What would have happened if the Chilean military had not overthrown the socialist president Salvador Allende in a coup d'état that occurred on September 11, 1973? The result would be – certainly – exceedingly disastrous, to say the least. 

Salvador Allende – who was an intimate political associate of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro – evidently would remain in power. Contrary to what happened in Cuba, where Communists seized power in a violent revolution that overthrew the pro-American dictator Fulgencio Batista, in the Republic of Chile, for the regime change, the gradualist approach was adopted, which is more efficient because it’s basically imperceptible. So, the population is incapable to offer any kind of resistance to its implementation. The same technique was applied several decades later to implement socialism in Venezuela, with a great degree of success. As a result, Venezuela became a totalitarian state. 

Salvador Allende was the first Marxist president to reach power in a Latin American country through popular election. After he took office, Fidel sent him a gift, along with a card, where the Cuban dictator greeted him. There, Fidel expressed his loyalty to the revolution; the Cuban dictator asserted to the Chilean president that – although Allende had chosen a different path, a non-aggressive one – they were trying, by distinct forms, to achieve the same political objectives.

Therefore, the two Latin American leaders became political allies. Fidel – an opportunistic psychopath – saw in Chile the perfect opportunity to expand his sphere of political influence on the continent, so he was aiming to introduce the Soviet formula of central government planning of the economy, and sovereign authority of the state over society, into the Andean country. 

Realizing the subtle threat, the US government pressed the Chilean military to take control of the situation, and seize power as soon as possible. A threat of a similar nature posed over Brazil almost a decade earlier, with João Goulart as president of the republic, but he was deposed when the military took power, in 1964. If the biggest country of the region would become communist, the balance of power in the American continent could revert abruptly towards a Soviet Union influenced political arena. With Salvador Allende as head of state, Chile would become a communist totalitarian regime through the implementation of a series of gradualist policies; a path that would eventually convert the nation into a radical leftist democracy. Or, as most people categorize, a dictatorship of the proletariat, better described as a communist tyranny. 

Through Salvador Allende's elusive association with Fidel Castro, Chile would inadvertently become a socialist dictatorship. If the military had not interfered – and preserved the nation from the great invisible threat that was surrounding them – Chile would eventually be converted into a South American version of Cuba.

After a failed coup – known as Tanquetazo, which occurred on June 29, 1973 – the military carried out, a little over two months later, a new attack against the socialist government, and this time they effectively seized power to free the country of the political turmoil in which it would be shattered, if Allende continued in the presidency of the nation. Certainly, the Chileans would fall prisoners of a terrible, catastrophic, aggressive, permissive and cruel totalitarian dictatorship. 

When the military seized power by attacking the presidential palace of La Moneda, Fidel Castro had already positioned approximately several thousand Cuban militiamen in strategic points in Chile, who were ready to launch a violent socialist revolution in the country, which would be catastrophic and would bury any promising future prospects for the nation. Nevertheless, with the possibility of a real war against the Chilean military – and also fearing an unwanted, but probable interference by the US armed forces – Fidel Castro decided to renounce his plan of a direct belligerent offensive.  

It is true that the Chilean military established a dictatorship, that could be described as violent and oppressive, as they suppressed civil liberties, and practically persecuted each and every individual that had ties with Marxism, or the communists. But they did so to prevent the country of becoming a communist dictatorship, which would be a lot worse. If there is something that could redeem them, is the fact that the Chilean army established a free market dictatorship, upon which people enjoyed complete freedom to be productive, to buy, to sell, to start private companies and to fully develop the economy, as they wish. Something that would be impossible in a communist dictatorship, that doesn’t allow the slightest degree of economic freedom to its citizens, and the only choice people have is to be miserable, and to starve to death.

With the continual implementation of economic liberalization policies, Chile evolved to be the most prosperous and developed country of Latin America, the only one that is truly capitalist, and that has a real free market system. This would not be the case, had the country continued under the leadership of president Salvador Allende, that would gradually had transformed Chile into a communist dictatorship. 



​Wagner

Vakhtang VI of Georgia was a king of the Bagrationi dynasty, that ruled the medieval Georgian Kingdom of Kartli, from 1716 to 1724. A monarch that was also a prominent intellectual – a poet, an erudite and a notable scholar, besides other attributions – Vakhtang is considered a historic icon and a national hero within his home country. 

Born in September 1675, Vakhtang begun his rule as a regent, first for his uncle, and then for his brother. Precociously exhibiting features of a real statesman, the monarch conjured major reforms in several aspects of Georgian society, to showcase his fondness for improvement. Culture, economy, legislation, politics and government administration were the most benefited areas – some of them directly executed and monitored by his initiative, upon which he demonstrated his versatile abilities –, although Vakhtang also worked heavily to consolidate his leadership. Unfortunately, early in his reign, he was subject to disgrace. As the Georgian Kingdom of Kartli was a vassal state of the Iranian Safavid dynasty, he needed recognition from the central authorities of the empire to rule; something that Sultan Husayn was eager to grant, but only if Vakhtang embraced Islam, something the monarch refused to do. Vakhtang was then imprisoned. 

Vakhtang then tried to reverse his fortunes, by writing letters to catholic monarchs, archbishops and church authorities all over Europe, requesting their help. He appealed to several eminent people, even writing that he was secretly a catholic, but could not be explicit about his beliefs in the territory of the Safavid empire, by virtue of Islamic predominance. Vakhtang even wrote a letter to the Pope, but, in general, the monarch was ostensibly ignored. All his efforts proved to be pointless. With increasing pressure from the central authorities, Vakhtang became severely distressed; so much so, that, in the end, he succumbed to the overwhelming pressure, and converted to Islam.  

Adopting the legal name of Husayn-Qoli Khan, Vakhtang found himself forced to absorb several religious, cultural and social aspects of Islam, and temporarily lost control of his kingdom, being obliged to name a regent on his behalf, although he gained political control of another provinces and vassal states of the Savafid empire.

After an absence of about seven years, Vakhtang was requested to return, to put an end to the unrest caused by Dagestani tribes invading the region, something he had successfully executed, although with the help of military leaders of neighboring provinces. 

Nevertheless, as political grievances with the Savafid authorities grew severely, Vakhtang became increasingly distressed and disturbed. Secretly, he arranged a political treatise with the Russians, and changed alliances, fomenting the war that would soon disrupt between the two great regional powers, as a means to possibly scape the Safavid despotic rule. By this time, the Ottoman Empire also offered Vakhtang the possibility of an alliance, which he refused, believing the Russians would be more effective.

Fortunately, for Vakhtang, the Safavid dynasty was in a period of great political turmoil. Constant invasions, belligerent altercations and violent rebellions broke out in several regions of the empire, practically dismantling the country. Despite the fact that Vakhtang had family members in important leadership positions of the Persian army, the monarch was – by this time – exceedingly distressed in his efforts to free his kingdom from the oppressive Safavid rule. 

Unfortunately, Vakhtang was betrayed by his Russian allies, that preferred not to confront the Ottoman military, that was anxious to reclaim Persian territory. Completely abandoned and without any help, Vakhtang was stripped of his kingdom and his authority. Desperate, he tried to exchange alliances with the ottomans, but it was too late. They already had expressed preference for his brother, putting him as a puppet monarch, head of the Kingdom of Kartli. Disgraced, Vakhtang was granted political asylum by the Russians, who silently loathed him as a shameful, scorned and weak national leader. 

Never admitting real defeat, Vakhtang – after some years –, elaborated a plan to return to Georgia, and persuade his comrades to change sides, swear loyalty to the Tzar, and become a vassal state of the Russian empire. Nevertheless, he died on his journey, in March, 1737, never having the chance to fulfil the task. 


Wagner

Article by Wagner Hertzog

Nicolae Ceaușescu was the brutal and hostile dictator of communist Romania, from 1965 to 1989, when he was forcefully deposed by a popular revolution, and sentenced to death along with his wife. Getting involved in communism while he was very young, slowly Ceaușescu rose through the ranks of the communist party, assuming power when Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, then political leader of Romania, died in 1965. 

​
Initially not a harsh leader himself – on the contrary, gaining some popularity for taking apparently popular stances –, within some years of government, Nicolae Ceaușescu proved to be a cruel and perfidious tyrant, eager to implement severe and aggressive measures to restrict the population. Consolidating a political police named Securitate, Ceaușescu managed to control literally everything within the country’s borders, and rapidly suppressed freedom of expression, freedom of the press, political opposition and consolidated a centralized control of the means of production, which would eventually took Romania to the verge of collapse.   

Being a rude dictator with no real political or administrative skills, Ceaușescu’s government proved to be disastrous for Romanians. Increased corruption, economic inefficiency, catastrophic financial decisions and an intransigent rule more preoccupied on its authoritarian and repressive stance, as the basic means to secure his unlimited and unrestricted power, caused the country to experience a horrendous and abject decline.  As a result, the quality of living for the Romanian population, as a whole, suffered a dramatic downfall. As an obvious consequence, basic goods like food, medication and hygiene products entered a period of severe shortage, which threatened to disintegrate the country completely. 

Like these measures weren’t terrible enough, Ceaușescu always increased the level of brutality and repression. The cult of personality promoted around him also increased dramatically over the years. His birthday was considered a national holiday, and Romanians forcibly had to smile all day long, since appearing sorrowful on this day was something too dangerous to contemplate. So the population in general had to fake a level of happiness they didn’t really felt, only to survive.

In 1989, the Romanian population had become saturated with the oppressive effects of a terrible, inhumane and dogmatic tyranny. Freedom was something they simply didn’t have, to such an extent that people really wanted to rebel, feeling apathy at the best possible evaluation, concerning the possibility of state reprimand. Like a pressure cooker ready to explode, people simply wanted to get rid of the regime. They couldn’t endure oppression anymore. When Ceaușescu did his final speech, which entered history, as the crowd openly manifested scorn and aversion towards him, screaming, interrupting and explicitly disobeying him – with the exception of people in the front row, composed of members from the communist party, strategically placed there to appear that Ceaușescu had, at least, some level of popular support –, it became obvious that the complete dissatisfaction and the total rejection the population felt towards him was too dangerous to be faced directly. Ceaușescu, like the coward dictator that he was, searched for shelter in the government building, along with his security personnel. Nevertheless, the popular agitation that soon followed was easily repressed by the state apparatus. 

The revolution that started some days earlier in Timișoara – which Ceaușescu mentioned in his last speech –, evolved to a national conflagration. Then, millions of Romanians, encouraged by the fact that so many of their comrades were eager to fight, became determined to overthrown the tyrannical regime, and to depose the dictator. Soon after, the situation escalated to such a dramatic extent that even the armed forces didn’t have the courage to face the anger of the populace, and the commandeers-in-chief rapidly switched sides, doesn’t even trying to save Ceaușescu and the old regime, that seemed destined to be disintegrated by the popular upheaval. 

When the insurgents invaded the government building, Ceaușescu and his wife managed to escape by helicopter. Nevertheless, they were eventually captured by the police, and handled over to the military. After a puppet trial, both were killed together by a firing squad. It was the end of communist rule in Romania, and communism then was turned illegal.  

With a mediocre theoretical view of communism, that was never taken seriously by the intellectual elite, Ceaușescu was, at the best possible evaluation, a terribly insignificant individual, that, as a statesman, was a vehemently incompetent politician, whose greatest “quality” as a dictator was his authoritarianism, that managed to project only suffering, misery and poverty over the nation. His insignificant legacy, practically nothing to the Romanian population and to the nation as a whole, is reduced to a sordid past, that no one is interested to revive or to remember.   

For those who may not know, Lee Harvey Oswald was the man considered to be the assassin of former US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. But was he in fact the man who killed the former American president, committing the most controversial murder of the 20th century? The most probable answer to this question is no. Definitely, its completely implausible to think Lee Harvey Oswald has anything to do with the murder of JFK. For this question, just allow me to affirm that 75% of Americans do not believe Oswald was responsible for the murder. Or, at least,  that he acted alone.

The fact that all independent investigations conducted by the respective agencies, namely the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, the Warren Commission, the Secret Service, and the Assembly Murder Investigation Committee all came exactly to the same conclusion points only to an obvious but very disturbing fact: a conspiracy of enormous proportions, capable of encompassing all spheres of power, at the municipal, state and federal levels, which is not something implausible to think. Therefore, those who wanted President Kennedy's death were individuals who inhabited the top of the governmental pyramid, having at their disposal full powers and ample resources to plan and to execute one of the largest and most controversial conspiracies of the 20th century. However, even though the plan as a whole presented severe discrepancies, at every stage of their proceedings, on one point they were perfect: they found in Lee Harvey Oswald the most convincing and persuasive of all scapegoats. A man who not only fit in with all the arduous demands of the task, but, in a short time, defined for himself a past that was perfectly aligned with all the risks and consequences of what would become the most conspicuous, sordid and intricate plot of all time.

After living for almost three years in the Soviet Union, and having absorbed - and nauseated - the Bolshevik philosophy, being a former Marine, Oswald was a very disturbed young boy, deeply resentful of American politics. With a somber personality, sometimes arrogant and furious, Oswald, with his authoritarian and egocentric character, was a man hated and feared by his neighbors, and despised by his co-religionists. Nevertheless, Oswald had dubious connections with the CIA that until today have never been properly clarified. Besides this part of his life being terribly nebulous, and being fully enveloped in, at the very least, recalcitrant doubts, everything is done so that the truth does not become known. Conveniently, two days after assassinating President John F. Kennedy, Oswald, while being transferred from the Dallas Police Headquarters to the penitentiary, was assassinated by Jack Ruby, a nightclub owner. Oswald's murder was broadcast on national television, seen by millions of people just as it happened, due to the television channels that covered his transfer. For his part, Oswald left life to enter an infamous chapter of history.

The fact that the Warren Commission deliberately intimidated, neglected, and threatened witnesses whose testimonies did not support the theory of the lone shooter is at least intriguing. A factor that was never properly clarified but constantly ignored and conveniently swept under the rug. Another issue that could never be fully elucidated was the trajectory of the projectiles that shot the then President Kennedy, completely incongruous with the place where Lee Harvey Oswald was in the final and fateful moment of the tragic incident. This fact shows the inherent and eventful evidence that presents Oswald not only as a strategic scapegoat, but also as a mindful pawn, ready to be sacrificed as an ingenious part of a sinister plan.  

What I think is one of the most interest facts to investigate about this exceedingly intriguing case is how much Oswald knew. He really knew something about the conspiracy? Or he was completely ignorant about it? He was fooled to participate in it? He knew some details about the plot, and was then deceived by other plot members, who were already planning, behind his back, to eliminate him in the first place? What is really necessary to comprehend is how much involved he was in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.    

And let's not forget that when talking about Lee Harvey Oswald, we are talking about a young boy, who was only 24 years old when he died. Who has seen things that no one will ever see, and heard things that no one will ever hear. In a single moment, I believe Oswald is innocent throughout this story, but to believe that he acted alone is to accept what they really want to make us think. It is to accept passively a historical exaggeration and an immeasurable mistake, which only propagates the defamation of a lie that never had all of its points properly connected.

Article by Wagner Hertzog 

The Zapotecs are an indigenous people of Mexico, who, like the Maya, and unlike the Aztecs and Incas, were able to survive the Spanish conquest, and therefore managed to exist until the present day. With a population that, according to speculation, can reach a million inhabitants, they are concentrated mainly in the southern state of Oaxaca, but also inhabit other Mexican states, like Jalisco and Guerrero, in addition to a small diaspora that have settled down in some cities, in the American part of the state of California. Having been one of the most important civilizations of the Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, the Zapotecs established a modest empire in the Valley of Oaxaca, whose first capital was the city of Monte Albán, which later would be completely taken over and controlled by the Mixtecs. Reaching its apogee during the classical period, many archaeologists, scholars and researchers believe that Monte Albán was initially built by Zapotecs who congregated to build fortifications to protect themselves from external threats. At the beginning of the classical period (200 - 1000 CE), the Zapotec empire consolidated itself as a political and military power, guaranteeing its dominion over tribes, civilizations and surrounding territories, without anyone being able to compete, to challenge them or to suppress their hegemony. So the Zapotecs somehow managed to remain undefeated for centuries.
 
As far as it can be ascribed, the Zapotecs, like various civilizations in Mesoamerica, haven’t recorded their history, at least, not all of it, leaving to archeology the task of conducting research and making firsthand discoveries. The renowned Mexican archaeologist Alfonso Caso y Andrade, devoted to the study of ancient peoples of Mexico, was one of the first in his area to devote himself to the study of the Zapotec civilization (although he has also devoted himself to the research of many other pre-Columbian cultures and civilizations), and was one of the first to carry out research and excavations in situ in Monte Albán, concentrating his readings and interpretations on slabs of a great palace, now known as "Palace J", whose inscriptions on the slabs apparently depict what appear to have been local provinces controlled by the Zapotecs, as well as rulers who would have surrendered peacefully to their dominion, and also those who were killed, and had to be conquered by force.

The Zapotecs are also considered to be among the first peoples of Mesoamerica to develop a system of writing, of a logographic character, which, to this day, remains largely unknown, and many believe that it was a predecessor of systems later developed by the Maya, Aztecs and Mixtecs. It is also believed that they have cohabited with different levels of interaction with other races and cultures, and, according to traditional historiography, their relations with Aztecs and Mixtecs are very well documented. One of the main characteristics of the Zapotec society seems to have been gender equality: women would have as many rights as men, although the Zapotecs today seem more inclined to conservatism, and a strong tendency to segregate activities and genders, being responsible of a considerable setback on this issue. Nevertheless, situations and customs vary greatly depending on the community. While some women and female adolescents enjoy some freedom, others live in much more conservative atmospheres and environments.

At the time of the conquest of the Spanish invaders, the Zapotec civilization was centuries distant from its glorious days, unable to offer adequate resistance to the invading culture, although, on the other hand, they never experienced a severe or irreversible decline, like the one experienced by the Maya, for example, in a certain period of their history. To this day, the factors that have contributed to the survival of Zapotec peoples and culture are not very clear, but like the Mayans, it is probable that the Zapotecs have dispersed to other territories, thus ensuring their continuity, although several indicators highlight the fact that a certain nucleus of them has never left Oaxaca. Another factor that may have contributed to their permanence was the possible identification by the Spaniards of the Aztec empire as their greatest enemy, possibly not evaluating as a major threat tribes and civilizations considered minor, or incapable of triggering an uprising; Europeans may have felt no need to declare war or to eradicate the Zapotecs. A possible treaty or a speculative ability to accept and coexist with the Spaniards may have also been a determining factor in this process, although such formulations on these fields are only mere hypotheses and conjectures. The fact is that the Zapotecs have remained, which have a considerable value in cultural, social and political terms.

The Zapotecs today are divided into four main groups: the istmeños, the serranos, the southerners, and the Zapotecs of the Central Valley, agglomerated in the Oaxaca Valley region, and suburbs, the classic territory of the Zapotec civilization during its apogee. Although many of them speak some of the Zapotec languages, or one of its numerous dialects – while there are a few monoglots – much of them were assimilated by globalization, or "Mexicanized," being virtually distant from its cultural roots.


Wagner

Article written by Wagner Hertzog

The Toltec culture was a civilization of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, which founded an empire normally inserted in the classic and post-classic period of Mesoamerican chronology, and whose capital was the city of Tollan-Xicocotitlan (Tula), of which little is known in the present day, by virtue of a great lack of information.
 

​
What is known concerning Toltec culture and civilization was a collection of texts transmitted by the Aztecs, who considered the Toltec their predecessors, portraying and disseminating them widely as the apogee of civilization. Nonetheless, the scientific community today finds itself highly divided as to whether or not to consider the Toltec civilization as a real and factual civilization of the past. Several scientists and archaeologists who have studied the Aztec inscriptions claim that the vast majority of the descriptions provided are purely mythological, arguing with cynicism and mistrust to what extent, in fact, Aztec narratives would be real portraits of an earlier civilization. Up to the present day, absolutely no consensus has emerged among the experts, regarding the Toltec civilization, and the debate continues.

The study concerning Toltec historicity is not new, and has already generated frequent, disputed and heated debates. In the 21st century, the preponderance of seeing Toltec civilization as a myth constructed by the Aztecs seem to have gained new impetus, and prevails in some academic circles; the division established between scholars and researchers in the subject has only increased, to the point that today it is absolutely impossible to affirm with truthfulness who were (or weren’t) the Toltec. Another point of interest among Toltec culture enthusiasts is the great similarities between Tula and Chichén Itzá, a huge Mayan complex from the late classic period.
 
Nevertheless, despite the lack of consensus, and its existence being doubted for a long time, the statues, ruins, monuments and pyramids that exist today in Tula are considered products of the Toltec civilization. In this way, it is not surprising that Tula remains one of the most popular tourist destinations in Mexico, and the columns of Atlantean soldiers – four huge statues of 4.6m high Toltec warriors, carved in stone –, continues to fascinate tourists and travelers alike, and to intrigue archaeologists interested in Mesoamerican culture. While a definitive answer on Toltec culture does not exist, and apparently never will, at least there will be no shortage of research material, books and lectures, as well as controversial and interesting debates, on the Toltec in particular, and on civilizations of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica in general. Some of them are extremely mysterious, and are still surrounded by many uncertainties, such as the Toltec themselves, and others more known and widespread, such as the Mayans. But of course, all of them, equally fascinating, educational and interesting. At least, for those who like and appreciate.


Wagner

article by Wagner Hertzog 

The Spartacus League was a striking and historical, but ephemeral German political movement with revolutionary, marxist and socialist tendencies, founded in Germany in 1915, during World War I, and its most prominent members were Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, both affiliated with the leftist wing of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Both left, after the party expressed support for the German Empire in a declaration of war against the Russian Empire. Unhappy with the political guidelines for power in Germany during this period, both Liebknecht and Luxemburg were arrested for publicly speaking out against the war. With the Kaiser's resignation, and the end of the monarchy, the world, as the Germans knew it, was over, and the nation invariably plunged into chaos, disorder and political instability. With ideas based on what Liebknecht defined as a "Free Socialist Republic" - naively believing that such a republic would be born from the ashes of the German Empire - one of the principles the Spartacus League advocated was the state recognizing and taking into consideration the needs of the proletariat, and giving the working class a greater role in the government. At the end of 1918, the Spartacus League finally became the Communist Party of Germany. It became active at the beginning of the following year's notorious, but ill-fated, Spartacus Rebellion which, possibly inspired by the Russian Revolution, took place in the first weeks of January 1919, initially inflated by the ordinary working class, with the clear objective of destabilizing the Weimar Republic, and declaring its opposition to the ongoing political state of affairs. Raising barricades through the streets of Berlin and invading the headquarters of a newspaper that published articles hostile to the Spartacus League, the workers and sympathizers of the cause resisted for eleven days in the busy streets of Berlin, believing they were initiating a historic, promising and forceful insurrection, which, ironically, would soon come to an end, for lack of strength and resistance. The rebellion, which occurred suddenly, without any kind of logistical or military support, was in fact doomed to failure from the outset, and with the help of the Freikorps - anticommunist paramilitary units composed entirely of volunteers - the uprising was quickly crushed by the government. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were immediately arrested, and they were both executed shortly thereafter, which invariably led to the rapid dissolution and eventual demise of the Spartacus League. Unfortunately, an extremely fragile organization from the beginning, it was never able to properly offer consistent resistance to its political opponents, or even consolidate a solid and cohesive agenda of social change.

  
Wagner

The proof that, to a certain extent, Ancient Greece was unified - by Wagner Hertzog

The Delian League was a confederation of city-states led by Athens, who had a profound, eviscerating and intense rivalry with the Peloponnesian league, which was, by its turn, led by Athens’ main antagonist, Sparta. This infuriating and complicated rivalry fatally culminated in the bloodthirsty Peloponnesian war, that abruptly put an end to the Athenian leadership in the region of Attica. So, vehemently analyzing the context, it is wrong to say that Ancient Greece – at least according to some historians –, never was a unified nation. From a logistic, politic and strategic point of view there was a unification that, if by one side never saw any formal politicizing process, on the other, was very cohesive and systematically organic. During its peak period the prominence and the leadership of Athens over the Delian League came to be so strong that many historians refer to this period as the Athenian Empire. 

Several times throughout its existence, city-states with membership in the Delian League, due to profound dissatisfactions over a vast array of subjects, deflagrated insurgencies, mainly to free themselves against the abusive, sometimes dictatorial – even tyrannical – domain of Athens, being mostly defeated in the vast majority of occasions. Athens wisely used these wars at their favor, with another purpose in mind: to intimidate and threat other cities with potential to stage a rebellion. Since Athens usually defeated the insurgents in bloody and humiliating battles, other city-states with membership in the Delian League would refrain from taking the same path. The so called "golden period”, also referenced as the classic history of Athens, came to an end when the city was devastated after the Peloponnesian War. 

Another aspect interesting to analyze are the main differences between the powers of the Hellenic world: democratic and cultural Athens was vastly different – in fact, completely incompatible – from the more oligarchic, warfare-oriented and militarized Sparta. Throughout the classical history of Greece, these two opposite poles would be thoroughly and intermittently involved in hostile conflicts, for the benefit of their social, political and ideological ambitions. 

Although it is entirely possible to understand the concept of city-state, Ancient Greece saw, indeed, periods of political, military and ideological unification. The fact that each and every city-state detained a vast degree of autonomy does not imply an intrinsic factor of complete independence: for the greater part of its existence, the Delian League was led by Athens, assuming the same role Sparta did, concerning the Peloponnesian League (and both, by the way – just for the record – often did it with iron hand, never tolerating rebellion or disobedience of any kind). 

So, to affirm that Ancient Greece was a disjointed and disconnected ordeal of city-states is an entirely wrong supposition. Although it has never been a cohesive union, history teaches us that there were fairly organized confederations of city-states, united by a strong leadership – that at certain times acted in an excessively dictatorial mode, its true – comprising a coherent unity, fighting for common interests. The Delian League and The Peloponnesian League, guided by the strong leadership of Athens and Sparta respectively, were two city-states that divided Ancient Greece into two belligerent, distinct and rival poles, often exerting with iron fist the political and ideological ambitions which both represented and fought for, obviously moved by the ardent desire to guarantee their political hegemony. Something that nation-states to this day try to enforce by the excruciating, tragic, inhumane and violent means of war. 


Wagner

by Wagner Hertzog 

Being "Etruscan" an exonym of Roman origin, the Etruscans called themselves by the endonym "Rasenna"; one hypothesis that seeks to explain their origins affirms that the Etruscan civilization developed from the autochthonous Villanovan culture. The beginnings of Rome, as well as its development as a primitive city-state, are possibly due to the expansion of Etruria when, in reaction to their territorial control, several tribes of Latins and Sabines probably united, forming a sort of coalition, to defend themselves against the periodic invasions of the Etruscan peoples. Several wars of Rome against Etruscan city-states like Fidenae and Veii are very well documented. 

Nevertheless, Etruscan society and culture played a major role in the early formation of Rome. As a city-state in its formative years, Rome developed gradually from a confederated alliance of Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. Inevitably, various elements of Etruscan culture and civilization were assimilated and disseminated by the Romans, who, especially during the republican period, recognized and prided themselves on the peoples who were responsible for their origins. 

Many historians today claim that the Roman civilization only became a powerful and emerging city-state because its rise coincided with the decline of the Etruscan civilization, undoubtedly a favorite subject among contemporary archaeologists and historians. Their language also continues to be a source of fascination, mystery and curiosity, which rekindles the uniqueness of their origins; they spoke an archaic isolated language, which by convention has been called Etruscan. Study, discussion and research between so called “etruscologists” show clearly that, unlike the neighboring peoples, the Etruscans did not spoke an Indo-European language. With an almost enigmatic writing system, their language remains mostly obscure, and was never entirely deciphered.  

Although their hegemony in the area was quite short – it lasted less than four centuries – history shows that they were of major importance to a certain degree in shaping roman’s culture, as well as war tactics. They engaged in trade and commerce with other civilizations – like the Greeks and Celts –, and usually could have warm, almost peaceful relations with them. Nevertheless, they engaged in warfare, and one of the main reasons that seeks to explain the formation of Rome was the fact that probably the Latin tribes that lived disperse in the seven hills of Rome had united to protect themselves from the periodic incursions of Etruscans into their territory, thus slowly giving rise to what early Rome came to be: an emerging, strong, independent city-state, destined to expand even further, and to become one of the most powerful, impressive and distinguished empires in human history.  

Unfortunately, several aspects of the Etruscan civilization are obscure. Since only a handful of texts directly written by them survive, what is mostly known forcibly comes from roman texts, with a lot of sources whose historical accuracy are not exactly reliable. The essence of what is known about the Etruscan civilization comes from archaeological evidence, as well as studies and research done in situ. With scarcity of historic legitimate sources from their own time, the substantial essence of the Etruscan civilization, unfortunately, is doomed to remain a mystery. 





​
Wagner

Article by Wagner Hertzog

   

Dobrica Ćosi
, born Dobrosav Ćosi
, was a politician, statesman and Yugoslav writer, who in 1992 became the first president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Although a newly constituted nation composed only of Serbia and Montenegro, it was largely considered to be the successor state of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, although such an assertion was disputed by the other republics of the Balkan Peninsula. A man who would later become a symbol of both a dynamic and unstable government,

​Dobrica Ćosi  was seen by many of his supporters as "The Father of the Nation," as well as a warrior of political and social causes. As a young man, he showed a penchant for public life and, engaging in communist political causes from his youth, in 1939 at the beginning of World War II, Dobrica Ćosi, then only seventeen years old, joined the Communist Youth Organization, and from then on, would rise rapidly in the spheres of power, never to dissociate himself from politics. A determined man, with fervent communist convictions, would end up consolidating a notorious and consistent, but troubled political career, which, by virtue of his aggressive and bold centralizing tendencies, inherent to his polemical and nationalistic character, would make the world see him as one of the most controversial Yugoslavian politicians of his time. As an enthusiast of Tito, and the propaganda of a strong and united Yugoslavia, unlike many of his countrymen, who defended a moderate political administrative management, with respect for the autonomy of local governments, Dobrica Ćosi
 fervently defended a solid and cohesive central government, with broad powers at the federal level, with a priority to eradicate separatist movements and to stifle peripheral nationalisms.

Nonetheless, early on, Dobrica Ćosić demonstrated its major moral fault, partiality, visible especially by his policies favoring Serbs and Montenegrins, as well as a special concern for the region of Kosovo, whose autonomy would make him feel deeply resentful. When Slobodan Miloševi  came to power in 1989, Dobrica Ćosi , initially enthusiastic and demonstrating his unconditional support, especially for sharing his Serbian expansionist and protectionist proposals, was gradually distancing himself from this fact, when the objectives and government directives of both statesmen clearly demonstrated to be incompatible and divergent. Shortly thereafter, Dobrica Ćosić declared himself to be Miloševi 's opponent, which cost him the presidency. Then, Dobrica Ćosi  joined Otpor!, an anti-Miloševi  organization, which quickly gained notoriety in Belgrade. However, despite assuming a seemingly optimistic and constructive policy guideline, many of his actions and convictions to this day are viewed with serious reservations, due to the tragic consequences that many of his political attitudes and decisions have finally set out, although indirectly,  most of the time. One of them was the fact that, at least to some extent, it was through his influence that Radovan Karadži  became leader of the Bosnian Serbs, and later he became the first president of the Republika Srpska, a Serbian enclave in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And until 2010, Dobrica Ćosi  claimed to support all the actions under which the Republika Srpska army – then under Ratko Mladi  – operated during the Bosnian war, which caused major controversy, due to war crimes committed with hideous, hostile and visceral brutality. It is important to note that the Srebrenica massacre, which exterminated more than 8,000 Bosniaks in a matter of a few days, is considered the worst slaughter in postwar Europe, and the epithet "Bosnian Butcher" is applied to both Radovan Karadži  and Ratko Mladi , individuals directly responsible for the massacre. No less noteworthy is the fact that both were prosecuted in the Netherlands by the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, doesn’t matter now what were his real motivations – we will simply never know –, Dobrica Ćosi seems to have been a man engaged in the political and social causes of his time, being, like any person before or after him, a man endowed with many qualities on one hand, and serious defects on the other. A man of many talents, Dobrica Ćosi  was also a renowned and prominent writer, winner of several literary awards, as well as a distinguished member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. 

Having died on May 18, 2014, at the age of 92, it is certain that Dobrica Ćosi , for many Serbs, will leave a gap in the political and intellectual life of Serbia, which few men will be able to fulfill, due to his persistent engagement and tireless battle – not always impartial, sadly – by a nation free from the heinous internal ills and opportunistic and demagogic foreign parasites, in an inflexible search for the consolidation of a solid national identity, as well as for the preservation of its cultural and social hegemony, where freedom is not only a statute of the state, but the guarantee of a life well lived. If Dobrica Ćosi  was a fearless and daring hero, or just another foolish and opportunistic public man, only time will tell. The truth, after all, shows us that doesn’t matter how the Serbs choose to see Dobrica Ćosić from now on, or how they will pass on his legacy, he was just a man like you and me, with dreams, fears, goals and struggles. Nothing more than that.


​Wagner