well well JIDF gets creative, blames the NWO on white people, whose descendants they have dumped somalis on to rape them into an ever-browning genocide
too late, Bupkes
You guys are doing no digging or research. you're just throwing stuff to see what sticks.
Why were sails striped?
Because large sails had to be woven on small looms and the long vertical pieces stitched together. No loom existed that could make a sail in one piece UNTIL THE industrial revolution in the 1800s. All sails were ergo…woven in verticals…through the 1700s.
And If you had some money, you colored the long vertical pieces. Many different colors were used, not just red and white. Some sails used all the stripes uncolored (white) and some used all red or even all black verticals to make a solid color sail.
author of "The Vikings" by Ian Heath thinks, that "The diamond and striped patterns on the sails of Viking ships…(were probably)… strengthening strips of leather, rope, or linen designed to prevent the woolen sails from losing their shape." (pg 10) There are other parts on the ship that support this theory, such as "an arrangement of reefing lines attached to the bottom the sail which doubtless worked on the same principle."
Another theory is that the red on the sails was meant to inspire fear in their enemies, as it is the same color as blood. Although this may be true there are other accounts of different colored sails. "the saga's describe viking sails as striped or checkered in blue, red, green, and white, the remains of the Gokstad ships sails having been white and red stripes." So you can see that there is evidence that all viking ships did not sail under red sails. Some more info about the Vikings is that they, supposedly, loved vibrant colors, so maybe this was just their way of showing off a bit.
There is another theory that the ships would use these designs as a kind of flag to show who owned the ships or who was piloting them at the time. Like I said at this time Heraldry was not popular, so if this was a way of showing their colors then they were one of the first people in that area to do so.
Finally the last theory, is that these stripes showed that the ship was owned by a powerful individual or a king because they were more expensive to produce. But sails of both vikings and phoenicians came striped naturally, and the stripes could be many colors. Cleopatra had purple on her boats, but then purple was very expensive dye to produce. Red oxide was cheap, and the vikings liked their bright colors.
Now your whole 'dig' falls apart because you've based it on the false premise that viking sails were only red and white, based on a single picture modern picture you found, instead of going to the historians who have studied it.
Beginning in the eighth century B.C., Ancient Rome grew from a small town on central Italy’s Tiber River into an empire that at its peak encompassed most of continental Europe, Britain, much of western Asia, northern Africa and the Mediterranean islands. Among the many legacies of Roman dominance are the widespread use of the Romance languages (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian) derived from Latin, the modern Western alphabet and calendar and the emergence of Christianity as a major world religion. After 450 years as a republic, Rome became an empire in the wake of Julius Caesar’s rise and fall in the first century B.C. The long and triumphant reign of its first emperor, Augustus, began a golden age of peace and prosperity; by contrast, the empire’s decline and fall by the fifth century A.D. was one of the most dramatic implosions in the history of human civilization.
As legend has it, Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus, twin sons of Mars, the god of war. Left to drown in a basket on the Tiber by a king of nearby Alba Longa and rescued by a she-wolf, the twins lived to defeat that king and found their own city on the river’s banks in 753 B.C. After killing his brother, Romulus became the first king of Rome, which is named for him. A line of Sabine, Latin and Etruscan (earlier Italian civilizations) kings followed in a non-hereditary succession.
Did You Know?
Four decades after Constantine made Christianity Rome's official religion, Emperor Julian–known as the Apostate–tried to revive the pagan cults and temples of the past, but the process was reversed after his death, and Julian was the last pagan emperor of Rome.
Rome’s era as a monarchy ended in 509 B.C. with the overthrow of its seventh king, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, whom ancient historians portrayed as cruel and tyrannical, compared to his benevolent predecessors. A popular uprising was said to have arisen over the rape of a virtuous noblewoman, Lucretia, by the king’s son. Whatever the cause, Rome turned from a monarchy into a republic, a world derived from res publica, or “property of the people.”
The Early Republic
The power of the monarch passed to two annually elected magistrates called consuls; they also served as commanders in chief of the army. The magistrates, though elected by the people, were drawn largely from the Senate, which was dominated by the patricians, or the descendants of the original senators from the time of Romulus. Politics in the early republic was marked by the long struggle between patricians and plebeians (the common people), who eventually attained some political power through years of concessions from patricians, including their own political bodies, the tribunes, which could initiate or veto legislation.
In 450 B.C., the first Roman law code was inscribed on 12 bronze tablets–known as the Twelve Tables–and publicly displayed in the Roman Forum. These laws included issues of legal procedure, civil rights and property rights and provided the basis for all future Roman civil law. By around 300 B.C., real political power in Rome was centered in the Senate, which at the time included only members of patrician and wealthy plebeian families.
Military Expansion
During the early republic, the Roman state grew exponentially in both size and power. Though the Gauls sacked and burned Rome in 390 B.C., the Romans rebounded under the leadership of the military hero Camillus, eventually gaining control of the entire Italian peninsula by 264 B.C. Rome then fought a series of wars known as the Punic Wars with Carthage, a powerful city-state in northern Africa. The first two Punic Wars ended with Rome in full control of Sicily, the western Mediterranean and much of Spain. In the Third Punic War (149–146 B.C.), the Romans captured and destroyed the city of Carthage and sold its surviving inhabitants into slavery, making a section of northern Africa a Roman province. At the same time, Rome also spread its influence east, defeating King Philip V of Macedonia in the Macedonian Wars and turning his kingdom into another Roman province.
Rome’s military conquests led directly to its cultural growth as a society, as the Romans benefited greatly from contact with such advanced cultures as the Greeks. The first Roman literature appeared around 240 B.C., with translations of Greek classics into Latin; Romans would eventually adopt much of Greek art, philosophy and religion.
Internal Struggles in the Late Republic
Rome’s complex political institutions began to crumble under the weight of the growing empire, ushering in an era of internal turmoil and violence. The gap between rich and poor widened as wealthy landowners drove small farmers from public land, while access to government was increasingly limited to the more privileged classes. Attempts to address these social problems, such as the reform movements of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus (in 133 B.C. and 123-22 B.C., respectively) ended in the reformers’ deaths at the hands of their opponents.
Gaius Marius, a commoner whose military prowess elevated him to the position of consul (for the first of six terms) in 107 B.C., was the first of a series of warlords who would dominate Rome during the late republic. By 91 B.C., Marius was struggling against attacks by his opponents, including his fellow general Sulla, who emerged as military dictator around 82 B.C. After Sulla retired, one of his former supporters, Pompey, briefly served as consul before waging successful military campaigns against pirates in the Mediterranean and the forces of Mithridates in Asia. During this same period, Marcus Tullius Cicero, elected consul in 63 B.C., famously defeated the conspiracy of the patrician Cataline and won a reputation as one of Rome’s greatest orators.
Caesar’s Rise
When the victorious Pompey returned to Rome, he formed an uneasy alliance known as the First Triumvirate with the wealthy Marcus Licinius Crassus (who suppressed a slave rebellion led by Spartacus in 71 B.C.) and another rising star in Roman politics: Gaius Julius Caesar. After earning military glory in Spain, Caesar returned to Rome to vie for the consulship in 59 B.C. From his alliance with Pompey and Crassus, Caesar received the governorship of three wealthy provinces in Gaul beginning in 58 B.C.; he then set about conquering the rest of the region for Rome.
After Pompey’s wife Julia (Caesar’s daughter) died in 54 B.C., and Crassus was killed in battle against Parthia (present-day Iran) the following year, the triumvirate was broken. With old-style Roman politics in disorder, Pompey stepped in as sole consul in 53 B.C. Caesar’s military glory in Gaul and his increasing wealth had eclipsed Pompey’s, and the latter teamed with his Senate allies to steadily undermine Caesar. In 49 B.C., Caesar and one of his legions crossed the Rubicon, a river on the border between Italy from Cisalpine Gaul. Caesar’s invasion of Italy ignited a civil war from which he emerged as dictator of Rome for life in 45 B.C.
From Caesar to Augustus
Less than a year later, Caesar was murdered by a group of his enemies (led by the republican nobles Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius). Consul Mark Antony and Caesar’s great-nephew and adopted heir, Octavian, joined forces to crush Brutus and Cassius and divided power in Rome with ex-consul Lepidus in what was known as the Second Triumvirate. With Octavian leading the western provinces, Antony the east, and Lepidus Africa, tensions developed by 36 B.C. and the triumvirate soon dissolved. In 31 B.C., Octavian triumped over the forces of Antony and Queen Cleopatra of Egypt (also rumored to be the onetime lover of Julius Caesar) in the Battle of Actium. In the wake of this devastating defeat, Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide.
By 29 B.C., Octavian was the sole leader of Rome and all its provinces. To avoid meeting Caesar’s fate, he made sure to make his position as absolute ruler acceptable to the public by apparently restoring the political institutions of the Roman republic while in reality retaining all real power for himself. In 27 B.C., Octavian assumed the title of Augustus, becoming the first emperor of Rome.
Age of the Emperors
Augustus’ rule restored morale in Rome after a century of discord and corruption and ushered in the famous pax Romana–two full centuries of peace and prosperity. He instituted various social reforms, won numerous military victories and allowed Roman literature, art, architecture and religion to flourish. Augustus ruled for 56 years, supported by his great army and by a growing cult of devotion to the emperor. When he died, the Senate elevated Augustus to the status of a god, beginning a long-running tradition of deification for popular emperors.
Augustus’ dynasty included the unpopular Tiberius (14-37 A.D.), the bloodthirsty and unstable Caligula (37-41) and Claudius (41-54), who was best remembered for his army’s conquest of Britain. The line ended with Nero (54-68), whose excesses drained the Roman treasury and led to his downfall and eventual suicide. Four emperors took the throne in the tumultuous year after Nero’s death; the fourth, Vespasian (69-79), and his successors, Titus and Domitian, were known as the Flavians; they attempted to temper the excesses of the Roman court, restore Senate authority and promote public welfare. Titus (79-81) earned his people’s devotion with his handling of recovery efforts after the infamous eruption of Vesuvius, which destroyed the towns of Herculaneum and Pompeii.
The reign of Nerva (96-98), who was selected by the Senate to succeed Domitian, began another golden age in Roman history, during which four emperors–Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius–took the throne peacefully, succeeding one another by adoption, as opposed to hereditary succession. Trajan (98-117) expanded Rome’s borders to the greatest extent in history with victories over the kingdoms of Dacia (now northwestern Romania) and Parthia. His successor Hadrian (117-138) solidified the empire’s frontiers and continued his predecessor’s work of establishing internal stability and instituting administrative reforms.
Under Antoninus Pius (138-161), Rome continued in peace and prosperity, but the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161–180) was dominated by conflict, including war against Parthia and Armenia and the invasion of Germanic tribes from the north. When Marcus fell ill and died near the battlefield at Vindobona (Vienna), he broke with the tradition of non-hereditary succession and named his 19-year-old son Commodus as his successor.
Decline and Disintegration
The decadence and incompetence of Commodus (180-192) brought the golden age of the Roman emperors to a disappointing end. His death at the hands of his own ministers sparked another period of civil war, from which Lucius Septimius Severus (193-211) emerged victorious. During the third century Rome suffered from a cycle of near-constant conflict. A total of 22 emperors took the throne, many of them meeting violent ends at the hands of the same soldiers who had propelled them to power. Meanwhile, threats from outside plagued the empire and depleted its riches, including continuing aggression from Germans and Parthians and raids by the Goths over the Aegean Sea.
The reign of Diocletian (284-305) temporarily restored peace and prosperity in Rome, but at a high cost to the unity of the empire. Diocletian divided power into the so-called tetrarchy (rule of four), sharing his title of Augustus (emperor) with Maximian. A pair of generals, Galerius and Constantius, were appointed as the assistants and chosen successors of Diocletian and Maximian; Diocletian and Galerius ruled the eastern Roman Empire, while Maximian and Constantius took power in the west.
The stability of this system suffered greatly after Diocletian and Maximian retired from office. Constantine (the son of Constantius) emerged from the ensuing power struggles as sole emperor of a reunified Rome in 324. He moved the Roman capital to the Greek city of Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople. At the Council of Nicaea in 325, Constantine made Christianity (once an obscure Jewish sect) Rome’s official religion.
Roman unity under Constantine proved illusory, and 30 years after his death the eastern and western empires were again divided. Despite its continuing battle against Persian forces, the eastern Roman Empire–later known as the Byzantine Empire–would remain largely intact for centuries to come. An entirely different story played out in the west, where the empire was wracked by internal conflict as well as threats from abroad–particularly from the Germanic tribes now established within the empire’s frontiers–and was steadily losing money due to constant warfare.
Rome eventually collapsed under the weight of its own bloated empire, losing its provinces one by one: Britain around 410; Spain and northern Africa by 430. Attila and his brutal Huns invaded Gaul and Italy around 450, further shaking the foundations of the empire. In September 476, a Germanic prince named Odovacar won control of the Roman army in Italy. After deposing the last western emperor, Romulus Augustus, Odovacar’s troops proclaimed him king of Italy, bringing an ignoble end to the long, tumultuous history of ancient Rome.
For almost 30 centuries—from its unification around 3100 B.C. to its conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C.—ancient Egypt was the preeminent civilization in the Mediterranean world. From the great pyramids of the Old Kingdom through the military conquests of the New Kingdom, Egypt’s majesty has long entranced archaeologists and historians and created a vibrant field of study all its own: Egyptology. The main sources of information about ancient Egypt are the many monuments, objects and artifacts that have been recovered from archaeological sites, covered with hieroglyphs that have only recently been deciphered. The picture that emerges is of a culture with few equals in the beauty of its art, the accomplishment of its architecture or the richness of its religious traditions.
Predynastic Period (c. 5000-3100 B.C.)
Few written records or artifacts have been found from the Predynastic Period, which encompassed at least 2,000 years of gradual development of the Egyptian civilization.
Did You Know?
During the rule of Akhenaton, his wife Nefertiti played an important political and religious role in the monotheistic cult of the sun god Aton. Images and sculptures of Nefertiti depict her famous beauty and role as a living goddess of fertility.
Neolithic (late Stone Age) communities in northeastern Africa exchanged hunting for agriculture and made early advances that paved the way for the later development of Egyptian arts and crafts, technology, politics and religion (including a great reverence for the dead and possibly a belief in life after death).
Around 3400 B.C., two separate kingdoms were established: the Red Land to the north, based in the Nile River Delta and extending along the Nile perhaps to Atfih; and the White Land in the south, stretching from Atfih to Gebel es-Silsila. A southern king, Scorpion, made the first attempts to conquer the northern kingdom around 3200 B.C. A century later, King Menes would subdue the north and unify the country, becoming the first king of the first dynasty.
Archaic (Early Dynastic) Period (c. 3100-2686 B.C.)
King Menes founded the capital of ancient Egypt at White Walls (later known as Memphis), in the north, near the apex of the Nile River delta. The capital would grow into a great metropolis that dominated Egyptian society during the Old Kingdom period. The Archaic Period saw the development of the foundations of Egyptian society, including the all-important ideology of kingship. To the ancient Egyptians, the king was a godlike being, closely identified with the all-powerful god Horus. The earliest known hieroglyphic writing also dates to this period.
In the Archaic Period, as in all other periods, most ancient Egyptians were farmers living in small villages, and agriculture (largely wheat and barley) formed the economic base of the Egyptian state. The annual flooding of the great Nile River provided the necessary irrigation and fertilization each year; farmers sowed the wheat after the flooding receded and harvested it before the season of high temperatures and drought returned.
Old Kingdom: Age of the Pyramid Builders (c. 2686-2181 B.C.)
The Old Kingdom began with the third dynasty of pharaohs. Around 2630 B.C., the third dynasty’s King Djoser asked Imhotep, an architect, priest and healer, to design a funerary monument for him; the result was the world’s first major stone building, the Step-Pyramid at Saqqara, near Memphis. Pyramid-building reached its zenith with the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza, on the outskirts of Cairo. Built for Khufu (or Cheops, in Greek), who ruled from 2589 to 2566 B.C., the pyramid was later named by classical historians as one of the ancient world’s Seven Wonders. Two other pyramids were built at Giza for Khufu’s successors Khafra (2558-2532 B.C) and Menkaura (2532-2503 B.C.).
During the third and fourth dynasties, Egypt enjoyed a golden age of peace and prosperity. The pharaohs held absolute power and provided a stable central government; the kingdom faced no serious threats from abroad; and successful military campaigns in foreign countries like Nubia and Libya added to its considerable economic prosperity. Over the course of the fifth and sixth dynasties, the king’s wealth was steadily depleted, partially due to the huge expense of pyramid-building, and his absolute power faltered in the face of the growing influence of the nobility and the priesthood that grew up around the sun god Ra (Re). After the death of the sixth dynasty’s King Pepy II, who ruled for some 94 years, the Old Kingdom period ended in chaos.
First Intermediate Period (c. 2181-2055 B.C.)
On the heels of the Old Kingdom’s collapse, the seventh and eighth dynasties consisted of a rapid succession of Memphis-based rulers until about 2160 B.C., when the central authority completely dissolved, leading to civil war between provincial governors. This chaotic situation was intensified by Bedouin invasions and accompanied by famine and disease.
From this era of conflict emerged two different kingdoms: A line of 17 rulers (dynasties nine and 10) based in Heracleopolis ruled Middle Egypt between Memphis and Thebes, while another family of rulers arose in Thebes to challenge Heracleopolitan power. Around 2055 B.C., the Theban prince Mentuhotep managed to topple Heracleopolis and reunited Egypt, beginning the 11th dynasty and ending the First Intermediate Period.
Middle Kingdom: 12th Dynasty (c. 2055-1786 B.C.)
After the last ruler of the 11th dynasty, Mentuhotep IV, was assassinated, the throne passed to his vizier, or chief minister, who became King Amenemhet I, founder of dynasty 12. A new capital was established at It-towy, south of Memphis, while Thebes remained a great religious center. During the Middle Kingdom, Egypt once again flourished, as it had during the Old Kingdom. The 12th dynasty kings ensured the smooth succession of their line by making each successor co-regent, a custom that began with Amenemhet I.
Middle-Kingdom Egypt pursued an aggressive foreign policy, colonizing Nubia (with its rich supply of gold, ebony, ivory and other resources) and repelling the Bedouins who had infiltrated Egypt during the First Intermediate Period. The kingdom also built diplomatic and trade relations with Syria, Palestine and other countries; undertook building projects including military fortresses and mining quarries; and returned to pyramid-building in the tradition of the Old Kingdom. The Middle Kingdom reached its peak under Amenemhet III (1842-1797 B.C.); its decline began under Amenenhet IV (1798-1790 B.C.) and continued under his sister and regent, Queen Sobekneferu (1789-1786 B.C.), who was the first confirmed female ruler of Egypt and the last ruler of the 12th dynasty.
Second Intermediate Period (c. 1786-1567 B.C.)
The 13th dynasty marked the beginning of another unsettled period in Egyptian history, during which a rapid succession of kings failed to consolidate power. As a consequence, during the Second Intermediate Period Egypt was divided into several spheres of influence. The official royal court and seat of government was relocated to Thebes, while a rival dynasty (the 14th), centered on the city of Xois in the Nile delta, seems to have existed at the same time as the 13th.
Around 1650 B.C., a line of foreign rulers known as the Hyksos took advantage of Egypt’s instability to take control. The Hyksos rulers of the 15th dynasty adopted and continued many of the existing Egyptian traditions in government as well as culture. They ruled concurrently with the line of native Theban rulers of the 17th dynasty, who retained control over most of southern Egypt despite having to pay taxes to the Hyksos. (The 16th dynasty is variously believed to be Theban or Hyksos rulers.) Conflict eventually flared between the two groups, and the Thebans launched a war against the Hyksos around 1570 B.C., driving them out of Egypt.
New Kingdom (c. 1567-1085 B.C.)
Under Ahmose I, the first king of the 18th dynasty, Egypt was once again reunited. During the 18th dynasty, Egypt restored its control over Nubia and began military campaigns in Palestine, clashing with other powers in the area such as the Mitannians and the Hittites. The country went on to establish the world’s first great empire, stretching from Nubia to the Euphrates River in Asia. In addition to powerful kings such as Amenhotep I (1546-1526 B.C.), Thutmose I (1525-1512 B.C.) and Amenhotep III (1417-1379 B.C.), the New Kingdom was notable for the role of royal women such as Queen Hatshepsut (1503-1482 B.C.), who began ruling as a regent for her young stepson (he later became Thutmose III, Egypt’s greatest military hero), but rose to wield all the powers of a pharaoh.
The controversial Amenhotep IV (c. 1379-1362), of the late 18th dynasty, undertook a religious revolution, disbanding the priesthoods dedicated to Amon-Re (a combination of the local Theban god Amon and the sun god Re) and forcing the exclusive worship of another sun-god, Aton. Renaming himself Akhenaton (“servant of the Aton”), he built a new capital in Middle Egypt called Akhetaton, known later as Amarna. Upon Akhenaton’s death, the capital returned to Thebes and Egyptians returned to worshiping a multitude of gods. The 19th and 20th dynasties, known as the Ramesside period (for the line of kings named Ramses) saw the restoration of the weakened Egyptian empire and an impressive amount of building, including great temples and cities. According to biblical chronology, the Exodus of Moses and the Israelites from Egypt possibly occurred during the reign of Ramses II (1304-1237 B.C.).
All of the New Kingdom rulers (with the exception of Akhenaton) were laid to rest in deep, rock-cut tombs (not pyramids) in the Valley of the Kings, a burial site on the west bank of the Nile opposite Thebes. Most of them were raided and destroyed, with the exception of the tomb and treasure of Tutankhamen (c.1361-1352 B.C.), discovered largely intact in A.D. 1922. The splendid mortuary temple of the last great king of the 20th dynasty, Ramses III (c. 1187-1156 B.C.), was also relatively well preserved, and indicated the prosperity Egypt still enjoyed during his reign. The kings who followed Ramses III were less successful: Egypt lost its provinces in Palestine and Syria for good and suffered from foreign invasions (notably by the Libyans), while its wealth was being steadily but inevitably depleted.
Third Intermediate Period (c. 1085-664 B.C.)
The next 400 years–known as the Third Intermediate Period–saw important changes in Egyptian politics, society and culture. Centralized government under the 21st dynasty pharaohs gave way to the resurgence of local officials, while foreigners from Libya and Nubia grabbed power for themselves and left a lasting imprint on Egypt’s population. The 22nd dynasty began around 945 B.C. with King Sheshonq, a descendant of Libyans who had invaded Egypt during the late 20th dynasty and settled there. Many local rulers were virtually autonomous during this period and dynasties 23-24 are poorly documented.
In the eighth century B.C., Nubian pharaohs beginning with Shabako, ruler of the Nubian kingdom of Kush, established their own dynasty–the 25th–at Thebes. Under Kushite rule, Egypt clashed with the growing Assyrian empire. In 671 B.C., the Assyrian ruler Esarhaddon drove the Kushite king Taharka out of Memphis and destroyed the city; he then appointed his own rulers out of local governors and officials loyal to the Assyrians. One of them, Necho of Sais, ruled briefly as the first king of the 26th dynasty before being killed by the Kushite leader Tanuatamun, in a final, unsuccessful grab for power.
From the Late Period to Alexander’s Conquest (c.664-332 B.C.)
Beginning with Necho’s son, Psammetichus, the Saite dynasty ruled a reunified Egypt for less than two centuries. In 525 B.C., Cambyses, king of Persia, defeated Psammetichus III, the last Saite king, at the Battle of Pelusium, and Egypt became part of the Persian Empire. Persian rulers such as Darius (522-485 B.C.) ruled the country largely under the same terms as native Egyptian kings: Darius supported Egypt’s religious cults and undertook the building and restoration of its temples. The tyrannical rule of Xerxes (486-465 B.C.) sparked increased uprisings under him and his successors. One of these rebellions triumphed in 404 B.C., beginning one last period of Egyptian independence under native rulers (dynasties 28-30).
In the mid-fourth century B.C., the Persians again attacked Egypt, reviving their empire under Ataxerxes III in 343 B.C. Barely a decade later, in 332 B.C., Alexander the Great of Macedonia defeated the armies of the Persian Empire and conquered Egypt. After Alexander’s death, Egypt was ruled by a line of Macedonian kings, beginning with Alexander’s general Ptolemy and continuing with his descendants. The last ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt–the legendary Cleopatra VII–surrendered Egypt to the armies of Octavian (later Augustus) in 31 B.C. Six centuries of Roman rule followed, during which Christianity became the official religion of Rome and its provinces (including Egypt). The conquest of Egypt by the Arabs in the seventh century A.D. and the introduction of Islam would do away with the last outward aspects of ancient Egyptian culture and propel the country towards its modern incarnation.
where did the red stripes FIRST come from?
Vikings only began making their first sea-faring voyages in 793.
Phoenicians go back much farther, with the end of their spread being in 300BC
The origination of the red stripe goes back to ….
ancient Jewish tradition. The earliest writings of the Red stripes are first recorded in the Talmud, but the practice goes back even unto the times the Jews spent in Egypt, and when the Israelites found refuge in Judah, between 920 and 720 B.C.E. The red stripe is a Yom Kippur symbol and is used annually as part of the Yom Kippur. The first occasion of Yom Kippur, and the first use of the red stripe takes place 600 years before the Phoenicians, and 1400 years before the vikings used red stripes. The israelites are the original source of the red stripe.
History and Significance of Yom Kippur
According to tradition, the first Yom Kippur took place after the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt and arrival at Mount Sinai, where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Descending from the mountain, Moses caught his people worshipping a golden calf and shattered the sacred tablets in anger. Because the Israelites atoned for their idolatry, God forgave their sins and offered Moses a second set of tablets.
In Tractate Yoma 39b, the Talmud quotes a Baraisa1 that discusses numerous remarkable phenomena that occurred in the Temple during the Yom Kippur service. More specifically, the Talmud states that there was a strip of scarlet-dyed wool tied to the head of the scapegoat2 which at times would turn white in the presence of the large crowd gathered at the Temple on the Day of Atonement.
The Rabbis taught that forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple the lot did not come up in the [high priest’s] right hand nor did the stripe of scarlet wool become white…
(Talmud, Tractate Yoma 39b)
The Miracle of the Red Stripe
The second miracle concerns the crimson strip or cloth tied to the Azazel goat. A portion of this red cloth was also removed from the goat and tied to the Temple door. Each year the red cloth on the Temple door turned white as if to signify the atonement of another Yom Kippur was acceptable to the Lord. This annual event happened until 30 CE when the cloth then remained crimson each year to the time of the Temple's destruction. This undoubtedly caused much stir and consternation among the Jews. This traditional practice is linked to Israel confessing its sins and ceremonially placing this nation's sin upon the Azazel goat. The sin was then removed by this goat's death. Sin was represented by the red color of the cloth (the color of blood). But the cloth remained crimson that is, Israel's sins were not being pardoned and "made white."
————————————————————————————–
And there we have it, the earliest known occurrence of the RED stripe against white is with YOM Kippur, in the years around 900 BC when the israelites made their Exodus. there is no earlier use of red stripes. So fascinating to be able to trace the red stripes back to its origins-Yom Kippur and Israel!!
Moloch is a Canaanite /Hebrew god
Moloch
Previous (Molly Pitcher)
Next (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)
An artist's depiction of Moloch.
Moloch (also rendered as Molech or Molekh, from the Hebrew מלך mlk) is a Canaanite god in the Old Testament associated with human sacrifice. Some scholars have suggested that the term refers to a particular kind of sacrifice carried out by the Phoenicians and their neighbors rather than a specific god, though this theory has been widely rejected. Although Moloch is referred to sparingly in the Old Testament, the significance of the god and the sacrificial ritual cannot be underestimated, as the Israelite writers vehemently reject the related practices, regarding them as murderous and idolatrous. While no particular form of Moloch is known due to the ambiguity of his origin, he is usually depicted in the form of a calf or an ox, or else as a man with the head of a bull. The figure of Moloch has been an object of fascination over the centuries, and has been used to bolster metaphorical and thematic elements within numerous modern works of art, film, and literature.
Etymology
The Hebrew letters מלך (mlk) usually stand for melek or “the king,” and were used to refer to the status of the sacrificial god within his cult. Nineteenth and early twentieth century archaeology has found almost no physical evidence of a god referred to as Moloch or by any similar epithet. Thus, if such a god did exist, Moloch was not the name he was known by among his worshipers, but rather a Hebrew transliteration. The term usually appears in the Old Testament text as the compound lmlk. The Hebrew preposition l- means “to,” but it can often mean “for” or “as a(n).” Accordingly, one can translate lmlk as "to Moloch," "for Moloch," "as a Moloch," "to the Moloch," "for the Moloch" or "as the Moloch." We also find hmlk, “the Moloch” standing by itself on one occasion. The written form Moloch (in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament), or Molech (Hebrew), is no different than the word Melek or “king,” which is purposely improperly vocalized by interposing the vowels of the Hebrew term bosheth or “shameful thing.” This distortion allows the term to express the compunction felt by Israelites who witnessed their brethren worshipping this god of human sacrifices, and in doing so prevents them from giving noble status of "king" to what was for all intents and purposes, a false idol.
Moloch and other gods
A variety of scholars have suggested that Moloch is not an original god himself, but actually an alternative epithet given to another god or gods from cultures who lived in proximity to the Israelites. For instance, some scholars hold that Moloch is actually the Ammonite god Milcom, due to the phonological similarity of the names. While the names are indeed similar, the Old Testament text clearly differentiates between these deities on several occasions, most notably when referring to the national god of the Ammonites as Milcom and the god of human sacrifice as Moloch (1 Kings 11.33; Zephaniah 1.5). Further, the Old Testament mostly refers to Molech as Canaanite, rather than Ammonite. The Septuagint refers to Milcom in 1 Kings 11.7 when referring to Solomon's religious failings, instead of Moloch, which may have resulted from a scribal error in the Hebrew. Many English translations accordingly follow the non-Hebrew versions at this point and render Milcom.
Other scholars have claimed that Moloch is merely another name for Ba'al, the Sacred Bull who was widely worshipped in the ancient Near East. Ba'al is also frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, sometimes even in proximity to Moloch. Jeremiah 32.35, for instance, refers to rituals dedicated to Ba'al in the Hinnom Valley, with the offering of child sacrifices to Moloch. Allusions made to Moloch in the context of the Canaanite fertility cult, which was headed by Ba'al, also suggest a close relationship between the two figures. Further, the Bible commonly makes reference to burnt offerings being given to Ba’al himself. While these examples could be interpreted to suggest that Moloch and Ba’al are the same god, they more likely refer to the acknowledgement of their close relationship. Again, given the fact that a distinct name is used in the context of sacrifice suggests that Moloch can only be related to Ba'al (perhaps in the faculty of a henotheistic underling) rather than equated with him.
The fact that the name of Moloch appeared frequently in ancient sources suggests that Moloch was viewed as a distinct deity. John Day, in his book Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament claims that there was indeed a Canaanite god whose name was rendered Melek in the Old Testament. Day cites evidence of this god from the Ugraritic texts, which are serpent charms, where he appears as Malik. Malik, he claims, is equivalent to Nergal, the Mesopotamian god of the underworld who is listed upon god lists from ancient Babylonia. Day concludes that this evidence is consistent with Moloch's malevolent status in the Old Testament, described in Isaiah 57.9 where the prophet parallels sacrifice to Moloch with a journey into the underground world of Sheol. A god of the underworld is just the kind of god one might worship in the valley of Ben-Hinnom rather than on a hill top.
Old Testament
Moloch has been most often characterized in the Old Testament by the phrase "to cause to pass through the fire," (h'byrb's in Hebrew) as is used in 2 Kings 23.10. Although this term does not specify on its own whether the ritual related to Moloch involves human sacrifice, the Old Testament clearly interprets it to be so. For example, Isaiah 57.5 states:
You who burn with lust among the oaks, under every luxuriant tree; who slay your children in the valleys, under the clefts of rocks.
Four verses later, Moloch is mentioned specifically:
You journeyed to Moloch with oil and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoys far off, and sent down even to Sheol. (Isaiah 57.9)
This reference to the underworld suggests that the fate of children is to be sent to death at the hands of Moloch. Thus, although Moloch's role in the Old Testament is small, it is nonetheless important, as his worship most clearly illustrates the more brutal aspects of idolatry and therefore reinforces the second commandment. Leviticus 18.21 reads:
And you shall not let any of your seed pass through Mo'lech, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 20.2-5 deals with Moloch at length and promises a punishment of death by stoning for perpetration of human sacrifices:
Whoever he be of the Sons of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives any of his seed Mo'lech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people; because he has given of his seed Mo'lech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed Mo'lech, and do not kill him, then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go astray after him, whoring after Mo'lech from among the people.
Here it becomes evident that it is not only worship of Moloch that is a transgression; failure to identify and punish worshipers of Moloch is also considered to be a grave sin. Also, the metaphor of prostitution is used in order to convey the sense of spiritual adultery which is being committed against God, or Yahweh, through the worship of Moloch.
These passages suggest that disdain for Moloch arose due to his worship “alongside” Yahweh, thereby affirming an idolatrous multiplicity of gods. Alternately, Moloch's worship may have been forbidden based on the fact that he was actually “equated” with Yahweh. The prose sections of Jeremiah suggest that there were some worshipers of Moloch who thought Yahweh had commanded the offerings to Moloch based upon the sacrifices of the first born which are mentioned in the Pentateuch (for instance, Exodus 22.28). Jeremiah 32.35 reads:
And they built the high places of the Ba‘al, which are in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire Mo'lech; which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
This wording suggests that the Israelites may have erroneously developed the idea that Yahweh had decreed such sacrifices to Moloch. This theory is questionable, however, as sacrifices to Moloch were undertaken away from the temple in the valley of Hinnom, in a place commonly referred to as Tophet (as mentioned in 2 Kings 23.10, Jeremiah 7.31-32, 19.6, 11-14).
Traditional accounts and theories
Rabbinical Tradition
The significance of Moloch was elaborated and speculated upon by numerous post-Biblical thinkers, Jewish and non-Jewish. The twelfth century, Rabbi Rashi stated that the cult of Moloch involved a father conceding his son to pagan priests, who then passed a child between two flaming pyres. Rashi, as well as other rabbinic commentators, interpreted human sacrifice to Moloch as being adulterous, as it solidified allegiance to a false god. Such interpretations in terms of idolatry made the biblical laws seem more pertinent in the twelfth century, as the prevalence of human sacrifice had long since tapered away. Commenting on Jeremiah 7.31, Rashi stated that Moloch:
was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.
Another rabbinical tradition says that the idol was hollow and divided into seven compartments, each of which contained a separate offering for the god. In the first compartment was flour, in the second turtle doves, in the third a ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the seventh a child, all of which were burnt together by heating the statue inside.
Moloch in medieval texts
Like some other gods and demons found in the Bible, Moloch appears as part of medieval demonology, primarily as a Prince of Hell. This Moloch specializes in making mothers weep, as he takes particular pleasure in stealing their children. According to some sixteenth century demonologists, Moloch's power is stronger in October. It is likely that the motif of stealing children was inspired by the traditional understanding that babies were sacrificed to Moloch. Moloch was alternately conceived of in such accounts as a rebellious angel.
Moloch as a type of sacrifice
Eissfeldt's Discovery
It was widely held that Moloch was a god until 1935 when Otto Eissfeldt, a German archaeologist, published a radical new theory based upon excavations he had made in Carthage. During these excavations he made several telling discoveries, most importantly that of a relief showing a priest holding a child, as well as a sanctuary to the goddess Tanit comprising a cemetery with thousands of burned bodies of animal and of human infants. He concluded that mlk in Hebrew was instead a term used to refer to a particular kind of sacrifice, rather than a specific god, since mlk (molk) is a Punic term for sacrifice. This sacrifice, he claimed, involved humans in some cases. The abomination described in the Hebrew writings, then, occurred not in the worship a god Moloch who demanded that children be sacrificed to him, but rather in the practice of sacrificing human children as a molk. Hebrews were strongly opposed to sacrificing first-born children as a molk to Yahweh himself. Eissfeldt also speculated that the practice may also have been conducted by their neighbors in Canaan.
Eissfeldt's theory is supported by classical sources and archaeological evidence that suggest the Punic culture practiced human sacrifice. Thus, Eissfeldt identified the site as a tophet, using a Hebrew word of previously unknown meaning connected to the burning of human beings in some Biblical passages. Similar tophets have since been found at Carthage and other places in North Africa, as well as in Sardinia, Malta, and Sicily. In late 1990 a possible tophet consisting of cinerary urns containing bones, ashes, and votive objects was retrieved from ransacking on the mainland just outside of Tyre in the Phoenician homeland.[1] Thus, a body of evidence exists in support of the theory that Moloch actually refers to the act of human sacrifice itself.
Criticisms
From the beginning there were those who doubted Eissfeldt's theory, though opposition was only sporadic until 1970. Prominent archaeologist Sabatino Moscati, who had at first accepted Eissfeldt's idea, changed his opinion and spoke against it. The most common arguments against the theory were that classical accounts of the sacrifices of children at Carthage were not numerous and were only described as occurring in times of peril, rather than being a regular occurrence. Critics also questioned whether the burned bodies of infants could be stillborn children or children who had died of natural causes. Burning of their bodies may have been a religious practice applied under such circumstances. Further, it was noted that many of the allegations of human sacrifices made against the Carthagians were controversial, and therefore accounts of such sacrifices were exaggerated or entirely false. Accusations of human sacrifice in Carthage had been found only among a small number of authors and were not mentioned at all by many other writers who dealt with Carthage in greater depth, and sometimes even among those who were more openly hostile to Carthage.
Furthermore, the nature of what was sacrificed is not for certain. The children put to death are described in the classical accounts as boys and girls rather than infants exclusively. The Biblical decrying of the sacrificing of one's children as a molk sacrifice does not precisely indicate that all molk sacrifices must involve a human child sacrifice or even that a molk usually involved human sacrifice. Many texts referring to the molk sacrifice mentioned animals more often than humans. The term mlk is a versatile one and can also be combined with 'dm to mean "sacrifice of a man," while mlk 'mr refers to the "sacrifice of a sheep." Therefore the term mlk on its own is not specified. Thus, some scholars have concluded that mlk refers to the act of "offering" in general, rather than human sacrifice specifically.
If Moloch were indeed a type of sacrifice and not a god, this would suggest that an improbable number of Biblical interpreters would have misunderstood the term, which is referred to in the sense of a god in numerous books of the Bible. Such a misunderstanding is unlikely considering the fact that Biblical writers wrote during, or in close proximity to, the time that such sacrifices were being practiced. It is also highly unlikely that all other ancient versions of the Biblical texts would ubiquitously ignore the sacrificial definition of Moloch if the word indeed developed out of this meaning. Thus, there is little support of the supposition that the Moloch of the Old Testament should be equated with the Punic molk.
Furthermore, Eissfeldt's use of the Biblical word tophet was criticized as arbitrary. Even those who believed in Eissfeldt's general theory mostly took tophet to mean something along the lines of “hearth” in the Biblical context, rather than a cemetery of some kind. With each of these criticisms considered, detractors to Eissfeldt's theories have steadily gained in numbers.
Moloch in literature and popular culture
Throughout modernity, Moloch has appeared frequently in works of literature, art, and film. In Milton's classic Paradise Lost, Moloch is one of the greatest warriors of the rebel angels, vengeful, militant, and:
"besmeared with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents' tears."
Milton lists Moloch among the chief of Satan's angels in Book I. Furthermore, Moloch orates before the parliament of hell in Book 2:43 -105, arguing for immediate warfare against God. The poem explains that he later becomes revered as a pagan god on earth.
In his successful 1888 novel about Carthage entitled Salammbô, French author Gustave Flaubert imaginatively created his own version of the Carthaginian religion, depicting known gods such as Ba‘al Hammon, Khamon, Melkarth and Tanith. He also included Moloch within this pantheon, and it was to Moloch that the Carthaginians offered children as sacrifices. Flaubert described Moloch mostly according to the rabbinic descriptions, though he made some additions of his own. Due to Flaubert's vivid descriptions of the god, images from Salammbô (and the subsequent silent film Cabiria released in 1914 which was largely based upon it) have actually come to influence some examples of scholarly writing about Moloch, Melqart, Carthage, Ba‘al Hammon, etc.
Moloch also features prominently in the second part of the poem Howl, arguably Allen Ginsberg's most recognizable work. In this poem, Moloch is interpreted as representative of American greed and bloodthirstiness, and Ginsberg parallels the smoke of the sacrificed humans to the pollution created by factories. In Alexandr Sokurov's 1999 film Moloch, Moloch is employed as a metaphor for Adolf Hitler. The figure of Moloch also appears frequently in popular culture, in a variety of media spanning movies to videogames. Modern Hebrew often uses the expression "sacrifice something to the Moloch" to refer to any harm undertaken for worthless causes.
Good lord, these horrors just keep tracing back to the ancient Israelites
'im so proud of you anons'
that's a very unsual thing for an anon to say. I dont need a freaking pat on the head or patronized. it is really really irksome to be handed a doggie treat I didn't ask for.
ok anyway, rename the new bake. Nordic has nothing at all to do with the mediterranean and the middle east which is where we traced it all back to. The vikings may have landed in the New World before Columbus, but nothing of them or their scruffy civilization exists today, certainly not a new world order plot.
Obviously they traded with Phoenicians and travel
lled into the mediteranean, but travel is not a 'connection'.
Canaanite world order? possibly. I think OP just wanted to force a letter to replace N. Nimrodean World Order then. Because that's where we are at. Time and time and time again.
Vikings raped and pillaged. They took what they wanted. They are just the guys who, when wandering through a smoking, gutted village thought 'Oh, this is nice. I want this.' and that's how they wound up with art, beads, clothing, ships, sails and even cats. Not a 'false flag', just theft.
oh, also, Switzerland is not 'nordic'. Swiss are a different people, ethnically and culturally than the Nordic nations: Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the places Vikings settled: Iceland, Greenland
Switzerland is part of Europe, and DNA wise they are mostly the same people as France and Germany and Austria. They have their own culture and ethnicity.
About time you pulled out a map I think.