed for catching black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) off the Azores is an excellent example of sustainable fishing of a deep-sea species. However, during recent years industrial fisheries have shifted to greater depth due to economic pressures. What are the problems of deep-sea fishing? Basically, deep-sea species are notorious for their extremely slow rate of growth, long life-spans, low natural mortality, late maturity (a staggering 25 years in the case of the orange roughy, Hoplostethus atlanticus), and a low reproductive rate where survival of the young fluctuates heavily. Such species are of course very vulnerable to exploitation by unregulated fisheries, and this is exactly what happened with the orange roughy. Fishing news (2000) reported a rush of trawlers from Namibia, New Zealand, China, Russia and South Africa to seamounts in the southern Indian Ocean to fish on the species - actions which led to short-term profit, but at the same time, loss of fish stocks on isolated seamounts due to overfishing. For seamounts and other deep-water habitats beyond the national jurisdiction of states, no regulations exist for the conservation of species, species diversity and habitats.


    If you're wondering why in the world did the Canadian ecosystem change and Orange Roughy fisheries collapse, while Peruvian anchovetta and salmon bounced back a concise response would be: The sea is complicated. More so than some people would have us believe - complicated enough for me to make a career out of knowing a lot about it, but not so complicated as to make it impossible for liberal arts graduates to understand.

    The long answer would involve a detailed explanation of regime shifts and ecological equilibrium states, and I will go into further detail in part 2. Suffice to say that a unit stock is affected not only by fishing pressures ("top-down control"), but by climatic changes, which in turn may affect the ecosystem in what is known as "bottom-up" control.



    References:


    Cushing, D.H., (1995), Population Production and Regulation in the Sea: A Fisheries Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Fevolden, S.E., & Pogson, G.H., (1997), Genetic Divergence at the Synaptophysin (SypI) Locus Among Norwegian Coastal and North-East Arctic Populations of Atlantic Cod, Journal of Fish Biology, 51: 895 – 908.

    Fishing news, (2000), Roughy Bonanza in Indian Ocean, Fishing News International, 39: 1-3.

    Frank, K.T., et al., (2005), Trophic Cascades in a Formerly Cod-Dominated Ecosystem, Science, 308: 1621–1623

    Miller, C.B., (2004), Biological Oceanography, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.

    Scheffer, M., et al., (2005), Cascading Effects of Overfishing Marine Systems, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20:11: 579 - 581.

    Tyler, P.A., (2003), Ecosystems of the World: 28 - Ecosystems of the Deep Oceans, Elsevier, Holland.


    Feel free to contact me for any of these, I'll gladly e-mail them.



    Boustrophedon
    Linguistics and language are subjects that are both close to my heart, considering the fact that I’ve just finished studying a degree in both subject areas, so the origins of some of the most important languages in Europe was always going to be an interesting article for me and one I was sure to include in this edition. Boustrophedon’s article is a comprehensive history on the origins of the Romance languages.

    The Romance Languages: Ancient Italia
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Part I: Inhabitants of Ancient Italia

    In the early days of Italy there were many different people looking for a new region to settle. We're in Europe anno 1000 BC and the whole continent is changing drastically. Many tribes are looking for a new home and a period of large migrations has begun. Italy with its soft climate and fertile grounds is a much desired piece of land and in the following centuries many tribes and states will vie for control over the peninsula. I will now introduce the major players in Italy during the first milennium before present.


    Proto-Latini and Siculi
    The proto-Latini and the Siculi are thought to have entered the peninsula somewhere in the 11th century BC. It's unknown where they came from but they entered from the north. There are also theories that the proto-Latini were actually natives of Italy and thus part of the Terramare culture of the Po Valley. When Siculi tribesmen entered their lands they then supposedly decided to join them on a trek southwards. Not much is known but it is certain that the Siculi ventured deep in the southern part and established themselves in Sicily, giving their name to the island. The proto-Latini established their own settlements in Latium and are though to have given their name to the peninsula, Italia.

    Etruscans
    The Etruscans, called Trusci by the Romans or Rasna by themselves, were part of the Villanovan culture that emerged in Italy around 800 BC and gained immense influence over the peninsula. They were organized in city-states and federations and were able to achieve a dominance over central Italy. We're almost completely in the dark when it comes to their origins but they did not speak an Indo-European language, contrary to all the other tribes of Italia. Through politics they established a hegemony over their neighbours which lasted for nearly four centuries. By that time the Latin tribes were on the rise and rebelled against their former masters. The Etruscans were never entirely defeated however! As late as the 1st century AD we can still find traces of Etruscan influence in the peninsula.

    Osco-Umbrians
    Named after the two major tribes in their migration wave, the Osci and the Umbri, they arrived in the peninsula somewhere between 900 and 700 BC from across the Adriatic and were probably part of the Illyrian tribes of that region. They settled mainly on the eastern coast of the peninsula but quickly came in conflict with the Etruscans. In this conflict the Osco-Umbrian tribes held their ground and pushed the Etruscans back. They were mainly a rural folk and sold livestock and vegetables in the markets of Rome, which was rapidly becoming a major force in the peninsula. Several tribes were part of this wave, including: the Sabelli, Marsi, Osci, Umbri and several other minor tribes.

    Greeks
    Magna Graecia took shape as early as 900 BC and the Greeks arrived in the peninsula quite early, especially in the south and in Sicily, where they established colonies and trading posts. This culture was of immense importance on the politics in Ancient Italia because of their wealth and advanced knowledge. They were sea-faring and merchants which explains why they almost never ventured far inland, preferring to stick to the coasts and their colonies. Compared to the rest of the inhabitants they were very advanced and highly civilized. They would soon be joined by an adversary however.

    Phoenicians
    The Phoenicians are thought to have arrived somewhere during the 10th century BC and they established colonies and ports mainly on Sardinia and northwestern Sicily, where they clashed with the Siculi and especially the Greek settlers. Both the Greeks and the Phoenicians were merchants and sea-farers, making them bitter enemies. The Phoenicians are mainly known for establishing ancient Carthage, which would play an important role in the centuries to come.

    Veneti, Celts and Messapi
    The Veneti settled in northeastern Italy, where they remained for several centuries. Together with the Celts they established a dominant culture in the Po-Valley, attained great skill in metalworking and defeated the Etruscan hegemony over Italy. In the 5th and 4th century BC they migrated southwards and came in conflict with the Latin tribes as well as the Osco-Umbrian tribes and at some point even occupied Rome but they were eventually defeated. The Celts and Veneti retreated to their former lands and stayed their for the next several centuries. Even in the time of Julius Caesar the north of the peninsula was still known as Celtic territory and separate from Italia proper. Evidently the Celtic heritage was still very much present several centuries after their incursions to the south.

    The Messapi are thought to be an Illyrian tribe who either crossed the Adriatic or entered the peninsula together with the Veneti. They established a new home deep in the southeast of Italy where they remained. With the arrival of the Greeks and eventually the Romans they quickly assimilated and their Illyrian heritage vanished.


    Part II: Latinization

    Between 275 and 45 BC the Romans conquered much of the known world and forged a massive empire. One of the key strategies in these conquests was the peaceful subjugation of the local tribes and inhabitants in a process now called latinization. There were several factors contributing to the succes of this strategy which I will explain momentarilyby investigating why a Syrian merchant or Gallic chieftain would want to learn Latin in the first place.

    Military

    For non-citizens the only way into the military was as a soldier in the auxilia, supporting the legions. This was open to every non-citizen within the empire, resulting in a melting pot of different cultures, religions and race. The most urgent problem however was language with regards to understanding instructions and issuing orders. When the officer can't understand his soldiers and the soldiers can't understand their officer, there are bound to be problems during battle. Latin became a sort of intermediary language, serving as a tool to break boundaries between different languages.

    Colonies

    When the Romans conquered foreign lands they hardly ever changed much, preferring to use local infrastructure to their benefit. When they did change the landscape it was usually in the form of colonies. A Roman patron would found a city and invite Roman citizens to live there, usually his clients. Ahenobarbus did such a thing in Italia Cisalpina, Pompeius Magnus in the East and many other noblemen. The influx of native speakers of Latin changed the linguistic composition of the region dramatically and soon the wealth of the region was located in these new cities, making it impossible for the native population to avoid contact with the Latin language.

    Administration

    During the 1st century BC the empire grew to enormous proportions and these new provinces all required one thing: a bureaucracy. Civil servants and state institutions grew like mushrooms in these new regions to perform a wide variety of tasks ranging from counting citizens and assigning trade routes to collecting taxes. All of the administration was performed in Latin. All documents were in Latin, meaning that if a Syrian merchant wished to buy land, the deed would be composed in Latin. Getting married, making a will, buying land, running for a magistracy...everything required a knowledge of Latin. Those with knowledge of Latin had power, those without had nothing.

    Prestige

    By the end of the first century BC Latin had achieved a high level of prestige in the known world. Literature was highly valued and schools were abound in the empire to encourage education. Surprisingly much of the highlights of Latin literature was written by non-Romans like Seneca and sometimes even by people whose mother tongue was different from Latin. This indicates that at some point Greek became obsolete and was replaced by Latin as the language one used to differentiate oneself from those in "lower" classes. This literature in turn became so widespread that Egyptian boys were reading Vergil and thus learning Latin.

    Trade

    Obviously the intense trade in the empire from but especially to Rome was only possible when foreigners learned basic Latin to sell their wares in the capital or in the coloniae. Every merchant, farmer and middleman needed at least a basic knowledge of Latin to be able to do business. Rome was the center of all markets: slaves, wine, ivory, papyrus; and thus Latin became a widely spoken second language.

    Christianity

    The biggest impulse for foreigners to learn Latin was the rise of Christianity. The Church Fathers, with Augustinus as leader, contributed much to the spread of Latin among the lower classes with their writings about the Christian doctrine. Using the prestige and the power of the Latin language, the church and the clergy spread their message to every layer of society and the codification of church doctrine was done in Latin as well. For hundreds of years Latin would become known as the language of faith and eventually the language of science. A strange turn of events considering the fact that the first translation of the Hebrew sacred texts was written in Greek, now called the Septuagint because of the seventy authors that translated the immense corpus of texts.

    Part III: Indigenous languages disappear

    While the process of latinization is ongoing, the indigenous tribes and peoples lose fluency in their native tongue. Generally we can state this happens in three steps. In the first step you learn Latin as a foreign language while retaining your own language as your mother tongue. The second step is when the next generation is fluent in Latin (because of studies or environment) as well as the native tongue of his parents. The third step is when the second-generation speaker of Latin has children and teaches them not the language of his parents but Latin as their native language, mainly because of social or economical reasons. In three generations time a family can forget its native language and adopt Latin as their new native language. At this point the process of latinization is complete.

    Etruscan

    The Etruscan hegemony met its demise when Lucius Junius Brutus declared the Roman Republic in 509 BC, thus ending Etruscan dominance over the peninsular politics. While the Etruscan heritage and language diminished, it never entirely vanished. As late as the first century AD there were still native speakers who could read and write Etruscan as well as speak it. Of all the languages in the Italian peninsula, Etruscan is without a doubt the most fascinating. As mentioned before it is not an Indo-European language and one of the theories is that it came from a Indus Valley civilization. This claim has the strongest evidence to back it up: swastika signs on pottery from the 9th century BC.

    The Etruscan language survived for longer than any of the other languages in Italia, with the exception of Greek, because of the immense popularity of Etruscan theater as well as the might of the rural nobility who allied themselves with Rome very early on in history. The most famous prodigies of these rural Etruscan noblemen are probably Gaius Marius and Marcus Tullius Cicero, though the latter went to great lengths to hide his descent from his peers in Rome.

    That same Gaius Marius was the main adversary of Lucius Cornelius Sulla in the Civil War. Marius had most of the Etruscan (then referred to as Etrurian) nobility to support him but Sulla was backed by the more powerful Roman nobility and although he was a great general Marius was defeated and Sulla returned home victorious. As punishment for lending support to his adversary Sulla stripped the Etrurian cities of wealth and land to distribute amongs his veteran soldiers, diminishing Etruscan influence to a dangerously low level and losing much of their former prestige. This shrewd move by Sulla decisively ended their political influence.

    The last written evidence of Etruscan language fluency is by Suetonius in his book regarding the life of Emperor Claudius who wrote several books about the Etruscan history and language and so he must have either been fluent in Etruscan himself or had somebody at his disposal who was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum, Claud. 3.1, 41-42
    At last he even wrote historical works in Greek, twenty books of Etruscan History and eight of Carthaginian. Because of these works there was added to the old Museum at Alexandria a new one called after his name, and it was provided that in the one his Etruscan History should be read each year from beginning to end, and in the other his Carthaginian, by various readers in turn, in the manner of public recitations.
    After Claudius however the Etruscan language rapidly disappeared and eventually became extinct.

    Osco-Umbrian languages

    The Osco-Umbrian languages perished in a similar way. The many conflicts with Rome had eroded Oscian and Umbrian influence by the first century BC though it was hardly extinct. Many of the country folk in the Italian peninsula still spoke their native languages and dialects instead of Latin. The conflict that ended their influence is called the Social War and was fought between the old tribes of Ancient Italia and the Romans in which the Romans emerged victorious. The punishments for the rebellious tribes were exceptionally harsh, stripping entire communities of all the land they owned and demanding huge fines from city councils all over the peninsula but especially the southern regions.

    The Samnites lost nearly all their land and after a few generations their language was completely extinct. This can be attributed to several factors but especially to the lex Julia giving Roman citizenship to all Italians who did not take up arms against Rome and because of the subsequent assimilation. By the end of the first century BC Italian tribes and Romans had become a unified whole, although several tribes still clung to their native languages and refused to adopt Latin.

    The Oscian language held out the longest of all the Italian languages in the peninsula. We can verify this by looking at the writings found in Pompeii which was covered in volcanic ash in 79 AD. Several Oscian inscriptions were found in the ruins, indicating that at least until the first century AD there were still native speakers. Not long after that it's thought that Oscian as well as all the Osco-Umbrian languages were completely extinct.

    Here's a comparison of Latin and Oscian words:



    Greek

    The Greek spoken in the south of the peninsula is a strange case. Of all the indigenous languages of the first millenium BC Greek held out the longest and is even today still spoken by a minority in southern Italy. The survival is possibly due to the strong presence of Greek-speaking merchants and the relatively active Greek communities who can be traced back all the way to the original colonies of the 9th century BC and afterwards.

    One of the factors that contributed to the survival of Greek is the fascination of the Romans with Greek culture and thus their acceptance of the Greek language as an equal if not superior to Latin. Several emperors, most notably Emperor Hadrian, were fanatically obsessed with Greek as well, stimulating its use as a primary language. The really interesting question however is wether the Greek that survived is the Doric Greek that was spoken by the first settlers or if it is Byzantine Greek that was reintroduced when the Byzantine Empire reclaimed the southern regions of the Italian mainland, where the inhabitants had forgotten their native tongue and adopted Latin or a Germanic language. The evidence seems to suggest that the Doric Greek of the original settlers held its ground during the many wars, rebellions and socio-economical changes throughout the centuries.

    Sources:
    Prof. Eugeen Roegiest, Vers les sources des langues romanes. Un itinéraire linguistique ŕ travers la Romania. Acco, 2009
    Prof. Klaas Willems, Taal- en tekststructuren. Academia Press, 2010
    Wikipedia


    Once again, I thank my excellent team of writers for their continued hard work in making The Helios what it is, and your support as a receptive and interested readership.

    After reading this edition, now would be an excellent time to pay a visit to one of the other TWC publications, which can be done by clicking on either of the images below.
    Last edited by Jom; June 14, 2011 at 07:41 PM.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  3. #3
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    It is here! An awesome and very lengthy edition! Good work everyone!

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  4. #4
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Rahl View Post
    It is here! An awesome and very lengthy edition! Good work everyone!
    Sorry about the delay, but long articles mean a long time to read and edit, plus flitting back and forth between London, Edinburgh, and Paris didn't help.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  5. #5
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Oh, I'm so disappointed in you! Nah!

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  6. #6

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    The link on the front page transferred me to the last edition....needs fixing, anyone?

  7. #7
    Dominicvs's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Currently Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    643

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Well, my I love the piece on Romance Languages

  8. #8
    Narf's Avatar Reach for the Stars.
    Content Staff Magistrate

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Rigsfćllesskabet
    Posts
    11,479

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Love to you all, great job. And pats to you Jom for your graduation.
    Last edited by Narf; February 15, 2018 at 07:01 AM.

  9. #9
    Boustrophedon's Avatar Grote Smurf
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    3,158

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Great job everybody! I'll be sure to shower you all with some rep hehe! This was my first contribution to the Helios and I hope many more editions will follow!

  10. #10

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    I loved the linguistics article, very cool!
    Originally Posted by Tyer032392:
    "The problem about having troops killing soldiers is that if CA implemented that, than they will earn the ire of Jack Thompson, and that is something CA doesn't need. If anyone doesn't know who he is, google "Jack Thompson"."

  11. #11
    cpdwane's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cornwall, England
    Posts
    2,177

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Great article on the fish Insecticide, it's nice to see what I'd be getting into since Marine Biology's my likely career path for the future.

    __________"Ancient History is my Achilles' Heel"___________

  12. #12
    Katsumoto's Avatar Quae est infernum es
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,783

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Great work everyone. I enjoyed Rez's article especially; I've actually been playing through Duke Nukem Forever recently and the humour is definitely there and it does add to the atmosphere of the game. I've personally always enjoyed one-liners in games, even if they are blatantly ripped off from movies as in Duke's case.

    Keep it up.
    "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
    - John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)

  13. #13
    Incesticide's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Southampton, UK (Originally from Malta)
    Posts
    393

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Ah, it's finally here!

    Congrats to the lot of you! I particularly enjoyed the articles on the monarchy, linguistics and Bin Laden.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpdwane View Post
    Great article on the fish Insecticide, it's nice to see what I'd be getting into since Marine Biology's my likely career path for the future.
    Thanks.

    To be honest, fisheries biology is one of my most reviled areas of the topic, but it's of obvious political/economical importance (and woefully misunderstood) which is why I wrote about it. Something like deep-sea ecology on the other hand can be absolutely amazing - it's like exploring another world.
    Last edited by Incesticide; June 16, 2011 at 04:57 AM.
    Please note that I will be off to British Columbia for research purposes between the 14th July and 12th September - as such, I will not be able to log on.

    Incesticide's Music Review Thread

  14. #14
    The Noble Lord's Avatar Holy Arab Nation
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Peshawar, Pakistan - Kabul, Afghanistan
    Posts
    7,822

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Well done everyone!
    [IMG][/IMG]
    أسد العراق Asad al-Iraq
    KOSOVO IS SERBIA!!!
    Under the proud patronage of the magnificent Tzar


  15. #15
    Boustrophedon's Avatar Grote Smurf
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    3,158

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Quote Originally Posted by Italian Stallion View Post
    Well, my I love the piece on Romance Languages
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabricus View Post
    I loved the linguistics article, very cool!
    Thanks guys I was happy to write it. I wanted to go into more detail but my exams didn't leave me much free time. Next edition I might write about a specific Romance language or else about a Germanic language Cheers!

  16. #16
    Legio's Avatar EMPRESS OF ALL THINGS
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chlοëtopia
    Posts
    43,774

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Another excellent issue from the Helios team.

  17. #17
    René Artois's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    18,851

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    I know you're all sad at my absence, but don't worry i've already submitted mine for the next Helios. Actually I have alot of free time now school's over so don't be surprised if I end up submitting 4 or 5.

    Still it's good to know my 13.5 months in content submitting something for every issue has been appreciated. Yeah, cancel the above i'm tired of putting in hard work for people who take it for granted.
    Last edited by René Artois; June 18, 2011 at 06:43 AM.
    Bitter is the wind tonight,
    it stirs up the white-waved sea.
    I do not fear the coursing of the Irish sea
    by the fierce warriors of Lothlind.

  18. #18
    emotion_name's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Loved the piece by Grouchy! More to come in later editions i hope!

  19. #19

    Default Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    i really liked the one about monarchies, being copperknickers II the writer.
    I live in Panama, and I see the U.K. as a very admirable country and for me Great Britain without its queen is like a cat who likes water.

  20. #20

    Icon11 Re: Helios 59 - Je ne sais quoi

    Ehhhhhhhhhhh


    What is this?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •