When Prices Rise and Routes Close: The Return of the Misery Index

Image created with AI.

There is something almost disarmingly simple about the idea. Take two things people feel every day—how fast prices are rising, and how hard it is to find work—and add them together. The result is what economists came to call the misery index, a rough measure of how strained everyday life feels.

The concept is usually linked to Arthur Okun, who in the 1960s tried to capture, in one number, the pressure ordinary households experience. Inflation erodes purchasing power; unemployment undermines security. Add the two, and you get a snapshot—imperfect, but intuitive—of economic discomfort.

Europe in the 1970s: When Energy Shock Became Social Change

Although the misery index was born in the United States, its logic applied just as much to Europe in the 1970s. The turning point was the Oliecrisis van 1973, when geopolitical tensions abruptly restricted oil supply and sent prices soaring.

What followed was stagflation: rising prices, slowing growth, and growing unemployment.

In southern Europe, the effects were especially intense. Italy struggled with inflation and instability. Spain, emerging from the rule of Francisco Franco, faced economic hardship alongside political transformation. Greece, after the fall of military rule, confronted both economic fragility and institutional rebuilding.

The crisis reshaped not only economies, but societies.

Today: Shock, Uncertainty—and a Structural Transformation

Today’s pressures are again rooted in disruption, but the mechanism is broader.

The instability around the Strait of Hormuz—linked to the war between United States and Iran—has exposed how vulnerable global energy flows remain. As in the 1970s, higher energy costs ripple through transport, food, and industry.

But the deeper effect lies in uncertainty.

When companies cannot reliably predict costs, supply chains, or geopolitical risks, they hesitate. Investment slows. Expansion plans are postponed. Hiring becomes cautious.

And this is where a second, quieter transformation intersects with the story.

At the same time, the rapid growth of the AI sector is beginning to reshape entire industries. Automation and AI-driven processes promise efficiency and new forms of productivity—but they also create friction in labour markets. Jobs are redefined, some disappear, others require new skills that are unevenly distributed.

This matters for the misery index in a subtle but important way:

• inflation may be driven by external shocks

• unemployment may increasingly be shaped by structural change

The result is a more complex dynamic than in the 1970s. Economic strain is no longer just cyclical—it is also transitional.

The Return of Unemployment—But in a New Form

Unemployment does not rise overnight after a shock. It follows.

As uncertainty persists:

• companies delay hiring

• investment weakens

• sectors under pressure begin to shed jobs

But unlike the past, this process now overlaps with technological change.

Some jobs may not return—not because demand disappears, but because they are replaced or transformed. At the same time, new roles emerge, often requiring different skills or located in different regions.

This creates a paradox:

• labour shortages in some sectors

• rising unemployment or insecurity in others

From the perspective of the misery index, this is crucial. The “unemployment” component becomes less uniform, more fragmented—and potentially more persistent.

Southern Europe—and Increasingly the Rest—on the Fault Line

Countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain remain more exposed to rising costs and structural weaknesses. Higher youth unemployment and lower income buffers amplify the impact of both economic shocks and technological change.

But the divide between north and south is no longer as clear-cut as it once was.

The combination of geopolitical instability and AI-driven transformation affects all of Europe:

• industrial regions face restructuring

• service sectors undergo automation

• regional inequalities may deepen

The result is not a single crisis, but overlapping pressures.

What Comes Next: A Slow-Burning Adjustment

If instability in global energy routes continues, and technological change accelerates, Europe may face a prolonged period of adjustment rather than a sharp crisis.

First comes the price shock.
Then comes the employment shift.
Overlaying both is structural transformation.

This is not a replay of the 1970s—but it rhymes with it.

A Simple Index in a Complex Age

The misery index remains a powerful idea because it captures something fundamental: how economic conditions are experienced.

But today, it needs to be read differently.

Inflation still matters.
Unemployment still matters.
But beneath both lies a deeper layer of change—uncertainty and transformation.

The real question is no longer just how high the index will rise, but how societies adapt to what lies behind it.

And that is where today’s story diverges from the past: not just in the shocks we face, but in the scale of change unfolding at the same time.

Columbus Reports Back: A New World Through 15th-Century Eyes

Based on: Christopher Columbus by Sebastiano del Piombo.

In early 1493, Christopher Columbus wrote an enthusiastic report to Luis de Santángel, the Treasurer of Aragon, describing what he believed to be his successful arrival in “the Indies”. In just thirty-three days at sea, he claims to have reached a chain of islands populated by “numberless people,” all of which he immediately claimed for the Spanish Crown.

Columbus lists each island he named — San Salvador, Santa Maria de Concepción, Fernandina, Isabella, Juana (Cuba), and finally Hispaniola — and describes them in near-mythic terms: lush forests, mountains “seeming to touch the sky”, fertile valleys, and rivers that “bear gold”. Hispaniola, in particular, is presented as a marvel filled with rich soil, abundant resources, and vast potential for settlement.

He describes the Indigenous peoples as timid, generous, and quick to believe that the newcomers came from heaven. Columbus explains how easily they traded gold and cotton for trinkets, and how he forbade his men from exploiting them too brazenly. He also recounts their customs, their canoes “faster than any galley,” and the shared language he encountered across the islands.

He emphasizes the strategic value of the territory. On Hispaniola he founded La Navidad, leaving behind a fortified settlement supplied for a year. He insists the lands are ripe for Spanish control, conversion to Christianity, and profitable trade — promising gold, spices, cotton, resins, and even enslaved people.

Columbus dismisses tales of monsters but repeats stories about cannibals and neighboring islands full of gold, repeating the rumors brought to him by the people he had taken on board. He reassures the Crown that these lands will bring glory to God, wealth to Spain, and a limitless field for evangelization.

He closes by attributing the entire voyage to divine intervention — a triumph that should, he writes, fill all Christendom with celebration.

Based on the letter of Christopher Columbus on his first voyage to America to Luis de Santángel (1498).

Why Humans Need Tribes

Image created with AI.

Walk through any modern city and you will see thousands of people living close together — yet many feel profoundly alone. Psychologists report rising levels of anxiety, depression, and loneliness, especially among younger generations. The paradox is striking: we have never been more connected technologically, yet many people feel less connected socially.

To understand this tension, it helps to look much further back in time — to the environment in which the human mind evolved.

The World Our Minds Were Made For

For most of human history, humans lived in small groups. Anthropologists estimate that these communities usually contained between thirty and one hundred and fifty individuals. Everyone knew each other and depended on one another. These groups were not simply social networks; they were survival systems. People hunted together, shared food, raised children collectively, and protected each other from danger. In such a world, belonging was not just comforting — it was essential. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the human brain adapted to this reality. We became highly sensitive to social signals: approval, rejection, cooperation, and status. The strong emotional reactions we feel to inclusion or exclusion were shaped in this environment. In short, humans evolved to live in tribes.

From Tribes to Modern Society

Modern societies are very different. Most people now live among strangers in large cities. Families are smaller and often spread across different regions. Communities that once structured everyday life — extended families, villages, religious groups, neighbourhood associations — have weakened in many places. At the same time, individuals are encouraged to be independent and self-reliant, responsible for shaping their own identity and life path. This freedom has brought enormous advantages. But it also means that many people navigate life with far fewer stable social structures around them.

The Mismatch

Some researchers describe this situation as an evolutionary mismatch. The human mind developed in a world of dense social relationships, yet modern life often provides fewer stable bonds. Our psychological systems still expect what they evolved for: recognition from others, shared rituals, trusted mentors, and the feeling that one's role matters within a group. When those elements disappear, people may struggle with belonging and purpose. Loneliness, from this perspective, is not simply a personal weakness — it can be a signal that something is missing in the social environment.

The Human Need to Matter

Traditional communities offered more than companionship. They also gave people a clear sense of contribution. In small groups, everyone had a role. Contribution created dignity. When people knew that others depended on them, their sense of identity became stronger. Modern societies often make this connection less visible. Yet whenever people rediscover ways to contribute — through volunteering, shared projects, or local communities — social bonds tend to strengthen and people report greater meaning in their lives. It seems that humans flourish not only when they are free, but when they are connected.

Rediscovering Community

No one suggests that we should return to prehistoric tribes. But anthropology and psychology point to a simple insight: humans still need structures of belonging. These can take many forms — neighbourhood communities, volunteer groups, religious communities, or cultural associations. What matters is that people are known, that they can contribute, and that they share parts of life with others. Modern civilization has given humanity extraordinary possibilities. Yet beneath these changes, the deeper structure of human nature remains the same. We are still the descendants of small groups gathered around fires, sharing stories, food, and responsibility. And somewhere inside us, that ancient expectation remains: to belong to a tribe.

Further Reading

• Sebastian Junger — Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging

• Robin Dunbar — Friends: Understanding the Power of Our Most Important Relationships

• David Sloan Wilson — Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society

• Joseph Henrich — The WEIRDest People in the World

• Jonathan Haidt — The Anxious Generation

• Randolph Nesse — Good Reasons for Bad Feelings

• Christopher Ryan — Civilized to Death

Why Being Wrong Can Feel Dangerous

You show someone clear evidence—documents, numbers, even video—yet instead of changing their mind, they double down. If you’ve ever had a political discussion, you’ve probably seen it happen. It can feel irrational. But what if it isn’t?

Beliefs are about belonging

We like to think we form opinions by weighing facts. In reality, especially in politics, beliefs are often tied to something deeper: belonging. Psychologists describe this as identity-protective cognition, the tendency to accept information that fits our group and reject what does not.

In practice, this means we are not just asking whether something is true. At the same time—often without noticing—we are also asking what it means for who we are and where we belong. Once a belief becomes part of that identity, changing it is no longer just an intellectual step; it can feel like a social one.

An ancient survival instinct

This pattern has deep roots. For most of human history, survival depended on staying within a group. Being excluded could mean losing protection, food, and support, so our brains became highly sensitive to anything that might threaten our place in that group.

That instinct still shapes how we respond to information today. When new evidence clashes with the views of our group, it does not feel like a small correction but more like a risk. Instead of calmly updating our beliefs, we tend to defend them—by questioning the source, dismissing the evidence, or shifting what we consider important.

Research shows something even more striking: people who are better informed or more skilled at reasoning are often more divided, not less. They use those abilities not only to understand the world, but also to defend the position of the group they identify with.

Loyalty over consistency

Seen from this perspective, something that often looks puzzling becomes easier to understand. In many populist movements, supporters defend positions that contradict earlier statements—or even their own previous views. From the outside, that appears inconsistent. From the inside, it can feel coherent.

The goal is not to remain consistent with past facts, but to remain aligned with the group. When contradictions arise, people adapt. They may deny the evidence, deflect attention, or quietly adjust what they think matters. In some cases, even personal standards shift in order to maintain loyalty.

What looks like changing beliefs is often something else: a consistent effort to protect identity.

Why more facts don’t solve it

It is tempting to think that the problem is simply a lack of information. If people knew more, they would change their minds. But the research suggests otherwise.

We are more likely to accept information that supports our identity and to resist information that threatens it. Corrections do not always help; sometimes they even reinforce existing views. In that sense, disagreement is not just about facts. It is about meaning, belonging, and status.

A different way of seeing disagreement

Once you see this, political arguments start to look different. They are not only clashes over truth, but also struggles over identity.

And if changing your mind feels like losing your place in the world, no amount of facts will be enough. Understanding that may not end the argument, but it does explain why these discussions rarely lead to agreement.

Further Reading

• Dan M. Kahan, Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition

• Dan M. Kahan et al., Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition

• Flynn, Nyhan & Reifler, The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions

• Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind

• Joshua Greene, Moral Tribes

A Carpenter’s Son on the Throne of St Peter: The Story of Adrian VI

Pope Adrian VI - image generated with AI.

In the early sixteenth century, Europe was changing fast. Empires were rising, old certainties were weakening, and the Church was under growing pressure. In the middle of this transformation, an unlikely figure reached the very top: Adrian VI, a carpenter’s son from Utrecht who became pope.

His life reads like an improbable journey—from workshop to Vatican—and reveals how fragile the old order had already become.

From Modest Origins to Scholar

Adrian was born in 1459 in Utrecht, the son of a carpenter. His background was modest, far removed from the aristocratic circles that usually produced church leaders.

His education changed everything.

In Zwolle, he encountered the ideas of the Devotio Moderna, which emphasized humility, discipline, and inner devotion. These values stayed with him for life. He later moved to Leuven, where he became one of the most respected theologians of his time.

Unlike many Renaissance churchmen, Adrian did not seek luxury or status. He built his reputation through study, discipline, and a strong moral compass—qualities that would later set him apart in Rome.

At the Heart of Empire

Adrian’s rise did not stop in the lecture halls. He became tutor to the young Charles V, a position that brought him into the centre of European power.

From there, he moved into politics: advisor, diplomat, and eventually regent in Spain. He helped secure Charles’s rule at a critical moment and became one of the most trusted figures in the Habsburg world.

And then, unexpectedly, came the turning point.

In 1522, after weeks of deadlock, the cardinals in Rome elected him pope—while he was still in Spain. The choice shocked the city. He was a foreigner, an outsider, and not part of the Italian elite.

A carpenter’s son had been placed on the throne of St Peter.

A Pope in a Time of Crisis

When Adrian arrived in Rome, he found a Church in deep trouble. Corruption was widespread, political tensions divided Europe, and the Reformation had already begun.

Adrian did something remarkable: he acknowledged that the Church itself had made mistakes.

He tried to reform it—less corruption, more discipline, a return to spiritual seriousness. But he had few allies. The Roman Curia distrusted him, and Europe’s rulers were locked in their own struggles.

He stood between two worlds: too reform-minded for Rome, too loyal to the Church to follow Luther.

A Man Out of Time

Adrian VI died in 1523 after less than two years as pope. His reforms remained unfinished, and many in Rome were relieved to see him go. Rumours of poisoning circulated, though they were never proven.

Yet his importance lies beyond his short reign.

He was one of the first to clearly see that the Church needed reform—and to say so openly. The changes he envisioned would only take shape decades later, during the Counter-Reformation.

Adrian VI’s life is not just the story of a pope. It is the story of how a man from the margins briefly reached the centre—and discovered that even there, change does not come easily.

Power, Order, and Trust: Who Decides How We Live Together?

Image created with AI.

Across Europe, people share streets, markets, borders and laws — but they do not share a single idea of where order comes from. In some places, rules feel natural and protective. In others, they feel distant, negotiable, or even suspect. These differences are not political fashions. They are the result of long historical experience.

To understand European cultures, you have to ask a deceptively simple question: When things go wrong, where do people turn? To institutions, to community, to family, or to no one at all.

When Institutions Held — And When They Failed

In parts of Europe, strong institutions provided continuity for generations. Laws were enforced, administrations endured, and authority — while not always loved — was predictable. In such places, trust slowly attached itself to systems. Rules became something you could rely on, even if you disagreed with them.

Elsewhere, institutions were fragile or temporary. Borders shifted, regimes collapsed, rulers changed language and allegiance. In those regions, trusting abstract authority was risky. When the state failed, people turned inward: to neighbours, kinship networks, religious communities, or informal agreements that worked regardless of who was officially in charge.

Neither response is ideological. Both are practical.

Power Imposed, Power Negotiated

Europe’s history is full of imposed power: empires, occupations, centralising states. But it is equally full of negotiated power — charters, city rights, guilds, councils, pacts. Some societies grew used to being ruled; others learned to bargain, resist, or quietly circumvent authority.

Where power was imposed from above, people often became skilled at reading between the lines. Obedience and scepticism learned to coexist. Where power had to be negotiated locally, transparency and procedure mattered more. Decisions needed to be explained, recorded, defended.

These habits did not disappear with modern democracy. They simply adapted.

Trust as a Cultural Strategy

Trust is not evenly distributed in Europe, nor is it placed in the same locations. In some cultures, trust flows toward institutions: if the system works, people will work within it. In others, trust flows horizontally, between people who know each other and share history.

That difference shapes everyday behaviour. How contracts are written. How rules are followed. How conflict is handled. Whether disagreement is taken to the street, the court, the council chamber — or resolved quietly over time.

What looks like stubbornness in one context may be self-protection in another. What seems like blind faith in rules may actually be learned caution.

Revolution, Rupture, and Rebuilding Order

Wars and revolutions did more than change governments. They reset expectations. After violent rupture, societies had to decide how order would be rebuilt — through strict frameworks or through social bonds that survived the chaos.

Some chose clarity: written constitutions, legal precision, strong bureaucracies. Others relied on continuity at a smaller scale: local customs, shared memory, unspoken codes of behaviour. Often, both existed side by side, in tension.

Europe learned many ways to live with that tension.

Why This Matters

Today, misunderstandings across Europe often arise not from values, but from assumptions about trust. One society expects rules to guarantee fairness; another expects people to interpret rules humanely. One confronts power openly; another adapts around it.

Seen without context, these differences can feel frustrating or opaque. Seen historically, they make sense.

Europe’s cultures did not choose their relationship with power in a vacuum. They learned it — slowly, sometimes painfully — from experience.

Understanding that doesn’t solve every disagreement. But it explains why Europeans can share a continent, yet still disagree profoundly on how living together should actually work.

Progress vs Regress: Listening to Those Who Lived Through It

Visitors watching Progress vs Regress (2016) by the Dutch artist Melanie Bonajo.

I saw this film at the Museum van Bommel van Dam in Venlo (The Netherlands). It is Progress vs Regress (2016) by the Dutch artist Melanie Bonajo.

The film begins with a simple idea: instead of asking what progress means in theory, ask the people who have actually lived through it.

Bonajo gives the floor to people in their eighties and nineties. They speak about changes that shaped their lives—women’s suffrage, the contraceptive pill, television, the car. Things we now take for granted once redefined what freedom meant. Some of these changes clearly expanded their world.

But the tone shifts when the conversation moves to the present. The internet, smartphones, constant connectivity—these are not simply improvements. They make communication easier, but can also create distance. The world feels faster, more efficient, but not always more human.

What makes the film compelling is its calm honesty. There is no grand argument, no dramatic conclusion. Just people reflecting on what has been gained—and what may have been lost.

In the second half, younger and older generations speak side by side. The contrast is subtle but telling. What one group experiences as natural, the other experiences as disorienting. Not because they resist change, but because they remember a different rhythm of life.

The film leaves you with an uncomfortable but important question: if progress keeps moving forward, who decides what counts as improvement?

And perhaps even more quietly: who gets left behind when we do not ask that question?

Faith, Power, and Justice: The Story of Saint Remy

The famous 16th-century tapestries depicting the life of Saint Remigius are housed in the Musée Saint-Remi (Reims, France), where they can still be admired today.

Birth of Saint Remy — The story unfolds in multiple scenes. At the center, Céline gives birth, surrounded by women attending both mother and child. Below, the infant is washed and presented. Around them, figures gesture and converse, suggesting that this is no ordinary birth. The imagery hints at prophecy and expectation: this child will grow into a figure of importance. The quiet domestic setting contrasts with the historical weight of what is to come.

The life of Saint Remy (Remigius of Reims) is not only preserved in texts—it was also woven, quite literally, into fabric.

In the early 16th century, a remarkable series of large tapestries was created for the city of Reims: the “Tentures de la vie de Saint Remi.” Comprising 10 monumental tapestries, the cycle tells the story of the bishop who baptized King Clovis and helped shape the religious and political identity of early medieval Europe.

These tapestries function like a visual narrative—almost like a medieval graphic novel. Each panel contains multiple scenes, accompanied by short texts in Middle French. Rather than showing a single moment, they unfold events step by step: birth, recognition, miracles, conflict, kingship, and justice.

What follows is the life of Saint Remy, told through these woven images—where history, legend, and moral teaching come together.

1. A Child Born into a Changing World

The story begins with the birth of Remy, presented as an event of quiet but profound significance. His mother, Céline, is surrounded by attendants, while the newborn child is carefully received and examined.

This is more than a domestic scene. It signals that this life is part of a larger design. In a world where the Roman order is fading, figures like Remy are presented as anchors—individuals through whom continuity and meaning are preserved.

The Calling of Remy as Bishop — Different scenes show the recognition of Remy’s authority. Clergy gather, gestures indicate acceptance and blessing, and Remy is placed within a structured ecclesiastical setting. The architecture—columns, altars, and enclosed spaces—reinforces the institutional nature of the moment. This is not a sudden rise, but a collective acknowledgment. The young man becomes bishop, stepping into a role that is both spiritual and political.

2. Authority Recognised, Not Claimed

Remy’s elevation to bishop comes early and unexpectedly. The tapestries show a collective act of recognition: clergy and people gather, acknowledging his authority.

From this point onward, Remy is not only a religious figure. He becomes a mediator in a fragmented society—someone who can restore order where political structures are weakening.

His early miracles reinforce this role. Healing, intervention, and acts of restoration appear in sequence, building trust in a world where certainty is scarce.

The Baptism of Clovis — In a richly structured interior, the baptism takes place. Clovis kneels, stripped of royal distance, as Remy performs the ritual. Around them, a carefully arranged audience witnesses the act—nobles, clergy, attendants. Architectural elements frame the scene, giving it a sense of permanence and order. This is both a religious ceremony and a political declaration: a king aligns himself with a new faith.

3. The King Who Changes Everything

The narrative shifts dramatically with the arrival of Clovis, king of the Franks.

The tapestries show a progression:

• persuasion at court

• crisis in battle

• a vow made under pressure

At the Battle of Tolbiac, Clovis promises to convert if he is granted victory. The battle is won, and the promise is kept.

The baptism that follows—one of the most iconic scenes in the series—marks a turning point. In a carefully staged ritual, Clovis kneels before Remy. This is not just a spiritual act. It is a political transformation that will shape the future of Western Europe.

The Dispute Over the Inheritance —This tapestry unfolds like a legal drama. In one scene, a dying man lies in bed while family members gather—his wealth and intentions at stake. Elsewhere, documents are exchanged, and discussions take place around a table. Another scene shows a figure presenting arguments, possibly supported by false witnesses. Finally, authority intervenes—Remy and the king appear within a formal setting where judgment is rendered. The sequence moves from private death to public justice, revealing the fragile line between faith, property, and power.

4. Justice in a Human World

The final part of the story moves away from kings and into everyday life.

One tapestry presents a dispute over an inheritance. A dying man’s wishes are contested, false witnesses are brought forward, and legal arguments unfold. The scenes progress from private spaces—bedrooms and family gatherings—to public judgment.

Remy appears here not as a miracle worker, but as a moral authority. The case reaches royal power and is resolved. Justice is restored, but only after conflict and deception.

This closing note is significant. It reminds the viewer that holiness is not only about miracles or kings—it is also about how people act, argue, and live together.

A Life That Connects Worlds

Across the tapestry cycle, Remy stands at the intersection of worlds:

• Roman and medieval

• spiritual and political

• divine intention and human action

His life is not told as a sequence of isolated miracles, but as a continuous engagement with society. These tapestries do not just celebrate a saint—they explain how order itself is created and maintained.

When Music “Suddenly” Happens

A boy with a violin.
A singer at the next table.
A restaurant that slowly turns into a stage.

Within minutes, the ordinary dissolves—and something magical takes over.

What looks like a spontaneous flash mob is, in reality, a beautifully crafted experience—and that is exactly why it feels so powerful. Julien Cohen’s performances follow a simple but irresistible format: start small, grow naturally, and let the music unfold as if it were happening by chance. One musician becomes two, then five, then a full ensemble. Before you know it, the entire room is part of the story.

The repertoire is chosen with great instinct. In this performance, fragments of The Four Seasons, Carmen, Csárdás, Ave Maria, and Zigeunerweisen flow into one another—each instantly recognizable, each raising the emotional stakes.

And Cohen did more than create performances—he sparked a movement. Around him, more and more musicians have embraced this format, creating their own “flash mobs” that blend classical music, public space, and storytelling. What started as a clever idea has quickly grown into a new kind of shared musical experience.

Yes, everything is carefully prepared—musicians, timing, cameras. But that is not what you feel.

What you feel is surprise. — Connection. — And the quiet thrill of seeing a space come alive.

For a few minutes, the world seems to fall into harmony— right there, between courses in a restaurant.

Two Women, One Revelation: The Visitation in Troyes

The Visitation — A Quiet Encounter That Changes Everything

In a quiet corner of the Église Saint-Jean-au-Marché in Troyes stands a sculpture that does not impress through scale, but through intimacy. Two women face each other, leaning in slightly. Their hands meet, their eyes connect. Nothing dramatic unfolds, yet the moment feels charged with meaning.

This is the Visitation, described in the Gospel of Luke. Mary, pregnant with Christ, visits her cousin Elizabeth, who is carrying John the Baptist. When they meet, recognition happens before anything is spoken. Elizabeth senses who Mary carries; even the unborn child responds. It is a moment of awareness before history fully begins.

Mary Visits Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-45)

At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!

This is the Visitation, described in the Gospel of Luke. Mary, pregnant with Christ, visits her cousin Elizabeth, who is carrying John the Baptist. When they meet, recognition happens before anything is spoken. Elizabeth senses who Mary carries; even the unborn child responds. It is a moment of awareness before history fully begins.

What makes the sculpture in Troyes remarkable is how human this encounter feels. There is no theatrical gesture, no exaggerated emotion. Instead, the artist captures something quieter: the kind of understanding that passes between people without words.

The Art of the “Beau XVIe”

The sculpture was created in the early sixteenth century, during a flourishing period in Troyes known as the Beau XVIe. The city was thriving through trade, and after a devastating fire in 1524, it rebuilt itself with renewed artistic ambition. Workshops developed a distinctive style—later called the École troyenne—that blended Northern realism with early Renaissance elegance.

You can see this clearly in the figures. Their faces are soft and attentive, their presence almost tangible. The heavy folds of their garments fall naturally, catching light and shadow with a painterly sensitivity influenced by Flemish art.

Yet the composition remains simple. Two figures, nothing more. The power of the work lies not in complexity, but in focus.

Recognition, Not Spectacle

At its core, the Visitation is about recognition. Not a miracle in the visible sense, but an inner realization. Elizabeth understands, Mary responds, and something profound is acknowledged without display.

This makes the scene unusual. In a tradition often dominated by grand narratives and male figures, here we see two women at the center of a decisive moment. Their pregnancy is not symbolic decoration but essential to the story: the divine is not descending from above, but growing within.

The sculpture stands between Gothic and Renaissance worlds. It still carries a sense of inward spirituality, yet it also embraces a new attention to the human body and emotional presence. That balance gives it its lasting power.

Even today, the scene feels immediate. You do not need to know the theology to understand it. Two people meet, and something important passes between them.

In a world full of noise, that quiet recognition may be the most striking message of all.

Evil Succeeds When Good People Do Nothing

A must-see youtube video: “I Asked Germans About Trump. They All Said the Same Thing” by Paul Lance.

“Evil succeeds when good people do nothing”

Watching the video by Paul Lance, I’m not just observing—I’m recognizing. As an European, what people in Berlin say feels immediate and familiar.

Lance asks people in Berlin simple questions about American politics. The answers are strikingly consistent—and blunt. People don’t hesitate. They reach for their own history, invoking figures like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Not to shock, but because the patterns feel alarmingly familiar: propaganda and media manipulation, targeting minorities, fear-driven nationalism, promises of economic revival in times of crisis—and the fatal mindset that “if it doesn’t affect me, I don’t have to do anything.”

In Europe, these are not abstract ideas. We are lived history. We feel it in places like the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, where the past is impossible to ignore. That proximity creates clarity: people recognize early warning signs because they know where they can lead.

And this is where Lance is right. The real danger isn’t just rhetoric or politics—it’s apathy.

Watch the video. Not casually, not as background noise—but as a warning. Because the most unsettling part is not what Europeans say. It’s how obvious it sounds here in Europe—and how many people still choose to ignore it until it is too late.

A Stone for an Emperor (Ciudad Rodrigo, Spain)

Roman Power, Provincial Spain, and the Afterlife of Domitian

Roman honorific inscription dedicated to Emperor Domitian (ca. 85 CE), originally from the nearby municipium of Irueña and now preserved in the cathedral museum of Ciudad Rodrigo.

Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) divi / Vespasiani f(ilii) / Domitiani Aug(usti) / pont(ificis) max(imi) trib(unicia) / p(otestate) imp(eratoris) II p(atris) p(atriae) co(n)s(ulis) / VIII desig(nati) VIIII / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

(To Emperor Caesar Domitian Augustus, son of the deified Vespasian, Supreme Pontiff, invested with tribunician power, acclaimed Imperator for the second time, Father of the Fatherland, consul for the eighth time, designated for the ninth, by decree of the town council.)

In a small museum room beside the cathedral of Ciudad Rodrigo, far from the marble forums of Rome, stands a modest but revealing Roman inscription. Carved in marble in the late first century CE, the stone is dedicated not to a local notable, but to the emperor himself: Domitian.

The text is formal, restrained, and unmistakably official. It names Domitian as Imperator Caesar, son of the deified Vespasian, holder of tribunician power, Pontifex Maximus, and consul-designate for the seventh time. Such titulature allows historians to date the stone with unusual precision, to the mid-80s CE. This was not a funerary monument, but an honorific inscription—part of the language of loyalty that bound Rome’s far-flung provinces to the imperial centre.

Rome in the Western Hinterland

In Roman times, Ciudad Rodrigo itself was not yet the fortified city we see today. The stone most likely originated in the nearby Roman municipium of Irueña (Urunensium), a regional centre connected to the road networks linking Lusitania (the southwest of Portugal) and the Meseta (the heart of Spain). Revealingly, even here—on what might feel like the margins of the Roman world—the emperor was present, invoked in stone as guarantor of order, authority, and continuity.

Such inscriptions were acts of public performance. To dedicate a monument to the emperor was to declare loyalty, to inscribe Rome’s hierarchy into local space. Power travelled not only through legions and administrators, but through formulaic Latin carved in durable stone.

Domitian and Memory

Domitian’s reign (81–96 CE) was marked by strong central authority, administrative efficiency, and increasing autocracy. Ancient sources, largely written by senatorial elites hostile to him, portray him as a tyrant. After his assassination, he was subjected to a damnatio memoriae: his name erased from inscriptions, his statues destroyed or reworked.

That makes this stone all the more remarkable. Unlike many Domitianic monuments, it survived intact—probably because it was reused as building material in the Middle Ages and later incorporated into ecclesiastical holdings. Ironically, spoliation preserved what official memory sought to erase.

A Long Afterlife in Stone

Today, displayed quietly in the cathedral museum, the inscription bridges worlds: Roman imperial ideology, late antique transformation, medieval reuse, and modern historical curiosity. It reminds us that imperial Rome was not only built in capitals and monuments, but also in provincial gestures of allegiance—some of which, against all odds, still speak to us.

Further Reading

• Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. II (Hispania), no. 862

• Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian

• Javier Andreu Pintado, Municipia y civitates en la Hispania romana

• Géza Alföldy, Roman Social History

• Hispania Epigraphica Online (HEpOL)

Lothar I: The Emperor of the Middle Kingdom

Lothar I (c. 795 – 855) - Titles: King of Italy (from 818), Co-Emperor (from 817), Emperor and ruler of Middle Francia (840–855).

Lothar I was the hinge of the Carolingian world—the son who inherited Rome and Aachen, fought his brothers for the rest, and then carved out a long, thin realm running from the North Sea to the Tiber. His life explains why medieval Europe fractured the way it did and why the lands between France and Germany have been contested ever since.

A Prince Made for the Empire

Born to Louis the Pious and Ermengarde of Hesbaye, Lothar grew up as the dynasty’s designated center of gravity. In 817 his father issued the Ordinatio Imperii, a constitutional blueprint that made Lothar co-emperor and senior partner in the family firm, while his younger brothers Pippin (Aquitaine) and Louis (Bavaria) ruled as sub-kings. Lothar also received Italy—with Pavia and Rome—giving him the imperial crown’s deepest historical roots.

Family War

The tidy scheme unraveled when a late-born half-brother, Charles the Bald (823), had to be fit into the inheritance. Lothar fought to keep the senior share. In 830 and again in 833 he joined aristocratic coalitions against their father; the notorious “Field of Lies” saw Louis the Pious deposed, only to be restored a year later. The family compact was now poisoned. When Louis died in 840, Lothar tried to claim the whole empire. His brothers Louis the German and Charles the Bald allied against him (sealed by the Strasbourg Oaths of 842) and broke his bid in the grinding battle of Fontenoy (841).

Verdun and the Middle Kingdom

The Treaty of Verdun (843) ended the civil war by dividing Charlemagne’s creation into three. Lothar kept the imperial title and a “middle kingdom”—a vertical strip from Frisia and the lower Meuse through Lorraine and Burgundy to Provence and Italy, with Aachen and Rome as its symbolic poles. The geography was dramatic and fragile: alpine passes bound north to south, but rivers, languages, and local elites pulled east and west.

Ruling from Rome and Aachen

Lothar governed as a traveling emperor. In Italy he confirmed papal privileges and asserted imperial oversight in Lombard law courts; in the north he issued charters, managed coinage, and worked through bishops and abbots to keep order across long corridors of land. Ecclesiastically, he moved within the archiepiscopal orbit of Trier and the broader Frankish church, while imperial status gave him leverage that ordinary kings lacked. Monasteries—wealthy, literate, and networked—were crucial to that governance. Lothar’s patronage of houses like Prüm both extended his authority and tied his name to the sacred landscape.

Abdication at Prüm

By the mid-850s age and illness pressed in. In 855 Lothar abdicated, withdrew to Prüm Abbey in the Eifel, took the monastic habit, and died there soon after. Before retiring he staged a final act of statecraft: the Treaty of Prüm, which partitioned his realm among his three sons—

• Louis II received Italy and the imperial title,

• Lothar II took the northern lands that would soon be called Lotharingia,

• Charles of Provence ruled Provence and Lower Burgundy.

Aftermath and Legacy

Lothar’s death set Europe on the path we recognize. His Middle Francia did not endure as a single unit. After his sons died—Lothar II without legitimate heirs—most of the middle zone was gradually swallowed by the western and eastern kingdoms (see the later Treaty of Meerssen, 870). Yet the idea of the middle lived on: Lorraine (Lotharingia), Burgundy, Provence, and the old imperial axis from Aachen to Rome remained fault lines and meeting places—zones where languages overlapped, bishops mattered, and emperors and kings bargained.

Lothar I was not the conquering colossus his grandfather had been, but he defined the empire’s limits. By fighting and then accepting a share, he turned the Carolingian legacy into a triptych—France to the west, Germany to the east, and a contested middle that has shaped European politics for over a millennium. The monk’s grave at Prüm is the quiet end of a noisy career, and a reminder that the empire’s map was finally redrawn not only by battles and treaties, but also by the institutions—churches and monasteries—that sustained life between them.

Further Reading

• Janet L. Nelson, Charles the Bald (for the family politics of Verdun and after)

• Rosamond McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians

• Timothy Reuter, Germany in the Early Middle Ages

• Patrick Geary, The Myth of Nations (on Lotharingia and identity)

• Matthias Becher, Karl der Große (background to the imperial idea)

• Studies of the Treaties of Verdun (843) and Prüm (855)

• Research on Prüm Abbey, Regino of Prüm, and the Carolingian monastic network

The Story of Maastricht’s Sint Servaasbrug

AI-generated impression of the disaster during the Heiligdomsvaart of 12 July 1275 in Maastricht. As thousands of pilgrims crossed the wooden bridge over the Maas, the central support gave way and the structure collapsed, throwing hundreds into the river.

If you cross the Maas river in Maastricht today over the tranquil Sint Servaasbrug, you are treading on a structure that has witnessed nearly two thousand years of European history—beginning with Roman ambition, shaken by medieval tragedy, and still standing as a symbol of connection in modern times.

A Bridge of Empires

The origins of Maastricht’s main river crossing go all the way back to the 1st century AD, when the Romans founded a settlement called Trajectum ad Mosam—“the crossing on the Maas.” To connect their expanding empire, they built a wooden bridge just south of today’s bridge, linking the Roman road between Cologne and Boulogne-sur-Mer. Trade, troops, and ideas flowed across it for centuries.

But rivers change, wood decays, and the Roman Empire fell. Yet the location remained strategic: Maastricht grew into a religious center after the death and veneration of Saint Servatius, the city’s 4th-century bishop, said to have been a distant relative of Jesus himself. The bridge now carried not only merchants and soldiers—but pilgrims.

Why the Bridge Mattered

By the Middle Ages, Maastricht was a hub of commerce, faith, and power. The bridge was no mere local crossing—it was a lifeline:

• It connected Flanders with the German Empire, critical for regional trade.

• It formed part of the Via Regia, a major route of imperial and religious travel.

• It served as a gateway for pilgrims traveling to venerate Saint Servatius’ relics in the basilica on the west bank.

By the 13th century, the city had outgrown the original Roman bridge. A new wooden bridge, longer and higher, was built on stone piers to accommodate increasing traffic. But its spiritual and economic importance also meant it bore heavy loads—quite literally.

1275: The Day Faith Collapsed

On 12 July 1275, during a Heiligdomsvaart, the wooden bridge gave way under the weight of thousands of pilgrims. Eyewitness accounts describe the central pier collapsing, dragging over 400 people into the river. It was one of the worst civil disasters in medieval Dutch history. The victims were not just townspeople, but pilgrims from all corners of Europe—many of them carrying hopes for healing or salvation.

This wasn’t just a physical collapse. It was a rupture in the spiritual and economic heartbeat of Maastricht.

Stone and Symbolism: A New Bridge Rises

In the wake of the tragedy, the city responded swiftly. Between 1280 and 1298, the current stone bridge was constructed slightly upstream. It featured seven arches (later expanded), a fortified gate on the eastern side, and deep foundations—built not just to last, but to restore confidence.

The new bridge took the name of the city’s protector: Saint Servatius. In this way, the bridge itself became a monument of faith restored, and a channel of movement for centuries to come.

Witness to Time

Since its construction, the Sint Servaasbrug has quietly carried:

• the boots of Spanish troops during the 16th-century Eighty Years’ War;

• the footsteps of Napoleonic administrators;

• the carts of industrial trade in the 19th century;

• and the bicycles and strollers of today’s locals and visitors.

It even survived wartime sabotage: in 1944, retreating German forces blew up parts of the bridge—but Maastricht rebuilt it once again.

A Bridge Between Heaven and Earth

The bridge is named after a saint who, according to legend, received a key to the gates of Heaven from Saint Peter. That key, made of solid silver, is still displayed during the Heiligdomsvaart. In this light, the bridge is more than stone—it is metaphor. It binds past to present, the sacred to the worldly, the west bank’s basilica to the east bank’s bustling Wyck district.

Today’s Bridge, Yesterday’s Story

When you walk across the Sint Servaasbrug today, you walk in the footsteps of Roman legions, medieval pilgrims, and modern dreamers. It may not boast the grandeur of Florence or Paris—but few bridges in Europe carry such a layered story.

Stone by stone, it tells us this: cities survive not only by what they build, but by what they rebuild.

Europe in Motion: How Migration Shaped a Continent

Landverhuizers (Emigrants), 1896, by Eugène Laermans (Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp).

Europe likes to think of itself as ancient and rooted. But beneath the surface lies a different reality — a continent shaped again and again by people on the move. Its landscapes, languages and cities are the result of repeated waves of migration, voluntary and forced, slow and sudden, stretching back thousands of years.

This is not the story of a single crisis or a modern phenomenon. It is the long, structural history of Europe itself.

Farmers on the Move (c. 7000–4000 BC)

One of the first great migrations into Europe came quietly, with seeds rather than swords. Early farmers from Anatolia and the Balkans moved west and north, bringing wheat, barley, sheep and goats. Along the Danube and Rhine, forests were cleared and permanent villages appeared.

Archaeology shows how these newcomers lived alongside — and sometimes replaced — local hunter-gatherers. The longhouses of the Linearbandkeramik culture in Central Europe are among the clearest traces of this transformation.

Europe’s rural landscape begins here.

Horsemen and Languages (c. 3000–1000 BC)

From the Pontic–Caspian steppe came mobile herding societies who travelled with horses, wagons and a new social order. Their movement reshaped Europe linguistically.

From this process emerged the Indo-European languages: Celtic, Italic (Latin), Germanic, Slavic and Greek. When you hear echoes between words like mater, mother and mutter, you are hearing migration fossilised in language.

Burial mounds from this period — from Hungary to northern Germany — still mark the landscape.

Classical Mobility: A Mediterranean World (c. 800 BC–400 AD)

The ancient Mediterranean was astonishingly mobile. Greek settlers founded cities from Marseille to Naples and along the Black Sea. Phoenician traders linked Iberia to the Levant.

Under Rome, mobility became systemic. Soldiers from the Balkans guarded Hadrian’s Wall. North African merchants lived in southern Gaul. Slaves, craftsmen and administrators moved across the empire.

Roman Spain, Gaul and Britain were not provincial backwaters but cosmopolitan zones, stitched together by roads, ports and law.

The Age of Migrations (c. 300–700)

Map of invasions of the Roman state, simplified, AD centuries 2nd to 6th. (from Wikipedia)

As Roman power weakened, movement intensified. Goths crossed the Danube. Vandals travelled from Central Europe to Iberia and onward to North Africa. Slavic groups spread into the Balkans.

These migrations did not simply “destroy” Rome; they reassembled Europe. Many modern regions — Lombardy, Andalusia, Burgundy — still carry the names of migrating peoples.

Medieval Flows: Vikings, Monks and Settlers (c. 800–1300)

The Middle Ages were anything but static. Vikings moved from Scandinavia to Ireland, Normandy and Sicily. In the east, German-speaking farmers settled new towns in Poland and Bohemia during the Ostsiedlung.

Pilgrimage routes like the Camino de Santiago carried people, ideas and styles across borders long before nation-states existed. Monasteries became hubs of knowledge exchange.

Movement was slower — but constant.

Faith, Empire and Expulsion (c. 700–1600)

The Islamic expansion brought Arab and Berber populations into Iberia, reshaping cities such as Córdoba and Toledo into centres of learning and coexistence.

Later, Europe also generated forced migrations of its own: the expulsion of Jews from England, Spain and Portugal; the displacement of religious minorities during the Reformation.

Migration was increasingly tied to identity, belief and power.

Europe Empties — and Fills the World (1800–1914)

Industrialisation triggered one of the largest population movements in history. Tens of millions left Europe for the Americas and Australia. Entire villages in Ireland, Italy and Scandinavia were reshaped by departure.

At the same time, Europe’s growing cities absorbed rural migrants. Paris, Manchester and Berlin expanded at breathtaking speed.

Europe was exporting people — and importing labour.

War, Borders and Displacement (1914–1945)

Two world wars turned migration into catastrophe. Borders shifted, empires collapsed, and millions were uprooted. Refugees, prisoners and deportees reshaped the demographic map.

After 1945, ethnic Germans fled or were expelled from Eastern Europe, while displaced persons searched for new homes across the continent.

Modern refugee law emerged from this trauma.

Post-War Europe: Workers and Returnees (1950–1980)

Western Europe rebuilt itself with migrant labour. Italians moved north, Spaniards to Germany, Turks to the Ruhr. Former colonial subjects arrived in France, the UK and the Netherlands.

What was framed as “temporary” migration became permanent settlement.

Europe Today: Movement as a Constant

In the 21st century, Europe once again finds itself debating migration — often as if it were something new. Yet Ukrainians fleeing war, Syrians crossing the Mediterranean, and seasonal workers moving within the EU all fit a pattern that has repeated itself for millennia.

What changes from era to era is not the fact of movement, but the political, social and moral frameworks through which migration is understood and managed.

A Continent Shaped by Motion

Europe’s cathedrals, languages, cuisines and cities are the cumulative result of people on the move. Migration is not a footnote to European history — it is one of its central driving forces.

Seen in this long perspective, migration is neither an anomaly nor a temporary disruption. It is a structural condition of Europe’s past and present. The recurring question has never been whether people move, but how societies organise coexistence, rights and belonging in response.

To understand Europe, therefore, is not to imagine an immobile past, but to recognise a continent continually shaped by journeys, arrivals and encounters.

That — more than any single border or moment — is the European story.

The Roman Empire’s War on Christianity — and How It Failed

Image generated with AI.

In the early centuries of the Roman Empire, Christianity was a small and suspicious movement. Its followers refused to worship the traditional Roman gods or offer sacrifices to the emperor. In Roman society, where religion and loyalty to the state were deeply intertwined, that refusal looked like defiance.

And when suspicion grew, persecution often followed.

Nero and the First Martyrs

The first famous persecution occurred under Emperor Nero in AD 64. After a devastating fire destroyed large parts of Rome, Nero blamed the Christians. Many were arrested and executed in brutal public spectacles. Some were crucified, others thrown to wild animals, and some were burned alive as torches during imperial celebrations.

But persecutions were not constant. For the next two centuries they appeared sporadically, often triggered by local tensions rather than imperial policy.

Why Christians Seemed Dangerous

Roman religion was public and communal. Citizens were expected to participate in sacrifices, festivals, and rituals honoring the gods who protected the empire.

Christians refused.

They worshipped only one god and rejected the emperor’s divine status. To Roman officials this could look like disloyalty. Their private gatherings and unfamiliar rituals also fueled rumors. Some outsiders even believed Christians practiced cannibalism because they spoke symbolically about eating the “body and blood” of Christ.

In reality, they were sharing a sacred Christian meal, recalling Christ’s Last Supper.

From Local Hostility to Imperial Policy

For a long time, persecution depended largely on local governors. Christians were often given a simple choice: perform a sacrifice to the Roman gods and go free, or refuse and face punishment.

In the third century the situation became more serious. As the Roman Empire faced political crisis and military pressure, emperors increasingly demanded religious unity. Laws were introduced requiring all citizens to sacrifice to the traditional gods.

Christians who refused could be imprisoned, tortured, or executed.

The most severe wave came at the beginning of the fourth century under Emperor Diocletian. Churches were destroyed, scriptures burned, and Christian worship was banned across much of the empire.

The Unexpected Reversal

Only a decade later, everything changed.

In 312 the Roman general Constantine defeated his rival at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Soon afterwards he adopted a policy of tolerance toward Christianity. In 313 Christianity was legalized across the empire.

Within a few generations the once-persecuted religion had moved from the margins of society to the center of imperial power.

It is one of the most striking reversals in the history of religion.

Further reading

• Candida Moss — The Myth of Persecution

• W.H.C. Frend — Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church

• Peter Brown — The Rise of Western Christendom

• Eusebius — Ecclesiastical History

A divided kingdom: how a civil war opened Spain to Byzantium

Gold tremissis of Justinus II (565–578), minted in Cartagena (Byzantine Spania), showing the emperor’s bust and Victory with globus cruciger.

In the middle of the 6th century, the Iberian Peninsula looked stable on paper. The Visigoths ruled from Toledo, and Roman structures still shaped daily life. But beneath that surface, the kingdom was fragile—held together by shifting loyalties and contested power.

The crisis began in 548 with the murder of the Visigothic king Theudis. His successor, Theudigisel, lasted barely a year before accusations of licentious conduct led to his own violent end. With the monarchy destabilised, authority splintered and rival factions emerged. One group rallied behind the new reigning king, Agila I, while another coalesced around a challenger, Athanagild, who rose in open rebellion. What began as a contest for the throne soon widened into a broader conflict, particularly in the south of the peninsula, where royal control was weakest and resistance most entrenched.

Athanagild found himself in a familiar dilemma: strong enough to challenge the king, but not strong enough to win. His solution was bold—and risky. He reached out across the Mediterranean to the most powerful ruler of his time: Justinianus I, emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Mosaic of Iustinianus I (Justinian) - San Vitale (Ravenna) - from Wikipedia.

For Justinian, this was not an unexpected request. His reign was defined by attempts to restore Roman authority in the western Mediterranean. North Africa had already been retaken from the Vandals. Italy was being fought over in a long and costly war. Spain, by comparison, was peripheral—but an opportunity like this was hard to ignore.

Around 552, Byzantine forces landed on the southern coast of Iberia. Officially, they came as allies, supporting Athanagild in his struggle. In practice, they behaved as something else: they secured ports, occupied cities, and established a permanent presence.

The civil war eventually ended in Athanagild’s favour. He became king. But the Byzantines did not leave.

Instead, they stayed and organized their holdings into a small province known as Spania. It was not a vast territory. There was no sweeping reconquest, no deep penetration inland. What they held were coastal enclaves—places like Cartagena—linked by the sea rather than by land. From there, they could control routes, project influence, and remain part of Iberian politics without fully dominating it.

For the Visigothic kingdom, this created a new reality. The war had ended, but its consequences lingered. The south was no longer entirely theirs. For decades, a shifting frontier separated Visigothic inland territories from Byzantine coastal strongholds. Conflict, negotiation, and uneasy coexistence followed.

Seen from a wider perspective, the episode fits a broader pattern of the age. Empires did not always expand through overwhelming force. More often, they moved into the cracks—into regions weakened by internal division. Spain in the 550s was one such place.

By the early 7th century, the balance had changed. Visigothic kings gradually regained strength and pushed the Byzantines out. Around 625, the last Byzantine positions in Spain disappeared, almost as quietly as they had been established.

What remained was not a lasting province, but a telling episode: a moment when a civil war opened the door to an empire—and when that empire chose not to conquer everything, but just enough.

Map of the Byzantine Empire in AD 555 (Wikipedia).

Hypocras, The Wine That Closed the Medieval Feast

At the end of a medieval banquet, when the noise of eating faded into quiet conversation, something special was brought to the table. Not just another jug of wine, but a carefully prepared drink—sweet, fragrant, and slightly mysterious.

This was Hypocras.

It arrived warm or gently cooled, its aroma shaped by spices that had travelled vast distances: cinnamon, ginger, galangal, sometimes cardamom or nutmeg. Mixed with red or white wine and sweetened with sugar or honey, it was a drink that spoke of trade routes, wealth, and refined taste.

But hypocras was more than a luxury. It was also a promise.

In the medieval imagination, this spiced wine helped the body recover from excess. Physicians believed it aided digestion, strengthened the heart, and even improved the quality of blood. In a world guided by balance—between heat and cold, dryness and moisture—hypocras seemed to restore order after indulgence.

Its preparation reflected that same desire for control and refinement. After wine and spices were mixed and left to rest, the liquid was filtered through a conical cloth known as the “Hippocrates sleeve.” What emerged was clear, bright, and carefully purified—just as the body itself was meant to be.

To serve hypocras was to make a statement. At courts, especially in France, it became a favored drink, sometimes described as the “wine of the gods.” It marked not only the end of the meal, but the social standing of those present.

And so the evening would close: cups in hand, conversation lingering, the warmth of spices still in the air.

A simple drink, perhaps—but one that carried the taste of an entire world.

A Lion and Its Prey: A Fragment of Late Roman Villajoyosa

Stucco medallion showing a lion attacking a deer or gazelle, made from a mould and dated to the 3rd–4th century AD; found at Torre de la Cruz / Xauxelles (Villajoyosa) and displayed at the Museo Arqueológico de Alicante (MARQ).

A small stucco medallion shows a simple, brutal scene: a lion attacking a deer—or perhaps a gazelle. The object was made using a mould and dates to the 3rd–4th century AD. It was found at Torre de la Cruz / Xauxelles, near modern Villajoyosa on Spain’s Mediterranean coast.

Scenes like this were common in Roman art. They appear in mosaics, wall decorations, and reliefs across the empire. The theme is straightforward: strength over weakness, predator over prey. It reflects a worldview in which nature is ordered, but not gentle.

Decoration and context

Stucco was widely used in Roman interiors. It allowed for repeated decorative elements at relatively low cost. Medallions like this were likely part of wall or ceiling decoration in:

• villas

• reception rooms

• or possibly funerary spaces

The use of moulds suggests a standardized visual repertoire, rather than a unique artwork.

Villajoyosa in the Roman period

The findspot lies in the territory of the Roman settlement of Allon. This coastal area was economically active, with agriculture, fish processing, and trade connections across the western Mediterranean. Even in the later Roman period—often described as a time of crisis—local elites continued to invest in buildings and decoration. This medallion fits within that pattern. The specific site of Xauxelles is today largely hidden, incorporated into later structures. The original building to which this piece belonged has not survived in a visible form.

A recurring motif

Animal combat scenes were not random decoration. They appear frequently in Roman visual culture, especially in domestic settings. The imagery connects to:

• hunting as a marker of elite identity

• the display of control and order

• a broader symbolic language shared across the empire

The absence of human figures does not weaken the message. The action itself is enough.

Street Art in Cartagena

Street art in Cartagena.

At first glance this corner of Cartagena looks like a forgotten place: crumbling brick walls, fragments of demolished houses, and empty urban space. But look again and the wall begins to speak.

Across the surface runs a collage of murals. A large, fragmented face dominates the centre, emerging from the brickwork as if the building itself were revealing a memory. Around it appear sketch-like figures and smaller portraits, some bold and recent, others faded and partially erased.

Cartagena is a city built on layers of history. Founded by the Carthaginians as Qart Hadasht, it later became the Roman port of Carthago Nova. Yet the wall in this photograph tells a much more recent story.

During the late twentieth century parts of the historic centre declined, leaving empty plots and exposed walls. These surfaces gradually became canvases for urban artists. Festivals such as Mucho Más Mayo helped encourage this transformation, turning neglected corners into open-air galleries.

What makes scenes like this fascinating is their unfinished quality. The murals interact with cracks, repairs and old brickwork. Art and architecture blend together, creating a living canvas that changes over time.

In Cartagena, even a broken wall can become part of the city’s cultural landscape.