PART I - DECLINE OF BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND RISE OF ISLAM. ARE THE TWO CONNECTED?

 In the 7th Century, the Byzantine Empire was at the height of its power in many ways. But this period also witnessed the emergence of a new force, a wave that would sweep over the Byzantine Empire and leave behind a permanent imprint. How did Islam impact the Byzantine Empire, and was this impact greater than the one inflicted by the longstanding rival of the Eastern Roman Empire—the Sassanian Empire? Let’s find out.

Soon after Emperor Justinian, another key figure in Byzantine history came to the fore. In the early 7th century, the reign of Emperor Heraclius began. He was a general who rebelled against the then current emperor, Phocas, and deposed him.

 During the seventh century, the Byzantines scrapped almost the entirety of the Roman heritage. Much of the bureaucracy was shut down. Taxes were cut. The silver coinage was stabilized. Above all, the landed estates were broken up and given to those who worked on them, in return for service in local militias. Though never abolished, chattel slavery became far less pervasive. The civil law was simplified, and the criminal law humanized – after the seventh century, the death penalty was rarely used.

The Byzantine Empire survived because of a revolutionary transformation in which ordinary people became armed stakeholders. The inhabitants of Roman Gaul and Italy and Spain barely looked up from their ploughs as the Barbarians swirled round them. The citizens of Byzantium fought like tigers in defence of their country. Now, this was a transformation pushed through in a century and a half of recurrent crises during which Constantinople itself was repeatedly under siege. Alone among the ancient empires in its path, Byzantium faced down the Arabs, and kept Islam at bay for nearly five centuries.

The Byzantium (Roman) Empire & Barbarians in Europe in 600 CE

Germanic Tribes occupied all of Western Europe - Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Vandals, Lombards, Anglo-Saxons
 

 

 PART II - THE RISE OF ISLAM - MOHAMED MESSENGER OF ALLAH

 

There had been rapid political development in the Arabian Peninsula, where Muhammad had been preaching Islam and, by 630, had successfully annexed most of Arabia under a single political authority.

When Muhammad died in June 632, Abu Bakr was chosen as caliph and his political successor. Troubles emerged soon after Abu Bakr's succession, and several Arab tribes openly revolted against Abu Bakr, who declared war against the rebels. In what became known as the Ridda wars of 632–633, Abu Bakr managed to defeat his opponents and unite Arabia under the central authority of the caliph at Medina.

Map detailing the Rashidun Caliphate's invasion of the Levant.

Once the rebels had been subdued, Abu Bakr began a war of conquest, beginning with Iraq. Sending his most brilliant general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Iraq was conquered in a series of successful campaigns against the Sassanid Persians.

THE FIRST CALIPH

Abu Bakr's confidence grew, and once Khalid established his stronghold in Iraq, Abu Bakr issued a call to arms for the invasion of Syria in February 634. The Moslem invasion of Syria was a series of carefully planned and well-co-ordinated military operations, which employed strategy, instead of pure strength, to deal with the Byzantine defensive measures.

The Moslem armies, however, soon proved to be too small to handle the Byzantine response, and their commanders called for reinforcements. Khalid was sent by Abu Bakr from Iraq to Syria with reinforcements and to lead the invasion. In July, the Byzantines were decisively defeated at Ajnadayn. Damascus fell in September, followed by the Battle of Fahl in which the last significant garrison of Palestine was defeated and routed.

THE SECOND CALIPH

After Abu Bakr died in 634, his successor, Umar, was determined to continue the Caliphate's expansion deeper into Syria. Though previous campaigns led by Khalid had been successful, he was replaced by Abu Ubaidah. Having secured southern Palestine, Moslem forces now advanced up the trade route, and Tiberias and Baalbek fell without much struggle and conquered Emesa early in 636. The Moslems then continued their conquest across the Levant.

 

Moslem and Byzantine troop movements before the battle of Yarmouk. Modern countries indicated (MAP)

PART III - BACKGROUND

In 622, Heraclius finally launched his offensive. After his overwhelming victories over the Persians and their allies in the Caucasus and Armenia, Heraclius launched a winter offensive against the Persians in Mesopotamia in 627, winning a decisive victory at the Battle of Nineveh thus threatening the Persian capital city of Ctesiphon. Discredited by the series of disasters, Khosrow II was overthrown and killed in a coup led by his son Kavadh II, who immediately sued for peace and agreed to withdraw from all occupied territories of the Byzantine Empire.

 

Heraclius restored the True Cross to Jerusalem with a majestic ceremony in 629.

 

 

BYZANTINE COUNTERATTACK AND ALLIANCE WITH SASSANID PERSIA

Having seized Emesa, the Moslems were just a march away from Aleppo, a Byzantine stronghold, and Antioch, where Heraclius resided. Seriously alarmed by the series of setbacks, Heraclius prepared for a counterattack to reacquire the lost regions. In 635 Yazdegerd III, the Emperor of Persia, sought an alliance with the Byzantine Emperor. Heraclius married off his daughter (according to traditions, his granddaughter) Manyanh to Yazdegerd III, to cement the alliance. While Heraclius prepared for a major offensive in the Levant, Yazdegerd was to mount a simultaneous counterattack in Iraq, in what was meant to be a well-coordinated effort. When Heraclius launched his offensive in May 636, Yazdegerd could not co-ordinate with the manoeuvrer, probably owing to the exhausted condition of his government, and what would have been a decisive plan missed the mark.

FLAG OF BYZANTINE

In 636 AD, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius assembled a large army of 140,000 Greek, Armenian, and Arab Christian troops at his stronghold of Antioch and deputized command to the generals Vahan, Qanateer, Dairjan, Jabalah ibn al-Aiham, and Gregory, as he was sick with edema and unable to personally lead his men. This army fanned out through the northern Levant, RECAPTURING DAMASCUS AND HOMS FROM THE ARAB RASHIDUN ARMIES.

However, the Arabs made a stand near the River Yarmouk in southern Syria, where Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah resolved to defeat the large Byzantine field army before the garrison of Caesarea could attack the Moslems from between Lake Tiberias and the Yarmouk River in the southwest.

PART IV - WEAPONRY

A) BYZANTINE

Helmets used included gilded helmets similar to the silver helmets of the Sassanid empire. Mail was commonly used to protect the face, neck, and cheeks as an aventail from the helmet or as a mail coif. Heavy leather sandals as well as Roman-type sandal boots were also typical of the early Moslem soldiers. Armour included hardened leather scale or lamellar armour and mail armour. Infantry soldiers were more heavily armoured than horsemen. Large wooden or wickerwork shields were used. Long-shafted spears were used, with infantry spears being 2.5 m (8.2 ft) long and cavalry spears being up to 5.5 m (18 ft) long. Short infantry swords like the Roman gladius and Sassanid long swords were used; long swords were usually carried by horsemen. Swords were hung in baldrics. Bows were about 2 metres (6.6 ft) long when unbraced, similar in size to the famous English longbow. The maximum useful range of the traditional Arabian bow was about 150 m (490 ft). Early Moslem archers, while being infantry archers without the mobility of horseback archer regiments, proved to be very effective in defending against light and unarmoured cavalry attacks.

 The Byzantine cavalry was armed with a long sword, known as the spathion. They would also have had a light wooden lance, known as a kontarion and a bow (toxarion) with forty arrows in a quiver, hung from a saddle or from the belt. Heavy infantry, known as skoutatoi, had a short sword and a short spear. The lightly armed Byzantine troops and the archers carried a small shield, a bow hung from the shoulder across the back and a quiver of arrows. Cavalry armour consisted of a hauberk with a mail coif and a helmet with a pendant: a throat-guard lined with fabric and having a fringe and cheek piece. Infantry was similarly equipped with a hauberk, a helmet and leg armour. Light lamellar and scale armour was also used

B) RASHIDUN

 

Both the short Arab swords (similar to the Roman gladius) and Sassanid long swords were used and Rashidun horsemen as well as foot soldiers were often described as carrying both at the same time. All swords hung from a baldric. Another personal weapon was the dagger, a weapon used only as a last resort. During a council of war, the command of the Moslem army was transferred to Khalid by Abu Ubaidah, Commander in Chief of the Moslem army. After taking command, Khalid reorganized the army into 36 infantry regiments and four cavalry regiments, with his cavalry elite, the mobile guard, held in reserve. The army was organised in the Tabi'a formation, a tight, defensive infantry formation.

RASHIDUN LIGHT CAVALRY ARCHER

 

 

 

 

 

 BELOW MOUNTED ARCHER

 

 The fact was that even in these battles the moslems had to fight superiorly trained and armed forces in pitched battle, and for extended periods, and resist the crushing force of overwhelming numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

PART V - MOSLEM AND BYZANTINE TROOP MOVEMENTS BEFORE THE BATTLE OF YARMOUK. (MODERN COUNTRIES INDICATED.)

 

 BYZANTINE ARMY BATTLE FLAG

 

 Byzantine preparations began in late 635. In 636 AD, the Byzantine emperor HERACLIUS assembled a large army of 140,000 Greek, Armenian, and Arab Christian troops at his stronghold of Antioch and deputized command to the generals Vahan, Qanateer, Dairjan, Jabalah ibn al-Aiham, and Gregory, as he was sick with edema and unable to personally lead his men. This army fanned out through the northern Levant, recapturing Damascus and Homs from the Arab Rashidun armies.

However, the Arabs made a stand near the River Yarmouk in southern Syria, where Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah resolved to defeat the large Byzantine field army before the garrison of Caesarea could attack the Moslems from between Lake Tiberias and the Yarmouk River in the southwest. The assembled Byzantine army contingents consisted of, Slavs, Franks, Georgians, Armenians and Christian Arabs. The force was organized into five armies, the joint leader of which was Theodore Trithyrius. Vahan, an Armenian and the former garrison commander of Emesa, was made the overall field commander, and had under his command a purely Armenian army. Buccinator (Qanatir), a Slavic prince, commanded the Slavs and Jabalah ibn al-Aiham, king of the Ghassanid Arabs, commanded an exclusively Christian Arab force.

The remaining contingents, all European, were placed under Gregory and Dairjan. Heraclius himself supervised the operation from Antioch. Byzantine sources mention Niketas, son of the Persian general Shahrbaraz, among the commanders, but it is not certain which army he commanded.

RASHIDUN ARMY BATTLE FLAG

 

The Rashidun army was then split into four groups: one under Amr in Palestine, one under Shurahbil in Jordan, one under Yazid in the Damascus-Caesarea region and the last one under Abu Ubaidah along with Khalid at Emesa.

As the Moslem forces were geographically divided, Heraclius sought to exploit that situation and planned to attack. He did not wish to engage in a single pitched battle but rather to employ central position and fight the enemy in detail by concentrating large forces against each of the Moslem corps before they could consolidate their troops. By forcing the Moslems to retreat, or by destroying Moslem forces separately, he would fulfil his strategy of recapturing lost territory. Reinforcements were sent to Caesarea under Heraclius' son Constantine III, probably to tie down Yazid's forces, which were besieging the town. The Byzantine imperial army moved out from Antioch and Northern Syria in the middle of June 636

 TROOP DEPLOYMENT

Most early accounts place the size of the Moslem forces between 24,000 and 40,000 and the number of Byzantine forces between 100,000 and 400,000. Modern estimates for the sizes of the respective armies vary: the vast majority of estimates for the Byzantine army are between 80,000 and 150,000.

Estimates for the Rashidun army are between 25,000 and 40,000. Original accounts are mostly from Arab sources, generally agreeing that the Byzantine army and their allies outnumbered the Moslem Arabs by a sizeable margin. The only early Byzantine source is Theophanes, who wrote a century later. Accounts of the battle vary, some stating it lasted a day, others more than a day.[

Map detailing where the battle took place 

 

PART VI - BATTLE – THIS IS A DETAILED DESCRIPTION AS PER FROM WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA.

THE TWO ARMIES MET ON THE YARMOUK PLAIN, NEAR THE JABAL DRUZE MOUNTAINS. The Romans built a fortified camp near Kafr-ul-Ma in the western part of the plain, while the central portion of the plain was unoccupied. Both armies engaged in extensive negotiations for weeks, but they ended in failure, and the battle was inevitable. The Caliph Umar's reinforcements, 5,000 Yemeni archers and 1,000 Arabian campaign veterans, joined the Rashiduns during the negotiation period. The Byzantines ultimately crossed an 11-mile-long ravine, the River Raqqad, at Kafr-ul-Ma, the only crossing. On 14 August, the Roman army formed up to the east and north of the River Alan, with Vahan and his corps commanders leading the army. Jabalah commanded the light Ghassanid cavalry, which was stretched across the plain as the vanguard. Qanatir commanded the left flank, Gregory commanded the right, and two central corps under Dairjan and Vahan commanded the central corps. While Abu Ubaidah was the overall commander by order of the Caliph, he allowed Khalid to give the orders. Khalid moved some of his light cavalry to the vanguard to observe the Romans, while his infantry were divided into corps of nine units each. Both armies had a southern flank secured by the River Yarmouk, while, to the north, the Arabs had the ability to flank the Byzantines through the desert.

 PART VII - THE START OF THE BATTLE

On 15 August, the battle began when the Roman light cavalry vanguard moved behind the main army to reinforce the left flank cavalry; the Arab vanguard also joined the main cavalry units. The champions of both sides then duelled for a few hours, and, after the screening forces pulled back, a third of the Roman infantry charged their counterparts as the archers on both sides exchanged volleys of arrows. After a few hours of fighting, both sides disengaged and returned to their camps. At night, a few Roman light cavalry units were forced back by the Arab cavalry. The Romans then formed up in the darkness, hoping to attack the Moslems as early as possible and prevent them from getting into formation. The whole Roman army attacked before dawn, anticipating that the Moslems would be praying at that time. Unfortunately for the attackers, the Arab light cavalry once again alerted their comrades of the impending attack, and the Arabs prepared for the attack. The Romans launched a passive attack in the middle as the flanks launched strong attacks, moving fresh troops to the front and pushing the Arab right back after three charges. The Arab right wing cavalry launched a counterattack, tiring out the Byzantines and allowing the Arab infantry to retreat. The Arab cavalry then retreated as well, and the wives of the retreating warriors shamed them into returning to the battle. The Arab right flank reformed and counterattacked. Meanwhile, the Roman right was even more successful due to the presence of their elite infantry in their ranks. The second Roman attack drove the Moslem left back, forcing them back towards the flank. However, the Moslem cavalry attempted to stem the Roman advance in a counterattack before retreating with the infantry. Their wives urged them to return to the battle and even threw stones at their husbands, and the heavily-armored Romans were too slow to prevent the Arabs from receiving reinforcements. The Byzantines failed to pour in troops through the Arab gaps or outflank them, as they feared Arab cavalry attacks or flanking moves. Khalid then took command of the cavalry in the center, attacking the Byzantine left from the flank and forcing them to retreat to their original positions. Khalid then swung his cavalry to help the Arab left, exploiting the gap between the Byzantine right and center and flanking the Roman right. The Romans retreated, albeit with less casualties than the left. The cavalry then charged into the Roman center-right, killing its commander. Seeing that their flanks were retreating, the Byzantine center retreated to its starting position. Both sides suffered similar losses in the battle.

On the next day, the Romans again charged, targeting the Moslem right and center-right. The Roman numbers began to overpower the Arabs, pushing them back to the camp. Amr ibn al-As' corps then stabilized, but the Byzantine cavalry repelled an Arab cavalry counterattack. Khalid again came to the rescue once he saw that the Roman left was being passive, moving the reserve cavalry to charge the Roman flank. The Byzantine commander attempted to move more troops from the second flank to the front, but the Romans were pushed back at dusk, disengaging along with the rest of the Roman army. In the first three days, the Romans lost more troops than the Arabs, but they still outnumbered their foe. Khalid had to worry about the loss of many of his archers and the right flank.

DAY 6, THE LAST PHASE.

 

On 20 August, Khaled put into action a simple but bold plan of attack. With his massed cavalry force, he intended to drive the Byzantine cavalry entirely off the battlefield so that the infantry, which formed the bulk of the imperial army, would be left without cavalry support and thus would be exposed when attacked from the flanks and rear. At the same time, he planned to push a determined attack to turn the left flank of the Byzantine army and drive them towards the ravine to the west.

Phase 1: Khalid ordered a general attack on the Byzantine front and galloped his cavalry around the left wing of the Byzantines. Part of his cavalry engaged the Byzantine left wing cavalry while the rest of it attacked the rear of the Byzantine left wing infantry. Meanwhile, the Moslem right wing pressed against it from the front. Under the two-pronged attack, the Byzantine left wing fell back and collapsed and fell back to the Byzantine left centre, greatly disordering it. The remaining Moslem cavalry then attacked the Byzantine left wing cavalry at the rear while they were held frontally by the other half of the Moslem cavalry, routing them off the battlefield to the north. The Moslem right-wing infantry now attacked the Byzantine left centre at its left flank while the Moslem right centre attacked from front.

Phase 2: Vahan, noticing the huge cavalry manoeuvrer of the Moslems, ordered his cavalry to group together, but was not quick enough. Before Vahan could organize his disparate heavy cavalry squadrons, Khalid had wheeled his cavalry back to attack the concentrating Byzantine cavalry squadrons, falling upon them from the front and the flank while they were still moving into formation. The disorganized and disoriented Byzantine heavy cavalry was soon routed and dispersed to the north, leaving the infantry to its fate.

Phase 3: With the Byzantine cavalry completely routed, Khalid turned to the Byzantine left centre, which already held the two-pronged attack of the Moslem infantry. The Byzantine left centre was attacked at its rear by Khalid's cavalry and was finally broken.

Phase 4: With the retreat of the Byzantine left centre, a general Byzantine retreat started. Khalid took his cavalry north to block the northern route of escape. The Byzantines retreated west towards Wadi-ur-Ruqqad, where there was a bridge at Ayn al Dhakar for safe crossing across the deep gorges of the ravines of Wadi-ur-Ruqqad. Dharar had already captured the bridge as part of Khalid's plan the night before. A unit of 500 mounted troops had been sent to block the passageway. In fact, that was the route by which Khalid wanted the Byzantines to retreat all along. The Byzantines were surrounded from all sides now.

Some fell into the deep ravines off the steep slopes, others tried to escape in the waters but were smashed on the rocks below and still others

were killed in their flight. Nevertheless, many of the soldiers managed to escape the slaughter. Jonah, the Greek informant of the Rashidun army during the conquest of Damascus, died in the battle. The Moslems took no prisoners in the battle, but they may have captured some during the subsequent pursuit. Theodore Trithurios died on the battlefield, and Niketas managed to escape and reach Emesa. Jabalah ibn al-Ayham also managed to escape and later briefly came to terms with the Moslems, but he soon defected to the Byzantine court again.

THE BATTLE OF YARMOUK WAS A STUNNING ARAB VICTORY. Let me put it in perspective, the same way the Irish writer CIARAN CONLIFFE did and with whom I agree:

“Through the early part of their history, the Byzantines were defined by their war with Persia.  The last battle between the two came at the conclusion of what scholars refer to as the Last Great War Of Antiquity (at least partially because it _was_ the final Roman/Persian conflict), where they finally defeated the Persian army and stood poised to take over the entire rival empire. Or so they thought.”

HOWEVER

Far to the south of this conflict stood the Arabian Peninsula, home to innumerable desert tribes. They had not made any major impact on the world up until this point. Although the Romans had once had a province there, it was too far from the centre to hold onto long, and the area was generally beneath the notice of the great empires. Meanwhile, their own disunity and constant inter-tribal warfare without any outside threats to unite them left them ISOLATED.

Until, that is, the arrival of Islam. The new religion gave coherence and unity to the Arab peoples, along with a drive that would see them explode onto the world stage in dramatic fashion.

While the Byzantines and Sassanians were bleeding each other dry over the course of their prolonged and bitter struggle, a new power had emerged from one of the most obscure corners of the Mediterranean that, IN A REMARKABLY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WOULD EXPLODE ONTO THE SCENE AND SWEEP AWAY MUCH OF THE PREVIOUS WORLD ORDER.

  

PART VIII - SEPT 637 - 1 YEAR AFTER THE BATTLE OF YARMOUK

Heraclius was riding his ornamented horse in the lead and could see the pine, cedar and oak trees on the slopes of the Taurus Mountains; the Roman column was approaching the Cilician Gates pass. What remained of the Roman army was in full retreat to the safety of Anatolia.

Two years earlier, Heraclius travelled to Antioch to take direct control of military affairs but after the loss of the city, he had no choice but to abandon Syria.

He left a broken man.

The Empire he saved from the Persians was torn apart by nomads from the desert and his empire was in a perilous situation. He had committed all military resources to Syria and only had a token force to protect his capital. Any thoughts of returning to Syria were abandoned. His focus was now to keep what he had left.

Just as Heradius entered the pass, he turned around to take one last look at Syria and with sorrow said

“Salutations to thee, O Syria! And farewell from one who departs. Never again shall the Roman return to thee except in fear. Oh, what a fine land I leave to the enemy!”

IF BYZANTIUM HAD BEEN VICTORIOUS AT YARMOUK

There is no doubt that Islam would have been a FRINGE RELIGION, limited to the Arabian Peninsula and Arabs would have remained a semi barbarous desert Bedouin tribes living mostly in Tents or in crudely stone constructed small, narrow adobes. MOREOVER

1. Persia would not have been conquered nor Islamized and its religion would have been ZOROASTRIANISM.

2. The LEVANT, including Syria would have Remained part of the byzantine empire for centuries

3. Egypt would have continued to be a province of Byzantium and REMAINED Christian COPTIC

4. The Greek-Orthodox Christian Kingdom in Trebizond – Anatolia would have remained a client state of the Kingdom of Georgia and most likely would have expanded in Anatolia (present-day Turkey)

PART IX - BUT IT ALL CHANGED BECAUSE OF ONE BRILLIANT MILITARY COMMANDER

KHALED IBN AL WALID

KHALID IS ONE OF THE FEW GENERALS IN HISTORY TO HAVE NEVER LOST A PITCHED BATTLE. INDEED, HE EMERGED THE VICTOR IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE 50 OR SO LARGE SCALE BATTLES HE FOUGHT AGAINST THE APOSTATE TRIBES, CHRISTIAN ARABS, SASSANIAN EMPIRE AND BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

He was a skilled dual bladed swords man who's military skills innovative tactics brought victories unifying all of Arabia and taking the Sassanid / Roman two of the strongest empires of the time down, sealing the fate of the middle east for centuries to come. According to most credible sources Al-Walid is said to have fought around 200 battles and skirmishes as well as battle deciding duels through out his military career, remaining undefeated and earning a place as one of the most finest military generals in history. Such was the brilliance of his tactical leadership that when Arab tribes were being used as proxies by the Romans and Sassanid's and both powers threatened border region of the new Arabian caliphate state after killing the Arab emissaries (Which at the time was considered an act of war) Al-Walid was summoned and given the task of countering the Northern threats and expanding the states influence. Much of Al-Walids strategy relied in his use of extreme methods to completely destroy the opposing army. He is said to have put more emphasis on annihilating enemy troops, rather than achieving victory by simply defeating them and letting them escape behind enemy lines to fight another day, it was either surrender or die for them. An example of this is his employment of the double envelopment maneuver against the numerically superior Sassanid army at the Battle of Walaja and his maneuver at the Battle of Yarmouk where he virtually trapped the Roman army between three steep ravines by stealthily capturing their only escape route.

Such a method of warfare relied on a excellent intelligence network and high mobility of his forces. Psychological warfare also played a massive part in his plans to demoralize the superior and manipulate their every move so that he can coordinate his less armored and armed men in the most efficient manner possible.

Without his unparalleled military exploits, Islam as we know it today would not have existed. His victories were instrumental in the unification of Arabia and later he successfully led the Moslem Arab armies against the formidable Sasanian and Byzantine Empires. The enemy outnumbered him 90% of the time and always had the advantage in quality of arms and armour. That he prevailed against such odds was due only to his superb generalship. His biggest achievement was the conversion of Arab tactical doctrine into this strategic system of combined Intelligence/ Highly mobile warfare.

Hence his style of command can be divided into 3 main sub points: PSYCHOLOGICAL , INTELLIGENCE AND HIGH MOBILITY.

KHALED TACTICS ARE STILL STUDIED AT THE MILITARY COLLEGES OF WEST POINT AND ST. CYR

 

 

 During his campaigns he used almost every tactic in the book and devised new ones whenever it suited him. The envelopment from one flank, oblique order, three-pronged attack, four-pronged attack, large-scale ambush, night attack and feigned retreat were all tactics which Khalid used at one time or another with success. He also executed Hannibal’s famous double envelopment maneuver with perfection at Walaja, a dream come true for any general.

PART X - CONSEQUENCES OF ARAB VICTORY AT YARMOUK

The long Byzantine-Sassanian wars had exhausted both sides, and left these once-powerful empires vulnerable. Heraclius fought gamely, but was unable to stem the tide, and had to endure watching one section of his empire lost after another.

1. 1. In 636 CE., at the Battle of Yarmouk, the Byzantine Army was decisively defeated, and in the very same year, the Sassanians were crushed at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah, leaving THE ENTIRE EAST OPEN TO INVASION AND CONQUEST BY THE ARABS.

2. In 636 CE., Byzantium lost Jerusalem, the most sacred city in Christendom, and soon after, the entire Sassanian Empire crumbled and was brushed aside by the newcomers.

3. The Islamization of Persia's vastly superior culture & civilization with its provinces of Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) transformed the victorious semi-barbarian Arabs into a world's power house.

4. Egypt fell in 642 CE., and the southern Mediterranean coast, encompassing what is today Libya and Tunisia, soon followed.

5. Heraclius lived to witness most of these losses, finally dying in 641 CE. This great wave of subjugation finally subsided in the mid-8th century, by which time,

6. In the West, the remainder of North Africa and Spain had been subdued,

7. And in the East, the Islamic armies had reached the borders of India.

THE ARABIC CONQUESTS FUNDAMENTALLY RESHAPED THE MEDITERRANEAN WORLD AND CREATED RELIGIOUS, CULTURAL, AND LINGUISTIC BOUNDARIES THAT PERSIST EVEN TODAY.

 George F. Nafziger, in his book Islam at war, described the battle:

ALTHOUGH YARMOUK IS LITTLE KNOWN TODAY, IT IS ONE OF THE MOST DECISIVE BATTLES IN HUMAN HISTORY......

HAD HERACLIUS' FORCES PREVAILED, THE MODERN WORLD WOULD BE SO CHANGED AS TO BE UNRECOGNIZABLE

WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE

The Byzantine Empire still held Constantinople and sections of the Balkans and Anatolia, and this much-reduced version of the empire would manage to continue for another 800 years.

NOTES about the belligerents in armies at the battle of Yarmouk.

Rashidun Caliphate	Byzantine Empire Ghassanid Kingdom Tanukhid Foederati
Commanders and leaders
Khalid ibn al-Walid Malik al-Ashtar Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah 'Amr ibn al-'As Khawlah bint al-Azwar Shurahbil ibn Hasana Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan Al-Qa'qa' ibn 'Amr al-Tamimi Amru bin Ma'adi Yakrib Iyad ibn Ghanm Dhiraar bin Al-Azwar Abdul-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr.	Theodore Trithyrius Vahan † Jabalah ibn al-Aiham Dairjan † Niketas the Persian Buccinator (Qanatir) Gregory
Strength
15,000–40,000 (modern estimates) 24,000–40,000 (primary sources)	15,000–150,000 (modern estimates) 100,000–200,000 (primary Arab sources) 140,000 (primary Roman sources)
Casualties and losses
4,000 killed	45% or 50,000+ killed (modern estimates) 70,000–120,000 killed (primary sources)
_______________ FINALLY ... HISTORY >>>> AND NAPOLEON, PETER THE GREAT, KHALED IBN AL-WALID, FIDEL CASTRO, GEORGE WASHINGTON, EMMELINE PANKHURST (UK suffragette movement and helping women win the suffering right to vote) and others ... It all begs the question: IS HISTORY MADE BY THE CHOSEN FEW ... OR BY THE PEOPLE AT THE RIGHT TIME & AT THE RIGHT PLACE ??? I HAVE MADE MY CHOICE ... HAVE YOU ???

 

THE NAVAL BATTLE OF LEPANTO - 1571.

Introduction
This is the third and last installment of the three naval battles which saved the WEST from Eastern or North African domination. The previous two naval engagements, I already posted: SALAMIS in 480 BCE and ACTIUM in 31 BCE.
Gaining supremacy of the Mediterranean basin was of supreme strategic importance for whoever ruled the sea could then invade southern Europe at will, anywhere from Greece to Spain. Occupying Sicily and southern Italy which are at the center of the Mediterranea would be the first tactical objective to be used as the jumping off point for a future invasion of Europe. In the VIII th century, the Arabs did conquer Sicily and Sardinia and kept them for 300 years. Now, 500 years later, was the time of the OTTOMAN Turks.

 OTTOMAN EMPIRE

SHOWING LEPANTO

 THE NAVAL BATTLE OF LEPANTO - 1571

The Battle of Lepanto was a naval engagement taking place on 7 October 1571 in which a fleet of the Holy League, a coalition of European Catholic maritime states arranged by Pope Pius V, financed by Habsburg Spain and led by admiral John of Austria, inflicted a major defeat on the fleet of the Ottoman Empire in the Gulf of Patras, where the Ottoman forces sailing westwards from their naval station in Lepanto (the Venetian name of ancient Naupactus Ναύπακτος, Ottoman İnebahtı) met the fleet of the Holy League sailing east from Messina, Sicily.

In the history of naval warfare, Lepanto marks the last major engagement in the Western world to be fought entirely or almost entirely between rowing vessels, the galleys and galeasses which were still the direct descendants of the ancient trireme warships. The battle was in essence an "infantry battle on floating platforms". It was the largest naval battle in Western history since classical antiquity, involving more than 400 warships.

PREAMBULE
The Christian coalition had been promoted by Pope Pius V to rescue the Venetian colony of Famagusta, on the island of Cyprus, which was being besieged by the Turks in early 1571 subsequent to the fall of Nicosia and other Venetian possessions in Cyprus in the course of 1570. On 1 August, the Venetians had surrendered after being reassured that they could leave Cyprus freely. However, the Ottoman commander, Lala Kara Mustafa Pasha, who had lost some 50,000 men in the siege, broke his word, imprisoning the Venetians. On 17 August, Marco Antonio Bragadin was flayed alive and his corpse hung on Mustafa's galley together with the heads of the Venetian commanders, Astorre Baglioni, Alvise Martinengo and Gianantonio Querini.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

The Battle of Lepanto took place between the Holy League, consisting of Spain, Venice and the Papacy, and the Ottoman Empire, which lay to the south of Poland and Russia. Two thirds of the Holy League ships were Italian, but Spain contributed most of the financing. The Holy League, under the command of Don Juan of Austria, met the Ottoman fleet, led by Ali Pasha, at Lepanto on 7th October 1571.

 There had long been tensions between the Muslim Ottomans and the Catholic Spanish in the Mediterranean. Spain had captured Tripoli and Bougie in 1510, and in 1551 and 1555 the Ottomans recaptured them. By the late 1550s the Spanish felt that their coastline was threatened by the advancing Ottomans, and there were concerns that the converted Muslims (Moriscos) in Spain would assist an Ottoman invasion: between 1568 and 1570 there was a serious revolt of the Moriscos in Granada. In 1570 the Ottomans captured Cyprus from the Venetians. It was the last of the crusader states still in western European hands, and the Sultan, Selim, claimed it as King of Jerusalem. Additionally, the Venetian forces there were failing to prevent western corsairs from using the Cypriot coast to launch attacks on Muslim pilgrim ships on their way to Egypt and Mecca.

 THE HOLY LEAGUE

The members of the Holy League were the Republic of Venice, the Spanish Empire (including the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdoms of Sicily and Sardinia as part of the Spanish possessions), the Papal States, the Republic of Genoa, the Duchies of Savoy, Urbino and Tuscany, the Knights Hospitaller and others.


THE LEAGUE'S COMMANDERS

John of Austria (24 February 1547 – 1 October 1578), in English traditionally known as Don John of Austria, in Spanish as Don Juan de Austria[1] and in German as Ritter Johann von Österreich, was an illegitimate son of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. He became a military leader in the service of his half-brother, King Philip II of Spain and is best known for his role as the admiral of the Holy Alliance fleet at the Battle of Lepanto 

Marcantonio II Colonna (sometimes spelled Marc'Antonio; 1535[1] – August 1, 1584), Duke of Tagliacozzo and Duke and Prince of Paliano, was an Italian aristocrat who served as a Viceroy of Sicily in the service of the Spanish Crown, Spanish general, and Captain General of the Church. He is best remembered for his part as the admiral of the Papal fleet in the Battle of Lepanto. 

HOW MANY OF YOU KNOW THAT THE USA CENTRAL BANKING SYSTEM (THE FED) IS PRIVATELY OWNED

“WE THE PEOPLE…..THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Republic)….” It was transformed from the lofty ideals of a REPUBLIC to the wheeling/dealing of a CORPORATION manipulated by greedy bankers. Now read to learn WHY, WHEN, HOW and WHO did it.

“WE THE PEOPLE…..THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Republic)….” This envy of the world, this beacon of light, guaranteeing freedom and justice to all, shone brightly, but briefly. It was transformed from the lofty ideals of a REPUBLIC to the wheeling/dealing of a CORPORATION manipulated by greedy bankers. Now read to learn WHY, WHEN, HOW and WHO did it.

    

   Thomas Jefferson

                      ______________________________________

I have been thinking about writing this article for a few years (now that internet gives access to all documents). As an early lover of linguistics and logic, I have always been concerned with the meaning of words, their selection and their placement/role in the structure of sentences.  The choices of the Wording used always alter the conceptual meaning of a phrase: its sense, reference, implication and logical forms. What I am about to reveal will be a shock to all, especially to Americans who think that they live in THE REPUBLIC AS SET IN 1776….IT IS FALSE, it has become a fraud, A FALSE ILLUSION…. THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED HIJACKED MORE THAN 100 YEARS AGO and USURPED INTO A LOWER FORM OF GOVERNMENT….A DEMOCRACY…. Not a REPUBLIC anymore.

THERE IS a conceptual SEMANTIC COGNITIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NOTIONS REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY…. “For” vs. “OF”… “SOVEREIGN” vs. “SUBJECT”…RIGHTS vs. PRIVILEGES.

Let me explain:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (REPUBLIC) — Preamble of the original "organic" Constitution July 4, 1776.

Click to enlarge and read. Notice wording "THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (Republic)

Pay attention to the preposition F O R. It is vital to understand ITS later transformation from F O R to the present O F because the consequences of such a change have transformed Americans from being “SOVEREIGN” TO “SUBJECT”…. SUBJECTS OF A CORPORATION. And so Americans have no idea how THEIR freedoms are maintained — or lost…. that beloved parchment, THE CONSTITUTION, is no longer a symbol of enduring freedom. It is, instead, representative of a form of government which seemingly NO LONGER EXISTS IN THE US TODAY. The Constitution has been thrown out the window, the Republic shoved aside and replaced with a democracy. The thing is; most people in the US (99.99%) remain unaware that this is so because they simply do not know the truth — what lies beyond the myths.

                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871… The Act of 1871 also called for adopting a corporate constitution - Curiously identical to the Constitution for the United States of America, minus the original 13th amendment, which forbids titles of nobility. The new corporate ―government‖ empowered attorneys to wield power directly, whereas the 13th amendment to the original, national constitution prohibits that. How convenient! Under corporate rules, policy is simply dictated, not ratified by voting.

 

Click to enlarge and read wording "Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

LET ME TRY TO EXPLAIN FURTHER by using the Notion of RESTAURANT VS Notion of MCDONALD CORPORATION

Suppose you are devising by-laws FOR THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY which includes a company called McDonald Corporation. There are 3 parties involved here YOU….  RESTAURANT …..  MCDONALD Corporation. The SUPRA parties here are only 2: YOU & RESTAURANT…..not McDonald.

You = the sovereign = restaurant = the encompassing body…..WHILE McDonald corporation = an entity subject to/is secondary to Restaurant. Once finished, your document reads:

1.  THE BYLAWS FOR RESTAURANT (of McDonald Corporation)….. BUT when you eliminate FOR & RESTAURANT and changed the wording and use capitalization to read:

2.  THE BYLAWS OF MCDONALD CORPORATION, it becomes a totally different ball-game, especially your relationship to MCDONALD CORPORATION; transforming you from Sovereign to Subject who no longer has RIGHTS, but only privileges/permits, etc. which can be revoked at any time.

In document 1: YOU = SOVEREIGN = FOR = RESTAURANT, just like in the original wording of the US preamble in which THE WORDING USED WAS…….THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (REPUBLIC)…. = INALIENABLE = ORGANIC = RIGHTS…. YOU ARE THE REPUBLIC…”YOU” AND THE NOTION “REPUBLIC” ARE INTERCHANGEABLE.

NOT SO WHEN “FOR” CHANGES TO “OF”.

In document 2:  YOU = SUBJECT/EMPLOYEE = OF = Corporation…. = privileges/permits given (which can be withdrawn by Corporation anytime) = no Longer Rights. In addition you = no longer Sovereign as in FOR REPUBLIC. The change in wording has in effect transforming you from Sovereign to Subject who no longer has RIGHTS, but only privileges/permits, etc. which can be given or annulled at any time.

                _____________________________________________________

HOW AND WHY DID IT HAPPEN?  Three Presidents tried to reinstate the REPUBLIC and its original ideal without the controlling interest of the foreign banks. All three were assassinated: Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and John F. Kennedy.

            _______________________________________________________

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back. 

Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote: 

“... (We) gave the people of this REPUBLIC THE GREATEST BLESSING THEY HAVE EVER HAD – THEIR OWN PAPER MONEY TO PAY THEIR OWN DEBTS...” 

The Treasury notes were printed with green ink on the back, so the people called them “Greenbacks”. 

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars’ worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, A DEBT-FREE AND INTEREST-FREE MONEY TO FINANCE THE WAR. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war. But The Rothschild’s of London & Paris Bankers obviously understood. The only thing, I repeat, the only thing that is a threat to their power is SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENTS PRINTING INTEREST-FREE AND DEBT-FREE PAPER MONEY. THEY KNOW IT WOULD BREAK THE POWER OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS.

RETALIATION of European bankers led by the ROTHSCHILD’s, always the ROTHSCHILD’s.      

So, Shortly after that happened, “The London Times” printed the following: “If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all coun­tries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”…..  AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT the European bankers started to back the Confederate South, hoping to defeat Lincoln and the Union, and destroy this government which they said had to be destroyed…..but the North won the war, also because the Czar of Russia sent a portion of the Russian navy to the United States with orders that its admiral would operate under the command of Abraham Lincoln.

Of course, the Bankers were not going to give in that easy, for they were determined to put an end to LINCOLN'S INTEREST-FREE, DEBT-FREE GREENBACKS. He was assassinated by an agent of the Bankers shortly after the War ended.  Thereafter, Congress revoked the Green­back Law and enacted, in its place, the National Banking Act. The national banks were to be privately owned and the national bank notes they issued were to be interest bearing. The Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes.

                    _____________________________________________________

WHEN WAS “FOR” CHANGED INTO “OF”

We must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871 which changed REPUBLIC into DEMOCRACY in 1871. Here are explanatory excerpts from Melvin Sickler’s book: ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND JOHN F. KENNEDY TWO GREAT PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES ASSASSINATED FOR THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE.

CREATION OF WASHINGTON DC

“The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act to Provide a GOVERNMENT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.

The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.

The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (IN THOSE DAYS, THE ROTHSCHILD’S OF LONDON WERE DIPPING THEIR FINGERS INTO EVERYONE'S PIE) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, WHO DESPISED THEM AND HELD THEM IN CHECK), AND THUS, THE ACT OF 1871 WAS PASSED”.

     ____________________________________
I now resume my own personal analysis: 

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," the USA Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

"THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (Republic) = SUPRANOTION = YOU = SOVEREIGN.

                                           BUT

  The altered version NOW reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".

Notice that “THIS” WAS REPLACED BY “THE” AND “FOR” BY “OF”. It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.

Capitalization — an insignificant change – NO, Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn't. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in AMERICA. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. Think about that for a moment.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN 1871

                         ______________________________________________

In 1871 the British Empire was at its Zenith with the British flag flying over 40% of the globe and whoever controlled the Bank of England (ROTHSCHILD) and the issuance of currencies effectively controlled 40% of the world….not yet the USA…. When the USA REPUBLIC became bankrupt after Civil War and needed immigrants “to go West Young man”, the opportunity presented itself in 1871 and that’s when the bankers in Europe jumped on it. They asked for guarantee to ensure a steady flow of profit before lending money and that’s how the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS CREATED. Who were the greedy bankers? You guessed it. WHO ELSE BUT THE ROTHSCHILD’S of LONDON & PARIS….  Always the Rothschild’s again & again.

That’s when with the "Act of 1871,"the Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the WORD "FOR" WAS CHANGED TO THE WORD "OF" IN THE TITLE. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

"THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (original wording).

The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". AS mentioned above, it is a corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document Americans might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs THE REPUBLIC. It absolutely is not.

One more time the insatiable greed of a few bankers – Rothschild’s, always the Rothschild’s, again & again -- has transformed Americans into subjects to the whim of the corporation. Incidentally, this corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for the average American — and it operates outside of the original Constitution. Instead of absolute rights guaranteed under the "organic" Constitution, Americans now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which everyone must be licensed to engage in. This operates outside of the original Constitution. So, Congress committed TREASON against the People, who were considered Sovereign under the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. When we consider the word "Sovereign," we must think about what the word means.

              ______________________________________________

JAMES GARFIELD 

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce. And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

 – President James Garfield, 1881. He was assassinated just weeks after making this statement.

                                      _____________________________________________

JOHN F. KENNEDY

President Kennedy was not afraid to “buck the system”, for he understood how the Federal Reserve System was being used to destroy the United States. As a just and honorable man, he could not tolerate such a system, for it smelled corruption from A to Z. Certainly he must have known about the Greenbacks which Abraham Lincoln created when he was in office.  On June 4th, 1963, President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Exec­utive Order 11110, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an Interest and debt-free money. He had printed United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve. 

Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 of cash money. It was perfect­ly obvious that Kennedy was out to under­mine the Federal Reserve System of the United States.  But it was only a few months later, In November of 1963, that the world received the shocking news of President Kennedy's assassination. No reason was given, of course, for anyone wanting to commit such an atrocious crime. But for those who knew anything about money and banking, it did — not take long to put the pieces of the puzzle together. For surely, PRESIDENT KENNEDY MUST HAVE HAD IT IN MIND TO REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT OF 1913, AND RETURN BACK TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS THE POWER TO CREATE ITS OWN MONEY.

                    ___________________________________________________

WHO OWNS THE US CENTRAL BANKING SYSTEM – known as the FED.

AS MENTIONED IN MY PREVIOUS POSTING, A FEW MONTHS AGO, THE FED IS A PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY. The question is WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE USA FEDERAL RESERVE CENTRAL BANKS? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well-kept secret has been revealed only in 1974, after much probing. Here are the owners:

1. ROTHSCHILD BANK OF LONDON, 2. WARBURG BANK OF HAMBURG 3. ROTHSCHILD BANK OF BERLIN, 4. LEHMAN BROTHERS OF NEW YORK, 5. LAZARD BROTHERS OF PARIS, 6. KUHN LOEB BANK OF NEW YORK, 7. ISRAEL MOSES SEIF BANKS OF ITALY, 8. GOLDMAN, SACHS OF NEW YORK, 9. WARBURG BANK OF AMSTERDAM, 10. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK OF NEW YORK (MULLINS - REFERENCE 14, P. 13, REFERENCE 12, P. 152)

UNBELIEVABLY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHASE MANHATTAN BANK OF NEW YORK; ALL 9 OTHERS BANKS/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE OWNED/CONTROLLED BY JEWISH families, which always mean Israel, since the loyalty of all Jews is FIRST to world Jewry (Israel)….second comes some loyalty to their country of birth.

                                ___________________________________________

Conclusion:
in the last 200 years, SIX GENERATIONS OF ROTHSCHILD’S BANKERS (1820 ?-2015) WERE LINKED AND ASSOCIATED THEMSELVES WITH 2 VIOLENT, AGGRESSIVE ENGLISH SPEAKING NATIONS WHICH BY A QUIRK OF DESTINY BECAME CONSECUTIVELY DOMINANT WORLD POWERS.– GREAT BRITAIN FIRST, NOW SUCCEDED BY USA – IN CAHOOT WITH THE ROTHSCHILD’S OF LONDON, PARIS & BERLIN together with the Lazard brothers of Paris.

As these two nations kept spreading their tentacles over the globe, so did the power of their bankers. Today the bankers dominate everything because they hold the monopoly of issuing currencies.

                  _________________________________________

Remark

Jews number 19 million in the world….the Sikhs also number 19 Million…..the Tibetans come close with 16 million….why are the Sikhs or Tibetans NOT ruling the world …..Simple: Because neither Sikhs nor Tibetans had 5-6 generations of greedy bankers who LENT MONEY WITH INTEREST AND PROFIT TO 2 ENGLISH SPEAKING NATIONS WHICH BECAME CONSECUTIVELY dominant global powers.

                    ___________________________________________________

QUOTES

“I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

― Thomas Jefferson

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

― Henry Ford

When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.

― Napoleon Bonaparte

 

 “The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it to systematically corrupt civilization.”

– Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), German Chancellor, after the Lincoln assassination.

“I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe”.

– Abraham Lincoln

 

 “These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and the columns in those papers to club into submission or drive out of office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government.”

– Theodore Roosevelt as reported in the New York Times, March 27th, 1922.

          ___________________________________
 
The USA is living a tragedy, especially for the common people. Let me encapsulate my article by saying: In a REPUBLIC, every citizen is a KING. In a CORPORATION, only the Board of Directors are KINGS. When the USA ceased to be a REPUBLIC and became a CORPORATION, the BANKERS are the only KINGS.
      ___________________________________

POST SCRIPTUM
THE ROTHSCHILDs

Though the bulk of their wealth is hidden, there is no doubt that the Rothschild are one of the most powerful and influential families in the world. They do indeed own (as principal shareholders) most of the central reserve banks, large media corporations and energy companies in the world. They are fantastically wealthy and powerful. Although the family wealth has been divided among many descendants and heirs throughout the years, the Rothschilds still rank among the wealthiest lineages in the world. 

It is estimated that the Rothschild family controls more than $2 trillion worth of assets … YES YOU READ IT RIGHT $2 TRILLIONS. Today, their holdings span a number of diverse industries, including financial services, real estate, mining, energy and even charitable work. There are a few Rothschild-owned financial institutions still operating in Europe, including N M Rothschild & Sons Ltd in the United Kingdom, and Edmond de Rothschild Group in Switzerland. The family also owns more than a dozen wineries in North America, Europe, South America, South Africa and Australia.