Europe, Melos, and the Return of Geopolitics

The Lesson of Melos (image created with AI)

In 416 BC the powerful city of Athens confronted the neutral island of Melos during the Peloponnesian War. The Melians appealed to justice and neutrality. The Athenians answered with the cold logic of power.

“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

Soon afterwards Athens besieged the island. When Melos fell, the men were executed and the women and children enslaved.

Thucydides recorded this episode not to glorify power, but to expose how international politics sometimes works when survival, fear, and prestige dominate the decisions of states. For Europe today, the uncomfortable relevance of that ancient dialogue is becoming increasingly clear.

Europe’s Great Experiment

For seventy years Europe has pursued one of the most remarkable political projects in history. After two world wars the continent tried something radically different: replacing power politics with rules, institutions, and economic integration. The European Union became a system in which borders opened, sovereignty was shared, and disputes were managed through law rather than force. Inside Europe, that experiment worked astonishingly well. Outside Europe, however, the world never fully adopted the same logic.

The Return of Hard Geopolitics

Over the past decade Europe has rediscovered that it still lives in a wider international system shaped by power. The Russian invasion of Ukraine reminded Europeans that territorial war has not disappeared from the continent. Military strength and deterrence — concepts that many hoped belonged to the past — suddenly became central again. At the same time Europe faces instability along its southern horizon. Tensions involving Iran, Israel, and the United States affect energy markets, shipping routes, and regional stability. A wider conflict in the Middle East would quickly reverberate through Europe’s economy and politics. Above these regional crises lies a deeper transformation: the long-term strategic rivalry between China and the United States, which is reshaping global trade, technology, and alliances. These developments are not separate events. They are parts of a single geopolitical landscape in which the balance of power is shifting again.

Europe Between Power and Rules

Europe today occupies a unique position in that landscape. Economically it is one of the largest powers in the world. The European Union’s combined economy rivals that of the United States and China, and its regulatory influence shapes global markets. Yet in strategic and military terms Europe remains fragmented and still depends heavily on American security guarantees through NATO. This creates a fundamental tension. Europe believes deeply in a rules-based international order. But the stability of that order ultimately depends on power — military, economic, and political — capable of defending it.

The Lesson of Melos

The tragedy of Melos did not happen only because Athens was powerful. It happened because Melos had no reliable structure of power around it: no strong alliances, no credible deterrence, and no ability to shape the strategic environment in which it lived. Europe today is obviously not Melos. It is far larger, richer, and more influential. But the ancient story still raises a question that Europe cannot ignore. A political order based on rules works only when those who believe in it also possess the capacity to defend it. Europe has spent seventy years building one of the most successful political systems in modern history. The challenge of the twenty-first century may be learning how to protect it in a world where power politics has returned.

Further Reading

Thucydides — History of the Peloponnesian War (Book V, Melian Dialogue)
Donald Kagan — The Peloponnesian War
Richard Ned Lebow — The Tragic Vision of Politics
Graham Allison — Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?
Mark Leonard — The Age of Unpeace
Timothy Garton Ash — Homelands

A Contemporary Version of The Myriad Horsemen of the Apocalypse

A contemporary version of The Myriad Horsemen of the Apocalypse, this time with Xi Jinping, Ali Khamenei, Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Vladimir Putin.

At first glance, the image above looks like a fragment of a medieval tapestry: armored riders charging forward, people crushed beneath their horses. But look again. The riders are not medieval knights. Their faces resemble figures from today’s headlines — Xi Jinping, Ali Khamenei, Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Vladimir Putin.

This modern image reimagines one of the most striking scenes from the Apocalypse Tapestry in Angers, the panel often called The Myriad Horsemen. The original 14th-century tapestry illustrates the terrifying armies described in the Book of Revelation. (For the story behind the tapestry itself, see: The Apocalypse Tapestry, Château d’Angers, Angers (France).)

But medieval viewers probably saw more than a biblical vision. Europe was reeling from the Black Death and the destruction of the Hundred Years’ War. The riders even wear the armor of contemporary soldiers. To many people in 14th-century France, the apocalypse did not feel symbolic — it felt like the news of the day.

This modern reinterpretation simply continues that tradition.

Each age replaces the riders with the figures that embody its own anxieties. In the Middle Ages, they could evoke the armies ravaging France. Today, they may evoke a world unsettled by wars, rival powers, and a fragile international order.

The faces change. The uneasy sense of living in dangerous times does not.

The Night We Lost the Match and Won Everything (Sauviat-sur-Vige, France)

Café Brasserie des Sports in 2022 in Sauviat-sur-Vige (France).

The Café Brasserie des Sports stood silent now, its paint peeled by forty winters, the windows clouded with dust. But in André and Marcel’s minds, the lights were still on, the smoke still thick, and the air still trembling with the roar of a crowd that never quite went home.

“France versus West Germany,” André said, staring through the dusty window. “The whole village packed in here, remember? Millet yelling for quiet, the floor sticky with beer, and that tiny black-and-white TV balanced on the counter.”

Marcel laughed, that same deep laugh he’d had back then. “You mean the night you spilled your beer all over Yvette when Platini missed the penalty?”

“She said I looked honest when I suffered,” André smiled. “Then she married me. Must’ve liked lost causes.”

Marcel’s grin softened into something gentler. “That’s where I met Jeanne too. She stood at the bar pretending she didn’t notice me. But she laughed—oh, that laugh—when my ridiculous hat fell into the ashtray.”

Outside, a shutter rattled in the wind. The church bell struck six, hollow and patient.

For a moment, they both fell quiet. The street smelled of rain and wood smoke, and if you listened closely, you could almost hear it again—the clink of glasses, the hum of the crowd, the echo of a cheer that shook the walls when the final whistle blew.

André exhaled. “We lost that match, didn’t we?”

Marcel nodded slowly. “Aye. But we won everything that mattered.”

The wind carried a faint echo down the empty street, and for a heartbeat, Sauviat-sur-Vige was alive again—with laughter, with love, and the sound of a goal shouted to the rafters of the Café des Sports.

The Bronze Horse of Cancho Roano (Spain)

The Bronze Horse of Cancho Roano (6th–5th century BCE, Archaeological Museum of Badajoz).

In the Archaeological Museum of Badajoz, a small bronze horse quietly carries a big story. This horse sculpture from Cancho Roano, found near Zalamea de la Serena, dates to the 6th–5th century BCE, a period of profound transformation on the Iberian Peninsula.

Cast in bronze and depicted with clear elements of harness and tack, the sculpture immediately signals that this is not just an animal portrait. Horses in Iron Age Iberia were markers of power, mobility, and status, deeply embedded in both social and ritual life. Their presence in art and votive objects points to a symbolic role that went far beyond transport or warfare.

Cancho Roano itself is one of the most enigmatic archaeological sites in western Europe. Often described as a sanctuary-palace, it was constructed, modified, and ultimately destroyed in a carefully staged ritual process. Before its final abandonment, the complex was deliberately burned and sealed, preserving an extraordinary assemblage of objects beneath its floors—among them metalwork related to horses, chariots, and elite display.

The bronze horse fits seamlessly into this context. It suggests a world in which ritual, power, and belief were closely intertwined. Whether offered as a votive object, used in ceremonial display, or associated with elite identity, the sculpture reflects a society where the horse occupied a central symbolic position. Seen today, it is both an artwork and a fragment of a belief system that is only partly understood.

Further Reading

• Sebastián Celestino Pérez, Cancho Roano: Un santuario orientalizante en el valle medio del Guadiana

• Almagro-Gorbea & Torres Ortiz, La Edad del Hierro en la Península Ibérica

• Barry Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain and Beyond

• María Cruz Fernández Castro, Protohistoria de la Península Ibérica

• Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Badajoz – exhibition catalogues and research publications

Europe, Read from the Ground Up

Image created with AI.

Europe is often described through borders, flags, or dates on a timeline. But anyone who actually travels through it knows that culture doesn’t live in abstractions. It lives in places. In streets that curve for reasons long forgotten, in village rituals that outlasted empires, in habits of speaking, trusting, arguing, or staying silent.

This series starts from a simple idea: European cultures are not the product of origin alone, but of experience. Of how places dealt with stability and rupture, with arrivals and departures, with power imposed and power negotiated. Across Europe, people learned to live together under very different conditions — sometimes for centuries without interruption, sometimes with their world repeatedly torn open by war, revolution, or migration.

That history shaped how meaning is shared. In some regions, culture became implicit: understood without explanation, carried in gesture, rhythm, and shared memory. Elsewhere, meaning had to be spelled out, written down, regulated — because too many people, too many changes, or too many traumas made assumption dangerous. Neither approach is more “advanced” or more “European” than the other. Both are deeply rational responses to lived history.

Rather than treating migration, borders, language or ritual as separate themes, this series looks at them as layers of the same landscape. Movement did not just bring people to Europe; it rearranged trust. Power did not just redraw maps; it reshaped everyday behaviour. Language did not only express identity; it protected people when speaking carried risks.

These essays are not about stereotypes or national character. They are about why things feel the way they do when you cross a region, enter a café, listen to a conversation, or misread a silence. They are written for travellers who want more than sights, and for readers who sense that Europe’s diversity is not noise, but memory.

Europe, seen this way, is not a puzzle to be solved. It is a landscape to be read — slowly, place by place.

The Many Beginnings of Christianity

Image created with AI

When you travel through Europe, Christianity is everywhere. It is in the skyline of almost every town, in the rhythm of the calendar, in music, art, law, and even in the way communities organise care and solidarity. From the Camino routes to the monasteries of Cluny, from small village chapels to the great cathedrals of France, Germany, and Spain, Christianity shaped Europe for more than a thousand years.

To understand Europe, we need to understand how this religion developed. And that story is far more complex than many people assume.

One of the historians who has helped reshape this conversation is Elaine Pagels. Her work shows that early Christianity was not a single, unified movement. It was a landscape of competing ideas, interpretations, and spiritual paths. What we now call “Christianity” emerged only after centuries of debate, conflict, and adaptation.

In the first centuries, different groups tried to answer the same questions. Who was Jesus? What did his message mean? Some focused on faith, authority, and community. Others emphasised inner transformation and spiritual insight. Some believed the kingdom of God would soon arrive in dramatic historical events. Others saw it as a deeper awakening within the human person.

This diversity should not surprise us. Europe itself grew in the same way: through disagreement, exchange, and gradual consolidation. Cultural unity often came later, and rarely without conflict.

The early Christians also lived in a harsh and dangerous world. They were a small and vulnerable movement inside the Roman Empire. War, repression, and sudden political change shaped their experience. The destruction of Jerusalem in the first century forced followers of Jesus to rethink their identity and their future. In this environment, religious stories were not only spiritual. They were also tools for survival.

One of Pagels’ most striking insights concerns the development of ideas about good and evil. In earlier Jewish tradition, the figure of Satan played only a limited role. Over time, however, this figure became a powerful symbol of opposition. Religious language helped communities define boundaries: who belonged, and who did not.

Throughout European history, this pattern repeated itself. Christians divided among themselves. Catholics and Protestants fought devastating wars. Each side believed it defended truth against evil. These conflicts shaped the political and cultural map of Europe as much as kings and armies did.

Yet there was always another current. Alongside institutions and conflict, there were voices that focused on inner transformation. Some early Christian texts speak about discovering a deeper reality within oneself. This tradition echoes later in European mysticism, in monastic life, and in spiritual movements that emphasise experience rather than authority.

Eventually, a structured church emerged. It created stability, built institutions, founded universities and hospitals, and helped organise European societies. Without this framework, Europe would look very different today. At the same time, this process also narrowed the range of accepted beliefs. Many early voices disappeared from view.

When we travel through Europe now, we see the result of this long evolution. Every cathedral, pilgrimage route, and festival reflects centuries of debate, hope, fear, and imagination. Christianity did not simply shape Europe. It evolved together with Europe.

Understanding this makes travelling richer. The places we visit are not only monuments of faith. They are traces of the human search for meaning, community, and belonging.

Perhaps this is one of the deepest lessons Europe offers: culture is never fixed. It is always becoming.

Further reading

• Elaine Pagels – The Gnostic Gospels

• Elaine Pagels – The Origins of Satan

• Elaine Pagels – Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation

• Diarmaid MacCulloch – Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years

• Tom Holland – Dominion

When Contexts Don’t Travel Well

Migration, culture, and why tensions arise before intentions are understood

Image generated with ChatGPT.

People have always moved. Romans settling far from Rome, Visigoths crossing a collapsing empire, Vikings navigating river systems deep into Europe, Moors shaping Iberian cities for centuries. Migration is not an exception in European history; it is one of its constants.

What is new is the speed, the scale, and the way migration now unfolds in societies that already struggle to agree on what holds them together.

Public debates usually frame migration in economic, legal or moral terms. Numbers, quotas, asylum procedures, labour shortages, humanitarian duty. All of that matters. But beneath these arguments lies a quieter layer that is rarely addressed: migration is not only about people crossing borders — it is also about different ways of carrying meaning and responsibility colliding.

In earlier blogs on low-context and high-context cultures, we explored how societies differ in where they locate meaning, how responsibility is shared, and how social order is maintained. Those distinctions matter even more once people move across cultural boundaries — because context does not stay behind when people migrate.

Migration makes cultural assumptions visible — and fragile.

When people move from one society to another, they do not leave their sense of meaning, responsibility or belonging at the border. They bring with them deeply ingrained expectations about how trust is built, how authority is recognised, how conflicts are handled, and how one knows what is expected without being told.

This is where friction begins.

It is tempting to describe Europe as predominantly low-context: rule-based, procedural, explicit. In practice, Europe has always been more complex. Alongside formal institutions and written law exist strong high-context regions and traditions — shaped by religion, history, family structures and local customs.

Migration therefore does not only create tension between low-context host societies and high-context newcomers. It also creates collisions between different high-context worlds, each organised around its own implicit rules.

High-context cultures do not automatically recognise each other’s signals.

What feels self-evident in one community may be meaningless — or even offensive — in another. Norms around gender, authority, hospitality, conflict or public behaviour often rely on unspoken cues that do not translate easily. When these cues are misread, misunderstanding does not feel like misunderstanding. It feels like disrespect.

For people arriving from strongly high-context backgrounds, contemporary European societies can feel disorienting. Social life may appear impersonal. Institutions may seem distant or indifferent. The absence of dense relational networks can be experienced not as freedom, but as isolation. What the host society understands as neutrality or equality, newcomers may experience as coldness or abandonment.

At the same time, host societies — whether more low- or high-context themselves — often expect newcomers to adapt quickly to existing norms. When this does not happen, frustration grows. Rules are explained. Expectations are repeated. Compliance is demanded. What is perceived as unwillingness or non-integration may in fact be uncertainty about how meaning and responsibility are supposed to work in this new setting.

The reverse misunderstanding is just as common. Migrants may rely on family networks, community leaders or informal structures to navigate daily life — perfectly rational strategies in many high-context cultures. Host societies may interpret this as withdrawal, parallel worlds, or resistance to shared norms.

These frictions are not merely cultural misunderstandings at the level of manners or communication. They are structural. They shape schooling, labour markets, neighbourhoods, policing, welfare systems and political debate. And when they accumulate, they harden into resentment on all sides.

Times of rapid change intensify this process.

Migration today often coincides with housing shortages, economic pressure and political uncertainty. In response, societies seek stability. Low-context systems tend to tighten rules, refine procedures and demand clearer enforcement. High-context communities — both established and newly arrived — often retreat into trusted networks, reinforce internal bonds and protect their own coherence.

Each side believes it is acting rationally. Each side experiences the other as unreasonable.

This helps explain why debates about migration so quickly polarise. What one group frames as law and order, another experiences as loss of dignity or recognition. What one side calls social cohesion, another experiences as exclusion. The conflict is rarely only about migrants themselves; it is about incompatible expectations of how societies are supposed to function.

History offers many parallels. Cities that tolerated newcomers as long as they fitted into existing networks. Empires that governed diversity through layered systems of belonging. And moments when those balances broke down once centralised rules replaced negotiated coexistence.

Looking at migration through the lens of context does not offer simple solutions. It does not settle questions about borders, numbers or policy. But it clarifies something essential: migration is not only about integrating people into systems. It is about negotiating between different ways of making sense of the world.

If societies ignore that layer, cultural misunderstanding easily turns into political conflict. If they acknowledge it, they may begin to see that many tensions are not driven by bad intentions, but by incompatible assumptions about meaning, responsibility and belonging.

When people move, context moves with them. Learning to live with that reality may be one of Europe’s most difficult — and most necessary — challenges.

Oerol and the Line Between Audiance and Act

Oerol — where the line between audience and act grows a fine beard and puts on a top hat.

Oerol Festival

A Flemish Passion in Castile

The Passion Triptych in the Royal Abbey of Las Huelgas, Burgos

Passion Triptych, attributed to Jan de Beer, early 16th century, Monasterio de las Huelgas Reales (Burgos, Spain).

Displayed within the austere yet regal setting of the Monasterio de las Huelgas Reales in Burgos, the Tríptico de la Pasión quietly tells a far larger European story than its scale might suggest. Dated to the first quarter of the sixteenth century and attributed to Jan de Beer, the triptych is not only a devotional image of Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection. It is also a tangible trace of the intense artistic, commercial, and dynastic ties between Flanders and Castile.

The Triptych Itself

The composition unfolds across three panels in a familiar but carefully calibrated sequence. On the left, Christ carries the cross, surrounded by a dense crowd that presses the drama into the viewer’s space. The central panel shows the Descent from the Cross: Christ’s lifeless body is lowered with solemn care, while Mary collapses in grief, her posture echoing that of her son. On the right, the Resurrection introduces a note of transcendence—Christ rises, serene and victorious, as the guards remain earthbound, asleep or bewildered.

Stylistically, the triptych belongs to the world of early-sixteenth-century Antwerp painting. The figures are elegant, sometimes slightly elongated, their gestures expressive without becoming theatrical. Draperies fall in elaborate, decorative folds; colours are rich but controlled. This balance between emotional intensity and visual refinement is characteristic of Jan de Beer and his circle, poised between late medieval devotion and the emerging tastes of the Renaissance.

Made to Travel

Works like this were never meant to stay close to home. Around 1500, Antwerp—the great commercial hub of northern Europe—had become a centre for the production of painted panels destined for export. Workshops supplied both bespoke commissions and high-quality “stock” images, especially Passion scenes and Marian subjects, which appealed to a broad international clientele. Castile, and Burgos in particular, was one of the prime destinations.

The reason was not purely aesthetic. Burgos was deeply embedded in the wool trade linking Castile to the Low Countries, and its merchants, clerics, and royal foundations had direct access to Flemish markets. Paintings travelled alongside textiles, books, and luxury goods, carried by the same commercial networks that enriched both regions.

Dynastic Ties and Royal Taste

Trade alone, however, does not explain why Flemish art found such fertile ground in royal and monastic settings. Dynastic politics played an equally decisive role. The marriage of Joanna of Castile (Juana la Loca) to Philip the Handsome, heir to the Burgundian-Habsburg realms, symbolised a profound alignment between Castile and the Burgundian Netherlands. Through this union, courtly tastes, devotional preferences, and artistic models circulated with unprecedented intensity.

Royal foundations such as Las Huelgas—closely linked to the Castilian crown and used as a dynastic mausoleum—were natural recipients of this cultural exchange. Flemish paintings, admired for their technical mastery and emotional depth, suited both the spiritual ideals of monastic life and the representational ambitions of a monarchy that now looked north as well as south.

A Quiet Witness to European Exchange

Seen today, the Tríptico de la Pasión does not shout its international pedigree. It invites close, quiet looking rather than spectacle. Yet it stands as a witness to a moment when Europe was knitted together by marriage alliances, merchant fleets, and shared religious culture. In the stillness of Las Huelgas, a Flemish Passion continues to speak—of devotion, of trade, and of a royal world that once stretched seamlessly from Antwerp to Castile.

The Gileppe Dam (Belgium)

The two intake towers next to the Gileppe dam (Belgium).

In the hills above Verviers, the Gileppe River widens into a quiet, steel-blue sheet. Cutting across it is a slim footbridge that seems to float—and, anchoring the span, two white cylinders rise from the water like sentinels. These are the intake towers of the Gileppe Dam, the pieces of engineering you rarely notice in postcards but that keep the whole system breathing.

The story began in the 19th century, when Verviers’ booming wool industry needed a steady supply of clean, soft water. Belgium built one of Europe’s earliest large masonry dams here to regulate flow and store reserves. It worked—so well that, a century later, the reservoir was expanded and modernized. The intake towers you see were added during that upgrade. Each can “sip” water at different depths, mixing the right layers so what leaves the lake for homes and factories is clear, cool, and consistent year-round.

The Lion of Gileppe.

Walk the crest and the site reads like a timeline of industrial ambition and environmental pragmatism. The monumental Lion of Gileppe still keeps guard, a symbol of the dam’s first age; the elegant towers and footbridge mark the second. When the water is low, the pale bands on the concrete tell of dry summers; after rain, the lake climbs back to the tree line and the towers seem shorter, as if the landscape has taken a long breath.

Come for the views from the panoramic tower, the forest trails, and the wide skies reflected in the reservoir. Stay a moment by those two white sentinels. They’re the quiet heart of the lake—engineering disguised as calm.

Living on the Fault Line: A French Paratrooper in Germany around 1980

At the funeral of Jean Lacombe (1943 - 2026) at the Eglise Notre-Dame des Sablons in Aigues-Mortes (France, 3 feb. 2026). Jean Lacombe served in the 80s with the 12e Régiment de Cuirassiers in Germany (5e escadron, 1er peloton) and was later associated with the 13e Régiment de Dragons Parachutistes and the Union Nationale des Parachutistes (UNP), as part of the Forces françaises en Allemagne.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Europe lived with a quiet tension that shaped everyday life in ways that are easy to forget today. There was no shooting war, no ruins in the streets—but the expectation of war was always present, like bad weather on the horizon. For thousands of French soldiers stationed in West Germany, this was not theory. It was routine.

A man serving in a regular French unit such as the 12e Régiment de Cuirassiers around 1980 lived and trained on what was, in practical terms, the front line of the Cold War.

Why Germany?

After the Second World War, Germany became the hinge of Europe. West Germany faced the armies of the Soviet-led Eastern Bloc across a heavily fortified border. If a war were to begin, it would begin there. France therefore stationed large forces in Germany as part of a long-term strategy of deterrence: war would be prevented by making it too costly to start.

These forces were known as the Forces françaises en Allemagne—French forces permanently deployed on German soil. They were not occupiers, and not guests either. They were a standing reminder that Europe expected the worst and prepared accordingly.

Daily Life Under Permanent Readiness

For a soldier of the 12e RC—an armoured cavalry regiment—the rhythm of life was demanding and repetitive by design. Training was constant. Vehicles had to be ready, crews drilled, procedures rehearsed again and again. Exercises often simulated sudden escalation: alarms in the night, rapid mobilisation, columns moving out before dawn.

The logic was simple. If war came, there would be no time to improvise.

Yet daily life was not cinematic. It involved long stretches of waiting, maintenance, instruction, and routine discipline. Soldiers lived in barracks or nearby towns like Müllheim, often with families. Children went to French schools, groceries were bought locally, and weekends were sometimes spent crossing borders that today feel trivial but then carried enormous symbolic weight.

Normal life, lived under abnormal assumptions.

What Was He Training For?

Contrary to popular images of nuclear apocalypse, most soldiers trained for conventional war: tanks, reconnaissance, delaying actions, manoeuvre. The expectation was that any conflict would begin as a fast-moving conventional clash before escalation was even considered.

For cavalry units like the 12e RC, this meant mobility and information. Knowing where the opponent was mattered as much as firepower. Units trained to move quickly, observe, report, and—if necessary—fight while buying time for larger formations.

Nothing about this was abstract. Maps were studied with real villages on them. Rivers were crossed that still exist today. Routes were memorised because, in wartime, they would become lifelines or death traps.

France and NATO: Close, But Not the Same

One complexity often forgotten is that France, at this time, was not part of NATO’s integrated military command. That did not mean neutrality. French forces coordinated closely with allies but retained national control.

For soldiers, this meant a double identity: defending Western Europe alongside allies, while operating under a distinct French doctrine and command structure. Pride in independence was strong—but so was awareness of shared risk.

UNP: Brotherhood After the Uniform

Many of these soldiers later became active in the Union Nationale des Parachutistes (UNP). By the time they joined veterans’ organisations, the Cold War had ended. The wall fell. Barracks closed. Germany reunified.

But the shared experience remained.

UNP membership was not about nostalgia for conflict. It was about preserving a lived understanding of service in a period when peace depended on preparation for catastrophe. The ceremonies, the discipline, the insistence on memory—all grew from years spent training for a war that everyone hoped would never come.

A Life Shaped by Readiness

To serve in Germany around 1980 was to live with contradiction: stability built on constant alert, normal family life framed by contingency planning, peace maintained through the acceptance of potential destruction.

For those who stood watch there, history did not arrive with explosions. It arrived quietly, through decades of restraint.

And that restraint—rarely celebrated, never dramatic—may be one of Europe’s most significant achievements.

Clovis and the World He Lived In: Europe Between Empire and Kingdoms

Retable des Trois Baptêmes, 1610 — Basilique Saint-Remi, Reims (France), attributed to Nicolas Jacques

This monumental altarpiece can be seen today in the Basilica of Saint-Remi in Reims, one of the most important historic churches of France. It was created in 1610 and is usually attributed to the local sculptor Nicolas Jacques. The work stands in the former baptistery area of the church, where generations of visitors have encountered it as both a religious and historical statement.

The altarpiece depicts three key baptisms that together tell a powerful story. In the centre, Christ is baptised in the River Jordan by John the Baptist, representing the spiritual foundation of Christianity. On the left, the Roman emperor Constantine receives baptism, symbolising the moment when Christianity moved from a persecuted faith to a religion supported by imperial power. On the right, the Frankish king Clovis is baptised by Saint Remi in Reims, an event traditionally seen as the birth of Christian France. The work therefore presents not only a religious message, but also a political one: it connects faith, authority, and the formation of European identity through a visual narrative that links the origins of Christianity to the emergence of Christian kingdoms in Europe.

If you travel across Europe today — from the Rhine valley to northern France — you move through landscapes shaped by a long and uncertain transformation rather than a single dramatic event. Somewhere between the fading structures of the Roman world and the emergence of medieval kingdoms, a young Frankish leader named Clovis rose to prominence. His name is often linked to the birth of France, but his real importance lies elsewhere. Clovis lived at a moment when old certainties were disappearing and new forms of power, identity and belief were still being invented.

A World in Flux

The centuries before Clovis were not simply the “fall of Rome.” They were a period of slow change. The Roman Empire did not collapse overnight. Instead, it adapted, fragmented and gradually lost direct control over large parts of its western provinces.

One symbolic moment often mentioned is the winter of 406. Groups such as Vandals, Suebi and Alans crossed the frozen Rhine. Yet this was not the first time such groups had entered the Empire. The crucial difference was that this time many stayed. New communities settled inside the Roman world and became part of it. The old frontier between “Romans” and “barbarians” began to dissolve.

Gaul, the region that roughly corresponds to modern France, became a mosaic of peoples. Goths ruled in the south, Burgundians in the Rhône valley, and various Frankish groups lived along the Rhine. Many of these leaders still served the Roman Empire as allies or military commanders. They were not outsiders attempting to destroy a civilisation. They were participants in a changing imperial system.

In this new world, identities were flexible. A man could be a Frank, a Roman citizen and a soldier at the same time. Borders mattered less than loyalties, alliances and opportunities.

Violence, Crisis, and Opportunity

The 5th century was a time of insecurity, but also of innovation. Wars, migrations and power struggles reshaped society. Local elites struggled to maintain order. Cities declined in the north. Central authority weakened.

At the same time, new political models emerged. Leaders who had once commanded Roman troops began to take on civil responsibilities. When imperial administration disappeared in some regions, local strongmen became protectors, judges and negotiators.

This was not universal collapse. In many areas daily life continued. People farmed, traded, prayed and adapted. Christianity spread and became a powerful source of cohesion. Bishops, monks and saints increasingly played roles once held by imperial officials.

The Roman Empire itself did not simply vanish. Even after the famous year 476, many rulers in the West still recognised the emperor in Constantinople. Coins, laws and political language continued to reflect Roman traditions.

The world was changing, but its foundations remained deeply Roman.

The Franks: Not One People, but Many

The Franks were not originally a single nation. The name itself was given by Roman authors to various groups living near the Rhine. These communities could unite or divide depending on circumstances. They were farmers, warriors, traders and often Roman soldiers.

Over time their leaders gained prestige. Some served the Roman army. Others fought against it. Many did both. Their world was shaped by constant contact with Rome: military organisation, wealth, religion and political ideas all flowed across the frontier.

Clovis inherited this complex world. His father, Childeric, was likely both a Frankish leader and a Roman military commander. He operated within the late Roman system even as it weakened.

Clovis in His Own Time

When Clovis came to power around 481, imperial authority in north-western Europe had already become regional and fragmented. The scale of his domain was modest compared with the Roman Empire, and for most of his contemporaries he was simply one regional leader among many.

His achievement was not the creation of a vast empire, but the consolidation of power in northern Gaul. He managed to unite different Frankish groups, defeat rival rulers and expand his influence. He built a durable political centre in a landscape where authority had become local rather than imperial.

Perhaps his most decisive move was religious.

The Conversion That Changed Europe

Most rulers in the post-Roman West were already Christian, but many followed Arian Christianity, which differed from the Catholic faith of most Roman communities in Gaul. Clovis’ decision was therefore not simply between paganism and Christianity, but between different forms of the faith. Influenced in part by his wife Clotilde, a Catholic Burgundian princess, he increasingly leaned toward Catholic Christianity. Around the year 500, he was baptised in Reims by Bishop Remigius, a moment that marked both a personal conversion and a political alignment with the Catholic elites of Gaul.

This was a strategic decision. It aligned him with the Roman elites, bishops and urban communities of Gaul. It gave him legitimacy among the population he ruled. It opened alliances that strengthened his position.

Yet this choice was not inevitable. His family was religiously diverse. Pagan traditions still existed. The religious world of the time was fluid and contested.

His conversion helped create a new political and cultural synthesis: Roman, Christian and Frankish.

From Imperial Regions to Medieval Europe

Clovis did not replace the Roman Empire, nor did he rule anything close to its scale. What makes his reign significant is that it illustrates a broader transformation. Across western Europe, imperial authority was giving way to regional kingdoms that preserved many Roman practices while adapting them to new realities.

Clovis’ kingdom was one of several such experiments. But it proved durable. His successors maintained and expanded it. Over time this political structure became the foundation for later Merovingian and Carolingian power, shaping the development of western Europe for centuries.

The importance of Clovis therefore lies less in conquest and more in continuity and adaptation. He worked within the inherited Roman world, but in a context where power was local, identities were layered and institutions were evolving.

Why Clovis Still Matters

Clovis lived in a transitional age. His story shows that history is rarely about sudden collapse. It is about people navigating uncertainty, combining old traditions with new opportunities.

The Europe we know today — with its mixture of continuity and change, shared heritage and regional diversity — emerged from this long process.

Understanding Clovis means understanding that transformation.

Further Reading

• Jeroen Wijnendaele, The World of Clovis

• Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity

• Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks

• Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West

• Chris Wickham, The Inheritance of Rome

Darwin’s Cathedral: Seeing Religion Through an Evolutionary Lens

Image created with AI.

When we travel across Europe, it is almost impossible not to notice the presence of religion. Cathedrals shape skylines. Small shrines mark old roads. Processions still move through villages where people know each other. Whether in a Portuguese hamlet, a Spanish mountain town, or a Flemish square, religion has long shaped landscapes and identities.

But what if we look at religion not only as belief, but also as a way in which human communities learned to live together?

This is the central idea of Darwin’s Cathedral by evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson. The book invites us to see religion through the same lens we use to understand cooperation and social life. Not to dismiss it or defend it, but to ask why it has appeared in so many cultures and why it has lasted so long.

Religion and Cooperation

Humans survive by cooperating. We are not the strongest animals, but we are exceptionally good at forming groups. From early hunting bands to modern societies, working together has been our greatest strength.

Yet cooperation is fragile. Every community must deal with selfish behaviour. How do you build trust? How do you encourage people to contribute when no one is watching?

Wilson suggests that many religious traditions grew in part because they helped communities answer these questions. They created shared moral expectations, common stories, and a sense of belonging. They encouraged generosity and discouraged behaviour that harmed the group. People felt accountable not only to each other, but also to something greater than themselves.

Over generations, communities that were able to strengthen trust and solidarity were often more stable. Those that failed to do so tended to fragment or disappear. In this way, religious traditions were shaped by the practical challenges of everyday life.

The Power of Ritual

The book also highlights the importance of ritual. From chanting to pilgrimages, rituals may appear mysterious, but they create strong emotional bonds. Anyone who has witnessed a local feast or procession in southern Europe recognises their effect. They bring people together, reinforce memory, and strengthen identity.

Even today, societies that see themselves as secular use similar practices—national ceremonies, commemorations, and shared public events. These moments remind people that they belong to a larger story.

Belief and Behaviour

One of the most striking ideas in the book is that behaviour often matters more than doctrine. In practice, what counts is whether people act in ways that support cooperation and stability.

This helps explain why many religious traditions emphasise visible commitment. Charity, prayer, fasting, and other demanding practices signal loyalty. They show that someone is willing to invest time and effort in the community, which makes trust easier.

Religious communities have also often built strong networks of support. Many hospitals, schools, and welfare systems have roots in these traditions.

A Cultural Traveller’s Perspective

For travellers, this perspective opens a new way of seeing. A cathedral is not only an architectural masterpiece; it is the result of centuries of shared effort. A pilgrimage route is also a network that connected communities, trade, and culture.

Standing in Vézelay, Santiago de Compostela, or a small Romanesque church in rural France, you are looking at the long history of how people learned to organise their lives together. These places show how trust, identity, and cooperation were built across generations.

This approach encourages curiosity rather than judgement. Religion becomes part of an evolving cultural landscape that continues to shape Europe today.

Further Reading

• David Sloan Wilson — Darwin’s Cathedral

• Joseph Henrich — The WEIRDest People in the World

• Pascal Boyer — Religion Explained

• Scott Atran — In Gods We Trust

Columbus Before the Crossing

Preparation, Power, and the Ships at Muelle de las Carabelas

The replica’s of the “La Pinta”, the “Santa Maria”, and the “La Niña” at Muelle de las Carabelas; the three ships with which Columbus departed to the New World.

The story of Christopher Columbus does not begin with the open Atlantic, but with months of waiting, negotiation, and preparation along the rivers and monasteries of southern Spain. The Muelle de las Carabelas marks the physical end point of that long prelude: the place where plans, promises, and royal backing finally took shape as ships and crews.

Royal Backing at Last

Before arriving in Palos, Columbus had spent years trying to convince Europe’s rulers of his westward route to Asia. He was repeatedly rejected, until the decisive intervention of the Reyes Católicos—Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon. Fresh from the conquest of Granada in early 1492, the Catholic Monarchs were consolidating power, expanding influence, and looking outward. Columbus’s proposal aligned with their ambitions: trade routes beyond Portuguese control, prestige, and the spread of Christianity.

The agreement reached in the Capitulations of Santa Fe granted Columbus titles, status, and a share of future profits. What remained was turning paper promises into seaworthy reality.

Waiting and Preparing in Palos

Columbus arrived in Palos de la Frontera in the spring of 1492 and remained there for several months. This was not idle time. Ships had to be found, repaired, and outfitted; provisions loaded; crews recruited—often reluctantly. Royal orders compelled the town to provide vessels, a sign that local enthusiasm was limited. Experienced sailors such as the Pinzón brothers proved crucial in making the expedition viable, lending both nautical expertise and local credibility.

This period of preparation is essential to understanding the voyage. Columbus was not simply a visionary setting sail; he was a man dependent on networks of power, coercion, negotiation, and practical maritime knowledge. The river port of Palos, modest and workmanlike, became a temporary hub of imperial ambition.

The Ships as Historical Evidence

Walking among the replicas at the Muelle de las Carabelas makes this preparatory phase tangible. The Santa María, larger and heavier, reflects royal expectations of command and control. The Niña and Pinta, agile caravels familiar to Atlantic sailors, reveal the practical compromises behind the expedition. These were not ideal vessels for a grand vision of Asia, but the best available tools for an uncertain gamble.

Their cramped interiors and exposed decks underline another truth: months of planning could not eliminate risk. Once these ships left the river mouth, royal authority, contracts, and titles meant little against wind, currents, and human endurance.

"The First Voyage", chromolithograph by L. Prang & Co., published by The Prang Educational Co., Boston, 1893.
An imaginary scene of Christopher Columbus bidding farewell to the Queen of Spain on his departure for the New World, August 3, 1492.

From Local River to Global Rupture

The Muelle de las Carabelas therefore represents more than a departure point. It is the place where royal policy, local obligation, and individual ambition converged. From here, in August 1492, three small ships carried not only Columbus westward, but Europe into a new Atlantic era—one marked by exchange, conquest, and profound violence.

Seen in this light, the ships are not merely symbols of discovery. They are the final material expression of months spent waiting, persuading, preparing, and assembling power on shore. Standing beside them today, it becomes clear that the so-called “voyage of discovery” was already deeply shaped by politics, monarchy, and negotiation long before the sails ever caught the wind.

See also: Columbus and the Catholic Monarchs: A Meeting That Changed History

The Front Is Closer Than We Think

Four Years of Russia’s War Against Ukraine

The Human Face of Europe’s Front.

At the Remember Together event in Maastricht (February 24, 2026), held to mark four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I met five Ukrainian soldiers who have been fighting at the front. Speaking with them was not dramatic in the way one might expect. It was something else entirely: quiet, sober, and deeply humbling.

One of them, a young woman who spoke Dutch, shared her story. She was born in Ukraine but grew up in the Netherlands. She studied here, built a life here, and speaks with the calm clarity of someone shaped by both worlds. Yet when Russia invaded, she told me, something fundamental shifted. Her sense of justice was so deeply violated that she felt she had no choice. She started to work for the foundation ‘Eyes on Ukraine’ and supports the Ukranian soldiers.

She explained her decision without anger, without theatrical heroism. If you are attacked in your fundamental freedom, you do not really have a choice. You must defend yourself. It was not ideology. It was logic. Almost matter-of-fact.

What struck me most in my conversations with her and the others was their balance. These are people who have lived through trench warfare, who have lost friends, who have seen things most Europeans only know from history books. And yet they spoke with empathy, even about those in Europe who prefer not to see the danger. There was no bitterness. Only concern.

Again and again, they returned to one message: this is not only Ukraine’s front. It is Europe’s front. They worry that many Europeans still believe the war is distant, contained, someone else’s tragedy. They spoke about the fragility of support, about the limits of manpower, about the urgent need for weapons. But also about morale. Soldiers must feel they are not alone.

At the same time, they were clear about something else. You do not want this to happen to you. Their fight is not a call for others to suffer, but a warning. If aggression is not stopped, it spreads.

Standing there in Maastricht, far from the mud and noise of the trenches, I felt a deep sense of humility. These men and women have given so much, and still they speak rationally, with restraint, and with respect for the very societies that hesitate to fully grasp what is at stake. After everything they have endured, they have not lost their humanity.

Perhaps that is their most powerful message. Not only that freedom must be defended, but that even in the darkest circumstances, dignity and empathy can survive. And that, too, is something Europe should not take for granted.

---

Щиро дякуємо вам за вашу мужність, силу і людяність. Дякуємо, що ви захищаєте свободу всієї Європи. Ми з вами.

We sincerely thank you for your courage, strength and humanity. Thank you for defending the freedom of all Europe. We stand with you.

---

The Remember Together event was organised by Ukrainian House Maastricht, a local organisation supporting the Ukrainian community.

You can support the soldiers at the front via ‘Eyes on Ukraine’ by - Click Here

More on this blog on the topic of the Ukraine - Click Here

St. Dominic at the Convento de San Esteban

St. Dominic, Convento de San Esteban, Salamanca. With cherubs at his side and a church in his hand, the saint recalls the Dominican Order’s role in guiding Columbus and shaping Spain’s Golden Age of faith and discovery.

In Salamanca’s Convento de San Esteban, a radiant statue of St. Dominic commands attention. Clad in the white and black habit of his Order, he lifts one hand in a sweeping gesture while the other holds a model of a church — the house of faith and learning he founded. Two cherubs cling to his cloak, playfully bound by a cord, a tender reminder of the ties between heaven and earth.

This image captures more than devotion: it anchors the story of a convent that shaped history. Within these walls, Dominican friars once guided Christopher Columbus as he sought support for his daring voyage west. San Esteban became a hub of preaching, study, and counsel, its influence stretching far beyond Salamanca.

Seen today, the statue embodies that same spirit. St. Dominic appears alive, luminous, and close at hand — a founder whose mission to spread truth reached all the way to the New World.

Another Street Scene I Couldn’t Catch

The 4 men with the carousel plane (generated with AI).

Anyone who carries a camera for long enough begins to collect an invisible archive.

These are the images that never made it onto a memory card: scenes glimpsed out of the corner of your eye, moments that would have made a perfect photograph—if only you had been a heartbeat quicker. The camera stays in the bag, reality moves on, and the image settles permanently behind your eyes.

Another one joined that archive in Antwerp.

You’re walking down the street, mind elsewhere, when the back doors of a van swing open. Without ceremony, four men step into the street carrying a small airplane—not a real one, but a carousel plane, the kind children once climbed into, now lifted carefully by adult hands. No explanation, no warning. Just a fragment of a fairground drifting briefly through everyday city life.

It was utterly surreal. Beautiful, even. A scene so unexpected that it stopped time for a second.

By the time I reached for my camera, the moment had already dissolved. The van closed, the men moved on, the street returned to normal. Another missed shot.

Later, unwilling to let the image fade, I turned to AI and tried to reconstruct what I had seen—not to replace the photograph I never took, but to give shape to a memory that refused to leave.

A Romanesque Altar Frontal of the León Cathedral: A Window into Pilgrimage and Legend

In the grandeur of León Cathedral, a striking frontal de altar from the 14th century tells a vivid story of faith, legend, and the enduring power of the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. This polychrome masterpiece, painted on wood and richly adorned with gold leaf, weaves together key episodes from the legend of Saint James (Santiago), alongside the figure of Saint Christopher, protector of travelers.

The altar frontal is structured in five narrative panels, each depicting a crucial episode of the legendary transfer of Saint James' body to Galicia.

Top Left: Queen Lupa and the Disciples of Santiago
According to legend, after Saint James' martyrdom in Jerusalem, his disciples carried his body to Hispania. Seeking a burial place, they approached Queen Lupa in Flavia (modern-day Padrón). Initially resistant, she subjected them to trials before she ultimately converted to Christianity. The scene captures the moment of their plea before the queen, her regal posture contrasting with their humble gestures.

Lower Left: Saint Christopher and Saint James as the Warrior Pilgrim
A striking image shows a bearded figure wading through water with a child on his shoulder—Saint Christopher, the patron saint of travelers, who carried Christ across a river. Beside him, a knightly figure on horseback with a flag is likely Saint James in his Matamoros guise, a vision that was said to have inspired Christian forces in battle. This juxtaposition reinforces the protection of travelers and the role of Santiago as a spiritual and military guide.

Top Right: The Oxen and the Coffin
One of the trials Queen Lupa imposed on Saint James’ disciples was to give them a cart with wild, untamed oxen to transport his remains, hoping they would fail. However, through divine intervention, the animals were miraculously tamed, allowing the disciples to complete their mission. This scene captures the sacred nature of their journey, emphasizing the role of faith and divine guidance in overcoming obstacles.

Lower Right: The Boat Carrying Saint James
A small vessel with two figures—one possibly a disciple, the other haloed—holds what is likely the coffin of Saint James. This recalls the legend of his miraculous sea voyage from Jerusalem to Galicia, carried by divine will. The scene is rendered with simple, powerful forms, reinforcing the mystical nature of the tale.

Central Panel: A Pilgrim or a King?
The most enigmatic figure stands beneath an arched structure crowned with castle towers. Could this be a representation of King Alfonso II of Asturias, the first known pilgrim to Santiago de Compostela, paying homage to the saint’s newly discovered tomb? Or is it an anonymous pilgrim, embodying the devotion of countless travelers? The ambiguity invites contemplation, drawing the viewer into the world of medieval belief.

A Testament to Pilgrimage Culture

This altar frontal is not just an artwork; it is a testimony to the deep cultural and religious currents of medieval Spain. The Camino de Santiago was one of Europe’s most significant pilgrimage routes, and artifacts like this offered both instruction and inspiration to the faithful.

Fool’s Paradise

Schopenhauer, Dunning–Kruger, and the Comfort of Being Certain

Hieronymus Bosch, The Extraction of the Stone of Madness (c. 1494–1516, Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain).
A fool submits to surgery to remove the “stone” of stupidity, while the surgeon himself wears a funnel — the medieval symbol of folly. Bosch’s satire is razor-sharp: ignorance is not a pebble to be extracted, nor wisdom something that can be poured in. Five centuries later, the scene still reads like a warning against the comfort of a fool’s paradise.

Have you ever argued with someone who was completely wrong — and completely certain?

No hesitation. No nuance. No curiosity. Just calm assurance, as if reality itself had signed off on their conclusion.

A recent YouTube video titled “Why ‘Idiots’ Think They're Intelligent – Schopenhauer” revisits an old and unsettling insight: long before modern psychology described the Dunning–Kruger effect, Arthur Schopenhauer had already identified the mechanism behind confident ignorance.

He called it, in essence, a fool’s paradise.

When Ignorance Feels Like Clarity

Schopenhauer observed something simple and devastating: intelligence perceives complexity; ignorance does not.

If you lack the knowledge to detect nuance, competing interpretations, hidden assumptions, and technical depth, everything appears straightforward. And when the world appears simple, you feel certain.

Doubt only begins when complexity becomes visible.

Anyone who has seriously studied a discipline recognizes the pattern. At first, it looks manageable. Then, as you go deeper, the terrain becomes more intricate. What once felt obvious dissolves into questions. That uncomfortable realization — the sudden awareness of how much you do not know — is the beginning of competence.

But if you never reach that point, you remain in a fool’s paradise: a state of effortless confidence sustained by limited perception.

Familiarity Is Not Understanding

The video draws a crucial distinction between recognition and comprehension.

We live in an age of exposure. We scroll through psychology threads, listen to economics podcasts, quote philosophers on social media, and absorb fragments of neuroscience. We become familiar with terminology. We can follow conversations. We feel informed.

Familiarity is passive. Expertise is active.

Expertise allows you to apply ideas, defend them against strong criticism, explain them clearly, and recognize their limits. Familiarity simply means you have encountered the vocabulary before. The mind easily confuses the two. Once we believe we understand something, curiosity fades. Why investigate further what already feels known?

Modern psychology later formalized this pattern through the work of David Dunning and Justin Kruger. Their research showed that the skills required to perform well in a domain are often the same skills required to evaluate performance accurately. Without those skills, self-assessment becomes unreliable — and confidence inflates.

Schopenhauer had already seen this dynamic in academic life and public debate.

Blindness Disguised as Equality

There is a harsher dimension.

To recognize excellence, you need some baseline competence yourself. Without it, the expert and the amateur appear indistinguishable. A rigorous philosophical system and a casual opinion can look equally valid. A peer-reviewed study and a persuasive blog post may seem interchangeable.

From inside that limitation, the person is not necessarily arrogant. They are blind. And blindness feels like equality.

If you cannot see higher standards, you do not aspire to them. Without aspiration, there is no improvement. Without improvement, the gap remains invisible. The fool’s paradise sustains itself.

Complexity as Camouflage

Not all confident ignorance sounds simple. Sometimes it sounds impressively complex.

Dense language, elaborate frameworks, and abstract terminology can create the illusion of depth. Yet complexity is not proof of understanding. True intelligence can move between complex and simple forms without losing precision. Performed intelligence hides in obscurity because obscurity is harder to challenge.

If an idea cannot be explained clearly, it is often not because it is profound. It may be because it has not yet been fully understood.

The Closed Loop of Certainty

The most frustrating aspect of the fool’s paradise is correction.

If someone lacks the conceptual tools to detect their own error, evidence does not penetrate. Counterarguments feel like mere disagreement. Data appears biased. Logical analysis sounds like unnecessary complication. The corrective signal never arrives because the receiver is not equipped to process it.

This is why arguing with confident ignorance often feels futile. The problem is not always stubbornness. It is structural limitation.

And here is the uncomfortable truth: every person who has ever been confidently wrong believed they were right at the time. Including you. Including me.

The only reliable antidote is disciplined doubt — not paralyzing insecurity, but the habit of asking, “What might I be missing? Who understands this better than I do? What evidence would change my mind?”

Certainty is comfortable. Doubt is demanding. But doubt is the only way out of the fool’s paradise.

Further Reading

• David Dunning & Justin Kruger (1999), Unskilled and Unaware of It

• David Dunning, Self-Insight: Roadblocks and Detours on the Path to Knowing Thyself

• Arthur Schopenhauer, The Wisdom of Life (from Parerga and Paralipomena)

• Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Basis of Morality

• Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

• Bertrand Russell, The Triumph of Stupidity

• Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

• Richard Feynman, Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!

• Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan

• The Article is based on YouTube: Why “Idiots” Think They're Intelligent – Schopenhauer

Who Is Responsible Here?

How cultures carry responsibility — and why this matters in times of change

Image generated with ChatGPT.

Something goes wrong. Not dramatically, not through a single mistake, but slowly and quietly. Plans stall. Expectations drift apart. When the moment comes to ask what happened, no one can quite point to a clear failure. No rule was broken. No promise was openly violated. And yet, something has clearly gone wrong.

Situations like this are familiar — in families, neighbourhoods, communities and societies. We often describe them as failures of leadership or accountability. But beneath those explanations lies a deeper question: how do different cultures understand responsibility itself?

As in the previous blog on low and high-context, we use the concepts of low-context and high-context cultures to make sense of these differences.

In low-context cultures, meaning is carried mainly by words. Communication is explicit. What is said or written matters most, because shared assumptions cannot be taken for granted.

In high-context cultures, meaning is carried largely by context. Much is understood without being said. Relationships, shared history and social cues carry more weight than explicit wording.

Most societies fall somewhere in between. Misunderstandings arise when people assume their own way of carrying meaning is universal.

These differences do not stop at communication. They shape how responsibility itself is carried.

In low-context cultures, responsibility is usually explicit. It is tied to clearly stated commitments, defined roles and visible decisions. Responsibility can be traced: someone agreed, someone decided, someone is accountable.

This approach values clarity and fairness. It allows societies to function at scale, among people who may not know each other well. Responsibility becomes something that can be assigned and reviewed.

In high-context cultures, responsibility is more diffuse and relational. It is embedded in social bonds, mutual expectations and long-standing ties. Responsibility is not always spoken aloud, because it is assumed to be understood. Calling someone out directly can feel less like justice and more like a rupture in the social fabric.

Here, failure is often experienced not as guilt — breaking a rule — but as shame: a disturbance of harmony, a loss of trust, a weakening of the group.

Neither model is morally superior. Each reflects a different way of holding society together.

The contrast becomes especially visible in times of change.

Low-context cultures tend to manage change by rewriting rules. Laws are updated, procedures adjusted, responsibilities redefined. Change is something that can be planned and implemented.

High-context cultures approach change more cautiously. Because responsibility is woven into relationships, change requires renegotiating trust, status and shared expectations. Too much speed can feel destabilising.

This helps explain why reforms that appear perfectly reasonable on paper may meet quiet resistance in practice. One side sees clarity and progress; the other experiences disruption and loss.

History offers many examples. In medieval Spain, Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities lived side by side for centuries, not because they shared beliefs, but because they operated within overlapping yet distinct systems of responsibility. What ultimately failed was not only tolerance, but compatibility.

Similar tensions emerge whenever universal systems meet local worlds. Centralised states encounter regions governed by tradition. Formal institutions meet relational communities. The conflict is not only about power, but about how responsibility is understood and enforced.

Understanding this does not provide easy solutions. But it changes how we interpret failure and resistance. What looks like irresponsibility from one perspective may be an attempt to preserve social coherence from another.

In times of change, the question “Who is responsible?” is never only technical. It is cultural.

Recognising that responsibility can be carried in different ways does not eliminate conflict. But it allows us to see that many fractures are not driven by bad intentions or incompetence — they arise from incompatible expectations, and from the fragile balance between rules and relationships that every society must find for itself.