The signature voice and low end of hair metal. The post Michael Anthony: the real secret weapon of Van Halen first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

by Mike Whitney, The Unz Review: Sirens sounded across Israel on Tuesday as a massive barrage of Iranian ballistic missiles hit targets around Tel Aviv. The attack was launched in response to Israel’s assassinations of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah’s chairman Hasan Nasrallah. According to a statement released by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the attack […]

  Julius Caesar’s iconic “Veni, Vidi, Vici” (“I came, I saw, I conquered”) is without a doubt one of the most famous phrases from antiquity. The famous phrase describes a spectacular and swift victory over the king of Pontus. But it also marks a moment when Julius Caesar gained absolute power in Rome. While many people know the phrase, few understand its full historical context. “Veni, Vidi, Vici” is more than a mere exclamation of triumph. It is a perfect political slogan. A slogan portraying Caesar as a brilliant general, a shrewd politician, and a man who managed to do what his rivals could not in a much shorter time. A slogan that established Julius Caesar as a leader, a trailblazer, who would change the course of Roman history. Thus, “Veni Vidi, Vici” foreshadows Rome’s transition from a Republic to the Empire.   “Veni, Vidi, Vici”: Julius Caesar’s Swift Victory in Asia Bust of Julius Caesar, by Andrea di Pietro di Marco Ferrucci, 1512-4. Source: The MET Museum   The story of “Veni, Vidi, Vici,” one of Julius Caesar’s iconic phrases, is as fascinating as the meaning of the phrase itself. In the Summer of 47 BCE, the great Roman general was fresh off his victory in Egypt, where he had defeated Ptolemaic forces, securing the throne for his ally and mistress, Queen Cleopatra. Caesar could not rest for long, as another trouble was brewing in the East. While Caesar was preoccupied with the Alexandrine War, Pharnaces II, the king of Pontus—a Hellenistic kingdom in Asia Minor—exploited the opportunity and defeated the Roman forces in the area. Caesar had to act fast if he wanted to quell the rebellion.   Relief depicting the Roman Republican soldiers, 2nd century BCE. Source: The Louvre Museum, Paris   And he did just that. In a veritable ancient blitzkrieg, Julius Caesar marched with his legions northwards, reaching Pontus within weeks. Pharnaces, taken aback by the unexpected speed of the Roman army, tried to parlay, but Caesar refused it outright. What followed was one of the shortest Roman wars. In August 47 BCE, the Roman legions defeated Pharnaces’ forces, thus ending the five-hour Pontic campaign. The swift and decisive victory gave rise to the legendary phrase — “Veni, Vidi, Vici” or “I came, I saw, I conquered.”   The Sources for the Iconic Phrase Gaius Julius Cäsar, by Peter Paul Rubens, 1619. Source: the Brandenburg Museum   Several sources recorded the iconic catchphrase, chief among them being Suetonius’ Lives of Twelve Caesars, Plutarch’s Life of Caesar, and Appian’s The Histories. However, the sources disagree about the quote’s exact origin and use. According to Plutarch, born nearly a century after the Battle of Zela, Caesar coined “Veni, Vidi, Vici” in conversation with his friend Amantius. Appian, writing in the second century, claims that the iconic phrase was not spoken but written in a letter informing the Roman Senate of the victory.   Portrait of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, as Herakles, marble copy of a bronze original, ca. 1st century CE. Source: The Louvre Museum   The most interesting is a report by Suetonius, who tells us that Caesar used the “Veni, Vidi, Vici” as a slogan in his Pontic triumph during a spectacular victory parade in Rome in 46 BCE. The triumph, itself part of multiple triumphs Caesar celebrated on this occasion, brought to a close the lengthy and costly Mithridatic Wars that Rome had fought against Pontus for several decades. The short and powerful catchphrase highlighted Caesar’s swift and complete victory and solidified his position as the most powerful man in Rome.   The Words of Victory Julius Caesar on Horseback, by Matthaus Merian the Elder, 1610-50. Source: the MET Museum   According to Suetonius, during the triumph of 46 BCE, Julius Caesar displayed a placard (titulus) among the biers of the triumphal procession. The placard bore three powerful words: “VENI, VIDI, VICI.” Caesar strategically used this phrase to emphasize the speed with which the war had been concluded. Unlike some of Caesar’s other famous sayings, which were likely uttered in Greek, “Veni, Vidi, Vici” was proclaimed in Latin.   The first portrait denarius of Julius Caesar, minted in the first half of January 44 BCE, shortly before he declared himself dictator for life. Source: CNG Coins   The phrase “Veni, Vidi, Vici” was not merely a standalone statement; it was a strategic element of Julius Caesar’s carefully managed political campaign. Displayed prominently during his grand victory procession, the phrase portrayed Caesar as the triumphator — the undisputed victor. This iconic slogan was crafted for the masses, acting as a perfect rhetorical device that summarized and highlighted Caesar’s military achievements and political aspirations. Julius Caesar was now on the cusp of taking absolute power in the Roman Republic.   The Perfect Political Slogan The Triumph of Pompey, Gabriel de Saint-Aubin, 1765. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York   However, “Veni, Vidi, Vici” carried another, more subtle, and no less powerful meaning. The Pontic triumph was one of the four triumphs that Caesar celebrated in 46 BCE. The tituli, the large placards, were an important part of Roman military culture. Whenever generals would return to Rome from a successful campaign, they organized lavish triumphs to celebrate their victories. The tituli would serve the same purpose as modern-day banners and billboards, conveying important information to a mass audience. Before Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great had also organized grand triumphs after his victories in the East.   Plaque from the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, showing the Roman Republican soldiers, 2nd Century BCE. Source: The Louvre Museum, Paris.   But by 46 BCE, Pompey was dead, his defeat and death concluding the civil war and leaving Caesar as the undisputed victor. Thus, Caesar’s Pontic triumph was not just a celebration of his military prowess but also a political statement. It allowed him to subtly overshadow his civil war victories, which were often viewed as less honorable than foreign conquests. More importantly, it also presented Caesar as the man who achieved what his predecessors, including Pompey, could not—to win the Mithridatic Wars, and in style—with swift and spectacular victory!   The Phrase as a Provocation “The Bearers of Standards” and “Julius Caesar”, the second and ninth paintings of the series Triumphs of Caesar, by Andrea Mantegna, 1484-1492. Source: Hampton Court Palace’s Royal Collection   The tituli usually conveyed practical details about the campaign: the number of dead enemies, captive prisoners, the value of the confiscated treasure, and the list of conquered and destroyed towns. “Veni, Vidi, Vici,” however, conveyed a different message — one not yet seen in a Roman triumph. but also the exceptional and victorious speed of the Pontic campaign. In essence, “Veni, Vidi, Vici” was a blunt proclamation of Julius Caesar’s superiority over his enemies, his rivals—including Pompey the Great—and most significantly the Senate, which traditionally governed the Roman Republic.   The so-called Tusculum portrait, probably the only surviving sculpture of Julius Caesar made during his lifetime, ca. 44 BCE. Source: Museo di Antichita, Torino   Thus, “I came, I saw, I conquered” was an unprecedented provocation. It portrayed Julius Caesar as a victorious general who, unlike his predecessors, took sole credit for his accomplishments. He was a man who could defeat everyone who opposed him, a powerful politician overcoming all obstacles. A victor poised to take absolute power in Rome. And that is precisely what Caesar has done. Two years after his quadruple triumph, in 44 BCE, Julius Caesar became dictator for life, effectively a monarch in all but a name.   Caesar’s Reflection Vercingetorix Before Caesar by Lionel-Noel Royer, 1899. Source: Crozatier Museum, Puy-en-Velay   “Veni, Vidi, Vici” was Caesar’s masterpiece of propaganda, an effective political slogan that not only bookended the Pontic wars but also Caesar’s victories in Gaul, Egypt, Africa, and the civil wars. If “Alea iacta est” (“Let the die be cast”) reflected Caesar’s unwavering determination and willingness to challenge tradition and authority, even at the risk of losing everything, then “I came, I saw, I conquered” perfectly encapsulated Julius Caesar’s character and brilliant career.   Left to right — the marble busts of Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great and Marcus Licinius Crassus   Caesar’s career was a series of calculated moves, from his dominant role in the First Triumvirate, where he managed to outmaneuver both Pompey and Crassus, to his conquests in Gaul, which secured him the undisputed loyalty of his legions and made him widely popular. His pivotal role in the civil wars left Caesar as the sole master of Rome. Ultimately, the phrase heralded Caesar’s grand ambition of assuming absolute power.   “Veni, Vidi, Vici” as Julius Caesar’s Legacy The Death of Julius Caesar by Vincenzo Camuccini, 1806. Source: The National Museum of Capodimonte, Naples   But “Veni, Vidi, Vici” also reflected Caesar’s hubris, which ultimately led to his downfall. On the Ides of March of 44 BCE, the same year he declared himself a dictator for life, Caesar was assassinated in a senatorial plot. However, the conspirators, led by Brutus, failed to turn back the clock. In a way, “Veni, Vidi, Vici” also reflected a broader trend affecting the Late Republic — a trend of powerful individuals desiring absolute rule, with Julius Caesar being the most prominent.   Detail from the larger-than-life statue of Augustus of Prima Porta, early 1st century CE. Source: Musei Vaticani, Rome   The aftermath of Caesar’s death saw another civil war, further undermining traditional foundations. Eventually, the Republic gave way, and a new Roman Empire emerged. “Veni, Vidi, Vici” thus stood as a harbinger of change, signaling the demise of the old order and the rise of a new one. In this new era, a single man, also called Caesar—i.e., the emperor—could take sole credit for his accomplishments, evolving into an absolutist ruler who would reshape Rome in his image.   And like Julius Caesar, this man would claim victory by himself and for himself.

  Once part of the Achaemenid Empire, Sogdiana and Bactria had only ever been loosely governed. The arrival of Alexander the Great and his Macedonian army threatened to overturn the established traditional patterns of life in the region. As such, the Macedonians were met with dogged resistance.   Once it became clear that the Macedonians could not be defeated on the battlefield many people retreated into the impenetrable mountain fortresses that dotted the region. The most important of these was known variably as the Sogdian Rock or as the Rock of Arimazes.   A Question of Timing Bronze Statuette of Alexander, Roman, 1st-3rd century CE. Source: The Walters Art Museum   The Siege of the Sogdian Rock is one of the most famous incidents to occur during Alexander’s time in Central Asia. It was recorded by several ancient historians, who described Alexander’s campaigns. Originally, it seems to have been a part of Arrian’s Anabasis, which other ancient historians drew from and repeated. However, the overall chronology of Alexander’s campaigns during this period appears somewhat muddled to modern historians.   This does not mean that they do not believe that the siege occurred. Rather, the timing and the sequence of events seem off. Following Arrian’s chronology, the siege of the Sogdian Rock occurred in early 327 BCE. If this is the case, then Alexander appears to have been uncharacteristically inactive in 328 BCE and extremely active in early 327 BCE.   Another issue is that the siege of the Sogdian Rock may have become conflated with other similar sieges from this period. During this campaign, Alexander besieged not only the Sogdian Rock but also the Rock of Chorienes and the Rock of Sisimithres. In some traditions, the Rock of Arimazes was not another name for the Sogdian Rock, but a separate fortress in and of itself.   It has also been suggested that Alexander made use of a similar stratagem on each occasion to capture the fortresses. If this is the case, then it is easy to understand how such repetition could have led ancient historians to confuse and conflate the sequence of events. However, in the absence of further and more solid evidence, we must make use of the sources that we have.   Resistance  Plate with a relief depicting battle, Scythian, 4th century BCE. Source: The State Hermitage Museum   Following his victory over the Saka in 329 BCE, Alexander the Great was faced with renewed resistance and rebellion. The former Achaemenid satrapies of Sogdiana and Bactria had only ever been loosely governed by the empire. Alexander’s arrival upset the traditional power structures in the region and there may have been cultural clashes as well.   Resistance coalesced around Spitamenes (c.370-328 BCE), a Sogdian nobleman who had previously handed over the Achaemenid usurper Bessus (r.330-329 BCE) to Alexander. Initially, Alexander was too busy with the Saka invasion to deal with Spitamenes who had besieged the Macedonian garrison at Markanda. As such he dispatched a relief column to raise the siege. The officer in charge of the column, Pharnuches, was chosen because he could speak the local language and had shown himself skilled in dealing with the Sogdians.   Unfortunately for the Macedonians, Pharnuches was a better diplomat than a military commander. Spitamenes annihilated the entire column, which consisted of some 2,000 infantry and 300 cavalry. The uprising was now a direct threat to Alexander’s position in the region. Yet when Alexander finally arrived at Markanda, he discovered that Spitamenes had already lifted the siege and was attacking Bactria. Here, Spitamenes was repulsed with great difficulty by the newly appointed satrap Artabazos II (c.389-328 BCE). Interestingly, Artabazos was a former Achaemenid satrap who had been awarded his new position by Alexander in recognition of his service to the Achaemenids.   Eventually, Spitamenes was decisively defeated at the Battle of Gabai in late 328 BCE. He was then betrayed and beheaded by nomadic tribesmen who then sued for peace.   Refuges and Refugees Oxyartes, Roxana, and Oxyartes’ Family, by Joan Francesc Oliveras Pallerols. Source Albanopedia.com   With the defeat and execution of Spitamenes the Sogdians and their allies were no longer able to field an army that could hope to challenge Alexander. Resistance continued, as many nobles and local leaders were unwilling to give up the fight. However, they now switched tactics. Rather than confront Alexander on the battlefield, those who wished to continue to resist retreated into the mountains.   Today, the regions that made up ancient Sogdiana and Bactria are divided between Afghanistan and its neighbors. This is an extremely mountainous and inaccessible part of the world even now. The ancient Sogdians and Bactrians took advantage of the mountains and built impenetrable fortresses for themselves on high peaks that no army could hope to approach. It was to these fortresses that they now retreated.   One of those leading the resistance against Alexander and the Macedonians was Oxyartes, a Bactrian nobleman who had held a high position in the Achaemenid Empire. Previously, Oxyartes had allied himself to Bessus. However, once it became clear that Bessus was unlikely to triumph over Alexander, Oxyartes joined with Spitamenes and others to arrest and execute him. Now, Oxyartes feared that he would be harshly treated by Alexander and was unwilling to submit. He therefore sent his wife and daughters to a mountain fortress known as the Sogdian Rock. Here he believed that they would be safe while he continued to campaign.   Men With Wings Winged Nike, Hellenistic, 200-150 BCE. Source: The British Museum   With the arrival of spring, Alexander increased the tempo of his activities. He appears to have recognized the strength of the Sogdian Rock and now made it his focus. It appears that he felt that since this fortress was so prominent and was believed to be so strong, if he succeeded in capturing it the rest of the region would surrender. Additionally, he learned that Oxyartes’ family had taken refuge here.   Since Oxyartes was now Alexander’s most prominent enemy, capturing his family would also hopefully lead to his surrender. However, when Alexander arrived before the Sogdian Rock, the enormity of the challenge before him sunk in.   Not only was the fortress high on the mountainside, but in every direction the approaches were incredibly steep on all sides. The defenders were also abundantly supplied with all the provisions necessary to outlast a long siege. Yet that was not all. Even worse for Alexander and the Macedonians, there was heavy snow. This made conditions in the Macedonian camp incredibly uncomfortable while also making any attempt to approach the fortress even more difficult. It even provided the defenders with an abundant water source which they readily took advantage of.   However, Alexander remained determined to capture the Sogdian Rock. Recognizing that attacking the fortress would be difficult, Alexander tried to reach a negotiated settlement. Confident in the strength of their position, the defenders refused. Mockingly, the defenders told Alexander to “Seek soldiers with wings to capture the mountain for him, since no other men were of concern to them.”   Rock Climbing Silver Tetradrachm of Alexander, Hellenistic, 325-319 BCE. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art   Alexander was enraged by the defiance of the defenders and swore to conquer the fortress. However, it was clear that the Sogdian Rock was not going to be captured through normal means. It would take too long to starve the defenders into submission, and the position was too difficult to assault normally. Therefore, Alexander called for volunteers from those who had acquired rock climbing experience.   Some were hardy mountaineers, while others had gained experience during Alexander’s many sieges. Alexander then declared that the first man to scale the mountain would receive 12 Talents (Approx. $50,000 USD), with every successive man receiving slightly less. Eventually, 300 eager volunteers were assembled.   This picked force then began to ascend the rock face under cover of night to avoid being detected by the defenders. They picked a particularly difficult area as they believed that there would be fewer guards at the top. To assist with the assent, they brought with them iron tent pegs and linen cord. As they climbed the pegs were driven in anywhere that the ground seemed firm or where the snow and ice was solid. They then used the linen cords to pull themselves up as they went.   Progress was slow and painful. Some 30 men are reported to have fallen to their deaths during the ascent, and it is said that their bodies could not be recovered. At last, they reached the top of the mountain just before dawn.   In the Morning Light Figurine of Nike (Victory), Hellenistic. Source: The Louvre   Those who survived the climb now took up a position on top of the mountain near the peak. This meant that they were now in a position that overlooked the fortress. As the dawn’s early light began to break, they set up and began to wave the signal flags that they had carried with them during their ascent. In this way, they were able to send a message down to the Macedonian encampment at the foot of the mountain.   Through this prearranged signal they were able to convey to Alexander and the Macedonians that they had arrived and were in position. When Alexander received the signal, he immediately dispatched a herald to the defenders inside the fortress.   The herald was not allowed to approach too closely by the cautious defenders, so he had to shout his message loudly enough to be heard. In a loud voice, the herald called upon the defenders to immediately surrender. The herald then called out that Alexander “… had indeed found men with wings, and the heights of the mountain were in their hands.” As he spoke he gestured to the mountaintop which appeared to bristle with Macedonian soldiers.   The defenders were astounded by this sudden turn of events. They imagined that somehow a far larger force had climbed to the top of the mountain. This sudden reversal of fortune so unnerved the defenders that they threw down their arms and surrendered without further resistance.   The Loveliest Woman in Asia Alexander the Great and Roxana, by Pietro Rotari, 1756. Source Wikimedia Commons   Alexander now found himself in control of the Sogdian Rock, which was then the most formidable fortress in the region. He also now held the families of rebels who continued to resist his conquest, including the wife and daughters of Oxyartes.   According to ancient historians, it was at this moment that Alexander laid eyes on Roxana (d.310 BCE), or Rukhsana, the daughter of Oxyartes, who was then of a marriageable age. Alexander was instantly smitten with her, and she was described as the most beautiful woman in all of Asia. So madly in love with Roxana was Alexander that he did not treat her like a captive and subject her to rape and dishonor. Instead, he decided to marry her despite the objections of his companions.   While the meeting of Alexander and Roxana, was painted as a tale of great romance in antiquity and even today, it was also a masterful political move. When Oxyartes heard of the favorable treatment his daughter had received, he gave up the fight and surrendered himself. In return, he was lavishly rewarded.   The union went a long way toward winning over the local population and ending their resistance. This ultimately freed Alexander to continue on with his campaign of conquest. It is also worth noting that, although the date of Roxana’s birth is unknown, she would likely have been in her teens at the time of her marriage to Alexander. He would have been about 29 years old, though admittedly such age gaps were common during that time period.   Aftermath of the Siege of Sogdian Rock The Wedding of Alexander the Great and Roxana, by Il Sodoma, c.1517, Source WGA; with Map of Alexander’s Conquest of India. Source Wikimedia Commons   Having captured the hitherto impregnable Sogdian Rock, Alexander was able to reduce the other fortresses in the region one after the other. His marriage to Roxana shortly thereafter, clearly helped bring an end to local resistance as well. This freed up Alexander to continue on with his campaign.   Craterus, one of Alexander’s generals, was sent with an army to pacify the former Achaemenid province of Parsetakene. Meanwhile, Alexander remained in Bactria both to wed Roxana and to prepare for his next great expedition. With Sogdiana and Bactria now pacified, Alexander led an expedition across the Hindu-Kush mountains and into India.   Alexander’s capture of the Sogdian Rock is remembered today as one of Alexander’s most successful stratagems. It demonstrated that Alexander was a bold and creative thinker who was willing to take risks. Yet, much of the credit for his success belongs to the 300 Macedonian soldiers who accomplished the impossible by scaling a sheer rock face in the worst conditions possible. This feat has rarely been equaled in the history of warfare.

  The Macedonian army of Alexander the Great entered the Indian subcontinent in 327 BCE via the Khyber and Pir-Sar passes. Alexander’s advance was met with stiff resistance, but he was able to smash the opposition despite being greatly outnumbered. Having entered the modern Punjab region, Alexander sent out messages to the local rulers calling on them to submit. While many did, the powerful Indian king, Porus the Elder refused. Instead, he gathered his army to face Alexander at the Battle of Hydaspes.   Indian Allies of Alexander Relief depicting the siege of a city, Indian Mauryan Period, 3rd century BCE. Source: World History Encyclopedia   The Macedonian advance through the Khyber and Pir-Sar passes was ferociously resisted by local tribes. Yet despite being outnumbered by 3:1 or even 5:1, the Macedonians successfully fought their way through. Rumors of Alexander and his conquests had traveled ahead of his advance. Areas in this part of the subcontinent had once been ruled by the Achaemenids.   Alexander sent out messengers ahead of his army to all the local rulers calling on them to swear allegiance or face destruction. He was also now joined by the powerful Indian ruler of Taxila or Takshasila. The king, whose real name was Ambhi but whom the Macedonians called Taxiles or Omphis, had first sent an ambassador to Alexander in Sogdiana.   Now with Alexander and his army in India, Taxiles came out to swear his allegiance and offer lavish gifts. While at Taxila or Takshasila, Alexander rested his army, received the submission of various local rulers, and planned the next phase of his campaign. Alexander also showered Taxiles with gifts and confirmed him as ruler, adding new lands to his domain.   However, not everyone was happy to welcome the arrival of Alexander and his army. Part of the reason why Taxiles had been so willing to welcome the Macedonians was that he was himself at war with a particularly powerful and dangerous foe.   Porus the Elder Mace-holder statue, Indian Mathura School, c.100 BCE. Source Wikimedia Commons   Porus (or Poros) was the ruler of a neighboring kingdom between the Jhelum (Hydaspes) and Chenab (Acesines) rivers, said to contain at least 300 cities. Interestingly, he is not mentioned in any Indian sources; all we know of him was recorded by the Greeks and Macedonians. Some Indian scholars have argued that he was possibly a king of the Puru, an earlier Rigvedic confederation.   Others have noted that many Greek sources note his troops carrying banners of Herakles, which bore the image of a snake. They have, therefore, proposed that he be identified with the kingdom of Surasena. This kingdom was named for a mythical king who had married a Naga snake woman. However, the kingdom was some distance away.   What can be said with more certainty is that Porus was a powerful king who was very hostile towards Taxiles. The previous king, the uncle of Taxiles, had been assassinated by Porus some years earlier.   When he received Alexander’s command to surrender, Porus refused and prepared for war. This was a challenge that Alexander could not possibly ignore. Any show of weakness would encourage further resistance and those who had already submitted might rebel. It was also dangerous to leave such a strong opponent unchecked if the Macedonians were to continue their march. Both sides, therefore, were now prepared for war.   Opposing Forces Relief depicting an Indian army at war, Indian Mauryan Period, 3rd century BCE. Source: World History Encyclopedia   The armies that faced off at the battle of the Hydaspes were a unique mixture of troops from across the ancient world. Alexander had his Macedonians as the core of his forces. However, these were supplemented by Asiatic troops that he had recruited along the way.   Perhaps most notable of which were the horse archers that were recruited from among the Saka while Alexander was in Sogdiana and Bactria. There was also a sizable contingent of allied Indian troops under the command of Taxiles. All told the Macedonian army is believed to have consisted of around 40,000 infantry and 5,000-7,000 cavalry. However, it is unclear exactly how many of these troops actually participated in the battle.   Estimates of the troops under the command of Porus are even less clear. This is not helped by the fact that information about Indian armies during this period is difficult to come by as well. It is generally believed that Porus’s army was larger than that of Alexander, though potentially not by much. Most estimates place Porus’s army at around 50,000 to 54,000. The majority of these troops were infantry of inferior quality to that of the Macedonians. They did, however, wield powerful bows to great effect.   There was also a cavalry contingent of 2,000-4,000 horsemen and around 1,000 chariots. While these were largely considered obsolete in many places at this time, chariots were still an integral part of Indian warfare. Finally, the backbone of Porus’s army were his 200 war elephants. Porus himself commanded from the back of a particularly large war elephant.   Pre-Battle Maneuvers The Battle of the Hydaspes Against King Porus in 326 BC, by Bernard Picart, c.1700-1710. Source Bertel Thorvaldsen’s Art and Collections   The armies met on opposite sides of the Hydaspes River. Since the river was so deep and fast, if either army were caught while trying to cross, they would most likely have been destroyed. Alexander therefore spent days marching his army up and down the river looking for a suitable place to cross. On the opposite side of the river, the army of Porus shadowed the march.   Eventually, Alexander found a suitable spot to cross where a wooded island sat in the middle of the river and blocked the view. To deceive Porus, Alexander left most of his army in camp under the command of one of his generals who made a demonstration as if he intended to cross the river.   By the time Porus became aware of the crossing, Alexander had gotten 15,000-20,000 men across the river. Acting decisively, Porus dispatched a force of cavalry and chariots under the command of his son to either block the crossing or buy time for the rest of the army to redeploy. This rapid response appears to have caught Alexander somewhat off guard. He responded with a disorderly cavalry charge that was aided by the river mud which made it difficult for the Indian chariots to maneuver.   In the sharp fight that followed, Porus’s son was killed, and his forces were scattered. Realizing now that Alexander had crossed in force, Porus marched forth with his army leaving a small force to watch the Macedonian camp and prevent further crossings.   Cavalry and Elephants Bronze elephant with riders, India, 3rd-2nd century BCE. Source: Los Angeles County Museum of Art   Having crossed the river, the armies of Alexander and Porus now formed up for battle. The Indian army was deployed with the cavalry on both wings fronted by the chariots, while the infantry formed the center fronted by war elephants. Alexander massed his cavalry on his right wing, while the rest of his line consisted of the Macedonian infantry.   The Indian infantry outnumbered their Macedonian counterparts by about 5:1; a numerical advantage that was further strengthened by the presence of the war elephants. Alexander therefore determined that the Indian center was the strongest part of Porus’s line. So, Alexander decided to open the battle by engaging Porus’s cavalry with his own. The battle commenced with Alexander sending his horse archers to harass the Indian cavalry on the right, while Alexander himself led a charge against the cavalry on the Indian left.   Realizing that their compatriots were in danger, the cavalry on the Indian right rode to the rescue. However, they were followed by the rest of the Macedonian cavalry, who ended up almost riding around both armies. Now encircled by the Macedonians, the Indian cavalry tried to resist by forming a cavalry circle. However, the complex maneuver resulted in even more chaos.   Unable to withstand the Macedonian onslaught, the Indian cavalry was routed and fled to the protection of their war elephants. Horses are notoriously skittish around elephants and require special training to become accustomed to their presence. Porus now led his war elephants against Alexander’s cavalry, only to be confronted by the advancing Macedonian infantry.   The Bloodiest Battle Bust of Alexander the Great, Hellenistic c.300-200 BCE. Source: The Cleveland Museum of Art   Porus’s war elephants were heavily armored and were ridden by a trio of archers and javelin men. While they outnumbered the Macedonian infantry significantly, the Indian infantry was not as heavily armored and were at a distinct disadvantage when facing the long Macedonian sarissas. Yet when the Indian war elephants collided with the Macedonian phalanx, they were able to inflict heavy casualties.   Macedonian soldiers were impaled on the tusks of the elephants and trampled into the ground, and some men were even grabbed by the elephant’s trunks and heaved through the air. The Macedonian infantry fought back bravely, striking the elephants and their mahouts when they could. By now, Porus’s cavalry had rallied and sallied forth once again to charge the Macedonian cavalry.   This new cavalry charge was met by Alexander once again and repulsed, causing the Indian cavalry to flee from the battlefield. At the same time, the Macedonian infantry finally began to make headway against the elephants driving them back into their own infantry. The maddened beast trampled many of their own men to death during their flight.   While the tide of battle was now turning in the Macedonians’ favor, they were still significantly outnumbered by Porus’s infantry and surviving elephants. Thus, the Macedonians locked their shields and advanced on the Indian infantry. With the Indians now engaged with the infantry to their front, Alexander led a decisive cavalry charge into their rear. The Indian infantry effectively disintegrated and began to flee. It was at this moment that the Macedonians who had been left guarding the camp crossed the river and appeared on the battlefield.   Treat Me as a King Alexander Addressing King Porus, by Baron Francois Gerard, c.1816. Source: The British Museum   Throughout the battle, Porus had conducted himself with great valor. Even now, as the rest of his army fled, Porus continued to fight on from the back of his elephant. It was clear to everyone that he intended to die in combat rather than be taken prisoner. Alexander had observed Porus with growing admiration. He never shrank from combat and refused to flee. Such behavior was unlike the conduct of other kings Alexander had faced.   In recognition of Porus’s conduct, Alexander sent Taxiles to him to call for his surrender. However, the sight of Taxiles, his hated enemy, caused Porus to fly into a further fit of rage. Porus hurled a spear at Taxiles causing him to flee. Further messengers were sent to Porus and received similar treatment. Finally, a friend of Porus convinced him to listen to Alexander’s proposal.   Dismounting from his elephant and overcome by thirst, Porus first demanded a drink before allowing himself to be led before Alexander. Porus cut an impressive figure, he was tall and well-muscled. When Alexander asked Porus how he wished to be treated, Porus replied, “Treat me as a king would treat another king.”  Porus’s boldness and spirit struck a chord with Alexander. Not only did Alexander agree to Porus’s proposal, but he also allowed him to retain his throne and all of his lands and even granted him some newly conquered lands as well. Alexander also saw to it that Porus and Taxiles were reconciled.   Aftermath and Legacy Silver Decadrachm of Alexander depicting combat with an Indian War Elephant, Hellenistic c. 4th century BCE. Source: Numismatica Ars Classica   The Battle of the Hydaspes was the bloodiest of Alexander’s career. Macedonian casualties are estimated at 200 to 1,000 surpassing those suffered at the earlier Battle of Gaugamela. Indian casualties are even more difficult to estimate, but most scholars place them at around 20,000. Following the battle, Alexander appears to have acquired around 150 war elephants.   It was also during or after this battle that Alexander suffered one of his greatest personal losses. His horse, Bucephalus, whom he had tamed as a young boy in Macedonia, was killed in the fighting. It was a devastating loss for the king. Following the battle, Alexander founded two new cities. The city of Nikaia was founded near or on the site of the battle. Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the river, Alexander founded the city of Boukephala which he named for Bucephalus.   The Victory of Alexander over King Porus, by Charles-Andre Vanloo, c.1738. Source Los Angeles County Museum of Art   Alexander, Taxiles, and Porus campaigned against another Indian ruler in the region before the Macedonians marched on. However, the battle disrupted the political situation of the entire region and set the stage for many changes in the Indian subcontinent. For the Macedonians, the bloody battle made the prospect of further conflict with more powerful Indian kingdoms far less attractive. It also led to the blending of Greek and Indian cultures that would produce some of antiquity’s most fabulous works of art. So, while the Battle of the Hydaspes was one of Alexander’s bloodiest and hard-fought victories, it was also one with the most profound and far-reaching results.

  American historian David Muzzey probably said it best in his A History of Our Country (1943) when he wrote, “The Declaration of Independence cleared the air. It put an end to the contradiction of fighting against a king while still professing loyalty to him.”   By the mid-18th century, the tensions between the British Crown and its American colonies had escalated beyond reproach—the time for independence had arrived.   Toward Independence The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor by Nathaniel Currier, 1846. Source: Springfield Museum   The American Revolution began long before Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence. A series of new taxes and regulations imposed by the British Parliament following the French and Indian War in the Americas in the 1760s, where English and Colonial troops fought off the French Canadians and their Native American allies, escalated tensions between the mother country and its American subjects. At the core of the colonial complaints was the feeling that these measures (Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, Quartering Act, etc.) violated the British colonists’ rights as Englishmen, treating them as second-class citizens—which, for all intents and purposes, they were. The calls for taxation without representation in the English Parliament soon turned to open mockery of the British system and treatment of its subjects.   What initially began as a means of devising a plan for an organized response to British regulations, the meeting of the colonial delegates in September 1774’s First Continental Congress had, by its second reiteration, turned toward something more. When the Second Continental Congress convened in May of 1775, the outbreak of hostilities between the British and the Colonists had already begun at Lexington and Concord. It was now time to coordinate resistance and military efforts.   Drafting and Adoption The Delivery of the Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull, 1819. Source: The United States Capitol   With the war already on and George Washington assumed command of the American volunteer army, the sentiment for independence grew past the point of return. By 1776, influential pamphlets such as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense argued against fighting to gain more British rights under the existing Parliamentary system. Instead, they proposed complete independence. Paine wrote, “But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then, more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families.” The public opinion was swaying.   On June 11, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a five-person committee to draft an official declaration of independence. While the committee comprised some of the greatest minds in the land, namely John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston, it was the young Thomas Jefferson whom they chose to write the initial draft. The soft-spoken yet brilliant Virginian drew on Enlightenment ideas for his document, incorporating revolutionary concepts about government, natural rights, and the social contract.   Influenced by such men as John Locke, whose theory that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed and that people have the right to revolt against tyranny, fueled the young Jefferson’s quill as he wrote that all men are created equal and have the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”   After several revisions, including removing Jefferson’s stipulation about the evils of slavery so as not to alienate the Southern states from the common cause at hand, the Continental Congress officially adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. However, most of the delegates would not sign it until August, with some signing it even later. Fifty-six delegates from all thirteen colonies had affirmed their commitment to independence.   The Declaration Washington Crossing the Delaware by George Bingham, 1871. Source: Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, VA   The Declaration of Independence has four parts, beginning with the Preamble, which, like an introduction to an article, states the document’s purpose. In this case, it includes the broad reasons for the colonies’ decision to separate from Britain.   The second part of the Declaration emphasizes the philosophical foundation and the idea of natural rights. It states that people form governments to secure and protect their unalienable rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” asserting that when the said governments become destructive of these rights, the people have the right to alter or abolish them and establish new governments.   The third and longest part of the Declaration of Independence is a list of grievances or complaints against the British king, detailing how he violated the colonists’ rights. While there are twenty-seven grievances in total, some of the more notable ones include the king imposing taxes on his subjects without their consent via Parliamentary representation, denying the colonists the right to a fair trial, maintaining a standing army in peacetime and forcing the colonists to house the troops in their homes, and dissolving colonial legislatures.   After the long list of grievances, the document concludes with a blunt assertion of independence from Britain. “…that they [States] are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved…”   On July 9, 1776, George Washington ordered the Declaration read to his troops in New York. The accompanying order stated, “The General hopes that this important event will serve as an incentive to every officer and soldier to act with fidelity and courage, as knowing now the peace and safety of this country depend solely on the success of our arms.”

October 3, 2024 While We Wait on God's PromisesLYSA TERKEURST Lee en español "Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust ..." Psalm 40:4 (ESV) Are there deep disappointments in your life that seem to be lingering? Do you feel like you've prayed the same prayers with little to no change? I understand how hard that is. And although the circumstances of your life may be different from mine, we all have our middle-of-the-night moments wrestling through tears. Some memories still hurt. Realities that make you wonder if you'll ever feel normal again. Sufferings that seem forever long. And you're disappointed that today you aren't living the promises of God you've begged would come to pass. In your most private moments, you want to scream at the unfairness of it all. But then there are more hopeful moments ... when you want to turn up the praise music, lift honest prayers, and declare God is good even when the situation doesn't seem good. Hurting but still trusting - that's the human journey. And that's where we find David in Psalm 40. In the first 10 verses, David praised God for delivering him, but in verses 11-17, he cried out for God to deliver him again. Trusting doesn't mean we ignore reality. It means we acknowledge reality in the very same breath that we acknowledge God's sovereignty - His absolute ability and power to work as He sees best. Our trust can't be tied to whether or not a circumstance or another person changes. Our trust must be tied to the unchanging promises of God. We hope for the good we know God will ultimately bring from our situation, whether the good matches our desires or not. And sometimes that takes a while. The process often requires us to be persevering and patient. Honestly, I know that can feel a little overwhelming. I want the promise of Psalm 40:4 - "blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust" - but I forget this kind of trust in God is often forged in the crucible of long-suffering. God isn't picking on me. God is picking me to personally live out His promises. It's a high honor. But it doesn't always feel that way. I've got to walk through the low places of the process before I'm perfectly equipped to live the promise. We read about this in Psalm 40:1-3: "I waited patiently for the LORD; he inclined to me and heard my cry. He drew me up from the pit of destruction, out of the miry bog, and set my feet upon a rock, making my steps secure. He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God. Many will see and fear, and put their trust in the LORD" (ESV). The idea of waiting patiently is incredibly important in this psalm. The Hebrew word for "waited" in verse 1 indicates it's ongoing, and it holds a sense of eager expectancy and hope. So while I want the solid rock on which to stand, first I have to wait patiently for the Lord to lift me out of the slime and mud and to "set my feet" (Psalm 40:2, ESV). That word "set" in the original Hebrew is qum, which also means "arise or take a stand." God has to take me through the process of getting unstuck from what's been holding me captive before I can take a stand. I also want that new song promised in Psalm 40:3. Did you notice, though, what comes before it? Many cries to the Lord for help. The most powerful praise songs are often guttural cries of pain that have turned into beautiful melodies. I know this is hard. So let me be the one to lean in and whisper these words to you as we begin to wrestle through this journey together: God is working things out. He's not far away. He is right here with us. Even if our prayers aren't answered in the way and the timing we want. Even when this process feels messy. We can trust that God is good. Lord God, I know You often work in ways I don't understand. There are parts of my story that feel incredibly hard to live in, but I trust You are making something beautiful even out of those parts of my life. In Jesus' Name, Amen.  OUR FAVORITE THINGS There are only a few days left to preorder Lysa TerKeurst's new book, I Want to Trust You, but I Don't, and receive these FREE gifts: 1) three chapters you can start reading immediately; 2) a special discount on tickets to attend the Trust Again Tour with Lysa and Natalie Grant in a city near you; and 3) access to three never-before-released Therapy & Theology episodes with Lysa, counselor Jim Cress and Dr. Joel Muddamalle on the topic of red flags. These offers won't be available once the book releases on October 8, so preorder now! ENGAGE Find real-life encouragement when you connect with Lysa TerKeurst here on Instagram. FOR DEEPER STUDY Psalm 40:17, "But as for me, I am poor and needy; may the Lord think of me. You are my help and my deliverer; you are my God, do not delay." (NIV) As you experience a delay or waiting season, how are you leaning on the Lord as your helper and deliverer? We'd love to hear from you! Share your thoughts in the comments. © 2024 by Lysa TerKeurst. All rights reserved. Proverbs 31 MinistriesP.O. Box 3189 Matthews, NC 28106 www.Proverbs31.org The post While We Wait on God’s Promises –  Encouragement for Today – October 3, 2024 appeared first on GodUpdates.