Truth & Knowledge: Episode 92 — Americans and Jews Are Alike In the final episode of 2025, Trey Knowles delivers a thought-provoking message: neither America nor the modern nation of Israel holds any inherent spiritual superiority. What truly matters is whether these nations—and the people within them—do the will of our Father in heaven. Trey emphasizes that the Kingdom of Heaven is established through righteousness, not through national identity or earthly titles. He calls for the faithfulness of Abraham to be reflected in both America and Israel, urging a return to genuine obedience, humility, and spiritual integrity.

Understanding the Global Mistreatment of People of Color and Indigenous Peoples

Introduction

Across many parts of the world, people of color and Indigenous communities face discrimination, inequality, and violence. In many cultures, people with darker skin are treated worse than those with lighter skin. These patterns are not caused by something inherent in “light-skinned people” or “dark-skinned people,” but by centuries of colonization, power structures, economic exploitation, and color-based social hierarchies that still influence societies today.

This report explores why these systems developed, how they persist, and why darker skin has been linked to lower status in many cultures.

1. Historical Foundations of Global Mistreatment

1.1 The Impact of Colonialism

European colonial powers controlled large parts of Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania for centuries. During this period:

• Colonizers viewed Indigenous and darker-skinned people as “less civilized.”

• Racist ideologies were created to justify taking land, resources, and labor.

• Skin color became a marker of power: lighter meant authority; darker meant subjugation.

These ideas were enforced through education, laws, religion, and violence. Even after independence, many societies retained these social hierarchies.

1.2 The Transatlantic Slave Trade

The forced enslavement of African people required dehumanizing them. Slaveholders created racial ideologies that claimed dark-skinned people were inferior to justify brutality and exploitation. These ideologies spread globally and still influence today’s attitudes.

1.3 Dispossession of Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous populations around the world—from the Americas to Australia to Asia—were often treated as obstacles to land expansion. Colonizers:

• Took land without consent

• Erased cultures and languages

• Forced assimilation

• Spread disease and warfare

These injustices were justified using racist beliefs that Indigenous cultures were “primitive.”

2. Colorism: Discrimination Based on Skin Tone

Colorism is the bias toward lighter skin within and between racial and ethnic groups. It exists worldwide, not only in white-majority societies.

Examples:

• South Asia: Fair skin is associated with beauty and higher marriage prospects.

• Latin America: Lighter-skinned people often have better job opportunities.

• East Asia: Long histories of class-based skin distinctions (indoors vs. outdoors labor).

• Africa and the Caribbean: Colonial-era beauty standards still shape preferences.

Colorism shows that the issue is not simply “light people vs. dark people” but systems that reward proximity to lightness because of historical power and class dynamics.

3. Why Darker Skin Is Often Treated Worse Across Cultures

3.1 Association With Labor and Poverty

In many agricultural societies, darker skin was linked to outdoor labor and lower classes. Over time, “lighter skin = higher status” became embedded culturally.

3.2 Global Spread of Western Beauty Standards

Through colonial rule, Hollywood, advertising, and media, Eurocentric features and lighter skin were promoted as the standard of beauty, intelligence, and success.

3.3 Economic and Political Power

Historically, groups with lighter skin often held more political and economic power, creating a system where their characteristics were seen as superior.

3.4 Internalized Racism

Centuries of oppression lead communities to adopt biased standards toward themselves—an effect of colonial trauma, not a natural preference.

3.5 Modern Systems Reinforce the Bias

• Employment discrimination

• Unequal policing

• Housing segregation

• Lack of representation

• Stereotypes in media

These continue to disproportionately harm darker-skinned and Indigenous peoples.

4. Mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous communities around the world continue to face similar patterns:

• Land theft and resource extraction

• Marginalization in political systems

• Environmental racism

• Destruction or appropriation of culture

• Higher levels of poverty and violence

These issues are tied to ongoing colonial systems, not inherent behavior of any skin-color group.

5. This Is About Systems, Not Individuals

It is crucial to understand that:

• Light-skinned people are not biologically predisposed to mistreat others.

• Dark-skinned and Indigenous people are not mistreated because of their skin itself, but because of systems built around skin-based hierarchies.

The real drivers are:

• Power structures

• Colonial histories

• Economic inequality

• Cultural conditioning

• Institutional biases

Recognizing systemic causes allows for solutions that address the root of the problem rather than blaming entire groups of people.

6. Paths Toward Change

6.1 Education and Historical Truth

Teaching accurate history helps dismantle racist and colorist beliefs.

6.2 Representation in Media

Positive, diverse visibility helps redefine beauty, power, and value.

6.3 Policy Reforms

Laws addressing policing, land rights, education, and economic inequality are critical for Indigenous and marginalized communities.

6.4 Cultural Revitalization

Supporting Indigenous languages, traditions, and sovereignty helps restore dignity and identity.

Conclusion

The widespread mistreatment of people of color and Indigenous peoples is not the result of biological differences between humans. It is the outcome of centuries of colonization, forced labor, racial ideology, and power structures that privileged lighter-skinned groups and oppressed darker-skinned and Indigenous populations.

These systems created a global pattern where darker skin came to be unfairly associated with lower status. Understanding these historical and systemic roots is essential to dismantling them and building a more just world.

Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor

Henry III (German: Heinrich III), often called the Black (Heinrich der Schwarze) or the Pious, was Holy Roman Emperor from 1046 until his death in 1056. A member of the Salian dynasty, he was the eldest son of Conrad II and Gisela of Swabia. Henry's reign marked a period of strong imperial authority and significant influence over both the church and his territories.

Early Life and Rise to Power

Born on October 28, 1016 (or 1017), Henry was the son of Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor, and Gisela of Swabia, whose lineage included both the Frankish kings and Charlemagne. His father, a Franconian noble, secured Henry’s future early on, granting him territories like Bavaria in 1026. By 1028, he was named co-ruler with his father, and in 1030, he received the duchies of Swabia and Burgundy.

After Conrad’s death in 1039, Henry became king of Germany and Italy, and succeeded his father as Emperor in 1046. His succession was smooth, an anomaly in the often turbulent transitions of the time.

Imperial Reign

Consolidation of Power
Henry III’s reign began with a series of successful military campaigns, political alliances, and deft handling of internal conflicts. He worked tirelessly to strengthen the imperial authority across Germany, Italy, and Burgundy, often using strategic marriages and appointments to maintain control.

In 1046, Henry ended a schism in the papacy by deposing three rival popes and installing Pope Clement II, marking a significant moment in the imperial church's relationship. His coronation as Emperor took place on Christmas Day, 1046, at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

Religious Reforms and the Papacy
A devout Christian, Henry supported church reforms, but his dominance over papal appointments became a source of tension. His support for Pope Clement II and the subsequent papal appointments were part of a larger strategy to control church politics. These actions ultimately sowed the seeds for the Investiture Controversy that would dominate the reign of his son, Henry IV.

Marriage and Family

In 1036, Henry married Gunhilda of Denmark, the daughter of Canute the Great, but she died in 1038. In 1043, he remarried Agnes of Poitou, the daughter of William V of Aquitaine. From this union came several children, including Henry IV, who would later become Holy Roman Emperor.

Henry’s children played pivotal roles in the politics of the empire and beyond, including his daughters, Beatrice I and Adelaide II, who became abbesses, and Judith, who married the King of Hungary.

Political Struggles and Military Campaigns

Conflict with Bohemia and Hungary
Henry’s reign was marked by frequent military engagements. One of his first major conflicts was with Bretislav I of Bohemia, who sought to establish an independent archbishopric. Although Henry initially faced defeat in 1040 at the Battle of Brůdek, he ultimately triumphed, securing peace in 1041. Henry also faced challenges in Hungary, where he supported Peter of Hungary in regaining the throne from Samuel Aba in 1044.

Dealing with Rebellions and Regional Politics
Henry had to manage regional conflicts, particularly in Lorraine and Burgundy. The rebellious duke Godfrey of Lorraine was a significant challenge, but Henry’s ability to suppress revolts and consolidate power was effective. His reign also saw the rise of new feudal alliances, and his intervention in Burgundy and France helped maintain imperial authority.

Later Years and Death

Decline and Health
In the later years of his reign, Henry’s health began to deteriorate, and his authority over the empire became more precarious. Despite this, he continued to enforce his will in the empire, particularly in Lorraine and Hungary. His final military campaigns in Germany and Italy in the early 1050s were not as successful, and by 1056, he had become seriously ill.

Henry died on October 5, 1056, at Bodfeld, a hunting lodge in the Harz Mountains, at the age of just 39. He was buried in Speyer Cathedral, alongside his father, Conrad II. His death marked the end of a strong and centralized imperial reign.

Legacy

Henry III’s reign is considered a time of significant imperial strength. His efforts to consolidate power, control the papacy, and maintain a unified empire left a strong imprint on the Holy Roman Empire. However, his death without a fully stabilized succession led to the Investiture Controversy during his son’s reign. Despite the challenges his successors would face, Henry’s military and political leadership had a lasting influence on the structure of medieval Europe.

Monuments and Contributions
Among his lasting legacies is the Kaiserpfalz (imperial palace) in Goslar, which remains a testament to his architectural patronage and the central role of the imperial residence in governance.

While modern historians view the later years of his reign as the beginning of a crisis for the Salian dynasty, Henry III remains a pivotal figure in medieval European history, particularly for his efforts in centralizing the authority of the empire and managing the intricate relationship between the church and the state.

What King Henry VIII Created

King Henry VIII (reigned 1509–1547) is most famous for creating the Church of England.

⭐ 1. The Church of England (Anglican Church)

Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope refused to grant him an annulment from Catherine of Aragon.
To solve this, Henry:

• Passed the Act of Supremacy (1534)

• Declared himself “Supreme Head of the Church of England”

• Separated England from the authority of the Pope

This is known as the English Reformation.

What King Henry VIII Created

King Henry VIII (reigned 1509–1547) is most famous for creating the Church of England.

⭐ 1. The Church of England (Anglican Church)

Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope refused to grant him an annulment from Catherine of Aragon.
To solve this, Henry:

• Passed the Act of Supremacy (1534)

• Declared himself “Supreme Head of the Church of England”

• Separated England from the authority of the Pope

This is known as the English Reformation.

King Henry Henry VIII 

Henry VIII carefully crafted his public image as a true Renaissance king. His court became a vibrant center of learning, artistic creativity, and extravagant display—symbolized most famously by the Field of the Cloth of Gold. He personally toured the country searching for talented choirboys, even taking some from Cardinal Wolsey’s choir, and brought the latest Renaissance musical styles into the English court. His musicians included Benedict de Opitiis, Richard Sampson, Ambrose Lupo, and Dionisio Memo of Venice. Henry himself enjoyed playing music and collected many flutes and recorders. He could play the lute, organ, and virginals skillfully, sight-read music, and sing well. Among his creative works, the best known is his song “Pastime with Good Company,” often called “The King’s Ballad.” Although popular legend credits him with writing “Greensleeves,” the song’s Italian musical style proves it was composed after his lifetime.

Beyond the arts, Henry was an enthusiastic gambler and excelled at sports, especially jousting, hunting, and real tennis. He also defended traditional Christian piety with great zeal. Throughout his reign he oversaw major architectural projects, including Nonsuch Palace, King’s College Chapel at Cambridge, and improvements to Westminster Abbey. Many buildings he expanded had originally belonged to Wolsey, including Christ Church, Oxford; Hampton Court Palace; the Palace of Whitehall; and Trinity College, Cambridge.

Intellectually, Henry was the first English king with a fully humanist education. He read and wrote in English, French, and Latin, owned an extensive library, and annotated many of his books. He authored a book of his own and commissioned numerous pamphlets and lectures supporting his break from Rome. Works such as Richard Sampson’s Oratio defended absolute obedience to the monarchy and argued that England’s church had always been independent of papal authority. At the popular level, royal theatre and minstrel troupes spread support for the new religious order, portraying the Pope and Catholic clergy as foreign interlopers while presenting Henry as a heroic defender of the true faith. Henry worked relentlessly to present himself as a ruler of unquestionable authority and power.

Physically, Henry was a striking figure—tall, broad-shouldered, and athletic. His sporting displays were not merely entertainment but political theater, meant to impress foreign ambassadors and demonstrate his ability to crush rebellion. At a grand tournament in 1517, he dazzled onlookers in gilded armor, velvet and satin garments, and jewels. A severe jousting accident in 1536 forced him to retire from the sport, and his once-athletic physique began to decline. His courtiers, eager to flatter him, even padded their own clothing to match his growing size. His health worsened significantly near the end of his reign.

Government

Tudor monarchs ruled with sweeping authority, claiming their power came directly from God. Henry controlled diplomacy, warfare, the minting of money, and the summoning and dissolving of Parliament. Yet even with such power, he still had to cooperate with both Parliament and the nobility, especially during the break with Rome.

His government relied heavily on patronage, with the Privy Council and various informal advisers shaping decision-making. Henry could raise favorites quickly—and destroy them just as fast. He executed two of his queens, numerous nobles, high officials, servants, friends, and even a cardinal. Although several powerful ministers rose during his reign, historians debate how much real control each had over Henry.

From 1514 to 1529, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey effectively ran domestic and foreign policy. He expanded the legal system, strengthened the Star Chamber, and centralized government, but his enormous wealth and misuse of power generated hostility. After Wolsey’s fall, Henry took direct control, though factions at court continued to battle for influence.

Thomas Cromwell, rising from humble origins, later became the most influential minister of Henry’s reign. Deeply committed to reform, Cromwell worked to shift government from the personal household of the king toward a more modern state. He reformed finances, reorganized the Privy Council, and centralized administration, though often in a piecemeal way to preserve Henry’s favor. His changes transformed English government, but his fall in 1540 halted many reforms.

Finances

Henry inherited a large fortune and stable economy from his father, but his reign nearly ruined the treasury. Despite acquiring huge wealth by seizing church lands, Henry’s costly wars, lavish court life, and ambitious building projects drained his resources. Inflation and currency debasement worsened the financial crisis. Although the dissolution of the monasteries brought the Crown massive new income, Henry’s military spending and political ambitions quickly consumed it.

Reformation

Henry is credited with launching the English Reformation, transforming England from a Catholic nation into a Protestant one—even though his personal beliefs remained largely traditional. His desire to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon triggered a confrontation with Rome. When the Pope refused, Henry asserted his independence.

Between 1532 and 1537, Henry passed sweeping laws severing ties with the papacy, placing the church under royal authority, and making refusal to acknowledge his supremacy a capital crime. Parliament, Cranmer, and Cromwell supported these measures. The Great Bible in English was published under his authority, and those opposing the reforms faced imprisonment, exile, or execution.

Cromwell also initiated the dissolution of the monasteries, closing roughly 800 religious houses by 1540 and transferring vast wealth and land to the Crown and new landowners. This reshaped English society, strengthening a new gentry class. Reactions varied: some regions welcomed reform, while others—especially in the north—rose in rebellion, most notably in the Pilgrimage of Grace.

Military

Henry expanded and modernized England’s military forces. Although England lacked a large standing army, his forces were well-equipped, including new artillery and battlefield innovations. Fear of invasion after the break with Rome prompted the construction of state-of-the-art coastal fortifications using materials from demolished monasteries.

Henry is also regarded as a founder of the Royal Navy. He invested in larger warships with heavy cannon, established permanent dockyards, and helped transition naval warfare from boarding tactics to gunnery. Under his rule, the navy grew from a handful of ships to around fifty.

Ireland

Henry’s policies in Ireland shifted over time. Initially following his father’s approach of ruling through Irish lords, he eventually aimed for stronger English control. Conflicts among Irish nobility, rebellion, and political instability pushed Henry to assert authority more directly. In 1542 he had himself declared King of Ireland, formally ending papal overlordship. Attempts at peaceful reform and integration continued, though progress was slow and incomplete.

Historiography

Historians have long debated Henry’s character and the extent of his influence. Some see him as a powerful, visionary monarch; others portray him as a volatile figure driven by ego, emotion, and opportunism. Scholars disagree over whether Henry directed the transformations of his reign or whether men like Wolsey and Cromwell were the true architects of change. His legacy remains sharply divided: a patron of culture or a destroyer of tradition, a pious king or a ruthless tyrant, a Renaissance prince or a despot.

Science strongly suggests the Moon was once part of Earth, formed from debris after a massive, Mars-sized planet (Theia) slammed into early Earth about 4.5 billion years ago, with the ejected material coalescing into the Moon, explaining the striking similarity in their rock compositions, especially oxygen isotopes. 

• The Collision: A protoplanet named Theia hit the early, molten Earth.
• Ejection: This immense impact blasted Earth's outer layers (crust and mantle) into space.
• Formation: This debris circled Earth and gradually clumped together under gravity to form the Moon. 

• Rock Similarities: Lunar rocks brought back by Apollo missions have almost identical oxygen isotopes and mineral compositions to Earth's rocks, as noted in NASA Science and Let's Talk Science.
• Lunar Meteorites: Rocks that have fallen to Earth from the Moon (lunar meteorites) also show these deep connections to Earth.
• Simulations: Modern computer models show this collision could have formed the Moon in mere hours, explains its orbit, and accounts for the high-energy impact needed. 

• Fission Theory: Earth spun so fast it flung off a piece that became the Moon (less favored now).
• Capture Theory: Earth captured a passing asteroid (unlikely to explain composition).
• Co-accretion: Earth and Moon formed side-by-side (doesn't fit evidence as well). 

Why Indigenous Peoples Are Disproportionately Killed: 

Across the world, Indigenous peoples face disproportionately high levels of violence, murder, and human rights violations. This is not because of who they are, but because of historical and ongoing systems of inequality, discrimination, and conflict over land, resources, and rights. Understanding the root causes is essential for addressing the issue and preventing further harm.

1. Historical Background of Colonization

For centuries, Indigenous peoples have lived on lands that later became targets for colonization. When European settlers arrived in the Americas, Africa, Australia, and Asia, Indigenous communities were often viewed as obstacles to expansion.

Key factors:

• Land seizure: Colonizers wanted Indigenous lands for agriculture, mining, settlement, and resource extraction.

• Dehumanization: Indigenous peoples were falsely labeled as “primitive” to justify violence and displacement.

• Forced cultural erasure: Many communities faced forced assimilation, removal, boarding schools, and policies that weakened their social structures.

This historical violence set the stage for modern injustices.

2. Ongoing Land Conflicts

Today, many Indigenous communities continue to live on resource-rich lands. Governments and corporations often seek these areas for:

• mining

• oil pipelines

• logging

• agriculture

• water access

When Indigenous groups defend their territory, they frequently face threats, violent attacks, or assassination by state forces, militias, or private security groups.

Examples:

• Environmental defenders in the Amazon are murdered at some of the highest rates in the world.

• Water protectors opposing pipelines in North America face intimidation and militarized policing.

3. Systemic Racism and Discrimination

Indigenous peoples frequently experience:

• racial profiling

• lack of legal protection

• biased policing

• unequal justice systems

These systems often fail to investigate disappearances or murders of Indigenous people. In many countries, cases involving Indigenous victims receive far less attention or resources.

Impact:

• Higher murder rates

• Lower prosecution rates for perpetrators

• Increased vulnerability, especially for women and girls

4. Economic Marginalization and Social Inequality

Indigenous communities often lack access to:

• quality healthcare

• economic opportunities

• housing

• education

This marginalization creates environments where violence is more likely, and where victims have fewer protections.

Example:

In countries like Canada and the U.S., Indigenous women are murdered or go missing at rates many times higher than non-Indigenous women—a crisis known as MMIWG (Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls).

5. Political Power Imbalances

In many nations, Indigenous peoples:

• make up a small percentage of the population

• lack representation in government

• have their rights frequently ignored

When a group lacks political power, their communities become easier targets for:

• land dispossession

• violent suppression

• neglect by law enforcement

6. Cultural Threat Perception

Indigenous resistance is often rooted in protecting:

• land

• culture

• water

• community survival

However, governments or corporations may treat Indigenous resistance as a threat to economic or political interests.

This leads to:

• militarized responses

• criminalization of activists

• violence against community leaders

7. Gender-Specific Violence

Indigenous women, girls, and Two-Spirit/LGBTQ+ people face extreme levels of violence due to:

• colonial legacies of gendered oppression

• racism

• human trafficking

• lack of police response

Violence against Indigenous women is often ignored or under-reported, reinforcing the cycle.

Conclusion

Indigenous peoples are not killed because of who they are, but because of systemic structures of power, inequality, and historical violence that continue into the present. These deaths stem from:

• land disputes

• racism

• political and economic exclusion

• lack of justice

• continued colonial attitudes

Addressing these issues requires:

• protecting Indigenous land rights

• enforcing justice and accountability

• supporting Indigenous self-governance

• educating societies about Indigenous histories and contributions

The Destruction of Carthage (146 BCE):
During the Third Punic War, Roman forces besieged and ultimately annihilated the city of Carthage—located in present-day Tunisia, North Africa, in a region inhabited by and closely connected to Indigenous Berber (Amazigh) populations. After a prolonged siege, Roman troops broke into the city, unleashing seven days of continuous slaughter. Thousands of residents were killed in the streets and inside their homes, while tens of thousands more—both Carthaginian citizens and surrounding Berber peoples who had taken refuge in the city—were sold into slavery. Carthage itself was burned and leveled, its infrastructure dismantled, and its political and cultural presence wiped out.

This destruction reverberated far beyond the city’s walls. Carthage had long been a dominant power interwoven with the Berber kingdoms and communities of North Africa—sometimes as overlord, sometimes as economic partner. Its fall dramatically reshaped the region’s Indigenous societies. With Carthage gone, Rome extended direct control over the Maghreb, subjugating Berber territories, exploiting their agricultural lands, and redirecting their political structures to serve Roman provincial administration. Many Berber communities experienced displacement, forced labor, and the loss of local autonomy as Rome consolidated its new province of Africa.

Historian Ben Kiernan has called the destruction of Carthage “the first genocide,” noting the explicit and repeated Roman demands for the city’s complete eradication—symbolized by Cato the Elder’s famous refrain Carthago delenda est (“Carthage must be destroyed”). The event not only extinguished Carthage as a political entity but also initiated a long period of Roman domination that profoundly altered the cultural and historical trajectory of Indigenous Berber peoples across North Africa.

The Punic Wars were a trio of conflicts between the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian Empire fought from 264 to 146 BC. Over the course of forty-three years, these wars unfolded on land and sea across the western Mediterranean, along with a four-year revolt against Carthage.

The First Punic War began in 264 BC on the island of Sicily, sparked by Rome’s expansionist aims and Carthage’s determination to maintain control over the region. At the time, Carthage dominated the western Mediterranean with its powerful naval empire, while Rome—strong on land but lacking a navy—was rapidly growing across Italy. The conflict was fought mainly in Sicily and surrounding waters, as well as in North Africa, Corsica, and Sardinia. After twenty-three years of war, Carthage was defeated in 241 BC, forced to pay heavy reparations, and compelled to cede Sicily, which became Rome’s first province. The aftermath also saw the outbreak of the Mercenary War, an internal revolt against Carthage.

The Second Punic War began in 218 BC and is best known for the Carthaginian general Hannibal, who led his army across the Alps to invade Italy. His campaign achieved major early victories and continued in Italy for fourteen years before ultimately withdrawing. Fighting also spread through Iberia, Sicily, Sardinia, and North Africa. Rome launched a successful invasion of Carthaginian territory in Africa in 204 BC, prompting Hannibal’s return. He was defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC, after which Carthage sued for peace. The treaty of 201 BC stripped Carthage of its overseas lands and parts of its African territory, imposed a massive indemnity, sharply reduced its military capacity, and forbade it from waging war without Roman approval—effectively ending Carthage as a military rival.

The Third Punic War began when Carthage, trying to resist Numidian aggression in 151 BC, gave Rome a pretext to declare war in 149 BC. Fought entirely on Carthaginian soil in modern-day Tunisia, the conflict centered on the siege of Carthage. In 146 BC, the Romans captured and destroyed the city, killing or enslaving its inhabitants and razing it to the ground. Its territory was absorbed into the new Roman province of Africa. The remains of ancient Carthage still stand east of modern Tunis on the North African coast.

The most dependable ancient source on the Punic Wars is the historian Polybius (c. 200–c. 118 BC), a Greek taken to Rome as a hostage in 167 BC. His major work, The Histories, was written sometime after 146 BC. Polybius approached history analytically, interviewing participants from both sides whenever possible. He also accompanied his friend and patron, the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus, during the Third Punic War in North Africa. Although modern scholars note that Polybius tended to portray Scipio and his family too favorably, his writings are still regarded as largely trustworthy. Craige Champion calls Polybius “remarkably well-informed, industrious and insightful,” while Adrian Goldsworthy states that Polybius’s version “is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts.” Despite his pro-Roman perspective, his work is generally considered objective, and modern reconstructions of the wars rely heavily on interpretations of his narrative.

Another major source—especially where Polybius’s text is missing—is the Roman historian Livy. Livy drew extensively from Polybius but organized his material more systematically, adding greater detail about Roman political life while expressing an openly pro-Roman stance. His descriptions of military events, however, are often inaccurate. Goldsworthy remarks that Livy’s reliability is “often suspect,” and Philip Sabin characterizes him as exhibiting “military ignorance.”

Several later ancient accounts survive, though typically in fragments or summaries. Historians also consult Roman annalists, some contemporary; the Sicilian Greek writer Diodorus Siculus; and later authors such as Plutarch, Appian, and Dio Cassius. No Carthaginian-authored primary sources have survived, though traces of Carthaginian perspectives—such as those of Philinus of Agrigentum—appear indirectly in pro-Roman writers, particularly Polybius. Additional evidence comes from coins, inscriptions, archaeological remains, and experimental reconstructions such as the trireme Olympias.

Background and Origin

Map description: A colored map of the western Mediterranean shows the areas controlled by Rome, Carthage, and Syracuse in 264 BC. Rome appears in red, Carthage in gray, and Syracuse in green.

For a century prior to the First Punic War, the Roman Republic had been expanding aggressively across southern Italy. By 270 BC, after the Pyrrhic War ended, Rome controlled all of peninsular Italy south of the Arno River. Meanwhile, Carthage—based in modern Tunisia—had built a powerful maritime empire stretching across southern Iberia, parts of North Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, and the western half of Sicily.

Starting in 480 BC, Carthage fought several inconclusive conflicts with the Greek city-states of Sicily, led by Syracuse. By 264 BC, Carthage dominated much of Sicily, particularly the southern and western regions. At this point Rome and Carthage were the two leading powers of the western Mediterranean. Relations between them had long been peaceful, supported by formal alliances in 509 BC, 348 BC, and around 279 BC, as well as strong commercial ties. During the Pyrrhic War (280–275 BC), Carthage even supplied Rome with resources and at least once lent its fleet to transport Roman troops.

However, as the two states’ spheres of influence drew closer, the likelihood of conflict grew. Ultimately, they drifted into war more through miscalculation than deliberate policy, with neither side anticipating a long or difficult struggle.

Opposing Forces

Armies

Roman citizens who met a property requirement were liable for military service, typically serving as infantry, while wealthier men provided cavalry. During wartime, Rome customarily raised two legions, each consisting of 4,200 infantry and 300 cavalry. About 1,200 infantry—usually younger or poorer men—served as velites, lightly armed skirmishers equipped with javelins, a short sword, and a large round shield. The remaining infantry formed the heavy legionary ranks, armed with body armor, large shields, and short thrusting swords. They were arranged into three lines: the first carried both javelins and weapons for close combat, while the second and third bore thrusting spears. Roman armies typically fought in relatively open formations. Each year, two consuls were elected as Rome’s senior magistrates, and during war each commanded an army composed of a Roman legion paired with a similarly structured allied Italian legion, the latter usually providing more cavalry.

Carthaginian citizens served only when Carthage itself was threatened. When they did, they fought as heavily armored infantry with long spears, though they were often poorly trained and disciplined. Under most circumstances, Carthage relied on foreign troops. Many came from North Africa—commonly referred to as Libyans—and included close-order infantry, javelin-armed skirmishers, heavy shock cavalry, and light cavalry, especially Numidians. Both citizen infantry and close-order African troops fought in phalanx formation. Carthaginian forces also included Iberian and Gallic infantry and cavalry, known for fierce charges but limited stamina in prolonged engagements. Slingers from the Balearic Islands and war elephants—then native to North Africa—were frequently employed.

Campaigning typically involved garrison duty, foraging, and land blockades. Armies consumed vast amounts of food and supplies, which could be brought by pack animals, stored in depots, or gathered locally through foraging. Superior cavalry made it easier to protect or disrupt these operations. Large forces relying on local resources needed to move often to avoid depleting the countryside.

Before battles, armies commonly camped 2–12 km (1–7 miles) apart for extended periods, sometimes drawing up in battle order daily. If a commander felt disadvantaged, he could withdraw without fighting, making it difficult to force engagement. Forming for battle was a slow, deliberate process. Infantry formed the center of the line, skirmishers deployed in front, and cavalry held the flanks. Many battles were decided when one side’s infantry was outflanked or enveloped.

Navies

Quinqueremes—large, powerful warships—served as the backbone of both Roman and Carthaginian fleets. Polybius frequently uses the term simply to mean “warship.” A typical quinquereme carried a crew of 300: 280 rowers and 20 deck personnel, along with about 40 marines, a number that could rise to 120 before battle.

In 260 BC, Rome resolved to build its own fleet and modeled its first quinqueremes on a captured Carthaginian ship. Lacking experience, the Romans produced heavier and less maneuverable vessels, and their rowers required extensive training to match Carthaginian skill. To offset this disadvantage, the Romans introduced the corvus, a boarding bridge with a heavy spike that could latch onto enemy decks, allowing Roman infantry to board and seize ships rather than rely on ramming.

Warships were equipped with bronze rams, but by this period boarding actions had become more common as larger ships lost the speed and agility needed for effective ramming. The corvus reinforced this trend but also added weight to the bow, reducing stability and maneuverability. In rough seas it was unusable, and Rome eventually abandoned it partway through the First Punic War.

Simon bar Kokhba (Hebrew: שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר כּוֹכְבָא), also known as Simon bar Koseba (שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר כֹסֵבָא), was a Jewish military commander in Judea and the central figure of the Bar Kokhba Revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE. Though ultimately defeated, Bar Kokhba and his forces successfully established an independent Jewish state for roughly three years. During this time, he ruled as nasi (“prince”), and some contemporary rabbis believed he might be the long-awaited Messiah. The revolt ended in 135 CE when Bar Kokhba was killed during the Roman siege of Betar. Within a year, the remaining rebels were either killed or enslaved, and Emperor Hadrian imposed severe measures against the Jewish population.

Name

Documented Name

Twentieth-century discoveries in the Cave of Letters revealed variations of his original name:

• Simeon bar Kosevah

• Bar Koseva

• Ben Koseva

Most scholars conclude that his actual name was Bar Koseba, possibly referring to his father or his place of origin. Some suggest he came from a village called Koseva or Chozeba, though it may simply have been a family name.

Nicknames

During the revolt, Rabbi Akiva declared him the promised Messiah, interpreting the prophecy of a “star out of Jacob” (Numbers 24:17) as referring to Simon—linking the Hebrew word kokhav (“star”) to his name. This association later inspired the nickname Bar Kokhba (“Son of the Star”).
However, early Jewish texts actually refer to him as Bar Koziva, while the nickname “Bar Kokhba” does not appear in Jewish sources until much later.

Revolt Leader

Bar Kokhba’s revolt followed decades of hardship after the First Jewish–Roman War. Despite the destruction left by Rome, oppressive imperial policies under Hadrian fueled a new uprising. As the recognized leader of the Jewish resistance, Bar Kokhba enforced unity by punishing any Jew who refused to join the fight.

The revolt initially saw significant Jewish success. For a time, the Romans struggled severely, prompting them to adopt a brutal scorched-earth strategy to break the resistance. Eventually, Bar Kokhba and his last defenders fortified themselves in Betar, where they were overwhelmed after a prolonged siege.

Ancient sources vary: the Jerusalem Talmud describes the siege lasting three and a half years, though the revolt itself generally spanned about two and a half years. Roman historian Cassius Dio reports staggering losses—580,000 Jewish dead, along with hundreds of towns and villages destroyed—while many more died from famine, disease, or fire.

Outcome and Aftermath

Hadrian considered the victory so costly that he abandoned the customary opening blessing when addressing the Senate. To further suppress Jewish identity, he merged Judaea with surrounding regions to form the province of Syria Palaestina, a move widely seen as an attempt to sever the Jewish connection to the land.

Archaeological Discoveries

Major insights into the revolt emerged from letters found in the Cave of Letters, some possibly written by Bar Kokhba himself. These artifacts are now displayed in the Israel Museum.
In 2024, researchers discovered a coin inscribed “Eleazar the Priest” and marked “Year 1 of the Redemption of Israel,” shedding further light on the movement’s religious and political ideology.

Ideology and Language

Archaeologist Yigael Yadin argued that Bar Kokhba attempted to revive Hebrew as the official language of the Jewish state, reinforcing his messianic-national vision.

Character and Talmudic Accounts

A letter attributed to Bar Kokhba reveals a strict and forceful leader, frustrated with the Galilean troops under his command.

Rabbinic literature paints him as both powerful and flawed. The Talmud describes him commanding an army of 200,000 and requiring recruits to prove bravery in extreme ways. Before battle, he was said to proclaim:
“Master of the universe, we don’t need Your help—just don’t embarrass us.”

Another tradition claims he killed his uncle, Rabbi Elazar Hamuda’i, on suspicion of betrayal, a sin believed to have forfeited divine protection and contributed to Betar’s downfall.

According to legend, after his death the Romans brought his severed head to Hadrian, who—seeing a serpent wrapped around it—declared that only God could have slain such a man.