Zhenzhu Khan

Zhenzhu Khan, also known as Inan (夷男) and bearing the regal title Inchü Bilge Qaghan or Zhenzhupiqie Khan (真珠毗伽可汗) in Chinese, played a pivotal role as the leader of Xueyantuo. Under his rule, Xueyantuo transitioned from a vassal state of Eastern Tujue to a dominant khanate, exerting influence over northern and central Asia. Although there were occasional tensions, particularly regarding Tang's efforts to reinstate Eastern Tujue as a vassal under Qilibi Khan Ashina Simo, these attempts were thwarted by Yi'nan's military interventions.

Yi'nan's exact birth date remains unknown, but he traced his lineage to Yiedie Khan Yishibo, the inaugural ruler of Xueyantuo within the Chile confederation, previously under the dominion of Eastern Tujue khans. During Yi'nan's initial leadership, Xueyantuo boasted a considerable population of 70,000 tents under Eastern Tujue's Jiali Khan Ashina Duobi.

By 627, discontent with Ashina Duobi's governance led to rebellions within the Chile, involving Xueyantuo, Huige, and Bayegu. Ashina Duobi's attempts to quell the uprisings failed, leading to defeats by the Huige chieftain Pusa and Xueyantuo forces. Subsequent conflicts with Eastern Tujue generals further weakened Ashina Duobi's position.

Assuming authority over former Eastern Tujue territory, Yi'nan pursued a diplomatic alignment with Tang while consolidating his state's strength. In 632, Xueyantuo successfully repelled an attack from Western Tujue's Siyehu Khan Ashina Dieli.

Facing additional challenges, Yi'nan confronted an assault by Eastern Tujue prince Ashina She'er, who sought vengeance against Xueyantuo. Despite inconclusive outcomes, the rise of a new Western Tujue khan, Ashina Tong'e, allowed Xueyantuo to counterattack and defeat Ashina She'er.

By 638, Yi'nan had fortified his position with an army exceeding 200,000 soldiers. He strategically divided command between his sons Bazhuo and Jialibi, with Bazhuo overseeing the south and Jialibi the north. Emperor Taizong, recognizing Xueyantuo's growing strength, appointed both sons as subordinate khans, employing symbolic honors to sow discord between them.

Zhenzhu Khan/ Zhenzhupiqie Khan of Xueyantuo

Gouache cm 50x27 (Original painting )

Communist Party of Burma (CPB)

   Sometimes known as the Burma Communist Party (BCP), one of the major revolutionary movements in Southeast Asia during the Cold War; it broke apart in 1989. Although communist parties were established in India, China, and Japan during the 1920s, an indigenous communist movement was established in Rangoon (Yangon) only on the eve of World War II, on August 15, 1939, by a group of Thakins, including Aung San, Hla Pe (Bo Let Ya), and Thein Pe Myint. The most important postwar communist leaders, Thakin Soe and Thakin Than Tun, did not attend the initial meeting but joined soon afterward. The first communist cell opposed British imperialism, but in July 1941 Thakins Soe and Than Tun, imprisoned at Insein Jail, issued a manifesto calling for alliance with the British against Japanese fascism. After the Japanese invasion began in December 1941, Thakins Thein Pe Myint and Tin Shwe went to India, and during the war they worked with the British Force 136 to organize underground resistance. The CPB was a founding member of the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL), and in the last months of the war, as many as 30,000 communist guerrillas fought the Japanese.



   In the postwar period, communists were divided on the issue of whether to cooperate with the largely nationalist AFPFL, led by Aung San, or begin revolutionary struggle. Thakin Soe broke with the CPB mainstream to start an insurgency in February 1946, known as the "Red Flag" Communists, in the Arakan (Rakhine) Yoma and the delta of the Irrawaddy (Ayeyarwady) River. In October of that year, the CPB was expelled from the AFPFL. On March 28, 1948,Thakin Than Tun's mainstream group, the "White Flag" Communists, began an uprising against the central government in the countryside.

   From 1948 to 1950, the communists, along with ethnic insurgents, posed a serious threat to the government of Prime Minister U Nu, but thereafter they suffered military reverses that shrank the size of their liberated areas. The White Flag Communists, based primarily in the Pegu (Bago) Yoma, were not entirely suppressed by the Tatmadaw until 1975, when communist leaders Thakins Zin and Chit were killed. The CPB's headquarters were officially moved from the Pegu Yoma to Panghsang, on the Burma-China border. During the 1960s, the communist movement was seriously weakened by Chinese Cultural Revolution-style purges designed to get rid of "revisionists"; leading communists, such as Goshal, Yebaw Htay, and Bo Yan Aung (one of the Thirty Comrades), were executed.

   A major turning point in the CPB's history was the establishment of the "Northeastern Command" along the China-Burma border in Shan State in January 1968. This was generously backed by the People's Republic of China after anti-Chinese riots broke out in Rangoon in June 1967. The CPB's People's Army, equipped with Chinese arms and advised by Chinese cadres, became the strongest insurgency opposing the Ne Win government, numbering as many as 15,000 men by the early 1980s, mostly ethnic minority soldiers, twothirds of whom were Wa. Increasingly they became involved in the opium economy in the Burma-China border area. Decreasing Chinese support during the 1980s and ethnic minority soldiers' resentment of the Burman (Bamar) communist leadership were contributing factors in the March-April 1989 mutiny that led to the retirement of chairman Thakin Ba Thein Tin and other leaders to China and the breakup of the People's Army into four new ethnic-based forces, of which the largest and most powerful was the United Wa State Army. During 1989, these forces signed cease-fires with the State Law and Order Restoration Council regime, and the history of the Communist Party of Burma was effectively over.

   Although its revolution failed, the CPB had a tremendous impact on Burmese politics. The authoritarian nature of the regime established by General Ne Win in 1962 and the Tatmadaw's monopolization of political power were justified largely in

terms of the communist threat, especially after China began giving the CPB a large amount of aid after 1967. In the 1950s and early 1960s, many university students were attracted to communism, and Ne Win suppressed them harshly. By the early 1980s, however, communist influence in central Burma was virtually nonexistent. Communism had little or no impact on the events of Democracy Summer in 1988. But the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) continued to employ the communist threat to legitimize its hard-line policies. In 1989, SLORC Secretary-1 Khin Nyunt published a lengthy tract, Burma Communist Party's Conspiracy to Take Over State Power, claiming that student oppositionists were manipulated by a communist "underground." Aung Gyi claimed that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was influenced by communist members of her National League for Democracy.

Source: Historical Dictionary of Myanmar (Burma) 

ReferenceThe Communist Party of Burma (CPB)

Sargon II

A relief from the palace of King Sargon II depicts the king and, likely, his son Sennacherib. Image credit: Charlie Phillips

(reigned ca.721-705 b.c.)

   The founder of the Assyrian Sargonid dynasty and one of the more aggressive kings of Assyria during its last and greatest phase of expansion. The manner in which Sargon acquired the throne in the wake of the death of King Shalmaneser V is still somewhat unclear. What is more certain is that Sargon was an ardent imperialist and he spent almost his entire reign attacking neighboring regions and putting down rebellions within the empire itself. One of his most important foreign campaigns took him into central Anatolia, where he defeated a people called the Mushki, led by a king named Midas, perhaps the ruler who became famous in Greek mythology for his golden touch.

   Thanks to surviving portions of Sargon's annals, including carved reliefs of his exploits, a fair amount is known about his efforts to stamp out rebels, especially in the regions bordering Urartu (Armenia). The king of Urartu, Ursa (or Rusas), had recently been stirring up insurrections among some of Assyria's vassal states. And Sargon felt compelled to put a stop to this activity by invading Urartu. In about 714 b.c. he marched his army northward into some hilly, forested territory, which is vividly described in his annals:

   I directed the line of march into the mountains. They were high mountains covered with all kinds of trees, whose surface was a jungle, whose passes were frightful, over whose area shadows stretch as in a cedar forest, the traveler of whose paths never sees the light of the Sun . . . on whose sides gorges and precipices yawn, to look at which with the eyes, inspires fear. Its road was too rough for chariots to mount, bad for horses, and too steep to march footsoldiers over. With [a] quick and keen understanding . . . I had my men carry mighty pickaxes . . . and they shattered the side of the high mountain . . . making a good road.

One of Sargon II’s “Nimrud Prisms”

 Image credit: Daderot 

Eventually the Assyrians found King Ursa and his army in a sheltered valley, where a battle ensued. Sargon was victorious, and his men chased the enemy from the field:

   I cut down their army and broke up their organization. I defeated the armies of Urartu, the wicked enemy, and their allies. ... I filled the gullies and gorges with their horses while they, like ants in distress, made their way over most difficult trails. In the heat of my terrible weapons I went up after them.

   To discourage future rebellions in the region, Sargon ordered the burning of many of its towns, fields, and forests.

   Having secured the northern flank of his empire, Sargon turned his attention to the south, where the Babylonians and the Elamites were causing trouble. Supported by Elam, a group of Babylonian rulers from the Sumerian plains in the south, near the Persian Gulf, had ousted the local Assyrian governor of Babylon and claimed its throne for themselves. In response, Sar-gon led an army against a combined force of Babylonians and Elamites near the foothills of the Zagros Mountains, but he was defeated. And one of the Babylonian usurpers, Merodach-Baladan, reigned in Babylon, in defiance of the Assyrians, for several years. In about 710 b.c., however, Sargon was able to dislodge Merodach-Baladan, who fled to Elam.

 

Although often busy fighting his enemies, Sargon managed to find the time to build a new capital city with a brand-new palace. In about 717 B.c.hebegan work on Dur-Sharukkin ("Sargon's Fortress"), later called Khorsabad, originally a virgin site about 15 miles (24 km) northeast of Nineveh. His inauguration inscription, dating from several years later, reads, "For me, Sargon, who dwells in this palace, may he [the god Ashur] decree as my destiny, eternal life." Sargon's life proved far from eternal, however, because less than a year later he died trying to put down still another rebellion. His son, Sennacherib, and other immediate successors decided to abandon Dur-Sharukkin, which was sparsely inhabited for a time but then steadily fell into ruin.

Reference:

Ancient Mesopotamia dictioary. Don Nardo Robert B. Kebric. 2015.

Wu San-kuei

Wu Sangui, a military general during Ming and Qing dynasty ,Palace Museum Archive

​WU San-kuei 吳三桂 (T. 長伯, H. 月所 ?), 1612–1678, Oct. 2, general, founder of the short-lived Kingdom of Chou 周 (1673–1681), was a native of Liaotung where his family had migrated from Kao-yu, Kiangsu. His father, Wu Hsiang 吳驤(襄), T. 雨環, (a military chin-shih of 1622, d. 1644), served the Ming House as an officer guarding the frontiers in Liaotung against the Manchus. In 1631 Tsu Ta-shou  [q. v.], whose sister was the second wife of Wu Hsiang, was beseiged at Ta-ling-ho and was later forced to surrender to the Manchus. For his failure to go to the aid of Tsu, Wu Hsiang was dismissed from the army. But volunteering in the following year to fight the rebels who were under the leadership of K'ung Yu-tê [q. v.] at Lai-chou, Shantung, he was, after several victories, reinstated and given a minor hereditary rank. Wu ​San-kuei, having become a military chü-jên, also served in this campaign in Shantung with the rank of major. When Wu Hsiang returned to Liaotung (1634) his son must have gone with him, for in 1637 Wu San-kuei is mentioned in a memorial on military defense as in command of 1, 600 soldiers. Two years later he is referred to as an acting brigade-general in charge of reservist training camps (團練總兵) and in 1640 as full brigade-general at Liaotung (遼東總兵).

In 1644, when Li Tzŭ-ch'êng [q. v.] was pressing on Peking, Emperor I-tsung (see under Chu Yu-chien) designated Wu San-kuei P'ing-hsi po 平西伯 "Earl Who Pacifies the West", and ordered him to come to the rescue of the capital. Wu Hsiang, who had retired in or before 1637, was then living in Peking and was ordered to assist in commanding the local defenders. Wu San-kuei delayed in coming to the rescue of Peking; and, having learned on the way that the city had fallen to the rebels, turned back to Shanhaikuan, perhaps to await developments. It is commonly believed that he was about to surrender to Li Tzŭ-ch'êng who was holding his father (Wu Hsiang) as a hostage. But after learning that the rebel leader had taken his favorite concubine, Ch'ên Yüan 陳沅 or Ch'ên Yüan-yüan 陳圓圓, he decided to oppose him. Li personally led an army eastward to subdue Wu, thus practically driving him into the arms of Dorgon [q. v.], the Manchu regent, who was stationed with his army not far from Shanhaikuan. Wu besought the aid of Dorgon against the rebel and, for such aid, promised him additional territory. But Dorgon preferred to take advantage of the situation to effect the conquest of China—which had been his purpose in camping near the border. Pressed from both sides, Wu chose to surrender to the Manchus, and in return was invested by Dorgon with the title, "Prince Who Pacifies the West". They met east of Shanhaikuan on May 27, 1644, and in a few days their combined forces routed Li's large army in several engagements. As Li was retreating towards Peking he had Wu Hsiang and his entire family executed. Seeing the futility of defending Peking, however, Li evacuated it on June 4, 1644, and two days later Dorgon entered. In October, after Emperor Shih-tsu and the Manchu government had been transferred to Peking, the title, "Prince Who Pacifies the West", which had been conferred an Wu, was finally confirmed. At this time a message came from Chu Yu-sung [q. v.], the Ming prince at Nanking, conferring on Wu San-kuei the rank of Duke of Chi (薊國公), but Wu declined it.

For nearly thirty years Wu San-kuei fought for the cause of the Manchus and served them as an official. In 1644 he accompanied Ajige  [q. v.] in pursuit of Li Tzŭ-ch'êng to Shensi, Honan, and finally to Hupeh. After Li's death Ajige and Wu sailed down the Yangtze River to Kiangsi and returned to Peking in September 1645. For his share in these exploits, Wu was granted the title of Ch'in-wang 親王 or prince of the blood of the first degree, and was ordered to station his soldiers at Chinchow. However, not long after he arrived at the garrison post, he asked to be relieved of the title, Ch'in-wang, and his request was granted. 

Fall of the Chinese Ming Dynasty: General Wu Sangui opened the gates of the Great Wall of China at Shanhai Pass to let Qing Manchu forces into China proper. Source: Pinterest 

Source: Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, volume 2

Antrahasis

An epic poem originally dating from Mesopotamia's Sumerian period (the second millennium b.c.) and perpetuated by the Babylonians and other peoples who later dwelled in the region. The most complete written copy, made by a Babylonian scribe, dates from circa 1700 to 1650 b.c. A fragment, representing about a fifth of the work, was discovered in 1876; more came to light in 1965, and about 80 percent of the original has now been recovered. one of the most important of the Mesopotamian creation stories, the tale of Atrahasis also provides biblical scholars with a link between the ancient Mesopota-mian and Hebrew cultures, as the story of Noah and the flood from the book of Genesis is clearly based on the Atrahasis.

   According to legend, Atrahasis was the pious king of the Sumerian city of Shuruppak, lying northwest of the Persian Gulf. He was forced to deal with a series of epic, dramatic events when the powerful storm god, Enlil, decided to destroy the human race because he felt that people had become too noisy and annoying. As his instrument of destruction, Enlil chose a great flood. However, Ea, god of wisdom and freshwater, felt bad for the humans. Behind Enlil's back, Ea went to Atrahasis and warned him of the coming deluge. The god told the man to dismantle his house, use the materials to build a big boat, and try to save as many plant and animal species as possible by loading them onto the ark. "I loaded her with everything there was," Atrahasis later recalled. "I loaded her with all the seeds of living things, all of them. I put on board the boat all my kith and kin. I put on board the cattle from open country and all kinds of craftsmen." Then the floods came and covered the land far and wide, drowning all those humans and animals that were not in Atrahasis's boat. Finally, on the seventh day, the storm subsided and Atra-hasis looked out at the ruined world. "Silence reigned, for all of humanity had returned to clay," he says.

   The flood-plain was as flat as a roof. I opened a porthole and light fell on my cheeks. . . . Tears ran down my cheeks. . . . The boat had come to rest on [the top of] Mount Nimush. . . . When the seventh day arrived, I put out and released a dove. The dove went; it came back, for no perching place was visible to it, and it turned around. [Later] I put out and released a raven. The raven went and saw the waters receding. And it ate . . . and did not turn round. Then I put all [on board the ark] out to the four winds [i.e., in all directions] and I made a sacrifice [to the gods].

   After the catastrophe, some gods were glad that humanity had survived, but Enlil was upset that Ea had interfered in his plans to destroy the human race. Fortunately for Atrahasis and his family, the tactful Ea convinced Enlil that saving humanity was a good thing. Enlil decided to commemorate the event by giving Atrahasis and his wife - but no other humans - the gift of immortality.

Figure 2: The location of Babylonia made it vulnerable to floods from the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

The oldest known copy of the epic of Atrahasis can be dated by its scribal identification to the reign of Hammurabi's great-grandson, Ammi-Saduqa (1646–1626 B.C.E.), but also various Old Babylonian fragments exist. The story continued to be copied into the first millennium B.C.E. The Atrahasis story also exists in a later fragmentary Assyrian version, the first one having been discovered in the library of Ashurbanipal.

In 1965, W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard published additional texts belonging to the epic written around 1650 B.C.E. which constitute our most complete surviving recension of the tale. These texts greatly increased knowledge of the epic and served as the foundation for the first English translation of the full Atrahasis epic, by Lambert and Millard in 1969. A further fragment has been recovered in archaeological work at the Mesopotamian city of Ugarit.

Figure 3: Cuneiform tablet with the Atra-Hasis epic in the British Museum / Wikimedia Commons

Jayakarta/Batavia

Image of Batavia, capital of the Dutch East Indies in what is now North Jakarta, circa 1780

Note: Article Extracted from the Catholic Encyclopedia 

When the Portuguese took possession of the island of Java, of which Batavia is the capital, they brought the Christian religion with them; but the Dutch, having conquered Java in 1596, set about the destruction of Catholicism. Nevertheless, the memory has been preserved of a Friar Minor who was expelled from Batavia in 1721, and attempted to continue his apostolic labours in China. It was with difficulty that a priest could enter Java, and, if recognized, he was hunted out. When in 1807 Louis Napoleon became King of Holland, Pius VII divided all the Dutch territory outside of Europe into three prefectures, two in the West Indies and the third, with Batavia for its seat, in the East Indies. At this period the Dutch missionaries James Nelissen and Lambert Preffen set out for the Sunda Islands, and reached Batavia, 4 April, 1808. The Government gave them at first a ruinous Calvinist place of worship, and then added to this act of generosity sufficiently to enable them to erect a church, which was blessed, under the title of Our Lady of the Assumption, 6 November, 1829. Nelissen died 6 December, 1817, and Preffen succeeded him in this prefecture.

Jakarta Neo-Gothic style "The Church of Our Lady of the Assumption" Cathedral in the afternoon. One of the most beautiful historical building in Jakarta.

On the 20th of September, 1842, Gregory XVI (see Pope Gregory XVI) raised the Prefecture of Batavia to a vicariate Apostolic, and Monsignor Groof, titular Bishop of Canea, and previously prefect Apostolic of Surinam, became the first vicar Apostolic. A coadjutor was given him, 4 June, 1847, in Monseigneur Pierre-Marie Vrancken, titular Bishop of Colophon, who succeeded him in 1852. The Dutch Government, however, did not leave the first missionaries in peace, and Monsignor Groof, together with Father Van den Brand, a missionary priest, was expelled. Monsignor Vrancken died in 1874, and Pius IX then entrusted the mission of Batavia to the Dutch Jesuits. The first Jesuit vicar Apostolic was Monsignor Claessens (1874-93), who was succeeded by Monsignor Staal (1894-97) and Monsignor Luypen, the present (1907) incumbent of the office. The Jesuits energetically set about the development of the mission, which then comprised the islands of Java, Sumatra, Borneo, the Sunda group, Timor, the Celebes, and the Moluccas.

Father's Day

The idea of setting aside a day especially for fathers was at least partially inspired by the success of MOTHER'S DAY, established in 1914. Sonora Smart Dodd from Spokane, Washington, was listening to a Mother's Day sermon in church and decided that the nation's fathers deserved a similar day of recognition. One of six children raised by her father after her mother's death in 1898, Dodd began working through Protestant churches and local groups in Spokane to promote the holiday. She circulated a petition suggesting the third Sunday in June as an appropriate time and urging people to wear a ROSE that day in honor of their fathers.

Because the petition was originally circulated among ministers and church organizations, the earliest observances took place in churches and modeled themselves on Mother's Day rituals. Father's Day was also seen as a good opportunity to underscore the "masculine" side of Christianity and to remind fathers of their obligation to look after their families' spiritual welfare.

Dodd formed a committee to promote the new celebration by getting political endorsements, answering inquiries from around the country, and staging local celebrations, but the idea was slow to catch on. By the 1920s Father's Day had more or less died out as a local event, and Dodd herself moved on to other projects. But after studying at the Art Institute of Chicago and working as a fashion designer in Hollywood, she returned to Spokane in the early 1930s and resumed her campaign, focusing on the holiday's 25th anniversary observance in 1935. This time she had more success, and Father's Day enjoyed a resurgence-at least in eastern Washington.

The rest of the country, however, regarded it as just another excuse for a holiday. What did fathers want with sentimental gifts and greeting cards? But then the Associated Men's Wear Retailers of New York City took up the cause, recognizing its commercial potential. They set up the National Council for the Promotion of Father's Day in 1938. The council coordinated the efforts of florists, tobacconists, stationers, and men's clothiers across the country to promote Father's Day. "Give Dad Something to Wear" was its slogan, and its goal was to boost sales by increasing the demand for Father's Day gifts.

President Calvin Coolidge had recommended that Father's Day become a nationwide observance as early as 1924. But it wasn't until 1972 that President Richard Nixon signed a proclamation to that effect. By the time Dodd died in 1978 at the age of 96, the Father's Day Council estimated the holiday to be worth more than $1 billion in retail sales.

SYMBOLS AND CUSTOMS

Necktie

What Mother's Day did for the florist industry, Father's Day did for the necktie industry. Along with tobacco, shirts, and other typically masculine gifts, neckties appeared on the earliest Father's Day greeting cards, and retailers wasted no time in turning the holiday to their advantage. Knowing that many people regarded Father's Day gifts as a joke, they designed ads showing fathers surrounded by ridiculous or tacky gifts, and then suggested the purchase of a classic silk necktie or pair of socks. Although their ploys were not difficult to see through, such advertising campaigns made it increasingly difficult to ignore Father's Day altogether.

As early as 1920 the custom of giving ties to fathers as a token of affection had already become a standing joke. The women who chose them often showed questionable taste. But the thought of giving flowers was even more laughable, and at least neckties were a more masculine, less sentimental gift. Along with socks, pipes, cigars, and shirts, neckties have somehow managed to retain their standing as the classic Father's Day gift.

Rose

Just as the carnation became a symbol for MOTHER'S DAY, the rose was suggested as the official Father's Day flower by Sonora Dodd in her 1910 petition to the Spokane Ministerial Association. It would be appropriate, she thought, if people wore a white rose in remembrance of a father who had died and a red rose as a tribute to a living father. Although more than sixty years passed before the holiday was officially established, the rose never encountered any real competition as the symbolic flower of Father's Day.

FURTHER READING

Henderson, Helene, ed. Holidays, Festivals, and Celebrations of the World Dictionary. 3rd ed. Detroit: Omnigraphics, 2005. Ickis, Marguerite. The Book of Religious Holidays and Celebrations. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1966. Schmidt, Leigh Eric. Consumer Rites: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.

Armenian Christianity

The nature and characteristics of the paganism which preceded Christianity in Armenia are practically unknown to us. Attempts have been made to identify its gods with those of Greece, but all we know are the names and the sanctuaries of its pagan deities. Obscurity likewise shrouds the beginnings of Christianity in the country. Native historians of a rather late period would have us believe that several of the Apostles preached in Armenia, and that some of them, as St. Bartholomew and St. Thaddeus, died there. A popular legend ascribes to the latter the evangelizing of the land. Although the very ancient writers of the country, such as Korioun, Agathangelus, etc., do not even mention the name of Thaddeus, yet the legend, which apparently came at a late period from a Greek source, has so prevailed that even today the head of the Armenian Church claims to be occupying the "throne of St. Thaddeus". Although legendary, this tradition witnesses that Christianity at a rather early date passed from Syria over into Armenia. The letter of Meruzan to Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 248-265) confirms us in the belief that Christianity had already penetrated into Armenia before the time of St. Gregory the Illuminator. However, it is around St. Gregory that the story of Christianity's growth in Armenia centers; for in him Armenia had its apostle. Born of the royal stock of the Arsacides, and brought in early infancy to Cesarea of Cappadocia because of a Persian persecution of the Armenians, he was there instructed in the Christian Faith.

After its inclusion in the two world empires of the day, the Armenian kingly line in the Byzantine (western) territories of Armenia was suppressed first, followed by the forced ending of the kingly line in the Persian territories in 428. Since that time Armenia has been the subject of a long line of subjugations: to the Persians,

Arabs, Turks, and most recently the Russians. The first three overlords had no regard for the Christian traditions of the people, and the last had little desire for any cultural independence or (in communist period) for any religious renaissance. The religious literary and political aspirations of the Armenians have been sustained through long centuries of endurance in extraordinary ways. In the 20th century this involved the survival of genocide under Turkish rule (1915­-22) and political suffocation under the Soviets. The reestablishment of a free political base in the modern Republic of Armenia (much diminished in territorial size from Antiquity) and the well-developed Armenian diaspora in the United States have proven to be bright lights in the turn of Armenian fortunes in modern times.

Among many outstanding Armenian Christian leaders throughout the ages must be counted St. Nerses (d. 373),

who was the sixth catholicos and a direct descendant of St. Gregory. He was educated in Cappadocian Caesarea and served at the royal Armenian court before becoming a priest after the death of his wife. After his election as catholicos ca. 363, he initiated a large-scale reform of the church; issuing many canons after the Council of Ashtishat in 365,concerning fasting regulations, and the forbidding of marriages in kindred degrees. His stand against the Arians, the resistance of many of the court nobles to the spread of Christianity, and the use of monastics in the evangelization process,are described in the 5th-century historical writings of P’awstos Buzand. Nerses founded hospitals and orphanages set under church supervision. King Arshak III deposed him after being the focus of Nerses’ criticism for a dissolute life. His successor King Pap restored him in 369, but in turn decided to dispose of him when he too was criticized for immorality; which he did by the expedient of poisoning Nerses during a banquet. He was succeeded by his son,St. Isaac (Sahak) the Great, who was catholicos between ca. 397 and 438 and who was the last descendant of the bloodline of Gregory the Illuminator. It was during the reign of Pap that Armenia first stopped seeking the recognition of the metropolitans of Cappadocian Caesarea for the appointment of its catholicoi, and thus assumed an autonomous ecclesiastical existence.

St. Mesrob Mashtots (ca. 361­-439) was for a long time the assistant bishop to St. Isaac and became the locum tenens after his death, for six months before his own death. He invented the distinctive national Armenian script, which was widely adopted after 406, as part of his lifelong concern to remove Syrian dependence in Armenian church life and establish national traditions and styles. From the 5th century onwards there was a large effort led by St. Mesrob and his disciples to translate Christian literature from other cultures into it, chief among which were the translations of the Bible in 410 (using Syriac manuscripts and later Greek exemplars) as well as key liturgical texts. In patristic times many of the church’s writings were translated into Armenian, and as a result some theological texts now survive only in the Armenian versions that were made in Antiquity.

Important examples of this are the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching of St. Irenaeus and several of the opera of St. Ephrem the Syrian. Armenia first entered international Christian debate in the time of Mesrob, whose disciples had been to Melitene to study Greek, and who were well aware that the city’s bishop,

Acacius of Melitene, had written in the strongest terms after the Ephesine council of 431 to protest the Constantinopolitan and Alexandrian denigration of the works of Mar Theodore Mopsuestia, a leading light of the Syrian Church. 

Proclos, patriarch of Constantinople 434­-46, wrote a Tome to the Armenians which became an important standard of christological orthodoxy in Armenia and was long used afterwards as a significant reason to negate the influence of Chalcedon.

Because of the political unrest in the country during a rebellion of 451, there were no Armenian representatives at the Council of Chalcedon, though the Armenian Church authorities were kept apprized of developments and approved the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno at the Council of Dvin in 506. In 518 the Byzantine Church condemned the Henoticon, but it was not until 555, two years after Justinian’s revisionist christological council, that the Armenian hierarchy decided that it would not endorse Chalcedon as a significant,

ecumenical synod, nor adopt the “twonature after the Union” theology which it had proposed as a standard. At that time the Armenian synod issued a censure of the Byzantine Church, explicitly condemning the theological errors of “both poles” of the debate: namely, Severus of Antioch,

and Eutyches, on the one hand, and Theodore Mopsuestia, Nestorius, and the Council of Chalcedon, on the other. Since that time Armenian Christianity has often been categorized by commentators in the Byzantine Orthodox tradition as among the “Oriental Orthodox” anti-Chalcedonians,

or “Monophysites,” but this is a misleading oversimplification on both fronts. The formal christological position of the church is to endorse the Christology of the first three ecumenical councils, prioritizing St. Cyril of Alexandria’s early formula:

“One Physis of the Word of God Incarnate” (Miaphysitism, which meant in Cyril’s hands “One concrete reality of the Incarnate Word of God,” not so much an endorsement of a “singularity of nature” which is often meant by the later term “Monophysitism”).

Seventh-century Byzantine emperors tried to reconcile the ecclesiastical division with Armenia, but their efforts were hindered by the Arab Islamic overrunning of the regions after the late 8th century. The ecumenical moves to rapprochement from this time are described in a very important Armenian Church history known as the Narratio de rebus Armeniae (Garitte 1952).

What is Aramaic Primacy?

photo:Manuscript on parchment of the book is Peshitta: Syrian Aramaic translation of the Bible. 

 The term Aramaic Primacy is used, informally, to refer to the claim that the New Testament was originally written not in Koine Greek but in a dialect of Aramaic. This theory is more commonly referred to as “Peshitta Primacy,” referring to the ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the Bible, a collection known as the Peshitta. The Aramaic Primacy Theory is drastically different from the consensus of historians and New Testament scholars, who hold that the original works of the New Testament were in fact written in Greek. A large number of researchers suggest that the Gospels of Mark and Matthew may have drawn from earlier Aramaic sources, but the claims of Aramaic Primacy go far beyond this.

Certain denominations hold to Aramaic Primacy as an article of faith, such as the Assyrian Church of the East. George Lamsa, a proponent of the Nestorian heresy, was instrumental in advancing the view that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. As with other views running contrary to general scholarship, Aramaic/Peshitta Primacy is primarily supported by the work of a single author, in this case, Lamsa. Both contemporaries of Lamsa and later scholars have concluded he frequently confused then-modern Syriac with ancient Aramaic, two languages that are extremely similar. More problematic is Lamsa’s translation of the Bible from the Aramaic, published in full in 1957. His translation work is inaccurate and filled with subtle changes to the text that undermine the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ, among others.

Textual scholars have examined the Peshitta and found clear evidence of influence from later translations. The dialect used in the Peshitta is from a later time period than that of Jesus and His disciples. The Peshitta utilizes phrases that obscure wordplay and metaphor; this is expected of a translation but not an original autograph. The massive number of biblical manuscripts available makes it possible to recognize variations, translation choices, and so forth, over time and geography. In other words, all available evidence points to the Peshitta’s being a later translation, not an original manuscript. Peshitta Primacy, or Aramaic Primacy, is not supported by evidence or scholarship. Despite the traditional view of Syriac churches, certain segments of Messianic Judaism, and the Hebrew Roots Movement, the New Testament was not originally written in Aramaic.

Cyprus Problem

Half a century after Cyprus’ independence from Great Britain in 1960, the Cyprus question is still unresolved. The island remains divided between the internationally recognized Greek-Cypriot Republic of Cyprus and the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus where 40,000 Turkish troops are stationed, since Turkey’s invasion in the summer of 1974. Cyprus became an Ottoman dominion in 1571 and passed to Great Britain with the Congress of Berlin in 1878, in exchange for London’s help in annulling the San Stefano Treaty and keeping Macedonia in Ottoman hands. Under the British, Greek-Cypriots prospered but remained committed to the unification with Greece, following the example of Crete.

In 1931 Greek-Cypriots revolted but were left unaided by Greece, which was recovering from the Asia Minor catastrophe and did not want to upset its relationship with Britain at a time of rising Italian revisionism in the Mediterranean. The British easily suppressed the revolt, exiled Greek-Cypriot leaders, and marginalized the bourgeois nationalists, leaving the church as the main political representative of the Greek-Cypriot community. Following World War II, against a rising communist party, the church, headed by the newly appointed, young, ambitious, and charismatic Archbishop Makarios, seized the leadership of the anticolonial struggle. With Greek public opinion on Makarios’ side, the Greek government, after much initial hesitation, brought the matter to the United Nations General Assembly in 1954, where the Greek position was soundly defeated, having failed to secure the support of the United States. Makarios turned to Georgios Grivas, a military officer with strong nationalist and anticommunist views, who organized the National Organization of Cypriot Fighters (NOCF; Ethniki Organosi Kyprion Agoniston, EOKA) to fight the British. NOCF/EOKA’s campaign started in April 1955 and was met with violence by the British and the increasingly assertive Turkish-Cypriots. Makarios was exiled  to the Seychelles but it was evident that British rule was coming to  an end.  The United States pressed for a diplomatic solution as the unrest threatened the unity of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization  (NATO) and the Western alliance in the crucial area of the eastern  Mediterranean, where the Soviet Union began antagonizing Western interests through the support of Arab nationalism. However, the  Greek-Cypriots failed to secure their primary goal of Cyprus’ unification with Greece. Faced with the unyielding opposition of Turkey  and the Turkish-Cypriots, British manipulation, and Greece’s foreign dependence and military weakness, a compromise was reached  among the governments of Britain, Greece, and Turkey first in Zurich  and then in London that, in 1960, granted Cyprus its independence,  guaranteed by the three countries, and provided enhanced political  rights to the Turkish-Cypriots.

A street riot in Nicosia during the Battle at Nicosia Hospital in 1956

Makarios was elected president of the new Republic of Cyprus but was forced to share power with his Turkish-Cypriot vice president. Amid rising frustration among many Greek-Cypriots and against the advice of the Greek government, in November 1963, Makarios suggested a constitutional revision to curtail the rights of the Turkish-Cypriots. In protest, the latter withdrew from all of the republic’s institutions and isolated themselves in limited ethnic enclaves protected, after 1964, by a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force. Twice provoked by attrocities against TurkishCypriots, Turkey threatened to invade but was restrained by the United States--first in 1964 and then in 1967. Makarios’ relations with Athens deteriorated, especially after the coup in 1967, and Washington was openly hostile to his leadership. In July 1974, the Greek junta overthrew Makarios but failed to assassinate him. This gave Turkey a good enough reason to realize what was long in the planning, a full-scale invasion of the island to secure its geostrategic interests and protect the Turkish-Cypriot community. Cyprus was violently divided, with Turkish-Cypriots remaining in the northern 36 percent of the island and the Greek-Cypriots being pushed to the southern and less developed part of the island. The international community did not recognize the partition of the island although it failed to effectively confront Turkey.

Since 1974, the Greek-Cypriot south has prospered, taking advantage of a liberal economic regime and the devastation caused by a civil war in neighboring Lebanon. More recently, the tables have turned as the Republic of Cyprus became a member of the European Union (EU) in 2004, and thus acquired a veto in Turkey’s relations with the EU. Apart from the cost to lives and properties, the size of the collateral damage to Greece and Hellenism caused by the conflict over Cyprus is difficult to underestimate. As a result, the remaining Greek communities of Turkey, especially the prosperous Istanbul (Constantinople) Greeks, were uprooted. Greece redirected valuable resources to its defense against the Turkish threat, and Greek public opinion was radicalized in ways that remain relevant to the present day. Cyprus seriously complicated the postwar efforts at domestic modernization of Greece, destroyed the Greek­Turkish friendship, and poisoned Greece’s relations with its Western allies, especially the United States. The dispute gave rise to a new age of anticolonial nationalism and enhanced the electoral appeal of nationalists and populists alike, especially on the Greek left. Even the preeminent postwar Greek leader Konstantinos Karamanlis, who signed the Zurich­London compromise in an effort to put Cyprus behind and refocus on Greece’s domestic development, saw his pre-junta administration suffer because of his reluctance to play the nationalist and anti-Western card.

Reference:

1.UK's murky role in Cyprus crisis, By Jolyon Jenkins, BBC Radio 4's Document

2.History of Cyprus from 1878 to the present.

3.Operation Atilla

Source

1.1974 coup d'état

2.Letter by the President of the Republic, Mr Tassos Papadopoulos, to the U.N. Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, dated June 7, which circulated as an official document of the U.N. Security Council

Sanballat

Sanaballetes). A Horonite.

Darius III’s satrap in Samaria (JosAJ 11.302), Sanballat was already an old man at the time of Alexander’s invasion (JosAJ 11.311). He was the father of Nicaso and father-in-law of Manasses, the brother of the high priest of Jerusalem, Iaddus (JosAJ 11.302–3; but Nehemiah 13:28 says that Sanballat’s son-in-law was son of the high priest Eliashib and grandson of Jehoiada).666 The mixed marriage was frowned upon and Sanballat planned to make Manasses high priest of a new temple he was to found on Mount Gerizim (JosAJ 11.310).

But the war between Alexander and Darius intervened, and after the battle of Issus Sanballat abandoned Darius and brought 8,000 men to Alexander at Tyre (JosAJ 11.321), thus retaining his position and gaining permission for the construction of the temple on Mount Gerizim. At this point the classical sources speak of the appointment of Andromachus in CoeleSyria, presumably as strategos (C 4.5.9).

Sanballat died before Alexander had completed the siege of Gaza (JosAJ 11.322–5).

The remainder of Josephus’ story, which has Alexander coming to Jerusalem and revering the Hebrew god, is dismissed by many scholars as fiction (Bickerman 1988: 5).667 244 The value of the details of Sanballat’s administration of Samaria and submission to Alexander is also uncertain (cf. Briant 1048).

Berve ii.349 no. 695.

Chalcolithic period

The development of Mesopotamia in the 7th–5th millennium BC was centered around the Hassuna culture in the north, the Halaf culture in the northwest, the Samarra culture in central Mesopotamia and the Ubaid culture in the southeast, which later expanded to encompass the whole region.

An archaeological period (literally “copper-stone” age) that refers to increased use of metallurgy, especially of copper, toward the end of the Neolithic period. In Mesopotamia, the Chalcolithic period lasted approximately from the sixth to the fifth millennia B.C. Pilot sites are Tepe Gawra and Tell Arpachiya in the north, and Eridu and Tell Awayli in the south. For southern sites, the term Ubaid period is also used, and for the north, Halaf period. In this phase, all the achievements of the preceding period were further developed; horticulture and agriculture spread, and more and more people adopted a sedentary lifestyle. The archaeological evidence points to increased settlement size, increased specialization and professionalization, and higher labor inputs. All ecological niches and their wild resources (fish, water fowl, game, wild legumes) were exploited, and new cultigens were planted in fields and gardens, making use of hydro-technological inventions such as field irrigation.

Female statuette, Samarra culture, 6000 BC

The Chalcolithic period also saw the introduction of fundamentally new technologies. Particularly striking is the hand-painted, sometimes glazed potteryshowing an unparalleled degree of perfection. Pottery sets, found in many graves, were probably used in rituals and banquets where status could be displayed. Metallurgy was less developed in Mesopotamia than in neighboring countries such as Iran. Gold was introduced, and arsenic bronze appeared in the upper Euphrates region in the Ubaid period. There is some evidence from Tell Awayli of a weaving loom.

   Stone was also worked with more sophistication; it was now possible to work stones with a hardness of 4 to 7 on the Moh’s hardness scale. The presence of exotic stones, such as lapis-lazuli from Badakhshan or turquoise from Central Asia, points to an interlinking supply system. Exchange of goods seems to have been an important factor of Chalcolithic socioeconomics, as was the practice of seals and sealing documents. Some scholars propose that Chalcolithic communities were on the way to forming states (“incipient statehood”), given the whole-scale application of traditional inventions, efforts at maximizing energy output, and increasing full-time sedentarization.

Family Society in Mesopotamia

The basic constituent of Mesopotamian society was the patriarchal family. Administrative documents from the major sites recorded people’s names and affiliation, but it is still difficult to get a clear picture of the family sizes and patterns of residence at any given period.

   From the archaeological record, it appears that extended families encompassing several generations and more than one couple with children were common in later prehistoric periods . This can be deducted by the size of habitations, the number of fireplaces, and the number of individuals buried beneath the floor of houses. Such extended families formed productive units, pooling their labor and sharing resources. On the other hand, nuclear families, consisting of a couple with their (young) children, also existed, especially within larger groupings. There is no doubt that the several forms of family organization developed early, in response to different subsistence activities and social configurations. They persisted into later, historical periods. There is evidence from the Early Dynastic period that large households (oikos) were common , which included not only the members of the family but also servants and slaves . They could generate substantial revenues from enterprise, both commercial and agricultural. The land held by such a household could only be sold if all the male adults agreed, as sale contracts from the Akkad period document.

   The large state organizations  and the temples employed people of all ages and genders. Women and their children would work together in the manufactories of the Third Dynasty of Ur, for instance, producing textiles. Small family units could work on plots assigned to them by these organizations for a fixed percentage of the harvest. When a family experienced crop failures and could not meet their obligations, they had to take loans of silver or grain at often usurious rates. If the loans could not be paid either, the head of the family could pledge his own labor, and that of any of his children or his wife, or, in a more desperate move, sell them into slavery to raise capital. Excavations at Nippur have shown how in the Old Babylonian period wealthy, professional families lived in spacious houses, with domestic slaves, which in later, more difficult times were partitioned and occupied by poorer, more numerous families. In the Neo-Babylonian period, family firms, such as the Murashu or the Egibi, could conduct lucrative banking and investment business that continued for several generations. Such a practice can also be observed in the early second-millennium import-export family businesses at Assur.

   Some literary texts as well as proverbs allow some insights into the emotional comfort of family life. In the Old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh epic, the “innkeeper” Siduri advises the hero to seek solace in the embrace of his wife and delight in the presence of his children. The 12th tablet of the epic describes the unhappy fate of the dead who have no children to offer libations for them, and it praises the lucky father of many sons who has an exalted position in the netherworld. Proverbs warn of the disruptive presence of pretty slave girls in the house and admonish the young to show respect for their elders.

References:Family

koban

Dutch East India Company coin. Gold Koban coin, Japan, countermarked for use in Indonesia. Dated 17th Century. (Photo by: Photo 12/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

The koban gold coin (not to be confused with koban meaning police box) was an Edo Period Japanese flat, thinly beaten coin, oval in shape.

The gold koban were produced from metal mined from Sado Gold Mine on Sado Island and each koban was equal in value to one ryo, which in turn was equal to three koku of rice – a koku being the estimation of rice needed to feed one person for one year (about 150kg).

The Tokugawa currency gradually became debased over the centuries leading to inflation, which was one of the reasons the Tokugawa regime was in deep financial trouble by the time Commodore Perry arrived in 1853. The koban was replaced in the Meiji Period with the Yen based on Western standards.

Koban at Sado Gold Museum, Aikawa

Mythological Origins of Japan

The literature of Shinto employs much mythology to describe the supposed historical origins of Japan. According to the creation story found in the Kojiki (Record of Ancient Matters, dating from A.D. 712) and the Nihongi or Nihon shoki (Chronicle of Japan, from A.D. 720), the Japanese islands were created by the gods, two of whom--the male Izanagi and the female Izanami--descended from heaven to carry out the task. They also brought into being other kami (deities or supernatural forces), such as those influencing the sea, rivers, wind, woods, and mountains. Two of these deities, the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu Omikami, and her brother, the Storm God, Susano-o, warred against each other, with Amaterasu emerging victorious.

Subsequently Amaterasu sent her grandson, Ninigi, to rule over the sacred islands. Ninigi took with him what became the three imperial regalia--a curved jewel (magatama), a mirror, and a "sword of gathered clouds"--and ruled over the island of Kyushu. Ninigi's great-grandson, Jimmu, recognized as the first human emperor of Japan, set out to conquer Yamato. On the main island of Honshu, according to tradition he established the unbroken line of imperial descent from the Sun Goddess and founded the Land of the Rising Sun in 660 B.C.

Source:U.S. Library of Congress

Oda Nabunaga

Oda Nobunaga was the first of the great Three Unifiers who rose to power in the late Sengoku Period, uniting much of Japan under his rule, and setting the stage for the eventual end of the wars and chaos which had dominated the archipelago for more than 100 years.

Nobunaga is known for numerous military, political, economic, and cultural activities, accomplishments and innovations, including his innovative use of firearms and victory at the battle of Nagashino in 1575; his abolition of guilds and customs barriers, leading to significant economic integration; and the construction of Azuchi castle, the model for Japanese castles in the mode most well-known today.

His death in 1582 in the Honnoji Incident led to his retainer Toyotomi Hideyoshi rising to power as hegemon over the archipelago.

son of Oda Nobuhide (1508? –1549), a minor lord whose family once served the Shiba  shugo. Nobuhide was a skilled warrior, and spent much of his time fighting the samurai of Mikawa and Mino. He also had enemies closer to home - the Oda were divided into two separate camps, with both vying for control of Owari's eight districts. Nobuhide's branch, of which he was one of three elders, was based at Kiyosu castle. The rival branch was to the north, in Iwakura castle.

Many of Nobuhide's battles were fought in Mikawa, against the Matsudaira and the Imagawa clan. The latter were old and prestigious, rulers of Suruga and overlords of Totomi. The Matsudaira were as obscure as the Oda, and while not as splintered politically, they were slowly coming under the Imagawa's influence. The decade leading up to 1548 was dominated along the Mikawa-Owari border by the contention of three men - Oda Nobuhide, Matsudaira Hirotada, and Imagawa Yoshimoto. In 1542, Imagawa, supported by the Matsudaira, marched as far west as the Owari border, and was met by Oda Nobuhide and his younger brother Tsuda Nobumitsu at Azukizaka. In this bitter fight, the Oda emerged victorious, but not decisively. In 1548 Nobuhide attempted to arrange the defection of a certain Matsudaira Tadamoto of Mikawa away from Hirotada. Tadamoto, however, ended up being killed in the attempt, and Oda launched an attack on Okazaki, evidently to make up for the disappointment. Matsudaira Hirotada thus found himself in difficult straights, and called on Imagawa for assistance. Yoshimoto replied that he would be happy to help - so long as Hirotada was willing to send along his young son as a hostage. Hirotada had little choice, and shipped off 6-year old Takechiyo (the future Tokugawa Ieyasu) westward. En-route to Suruga, unfortunately, Oda loyalists intercepted the hostage party and made off with Takechiyo, taking the child to Nobuhide. Nobuhide immediately made use of his new card and demanded that Hirotada give up Okazaki in return for his son's life. Hirotada wisely refused, and Nobuhide, his bluff called, did no harm to the boy. Later in 1548, Imagawa and Oda met again in battle, and this time the Imagawa came out the winner. The following year Nobuhide died, leaving an Oda clan divided in every possible way.

Anxious to capitalize on the death of his rival, Imagawa Yoshimoto sent his uncle, the talented monk-general Sessai Choro, to attack Nobuhide's heir, Nobuhiro. Sessai besieged Nobuhiro in Anjo castle, and sent word to Nobunaga that unless he wished to see his elder brother made to commit suicide, he would have to send back Takechiyo. Nobunaga could hardly refuse, and so Takechiyo ended up in Suruga, even though his father Hirotada had passed away that same year.

The progress of the next three years is hazy. By 1551, however, Nobunaga was the leader of his faction of the Oda and master of Kiyosu. His principal enemy (beyond his own family) was his father's nemesis, the Imagawa. Nobunaga's northern borders (not counting the area of Mino controlled by the Iwakura Oda) were more or less secured, at least: before his death, Nobuhide had arranged for the marriage of Nobunaga to Saito Dosan's daughter. Saito Toshimasa  (Dosan) (1494-1556) was a colorful figure, a former oil-merchant (if tradition is to be believed) who supplanted the Toki family of Mino.

As just noted, Saito Yoshitatsu was the new lord of Mino, having killed Dosan at the Battle of Nagaragawa (1556), and he was no friend to the Oda. The Oda's forts in Mino were quickly reduced, and Nobunaga's attempts to make in-roads in that province were turned back. At the same time, Imagawa Yoshimoto was knocking on Owari's southeastern door, having all but absorbed Mikawa and the Matsudaira clan. Imagawa's army had lost some of it's potency with the death of Sessai Choro in 1555 but Yoshimoto could call on the services of a young and skillful ally – Matsudaira Motoyasu, a man whose fate would prove inter-twined with that of Nobunaga. In 1558, Motoyasu fought his first battle - at Nobunaga's expense. Oda had recently bribed Terabe castle away from the Matsudaira, and Motoyasu, with the Imagawa's blessing, took it back, defeating a relief force sent by Nobunaga. The next year, Imagawa did a little horse-trading of his own, and lured Otaka castle away from the Oda. Nobunaga was furious, and had the fort surrounded. Soon, the garrison began to run out of food, and to lead a relief effort, Imagawa sent Matsudaira Motoyasu. Using a crafty bit of diversion, Motoyasu successfully provisioned Otaka - much to Nobunaga's chagrin.

Okehazama, 1560

The following year, 1560, Imagawa Yoshimoto  decided to make a decisive move to the west. His aim was to drive along the Tokaido coast, brushing aside the Oda and any who did not submit to the Imagawa army with the ultimate goal of occupying Kyoto. To this end Yoshimoto gathered perhaps 20,000 to 25,000 men from Suruga, Totomi, and Mikawa in June, leaving his son Ujizane to run things while he was off conquering. He included Matsudaira Motoyasu in the invasion force, and dispatched the Mikawa samurai to reduce the fort of Marume. Meanwhile, the rest of the Imagawa host crossed in Owari and assaulted Washizu castle. The commanders of the besieged forts (Sakuma Morishige and Oda Genba) managed to get off letters of warning to Nobunaga in Kiyosu, and his retainers were divided on what course of action to take. Given the obvious disparity in numbers, it seemed logical to adopt a defensive posture, or even to capitulate. Nobunaga was for fighting. With all the brash and unpredictable élan he was to show throughout his career, he ordered a conch shell blown and the garrison of Kiyosu made ready for battle.

The next morning, while Marume and Washizu were going up in flames, Nobunaga led a handful of men out of the castle and headed in the direction of Imagawa's army. Along the way he was joined by enough ashigaru and samurai to make an attack credible-if not particularly wise. At ten to one odds, Nobunaga's chances seemed slim at best, although the priests at the Atsuta Shrine that he stopped at to pray for victory commented on how calm he appeared.

Meanwhile, Imagawa was celebrating the course of his campaign so far. Encamped in the Dengakuhazama gorge, Imagawa's army rested and enjoyed sake, their leader engrossed in the viewing of the heads taken at Marume and Washizu. Nobunaga, paused near the Imagawa's Narumi castle, learned of the Imagawa's location from scouts, and played a stratagem. He had battle flags hoisted up from behind a hill, presenting the image to the Imagawa stationed inside Narumi that the Oda were resting nearby. In fact, Nobunaga slipped his men quietly away, leading them in the direction of the Dengakuhazama. At this critical point, a bit of good luck went Nobunaga's way. A summer thunderstorm broiled over and let loose with a torrential downpour, enabling Nobunaga to sneak up quite close to the Imagawa's position. When the rains abated, he gave the order to attack.

Such was the suddenness and ferocity of the attack; Imagawa assumed that a fight had broken out among his own men. His misconception was quickly righted by the appearance of Oda spearmen who succeeded in taking the head of the lord of Suruga. Nobunaga's surprise attack worked beautifully, and once word spread of Yoshimoto's demise, the Imagawa army fled, utterly defeated. Matsudaira Motoyasu, resting his men in Marume, heard of the defeat and thought it best to return to Mikawa forthwith.

Nobunaga's Move To Regional Power, 1561-1570

In 1561, Saito Yoshitatsu, who had continued to fend off advances by the Oda, passed away, probably of leprosy. This left his son, Tatsuoki, in command and Nobunaga was quick to take advantage of the new lord's weak character. By bribing away key Saito generals, Nobunaga was able to weaken the defenses of Mino and in 1567 he attacked Inabayama, the headquarters of the Saito clan. According to tradition, the hill-top castle was brought down by Hashiba (Toyotomi) Hideyoshi, although this valuable Oda retainer does not begin appearing in written records until around 1576.

The following year, Nobunaga moved his capital to Inabayama and renamed the castle Gifu. Everything about the move was auspicious, and made possible by two alliances - one to Matsudaira Motoyasu, and another to Takeda Shingen of Kai and Shinano. The name Gifu was taken from the castle from which King Wu of Zhou (or Wu Wang), ruler of the Zhou Dynasty, had set out in the 11th or 12th century BCE to unify China. Emperor Ôgimachi sent a letter of congratulations and Nobunaga adopted the motto Tenka Fubu, or 'the realm covered in military glory' (or, alternatively, 'The nation under one sword").

Nobunaga's ambition was given a powerful stimulant with the arrival of Ashikaga Yoshiaki  at Gifu in 1567. The brother of the late shogun, Ashikaga Yoshiteru, murdered in 1565, Yoshiaki had spent the intervening years seeking out a patron. Yoshiteru's assassins - the Miyoshi and Matsunaga clans - had seen fit to legitimize their domination of Kyoto politics by naming the 2-year old Ashikaga Yoshihide as Yoshiteru's successor. When Yoshiaki heard the news, he gave up a Buddhist priesthood and fled with Hosokawa Fujitaka, both out of fear for his own life and in the hopes he would find a warlord strong enough to set things right in Kyoto. That he was the logical choice to follow Yoshiteru was clear…finding a Daimyo that would do something about it proved difficult. In his search, he approached the Takeda of Wakasa (not to be confused with the Takeda of Kai), the Uesugi of Echigo, and the Asakura of Echizen. The last seemed the most promising, in terms of military strength relative to a proximity to the capital, and indeed, Asakura Yoshikage promised to help. But Yoshikage stalled and in the end admitted that he was powerless to assist Yoshiaki's nomadic party.

Then Yoshiaki turned to Oda Nobunaga, who fairly jumped at the opportunity. In fact, he had expressed a desire in late 1565 to do just what Yoshiaki was asking, and it may be that Yoshiaki had been leery of approaching this young upstart to begin with. Uesugi and Asakura, after all, were names that carried quite a bit of prestige along with them. But, by 1567, Yoshiaki had evidently decided that beggars couldn't be choosers.

In 1568 Nobunaga's army marched westward in Yoshiaki's name, brushing aside the Rokkaku of southern Omi and putting to flight Miyoshi and Matsunaga. Matsunaga Hisahide  promptly submitted (for which he was confirmed Daimyo of Yamato) while the Miyoshi withdrew to Settsu. In the ninth month Nobunaga entered Kyoto and within three weeks Yoshiaki was installed as the fifteenth Ashikaga shogun with the approval of Emperor Ôgimachi. The mutually beneficial relationship of Yoshiaki and Nobunaga had thus far borne sweet fruit. In time, it would grow quite sour, foreshadowed by Nobunaga's refusal to accept the position of Kanrei, or deputy shogun, even when the Emperor himself requested he do so in 1569. Nobunaga seemed determined to exist in a sort of political limbo, and expressed little interest in any orthodox rank or titles, including, as we shall see, that of shogun. That Nobunaga was the real ruler in Kyoto was the only part of the equation that lacked any sort of ambiguity.

Resistance, 1570-1573

It was hardly surprising that the Daimyo who lived outside Nobunaga's sphere of influence would become quite agitated by the developments in Kyoto. Naturally, upheaval in Kyoto was nothing new - but Nobunaga was. He was quite unlike any of the various Miyoshi, Hosokawa, or Hatakeyama contenders of the past. Those lords, the Hosokawa Sumimoto's and Miyoshi Motonaga's of 1500-1565, had struggled for personal gain and prestige. Nobunaga seemed different. Certainly, he aimed for personal gain and prestige as well, but the sort of gain he desired was most different. By 1568, it is safe to say that Nobunaga aimed to rule all of Japan. Of course, this particular wish was hardly unique among the Daimyo - in point of fact, it is quite misleading to say that Nobunaga somehow possessed a vision denied his contemporaries. Rather, Nobunaga was in the right place at the right time and presented with the right window. The other great warlords of his day (some arguably greater as men go), Mori Motonari, Takeda Shingen, Uesugi Kenshin, and Hojo Ujiyasu  were all far removed from the capital, and in the case of the last three, unable to move due to the ambitions of their neighbors. The key was location. By taking Kyoto, Nobunaga positioned himself nicely in the center of Japan, which could be called the nation's 'soft under-belly'. While Nobunaga would face an implacable enemy in the Ikko-Ikki that dwelled just beyond the Kinai, the weakness of the Daimyo within that region allowed him to build, by 1573, a considerable power-base. This is not to say, of course, that Nobunaga lacked the talents usually ascribed to him. But it is perhaps inaccurate to describe him as something other than a 'sengoku Daimyo'. He was rather the ultimate expression of the 'sengoku-Daimyo'. His power was based almost solely on the point of a sword, and as he grew in power, so did his use for diplomacy diminish. He kept a tight rein on his retainers, and was ruthless to his opponents, especially those who proved especially troublesome to him. His campaigns would be long and hard-fought as his reputation for cruelty grew. Few of his enemies had any illusion about what surrender would mean.

In early 1570, Nobunaga was presented with the first real challenge to his rise. Perhaps in an effort to feel out opposition, Nobunaga had evidently pressed Yoshiaki to request all the local Daimyo to come to Kyoto and attend a certain banquet. One of those who presence was requested was none other than Asakura Yoshikage, the very Daimyo who had frittered his own chance to champion Yoshiaki. Suspecting that Nobunaga was behind the 'invitation', Yoshikage refused, an act Nobunaga declared disloyal to both the shogun and the emperor. With this pretext well in hand, Nobunaga raised an army and marched on Echizen. Initially, all went well for the attackers, with the Asakura revealing their rather lack-luster leadership abilities. By March Nobunaga, supported by Tokugawa Ieyasu (the former Matsudaira Motoyasu), had penetrated Echizen's southern approaches and was moving on Yoshikage's capital (Ichijo-no-tani). Just then, Oda received startling news. His brother-in-law, Asai Nagamasa, had suddenly switched sides and gathered troops to help the Asakura. In fact, Nagamasa's change of heart was probably not as great a surprise as one might think. The Asai and Asakura had been allies for decades, and a single marriage - even if it included the Daimyo of the clan - was not enough to nullify such a long friendship.

Nobunaga the Ruler

Prior to Ashikaga Yoshiaki’s fall in 1573, Nobunaga had not accepted any court titles. Now he accepted the prestigious rank of Kugyo. As a kugyo, Nobunaga was officially part of the ruling hierarchy and could act in state affairs. Court appointments would continue to be lavished on a near-yearly basis. He was named Gondainagon and Ukon’etaishou in 1574 and two years later was elevated to Udaijin. He showed his regard for the Court by assuring the property of the kuge  (nobles) and ordered that all land in Kyoto that had belonged to the kuge in the previous one hundred years be restored to them. Normally, statutes of limitations were considered to come into effect after a period of 20 years. On the same token, he assumed the right to settle disputes involving members of the nobility, a right he excersied by placing under temporary arrest the nobleman who had opposed his selection of the head abbot of the Kofuku-ji. During this time he handed over the official leadership of the Oda to his son Nobutada and clearly intended to carve out a political structure for his hegemony of the country. In 1577 he resigned from his ranks of Udaijin and Ukon’etaishou, pleading unfinished work in the provinces. Actually, since the policy of the court was to honor an individual based on the highest post he had achieved, Nobunaga lost no influence by so doing. According to some historians, such as Fujiki Hisashi, Nobunaga maneuvered to try to force Emperor Ogimachi  into retirement. Osamu Wakita has refuted this theory. Nobunaga adopted a son of Ogimachi’s in 1579 and in the construction of Azuchi Castle had a room set aside to receive visits from the future emperor. As Nobunaga would be the father-in-law to the emperor, he would enjoy a status along the lines of a Retired Emperor. Far from disdaining the court, Nobunaga had worked to link it directly to his vision of a united country under his rule.

Nobunaga accepted no other titles before his death, including that of shogun. Traditionally, the rank of shogun was withheld for men of Minamoto stock and Nobunaga had openly associated himself with the Taira. This is not to say that the court would not have made this appointment; in fact, such was suggested in 1582. As it was, before Nobunaga, shoguns had been the only warriors to attain the title of Kugyo. Nobunaga died before he could give an answer to the court's offer to elevate him to whatever lofty title he wanted. Yet it seems that Nobunaga was willing to honor the existing political framework of the country, at least vis-à-vis the court. What his ultimate plans were as for how he would excersise his rule over the entire country are a matter for mere speculation.

Wilusa

.This land lay in the extreme northwest of Anatolia, including the Troad, and features quite prominently in the affairs of the  region during the 13th century BC, though never a state of the first  rank. Linguistic evidence indicates that Wilusa lay outside the Luwian-speaking zone: it therefore seems reasonable to see this as a  hint that it was not strictly part of the Arzawa lands. This could be  one factor behind the loyalty to Hatti of Wilusa as a vassal state,  whose geographical location made it especially valuable to the Hittites. After his campaign, led by the general Gassu, Muwatalli II  restored Hittite control over Wilusa, establishing Alaksandu as  ruler and drawing up a treaty with him, in which the past loyalty  of Wilusa to Hattusa is stressed. Troubles in Wilusa later came to  a head in the time of Tudhaliya IV, when Walmu was the vassal  ruler: he was deposed, fleeing to Millawanda, where a new, proHittite ruler had come to power, possibly allied by marriage to the  Hittite royal house. Significantly, Walmu was apparently answerable both to Tudhaliya in Hattusa and to Milawat, an arrangement  which would not have been tolerated by earlier Hittite kings, who  demanded exclusive fealty to themselves and who did not differentiate between their vassals in terms of status.  The location of Wilusa, commanding the sea route through to  the Black Sea, provided it with a source of wealth but also the danger of attack by envious, rapacious neighbors. In the 13th century  BC these were above all the Mycenaeans, almost certainly identifiable with Ahhiyawa. As long as this power flourished, Wilusa was  in constant danger of attack. Its links across the Dardanelles with  Europe were archaeologically clearest in the 12th century BC, after  the heyday of Mycenaean power in the maritime region of western  Anatolia and the downfall of the Hittite Empire.   If Hissarlik--the site of Heinrich Schliemann’s and later excavations--is indeed to be identified with Homeric Troy, then it  must surely be with Troy VIH, imposing in its architectural remains in contrast with those of the following levels, and destroyed  most probably around 1250 BC. The last two names in the list of  states comprising the alliance defeated by Tudhaliya I/II (ca.1400  BC)--Wilusiya and Taruisa--have been identified with the Greek  names (W)ilios or Ilion and Troia (Troy). The implication is that  the name of Wilusa, clearly in the first instance that of a land or  minor state, came to be given to the city we know as Troy. Mycenaean-Greek elements in western Anatolia seem implied by the very name of Alaksandu, vassal ruler of Wilusa. On the identification of Wilusa as Ilios and thus Troy a divergent theory distinguishes Truisa from Wilusa, with the former lying not far east of  the latter.  One of the sources of the wealth of Troy was the plentiful  supply of fish, an attraction to covetous neighbors. The sea came  further inland than today, and ships would have plied to and fro between the port and Mycenaean harbors, as well as in the more hazardous maritime trade with the Black Sea.  Wilusa lay at the junction of two continents and the meeting  place at various times of different populations, among them the ancestors of both Lydians and Etruscans.  In the 13th century BC its  situation gave it a pivotal role for Hittite policy in the west, not  least for curbing the designs of Ahhiyawa.

Not all scholars have accepted the identification of Wilusa with Troy. There is an alternative hypothesis, for example, that Wilusa was located near Beycesultan, which was known in the Byzantine era as "Iluza" (Ἴλουζα).

Wilusa per se is known from six references in Hittite sources, including:

• the Manapa-Tarhunta letter (c. 1310–1280 BC); which places it beyond the Seha river;
• the Alaksandu treaty (c. 1280 BC), between Alaksandu of Wilusa and Muwatalli II of Hatti;
• the Tawagalawa letter (c. 1250 BC), addressed to the king of the Ahhiyawa by Hattusili III, mentioning a military conflict over Wilusa, and;
• the Milawata letter (C. 1240 BC), believed to be written by Tudhaliya IV of Hatti, discussing the reinstallation of Walmu as king of Wilusa.