text:
Horse teeth

Horse teeth refers to the dentition of equine species, including horses and donkeys. Equines are both heterodontous and diphyodontous, which means that they have teeth in more than one shape (there are up to five shapes of tooth in a horse's mouth), and have two successive sets of teeth, the deciduous ("baby teeth") and permanent sets.

As grazing animals, good dentition is essential to survival. Continued grazing creates specific patterns of wear, which can be used along with patterns of eruption to estimate the age of the horse.

Types of teeth
A fully developed horse of around five years of age will have between 36 and 44 teeth. All equines are heterodontous, which means that they have different shaped teeth for different purposes. All horses have twelve incisors at the front of the mouth, used primarily for cutting food, most often grass, whilst grazing. They are also used as part of a horse's attack or defence against predators, or as part of establishing social hierarchy within the herd.

Immediately behind the front incisors is the interdental space, where no teeth grow from the gums. This is where the bit is placed, if used, when horses are ridden.

Behind the interdental space, all horses also have twelve premolars and twelve molars, also known as cheek teeth or jaw teeth. These teeth chew food bitten off by incisors, prior to swallowing.

In addition to the incisors, premolars and molars, some, but not all, horses may also have canine teeth and wolf teeth. A horse can have between zero and four canine teeth, also known as tusks (tushes for the deciduous precursor), with a clear prevalence towards male horses (stallions and geldings) who normally have a full set of four. Fewer than 28% of female horses (mares) have any canine teeth. Those that do normally only have one or two, and these may be only partially erupted.

Between 13 and 32% of horses, split equally between male and female, also have wolf teeth, which are not related to canine teeth, but are vestigial first premolars. Wolf teeth are more common on the upper jaw, and can present a problem for horses in work, as they can interfere with the bit. They may also make it difficult during equine dentistry work to rasp the second premolar, and are frequently removed.

Tooth eruption
Horses are diphyodontous, erupting a set of first deciduous teeth (also known as milk, temporary, or baby teeth) soon after birth, with these being replaced by permanent teeth by the age of approximately five years old. The horse will normally have 24 deciduous teeth, emerging in pairs, and eventually pushed out by the permanent teeth, which normally number between 36 and 40. As the deciduous teeth are pushed up, they are termed "caps". Caps will eventually shed on their own, but may cause discomfort when still loose, requiring extraction.

It is possible to estimate the age of a young horse by observing the pattern of teeth in the mouth, based on which teeth have erupted, although the difference between breeds and individuals make precise dating impossible.

All teeth are normally erupted by the age of five, at which point the horse is said to have a "full mouth", but the actual age this occurs will depend on the individual horse, and also by breed, with certain breeds having different average eruption times. For instance, in Shetland ponies the middle and corner incisor tend to erupt late, and in both draft horses and miniature horses, the permanent middle and corner incisors are usually late appearing.

Tooth wear
Horse teeth often wear in specific patterns, based on the way the horse eats its food, and these patterns are often used to conjecture on the age of the horse after it has developed a full mouth. As with aging through observing tooth eruption, this can be imprecise, and may be affected by diet, natural abnormalities, and vices such as cribbing.

The importance of dentition in assessing the age of horses led to veterinary dentistry techniques being used as a method of fraud, with owners and traders altering the teeth of horses to mimic the tooth shapes and characteristics of horses younger than the actual age of the equine.

Equine teeth have evolved to wear against the tooth above or below as the horse chews, thus preventing excess growth. The upper jaw is wider than the lower one. In some cases, sharp edges can occur on the outside of the upper molars and the inside of the lower molars, as they are unopposed by an opposite grinding surface. These sharp edges can reduce chewing efficiency of the teeth, interfere with jaw motion, and in extreme cases can cut the tongue or cheek, making eating and riding painful.

In the wild, natural foodstuffs may have allowed teeth to wear more evenly. Because many modern horses often graze on lusher, softer forage than their ancestors, and are also frequently fed grain or other concentrated feed, it is possible some natural wear may be reduced in the domestic horse. On the other hand, this same uneven wear in the wild may have at times contributed to a shorter lifespan. Modern wild horses live an estimated 20 years at most, while a domesticated horse, depending on breed and management, quite often lives 25 to 30 years. Thus, because domesticated animals also live longer, they may simply have more time to develop dental issues that their wild forebears never faced.

Typical wear patterns
The following are typical wear patterns in horses.

 * Cups
 * Cups are hollow and rectangular or oval in shape, appearing on the tables of the permanent incisors, that wear away over time. In general, cups are worn away on the lower central incisors by age 6, the lower intermediates by age 7, and corners at age 8. The cups of the upper central incisors are worn away by 9 years of age, the upper intermediate incisors by 10, and the corners by 11. When all the cups are gone, the horse is referred to as smooth mouthed. In the past, dishonest dealers would "bishop" the teeth of old horses, usually by burning an indentation into the teeth, to imitate cups: but this practice was detectable by the absence of the white edge of enamel that always surrounds the real cup, by the shape of the teeth, and other marks of age about the animal.

 * Pulp mark/dental star
 * After some wear has occurred on the teeth, the central pulp cavity is exposed, and the tooth is marked by a "dental star" or "pulp mark" that is smaller than the incisor cups. These begin as a dark line in front of the dental cup, which grows in size and becomes more oval in shape as the cups are worn away. Dental stars are usually first visible at age 6, on the animal's lower central incisors, and very visible by age 8. They appear on the lower intermediates by age 9, and on the other incisors between the ages of 10–12 years.

 * Hook/notch
 * A hook appears on the upper corner incisor around age 7, and disappears by age 8. It reappears around age 13, again disappearing about 1 year later.

 * Galvayne's groove
 * The Galvayne's groove occurs on the upper corner incisor, producing a vertical line, and is helpful in approximating the age of older horses. It generally first appears at age 10, reaches halfway down the tooth by age 15, and is completely down the tooth at age 20. It then begins to disappear, usually half-way gone by age 25, and completely gone by age 30. The groove is named after horse expert Sydney Frederick Galvayne who claimed he had invented the use the groove to age a horse; however, it had been earlier described by his teacher Professor Hamilton Sample.

 * Angle and shape of the incisors
 * As the horse ages, the angle of the incisors generally becomes more acute, slanting forward. The incisors gradually change their form as the horse ages, becoming round, oval, and then triangular.

Continuous eruption and loss
A horse's incisors, premolars, and molars, once fully developed, continue to erupt as the grinding surface is worn down through chewing. A young adult horse's teeth are typically 4.5–5 inches long, but the majority of the crown remaining below the gumline in the dental socket. The rest of the tooth slowly emerges from the jaw, erupting about 1/8" each year, as the horse ages. When the animal reaches old age, the crowns of the teeth are very short and the teeth are often lost altogether.  Very old horses, if lacking molars to chew, may need soft feeds to maintain adequate levels of nutrition.

Older horses may appear to have a lean, shallow lower jaw, as the roots of the teeth have begun to disappear. Younger horses may seem to have a lumpy jaw, due to the presence of permanent teeth within the jaw.

The teeth and the bit
If a bit is fitted to a horse, along with a bridle, the normally metal bar of the bit lies in the interdental space between the incisors (or canines, where present) and premolars. If the bridle is adjusted so that the bit rests too low, or too high, it may push against the teeth and cause discomfort.

Sometimes, a "bit seat" is filed in the first premolar, where the surface is rounded so that the flesh of the cheek is not pushed into the sharp edge of the tooth, making riding more comfortable for the horse, although the practice is controversial.

Dental problems

Like all mammals, horses can develop a variety of dental problems, with a variety of dental services available to minimise problems through reactive or prophylactic intervention.

Equine dentistry can be undertaken by a vet or by a trained specialist such as an equine dental technician, or in some cases is performed by lay persons, including owners or trainers.

Problems with dentition for horses in work can result in poor performance or behavioural issues, and must be ruled out as the cause of negative behaviours in horse. Most authorities recommend regular checks by a professional, normally six monthly or annually.

Problems due to wear patterns
The wear of the teeth can cause problems if it is uneven, with sharp points appearing, especially on the outer edge of the molars, the inner edge of the premolars and the posterior end of the last molars on the bottom jaw.

Other specific conditions relating to wear include a "step mouth", where one molar or premolar grows longer than the others in that jaw, normally because the corresponding tooth in the opposite jaw is missing or broken, and therefore could not wear down its opposite, a "wave mouth", where at least two molars or premolars are higher than the others, so that, when viewed from the side, the grinding surfaces produce a wave-like pattern rather than a straight line, leading to periodontal disease and excessive wear of some of the teeth, and a "shear mouth" when the grinding surfaces of the molars or premolars are severely sloped on each individual tooth (so the inner side of the teeth are much higher or lower than the outer side of the teeth), severely affecting chewing.

Horses may also experience an overbite/brachygnathism (parrot mouth), or an underbite/prognathism (sow mouth, monkey mouth). These may affect how the incisors wear. In severe cases, the horse's ability to graze may be affected. Horses also sometimes suffer from equine malocclusion where there is a misalignment between their upper and lower jaws.

The curvature of the incisors may also vary from the normal, straight bite. The curvature may be dorsal or ventral. These curvatures may be the result of an incisor malocclusion (e.g. ventral=overbite/dorsal=underbite). The curvature may also be diagonal, stemming from a wear pattern, offset incisors, or pain in the cheek teeth (rather than the incisors), which causes the horse to chew in one direction over the other.

Other dental problems
Other common problems include abscessed, loose, infected, or cracked teeth, retained deciduous teeth, and plaque buildup. Wolf teeth may also cause problems, and are many times removed, as are retained caps.

Prevention of dental problems
To help prevent dental problems, it is recommended to get a horse's teeth checked by a vet or equine dental technician every 6 months. However, regular checks may be needed more often for individuals, especially if the horse is very young or very old. Additionally, the horse's teeth should be checked if it is having major performance problems or showing any of the above signs of a dental problem.

Many horses require floating (or rasping) of teeth once every 12 months, although this, too, is variable and dependent on the individual horse. The first four or five years of a horse's life are when the most growth-related changes occur and hence frequent checkups may prevent problems from developing. Equine teeth get harder as the horse gets older and may not have rapid changes during the prime adult years of life, but as horses become aged, particularly from the late teens on, additional changes in incisor angle and other molar growth patterns often necessitate frequent care. Once a horse is in its late 20s or early 30s, molar loss becomes a concern. Floating involves a veterinarian wearing down the surface of the teeth, usually to remove sharp points or to balance out the mouth. However, the veterinarian must be careful not to take off too much of the surface, or there will not be enough roughened area on the tooth to allow it to properly tear apart food. Additionally, too much work on a tooth can cause thermal damage (which could lead to having to extract the tooth), or expose the sensitive interior of the tooth (pulp). A person without a veterinary degree who performs this service is called a horse floater or equine dental technician.

In popular culture
The common folk saying "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" is taken from the era when gifting horses was common. The teeth of a horse are a good indication of the age of the animal, and it was considered rude to inspect the teeth of a gifted animal as you would one that you were purchasing. The saying is used in reference to being an ungrateful gift receiver.

title: Horse teeth


text:
Cattle age determination

The age of cattle is determined chiefly by examination of the teeth, and less perfectly by the horn rings or the length of the tail brush; due to bang-tailing, which is the act of cutting the long hairs at the tip of the tail short to identify the animal after management practices, the last method is the least reliable.

Teeth method
Cattle are placed in a cattle crush in order to restrain them prior inspecting the mouth and amount of teeth that each animal has.

The temporary teeth are in part erupted at birth, and all the incisors are erupted in twenty days; the first, second and third pairs of temporary molars are erupted in thirty days; the teeth have grown large enough to touch each other by the sixth month. Temporary incisors or "milk" teeth are smaller than the permanent incisors.

Cattle have thirty-two teeth, including six incisors or biting teeth and two canines in the front on the bottom jaw. The canine teeth are not pointed but look like incisors. The incisor teeth meet with the thick hard dental pad of the upper jaw. Cattle have six premolars and six molars on both top and bottom jaws for a total of twenty-four molars. The teeth of cattle are suited primarily for grinding, and they use their rough tongues to grasp grass and then nip it off between their incisors and the dental pad.

There is controversy on the reliability of attempting to tell the age of cattle by their teeth, as rate of wear can be affected by the forage that is grazed. Drought or grazing on sandy country will also affect rate of wear.

The following is a guide:
 * 12 months – All the calf teeth are in place.
 * 15 months – Centre permanent incisors appear.
 * 18 months – Centre permanent incisors showing some wear.
 * 24 months – First intermediates up.
 * 30 months – Six broad incisors up.
 * 36 months – Six broad incisors showing wear.
 * 39 months – Corner teeth up
 * 42 months – Eight broad incisors showing wear.

The development is quite complete at from five to six years. At that time the border of the incisors has been worn away a little below the level of the grinders. At six years, the first grinders are beginning to wear, and are on a level with the incisors. At eight years, the wear of the first grinders is very apparent. At ten or eleven years, used surfaces of the teeth begin to bear a square mark surrounded by a white line, and this is pronounced on all the teeth by the twelfth year; between the twelfth and the fourteenth year this mark takes a round form.

It is a requirement in some locations that prime cattle have a dentition indication mark on them prior to auction. This is normally done by the vendor, or the stock agent. Fat cattle auctions in New South Wales, Australia identify the amount of teeth that prime animals have in the form of sprayed marks along the back. Thus two tooth cattle are marked on the wither, four tooth on the middle of the back and six tooth on their high bone (near tail). Milk and eight tooth cattle are not marked.

Horn method
The rings on the horns are less useful as guides. At ten or twelve months the first ring appears; at twenty months to two years the second; at thirty to thirty-two months the third ring, at forty to forty-six months the fourth ring, at fifty four to sixty months the fifth ring, and so on. But, at the fifth year, the three first rings are indistinguishable, and at the eighth year all the rings.

Tail brush method
The brush of the tail is only useful as a guide when assessing small, stunted or young cattle. A brush that is about fetlock length or longer is an indication that the beast is twelve months old or older. This method cannot be used on cattle which have been bang-tailed. Bang tailing is the act of cutting the long hairs at the tip of the tail short to act as a simple identifier of animals and is commonly used after a procedure has been performed on an individual animal that belongs to a large mob e.g. the mob is run through a race and each animal is vaccinated – immediately after being vaccinated the animal is bang-tailed so they are identified as vaccinated and will not be given a second dose of vaccine. This is useful when large numbers of animals are being processed by a group of individuals.

Other methods
Cattle age in a carcass is determined checking the physiological skeletal maturity (ossification) (red) of the tips or "buttons" of the thoracic vertebrae. The size and shape of the rib bones are important considerations as well as the colour and texture of the flesh.

The use of number (year) branding, tattoos or ear tags with numbers or different colours are good methods of identifying the age of cattle, if they are used according to standards.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cattle age determination


text:
Authentication

Authentication (from αὐθεντικός authentikos, "real, genuine", from αὐθέντης authentes, "author") is the act of proving an assertion, such as the identity of a computer system user. In contrast with identification, the act of indicating a person or thing's identity, authentication is the process of verifying that identity. It might involve validating personal identity documents, verifying the authenticity of a website with a digital certificate, determining the age of an artifact by carbon dating, or ensuring that a product or document is not counterfeit.

Methods
Authentication is relevant to multiple fields. In art, antiques, and anthropology, a common problem is verifying that a given artifact was produced by a certain person or in a certain place or period of history. In computer science, verifying a user's identity is often required to allow access to confidential data or systems.

Authentication can be considered to be of three types:

The first type of authentication is accepting proof of identity given by a credible person who has first-hand evidence that the identity is genuine. When authentication is required of art or physical objects, this proof could be a friend, family member, or colleague attesting to the item's provenance, perhaps by having witnessed the item in its creator's possession. With autographed sports memorabilia, this could involve someone attesting that they witnessed the object being signed. A vendor selling branded items implies authenticity, while they may not have evidence that every step in the supply chain was authenticated. Centralized authority-based trust relationships back most secure internet communication through known public certificate authorities; decentralized peer-based trust, also known as a web of trust, is used for personal services such as email or files and trust is established by known individuals signing each other's cryptographic key for instance.

The second type of authentication is comparing the attributes of the object itself to what is known about objects of that origin. For example, an art expert might look for similarities in the style of painting, check the location and form of a signature, or compare the object to an old photograph. An archaeologist, on the other hand, might use carbon dating to verify the age of an artifact, do a chemical and spectroscopic analysis of the materials used, or compare the style of construction or decoration to other artifacts of similar origin. The physics of sound and light, and comparison with a known physical environment, can be used to examine the authenticity of audio recordings, photographs, or videos. Documents can be verified as being created on ink or paper readily available at the time of the item's implied creation.

Attribute comparison may be vulnerable to forgery. In general, it relies on the facts that creating a forgery indistinguishable from a genuine artifact requires expert knowledge, that mistakes are easily made, and that the amount of effort required to do so is considerably greater than the amount of profit that can be gained from the forgery.

In art and antiques, certificates are of great importance for authenticating an object of interest and value. Certificates can, however, also be forged, and the authentication of these poses a problem. For instance, the son of Han van Meegeren, the well-known art-forger, forged the work of his father and provided a certificate for its provenance as well.

Criminal and civil penalties for fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting can reduce the incentive for falsification, depending on the risk of getting caught.

Currency and other financial instruments commonly use this second type of authentication method. Bills, coins, and cheques incorporate hard-to-duplicate physical features, such as fine printing or engraving, distinctive feel, watermarks, and holographic imagery, which are easy for trained receivers to verify.

The third type of authentication relies on documentation or other external affirmations. In criminal courts, the rules of evidence often require establishing the chain of custody of evidence presented. This can be accomplished through a written evidence log, or by testimony from the police detectives and forensics staff that handled it. Some antiques are accompanied by certificates attesting to their authenticity. Signed sports memorabilia is usually accompanied by a certificate of authenticity. These external records have their own problems of forgery and perjury and are also vulnerable to being separated from the artifact and lost.

In computer science, a user can be given access to secure systems based on user credentials that imply authenticity. A network administrator can give a user a password, or provide the user with a key card or other access devices to allow system access. In this case, authenticity is implied but not guaranteed.

Consumer goods such as pharmaceuticals, perfume, and clothing can use all forms of authentication to prevent counterfeit goods from taking advantage of a popular brand's reputation. As mentioned above, having an item for sale in a reputable store implicitly attests to it being genuine, the first type of authentication. The second type of authentication might involve comparing the quality and craftsmanship of an item, such as an expensive handbag, to genuine articles. The third type of authentication could be the presence of a trademark on the item, which is a legally protected marking, or any other identifying feature which aids consumers in the identification of genuine brand-name goods. With software, companies have taken great steps to protect from counterfeiters, including adding holograms, security rings, security threads and color shifting ink.

Authentication factors
The ways in which someone may be authenticated fall into three categories, based on what is known as the factors of authentication: something the user knows, something the user has, and something the user is. Each authentication factor covers a range of elements used to authenticate or verify a person's identity before being granted access, approving a transaction request, signing a document or other work product, granting authority to others, and establishing a chain of authority.

Security research has determined that for a positive authentication, elements from at least two, and preferably all three, factors should be verified. The three factors (classes) and some of the elements of each factor are:

 * 1) Knowledge: Something the user knows (e.g., a password, partial password, passphrase, personal identification number (PIN), challenge–response (the user must answer a question or pattern), security question).
 * 2) Ownership: Something the user has (e.g., wrist band, ID card, security token, implanted device, cell phone with a built-in hardware token, software token, or cell phone holding a software token).
 * 3) Inherence: Something the user is or does (e.g., fingerprint, retinal pattern, DNA sequence (there are assorted definitions of what is sufficient), signature, face, voice, unique bio-electric signals, or other biometric identifiers).

Single-factor authentication
As the weakest level of authentication, only a single component from one of the three categories of factors is used to authenticate an individual's identity. The use of only one factor does not offer much protection from misuse or malicious intrusion. This type of authentication is not recommended for financial or personally relevant transactions that warrant a higher level of security.

Multi-factor authentication
Multi-factor authentication involves two or more authentication factors (something you know, something you have, or something you are). Two-factor authentication is a special case of multi-factor authentication involving exactly two factors.

For example, using a bank card (something the user has) along with a PIN (something the user knows) provides two-factor authentication. Business networks may require users to provide a password (knowledge factor) and a pseudorandom number from a security token (ownership factor). Access to a very-high-security system might require a mantrap screening of height, weight, facial, and fingerprint checks (several inherence factor elements) plus a PIN and a day code (knowledge factor elements), but this is still a two-factor authentication.

Strong authentication
The United States government's National Information Assurance Glossary defines strong authentication as a layered authentication approach relying on two or more authenticators to establish the identity of an originator or receiver of information.

The European Central Bank (ECB) has defined strong authentication as "a procedure based on two or more of the three authentication factors". The factors that are used must be mutually independent and at least one factor must be "non-reusable and non-replicable", except in the case of an inherence factor and must also be incapable of being stolen off the Internet. In the European, as well as in the US-American understanding, strong authentication is very similar to multi-factor authentication or 2FA, but exceeding those with more rigorous requirements.

The FIDO Alliance has been striving to establish technical specifications for strong authentication.

Continuous authentication
Conventional computer systems authenticate users only at the initial log-in session, which can be the cause of a critical security flaw. To resolve this problem, systems need continuous user authentication methods that continuously monitor and authenticate users based on some biometric trait(s). A study used behavioural biometrics based on writing styles as a continuous authentication method.

Recent research has shown the possibility of using smartphones sensors and accessories to extract some behavioral attributes such as touch dynamics, keystroke dynamics and gait recognition. These attributes are known as behavioral biometrics and could be used to verify or identify users implicitly and continuously on smartphones. The authentication systems that have been built based on these behavioral biometric traits are known as active or continuous authentication systems.

Digital authentication
The term digital authentication, also known as electronic authentication or e-authentication, refers to a group of processes where the confidence for user identities is established and presented via electronic methods to an information system. The digital authentication process creates technical challenges because of the need to authenticate individuals or entities remotely over a network. The American National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has created a generic model for digital authentication that describes the processes that are used to accomplish secure authentication:

 * 1) Enrollment – an individual applies to a credential service provider (CSP) to initiate the enrollment process. After successfully proving the applicant's identity, the CSP allows the applicant to become a subscriber.
 * 2) Authentication – After becoming a subscriber, the user receives an authenticator e.g., a token and credentials, such as a user name. He or she is then permitted to perform online transactions within an authenticated session with a relying party, where they must provide proof that he or she possesses one or more authenticators.
 * 3) Life-cycle maintenance – the CSP is charged with the task of maintaining the user's credential over the course of its lifetime, while the subscriber is responsible for maintaining his or her authenticator(s).

The authentication of information can pose special problems with electronic communication, such as vulnerability to man-in-the-middle attacks, whereby a third party taps into the communication stream, and poses as each of the two other communicating parties, in order to intercept information from each. Extra identity factors can be required to authenticate each party's identity.

Product authentication
Counterfeit products are often offered to consumers as being authentic. Counterfeit consumer goods, such as electronics, music, apparel, and counterfeit medications, have been sold as being legitimate. Efforts to control the supply chain and educate consumers help ensure that authentic products are sold and used. Even security printing on packages, labels, and nameplates, however, is subject to counterfeiting.

In their anti-counterfeiting technology guide, the EUIPO Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights categorizes the main anti-counterfeiting technologies on the market currently into five main categories: electronic, marking, chemical and physical, mechanical, and technologies for digital media.

Products or their packaging can include a variable QR Code. A QR Code alone is easy to verify but offers a weak level of authentication as it offers no protection against counterfeits unless scan data is analyzed at the system level to detect anomalies. To increase the security level, the QR Code can be combined with a digital watermark or copy detection pattern that are robust to copy attempts and can be authenticated with a smartphone.

A secure key storage device can be used for authentication in consumer electronics, network authentication, license management, supply chain management, etc. Generally, the device to be authenticated needs some sort of wireless or wired digital connection to either a host system or a network. Nonetheless, the component being authenticated need not be electronic in nature as an authentication chip can be mechanically attached and read through a connector to the host e.g. an authenticated ink tank for use with a printer. For products and services that these secure coprocessors can be applied to, they can offer a solution that can be much more difficult to counterfeit than most other options while at the same time being more easily verified.

Packaging
Packaging and labeling can be engineered to help reduce the risks of counterfeit consumer goods or the theft and resale of products. Some package constructions are more difficult to copy and some have pilfer indicating seals. Counterfeit goods, unauthorized sales (diversion), material substitution and tampering can all be reduced with these anti-counterfeiting technologies. Packages may include authentication seals and use security printing to help indicate that the package and contents are not counterfeit; these too are subject to counterfeiting. Packages also can include anti-theft devices, such as dye-packs, RFID tags, or electronic article surveillance tags that can be activated or detected by devices at exit points and require specialized tools to deactivate. Anti-counterfeiting technologies that can be used with packaging include:
 * Taggant fingerprinting – uniquely coded microscopic materials that are verified from a database
 * Encrypted micro-particles – unpredictably placed markings (numbers, layers and colors) not visible to the human eye
 * Holograms – graphics printed on seals, patches, foils or labels and used at the point of sale for visual verification
 * Micro-printing – second-line authentication often used on currencies
 * Serialized barcodes
 * UV printing – marks only visible under UV light
 * Track and trace systems – use codes to link products to the database tracking system
 * Water indicators – become visible when contacted with water
 * DNA tracking – genes embedded onto labels that can be traced
 * Color-shifting ink or film – visible marks that switch colors or texture when tilted
 * Tamper evident seals and tapes – destructible or graphically verifiable at point of sale
 * 2d barcodes – data codes that can be tracked
 * RFID chips
 * NFC chips

Information content
Literary forgery can involve imitating the style of a famous author. If an original manuscript, typewritten text, or recording is available, then the medium itself (or its packaging – anything from a box to e-mail headers) can help prove or disprove the authenticity of the document. However, text, audio, and video can be copied into new media, possibly leaving only the informational content itself to use in authentication. Various systems have been invented to allow authors to provide a means for readers to reliably authenticate that a given message originated from or was relayed by them. These involve authentication factors like:
 * A difficult-to-reproduce physical artifact, such as a seal, signature, watermark, special stationery, or fingerprint.
 * A shared secret, such as a passphrase, in the content of the message.
 * An electronic signature; public-key infrastructure is often used to cryptographically guarantee that a message has been signed by the holder of a particular private key.

The opposite problem is the detection of plagiarism, where information from a different author is passed off as a person's own work. A common technique for proving plagiarism is the discovery of another copy of the same or very similar text, which has different attribution. In some cases, excessively high quality or a style mismatch may raise suspicion of plagiarism.

Literacy and literature authentication
In literacy, authentication is a readers’ process of questioning the veracity of an aspect of literature and then verifying those questions via research. The fundamental question for authentication of literature is – Does one believe it? Related to that, an authentication project is therefore a reading and writing activity in which students document the relevant research process. It builds students' critical literacy. The documentation materials for literature go beyond narrative texts and likely include informational texts, primary sources, and multimedia. The process typically involves both internet and hands-on library research. When authenticating historical fiction in particular, readers consider the extent that the major historical events, as well as the culture portrayed (e.g., the language, clothing, food, gender roles), are believable for the period.

History and state-of-the-art
Historically, fingerprints have been used as the most authoritative method of authentication, but court cases in the US and elsewhere have raised fundamental doubts about fingerprint reliability. Outside of the legal system as well, fingerprints are easily spoofable, with British Telecom's top computer security official noting that "few" fingerprint readers have not already been tricked by one spoof or another. Hybrid or two-tiered authentication methods offer a compelling solution, such as private keys encrypted by fingerprint inside of a USB device.

In a computer data context, cryptographic methods have been developed which are not spoofable if the originator's key has not been compromised. That the originator (or anyone other than an attacker) knows (or doesn't know) about a compromise is irrelevant. However, it is not known whether these cryptographically based authentication methods are provably secure, since unanticipated mathematical developments may make them vulnerable to attack in the future. If that were to occur, it may call into question much of the authentication in the past. In particular, a digitally signed contract may be questioned when a new attack on the cryptography underlying the signature is discovered.

Authorization
The process of authorization is distinct from that of authentication. Whereas authentication is the process of verifying that "you are who you say you are", authorization is the process of verifying that "you are permitted to do what you are trying to do". While authorization often happens immediately after authentication (e.g., when logging into a computer system), this does not mean authorization presupposes authentication: an anonymous agent could be authorized to a limited action set.

Access control
One familiar use of authentication and authorization is access control. A computer system that is supposed to be used only by those authorized must attempt to detect and exclude the unauthorized. Access to it is therefore usually controlled by insisting on an authentication procedure to establish with some degree of confidence the identity of the user, granting privileges established for that identity.

title: Authentication


text:
Battle of Salamis

The Battle of Salamis was a naval battle fought in 480 BC, between an alliance of Greek city-states under Themistocles, and the Achaemenid Empire under King Xerxes. It resulted in a decisive victory for the outnumbered Greeks. The battle was fought in the straits between the mainland and Salamis, an island in the Saronic Gulf near Athens, and marked the high point of the second Persian invasion of Greece. It was arguably the largest naval battle of the ancient world, and marked a turning point in the invasion.

To block the Persian advance, a small force of Greeks blocked the pass of Thermopylae, while an Athenian-dominated allied navy engaged the Persian fleet in the nearby straits of Artemisium. In the resulting Battle of Thermopylae, the rearguard of the Greek force was annihilated, while in the Battle of Artemisium the Greeks suffered heavy losses and retreated after the loss at Thermopylae. This allowed the Persians to conquer Phocis, Boeotia, Attica and Euboea. The allies prepared to defend the Isthmus of Corinth while the fleet was withdrawn to nearby Salamis Island.

Although heavily outnumbered, the Greeks were persuaded by Athenian general Themistocles to bring the Persian fleet to battle again, in the hope that a victory would prevent naval operations against the Peloponnese. Persian king Xerxes was also eager for a decisive battle. As a result of subterfuge on the part of Themistocles (which included a message directly sent to Xerxes letting him know that much of the Greek fleet was stationed at Salamis), the Persian navy rowed into the Straits of Salamis and tried to block both entrances. In the cramped waters, the great Persian numbers were an active hindrance, as ships struggled to maneuver and became disorganized. Seizing the opportunity, the Greek fleet formed in line and achieved a decisive victory.

Xerxes retreated to Asia with much of his army, leaving Mardonius to complete the conquest of Greece. The following year the remainder of the Persian army was decisively defeated at the Battle of Plataea and the Persian navy at the Battle of Mycale. The Persians made no further attempts to conquer the Greek mainland. The battles of Salamis and Plataea thus mark a turning point in the course of the Greco-Persian Wars as a whole; from then onward, the Greek poleis would take the offensive.

Background
The Greek city-states of Athens and Eretria had supported the unsuccessful Ionian Revolt against the Persian Empire of Darius I in 499-494 BC, led by the satrap of Miletus, Aristagoras. The Persian Empire was still relatively young, and prone to revolts amongst its subject peoples. Moreover, Darius was a usurper, and had spent considerable time extinguishing revolts against his rule. The Ionian revolt threatened the integrity of his empire, and Darius thus vowed to punish those involved (especially those not already part of the empire). Darius also saw the opportunity to expand his empire into the fractious world of Ancient Greece. A preliminary expedition under Mardonius, in 492 BC, to secure the land approaches to Greece ended with the conquest of Thrace and forced Macedon to become a client kingdom of Persia.

In 491 BC, Darius sent emissaries to all the Greek city-states, asking for a gift of 'earth and water' in token of their submission to him. Having had a demonstration of his power the previous year, the majority of the Greek cities duly obliged. In Athens, however, the ambassadors were put on trial and then executed; in Sparta, they were simply thrown down a well. This meant that Sparta was also now effectively at war with Persia.

Darius thus put together an amphibious task force under Datis and Artaphernes in 490 BC, which attacked Naxos, before receiving the submission of the other Cycladic Islands. The task force then moved on Eretria, which it besieged and destroyed. Finally, it moved to attack Athens, landing at the bay of Marathon, where it was met by a heavily outnumbered Athenian army. At the ensuing Battle of Marathon, the Athenians won a remarkable victory, which resulted in the withdrawal of the Persian army to Asia.

Darius therefore began raising a huge new army with which he meant to completely subjugate Greece; however, in 486 BC, his Egyptian subjects revolted, indefinitely postponing any Greek expedition. Darius then died whilst preparing to march on Egypt, and the throne of Persia passed to his son Xerxes I. Xerxes crushed the Egyptian revolt, and very quickly restarted the preparations for the invasion of Greece. Since this was to be a full-scale invasion, it required long-term planning, stock-piling and conscription. Xerxes decided that the Hellespont would be bridged to allow his army to cross to Europe, and that a canal should be dug across the isthmus of Mount Athos (rounding which headland, a Persian fleet had been destroyed in 492 BC). These were both feats of exceptional ambition, which would have been beyond any other contemporary state. By early 480 BC, the preparations were complete, and the army which Xerxes had mustered at Sardis marched towards Europe, crossing the Hellespont on two pontoon bridges.

The Athenians had also been preparing for war with the Persians since the mid-480s BC, and in 482 BC the decision was taken, under the guidance of the Athenian politician Themistocles, to build a massive fleet of triremes that would be necessary for the Greeks to fight the Persians. However, the Athenians did not have the manpower to fight on land and sea; and therefore combatting the Persians would require an alliance of Greek city states. In 481 BC, Xerxes sent ambassadors around Greece asking for earth and water, but made the very deliberate omission of Athens and Sparta. Support thus began to coalesce around these two leading states. A congress of city states met at Corinth in late autumn of 481 BC, and a confederate alliance of Greek city-states was formed. It had the power to send envoys asking for assistance and to dispatch troops from the member states to defensive points after joint consultation. This was remarkable for the disjointed Greek world, especially since many of the city-states in attendance were still technically at war with each other.

Initially the 'congress' agreed to defend the narrow Vale of Tempe, on the borders of Thessaly, and thereby block Xerxes's advance. However, once there, they were warned by Alexander I of Macedon that the vale could be bypassed through the pass by the modern village of Sarantaporo, and that the army of Xerxes was overwhelming, so the Greeks retreated. Shortly afterward, they received the news that Xerxes had crossed the Hellespont. A second strategy was therefore adopted by the allies. The route to southern Greece (Boeotia, Attica and the Peloponnese) would require the army of Xerxes to travel through the very narrow pass of Thermopylae. This could easily be blocked by the Greek hoplites, despite the overwhelming numbers of Persians. Furthermore, to prevent the Persians bypassing Thermopylae by sea, the Athenian and allied navies could block the straits of Artemisium. This dual strategy was adopted by the congress. However, the Peloponnesian cities made fall-back plans to defend the Isthmus of Corinth should it come to it, whilst the women and children of Athens had been evacuated en masse to the Peloponnesian city of Troezen.

Famously, the much smaller Greek army held the pass of Thermopylae against the Persians for three days before being outflanked by a mountain path. Much of the Greek army retreated, before the Spartans and Thespians who had continued to block the pass were surrounded and killed. The simultaneous Battle of Artemisium was up to that point a stalemate; however, when news of Thermopylae reached them, the Allied fleet also retreated, since holding the straits of Artemisium was now a moot point.

Prelude

The Allied fleet now rowed from Artemisium to Salamis to assist with the final evacuation of Athens. En route Themistocles left inscriptions addressed to the Ionian Greek crews of the Persian fleet on all springs of water that they might stop at, asking them to defect to the Allied cause. Following Thermopylae, the Persian army proceeded to burn and sack the Boeotian cities that had not surrendered, Plataea and Thespiae, before marching on the now evacuated city of Athens. The Allies (mostly Peloponnesian) prepared to defend the Isthmus of Corinth, demolishing the single road that led through it, and building a wall across it.

This strategy was flawed, however, unless the Allied fleet was able to prevent the Persian fleet from transporting troops across the Saronic Gulf. In a council-of-war called once the evacuation of Athens was complete, the Corinthian naval commander Adeimantus argued that the fleet should assemble off the coast of the Isthmus in order to achieve such a blockade. However, Themistocles argued in favour of an offensive strategy, aimed at decisively destroying the Persians' naval superiority. He drew on the lessons of Artemisium, pointing out that "battle in close conditions works to our advantage". He eventually won through, and the Allied navy remained off the coast of Salamis.

The timeline for Salamis is difficult to establish with any certainty. Herodotus presents the battle as though it occurred directly after the capture of Athens, but nowhere explicitly states as much. If Thermopylae/Artemisium occurred in September, then this may be the case, but it is probably more likely that the Persians spent two or three weeks capturing Athens, refitting the fleet, and resupplying. Clearly though, at some point after capturing Athens, Xerxes held a council of war with the Persian fleet; Herodotus says this occurred at Phalerum. Artemisia, queen of Halicarnassus and commander of its naval squadron in Xerxes's fleet, tried to convince him to wait for the Allies to surrender believing that battle in the straits of Salamis was an unnecessary risk. Nevertheless, Xerxes and his chief advisor Mardonius pressed for an attack.

It is difficult to explain exactly what eventually brought about the battle, assuming that neither side simply attacked without forethought. Clearly though, at some point just before the battle, new information began to reach Xerxes of rifts in the allied command; the Peloponnesians wished to evacuate from Salamis while they still could. This alleged rift amongst the Allies may have simply been a ruse, in order to lure the Persians to battle. Alternatively, this change in attitude amongst the Allies (who had waited patiently off the coast of Salamis for at least a week while Athens was captured) may have been in response to Persian offensive maneuvers. Possibly, a Persian army had been sent to march against the Isthmus in order to test the nerve of the fleet.

Either way, when Xerxes received this news, he ordered his fleet to go out on patrol off the coast of Salamis, blocking the southern exit. Then, at dusk, he ordered them to withdraw, possibly in order to tempt the Allies into a hasty evacuation. That evening Themistocles attempted what appears to have been a spectacularly successful use of disinformation. He sent a servant, Sicinnus, to Xerxes, with a message proclaiming that Themistocles was "on the king's side and prefers that your affairs prevail, not the Hellenes". Themistocles claimed that the Allied command was in-fighting, that the Peloponnesians were planning to evacuate that very night, and that to gain victory all the Persians needed to do was to block the straits. In performing this subterfuge, Themistocles seems to have been trying to bring about exactly the opposite; to lure the Persian fleet into the Straits. This was exactly the kind of news that Xerxes wanted to hear; that the Athenians might be willing to submit to him, and that he would be able to destroy the rest of the Allied fleet. Xerxes evidently took the bait, and the Persian fleet was sent out that evening to effect this block. Xerxes ordered a throne to be set up on the slopes of Mount Aigaleo (overlooking the straits), in order to watch the battle from a clear vantage point, and so as to record the names of commanders who performed particularly well.

According to Herodotus, the Allies spent the evening heatedly debating their course of action. The Peloponnesians were in favour of evacuating, and at this point, Themistocles attempted his ruse with Xerxes. It was only when Aristides, the exiled Athenian general arrived that night, followed by some deserters from the Persians, with news of the deployment of the Persian fleet, that the Peloponnesians accepted that they could not escape, and so would fight.

However, the Peloponnesians may have been party to Themistocles's stratagem, so serenely did they accept that they would now have to fight at Salamis. The Allied navy was thus able to prepare properly for battle the forthcoming day, whilst the Persians spent the night fruitlessly at sea, searching for the alleged Greek evacuation. The next morning, the Persians rowed into the straits to attack the Greek fleet; it is not clear when, why or how this decision was made, but it is clear that they did take the battle to the Allies.

Greek fleet
Herodotus reports that there were 378 triremes in the Allied fleet, and then breaks the numbers down by city state (as indicated in the table). However, his numbers for the individual contingents only add up to 371. He does not explicitly say that all 378 fought at Salamis ("All of these came to the war providing triremes...The total number of ships...was three hundred and seventy-eight"), and he also says that the Aeginetans "had other manned ships, but they guarded their own land with these and fought at Salamis with the thirty most seaworthy". Thus it has been supposed that the difference between the numbers is accounted for by a garrison of 12 ships left at Aegina. According to Herodotus, two more ships defected from the Persians to the Greeks, one before Artemisium and one before Salamis, so the total complement at Salamis would have been 373 (or 380).

According to the Athenian playwright Aeschylus, who actually fought at Salamis, the Greek fleet numbered 310 triremes (the difference being the number of Athenian ships). Ctesias claims that the Athenian fleet numbered only 110 triremes, which ties in with Aeschylus's numbers. According to Hyperides, the Greek fleet numbered only 220. The fleet was effectively under the command of Themistocles, but nominally led by the Spartan nobleman Eurybiades, as had been agreed at the congress in 481 BC. Although Themistocles had tried to claim leadership of the fleet, the other city states with navies objected, and so Sparta (which had no naval tradition) was given command of the fleet as a compromise.

Plain numbers represent triremes; those indicated in parentheses are penteconters (fifty-oared galleys)

Achemenid fleet
According to Herodotus, the Persian fleet initially numbered 1,207 triremes. However, by his reckoning they lost approximately a third of these ships in a storm off the coast of Magnesia, 200 more in a storm off the coast of Euboea, and at least 50 ships to Allied action at the Battle of Artemisium. Herodotus claims that these losses were replaced in full, but only mentions 120 ships from the Greeks of Thrace and nearby islands as reinforcements. Aeschylus, who fought at Salamis, also claims that he faced 1,207 warships there, of which 207 were "fast ships". Diodorus and Lysias independently claim there were 1,200 ships in the Persian fleet assembled at Doriskos in the spring of 480 BC. The number of 1,207 (for the outset only) is also given by Ephorus, while his teacher Isocrates claims there were 1,300 at Doriskos and 1,200 at Salamis. Ctesias gives another number, 1,000 ships, while Plato, speaking in general terms refers to 1,000 ships and more.

Herodotus gives a precise list of the ships of the various nations that composed the Achaemenid fleet:

The number 1,207 appears very early in the historical record (472 BC), and the Greeks appear to have genuinely believed they faced that many ships. Because of the consistency in the ancient sources, some modern historians are inclined to accept 1,207 as the size of the initial Persian fleet; others reject this number, with 1,207 being seen as more of a reference to the combined Greek fleet in the Iliad, and generally claim that the Persians could have launched no more than around 600 warships into the Aegean. However, very few appear to accept that there were this many ships at Salamis: most favour a number in the range 600–800. This is also the range given by adding the approximate number of Persian ships after Artemisium (~550) to the reinforcements (120) quantified by Herodotus.

Strategic and tactical considerations
The overall Persian strategy for the invasion of 480 BC was to overwhelm the Greeks with a massive invasion force, and complete the conquest of Greece in a single campaigning season. In contrast, the Greeks sought to make the best use of their numbers by defending restricted locations and to keep the Persians in the field for as long as possible. Xerxes had obviously not anticipated such resistance, or he would have arrived earlier in the campaigning season (and not waited 4 days at Thermopylae for the Greeks to disperse). Time was now of the essence for the Persians – the huge invasion force could not be reasonably supported indefinitely, nor probably did Xerxes wish to be at the fringe of his empire for so long. Thermopylae had shown that a frontal assault against a well defended Greek position was useless; with the Allies now dug in across the narrow Isthmus, there was little chance of conquering the rest of Greece by land. However, as equally demonstrated by Thermopylae, if the Greeks could be outflanked, their smaller numbers of troops could be destroyed. Such an outflanking of the Isthmus required the use of the Persian navy, and thus the destruction of the Allied navy. Therefore, if Xerxes could destroy the Allied navy, he would be in a strong position to force a Greek surrender; this seemed the only hope of concluding the campaign in that season. In contrast, by avoiding destruction, or as Themistocles hoped, by crippling the Persian fleet, the Greeks could effectively thwart the invasion.

However, it was strategically not necessary for the Persians to actually fight this battle at Salamis. According to Herodotus, Queen Artemisia of Caria pointed this out to Xerxes in the run-up to Salamis. Artemisia suggested that fighting at sea was an unnecessary risk, recommending instead: "If you do not hurry to fight at sea, but keep your ships here and stay near land, or even advance into the Peloponnese, then, my lord, you will easily accomplish what you had in mind on coming here. The Hellenes are not able to hold out against you for a long time, but you will scatter them, and they will each flee to their own cities."

The Persian fleet was still large enough to both bottle up the Allied navy in the straits of Salamis, and send ships to land troops in the Peloponnese. However, in the final reckoning, both sides were prepared to stake everything on a naval battle, in the hope of decisively altering the course of the war.

The Persians were at a tactical advantage, outnumbering the Allies, and also having "better sailing" ships. The "better sailing" that Herodotus mentions was probably due to the superior seamanship of the crews; most of the Athenian ships (and therefore the majority of the fleet) were newly built as according to Themistocles' request to the Athenians to build a fleet of 200 triremes in 483 BC, and had inexperienced crews. Despite the inexperienced crew on the part of the Athenians, these newly constructed triremes would ultimately prove crucial in the forthcoming conflict with Persia. The most common naval tactics in the Mediterranean area at the time were ramming (triremes being equipped with a ram at the bows), or boarding by ship-borne marines (which essentially turned a sea battle into a land one). The Persians and Asiatic Greeks had by this time begun to use a manoeuvre known as diekplous. It is not entirely clear what this was, but it probably involved rowing into gaps between enemy ships and then ramming them in the side. This manoeuvre would have required skilled crews, and therefore the Persians would have been more likely to employ it; the Allies however, developed tactics specifically to counter this.

There has been much debate as to the nature of the Allied fleet compared to the Persian fleet. Much of this centres on the suggestion, from Herodotus, that the Allied ships were heavier, and by implication less manoeuvrable. The source of this heaviness is uncertain; possibly the Allied ships were bulkier in construction, or that the ships were waterlogged since they had not been dried out in the winter (though there is no real evidence for either suggestion). Another suggestion is that the heaviness was caused by the weight of fully armored hoplite marines (20 fully armored hoplites would have weighed 2 tons). This 'heaviness', whatever its cause, would further reduce the likelihood of them employing the diekplous. It is therefore probable that the Allies had extra marines on board if their ships were less manoeuvrable, since boarding would then be the main tactic available to them (at the cost of making the ships even heavier). Indeed, Herodotus refers to the Greeks capturing ships at Artemisium, rather than sinking them. It has been suggested that the weight of the Allied ships may also have made them more stable in the winds off the coast of Salamis, and made them less susceptible to ramming (or rather, less liable to sustain damage when rammed).

The Persians preferred a battle in the open sea, where they could better utilize their own superior seamanship and numbers. For the Greeks, the only realistic hope of a decisive victory was to draw the Persians into a constricted area, where Persian numbers would count for little. The battle at Artemisium had seen attempts to negate the Persian advantage in numbers, but ultimately the Allies may have realised that they needed an even more constricted channel in order to defeat the Persians. Therefore, by rowing into the Straits of Salamis to attack the Greeks, the Persians were playing into the Allies' hands. It seems probable that the Persians would not have attempted this unless they had been confident of the collapse of the Allied navy, and thus Themistocles's subterfuge appears to have played a key role in tipping the balance in the favor of the Greeks. Salamis was, for the Persians, an unnecessary battle and a strategic mistake.

Battle
The battle of Salamis is not well described by ancient sources, and it is unlikely that anyone (other than perhaps Xerxes) involved in the battle had a clear idea what was happening across the width of the straits. What follows is more of a discussion than a definitive account.

Dispositions
In the Allied fleet, the Athenians were on the left, and on the right were probably the Spartans (although Diodorus says it was the Megareans and Aeginetians); the other contingents were in the center. The Allied fleet probably formed into two ranks, since the straits would have been too narrow for a single line of ships. Herodotus has the Allied fleet in a line running north–south, probably with the northern flank off the coast of modern-day Saint George's Islet (Ayios Georgis), and the southern flank off the coast of Cape Vavari (part of Salamis). Diodorus suggests the Allied fleet was aligned east–west, spanning the straits between Salamis and Mount Aigaleo; however, it is unlikely that the Allies would have rested one of their flanks against Persian occupied territory.

It seems relatively certain that the Persian fleet was sent out to block the exit from the Straits the evening before the battle. Herodotus clearly believed that the Persian fleet actually entered the Straits at nightfall, planning to catch the Allies as they fled. However, modern historians have greatly debated this point, with some pointing out the difficulties of maneuvering in this confined space by night, and others accepting Herodotus's version. There are thus two possibilities; that during the night the Persians simply blocked the exit to the Straits, and then entered the straits in daylight; or that they entered the straits and positioned themselves for battle during the night. Regardless of when they attempted it, it seems likely that the Persians pivoted their fleet off the tip of Cape Vavari, so that from an initial east–west alignment (blocking the exit), they came round to a north–south alignment (see diagram). The Persian fleet seems to have been formed into three ranks of ships (according to Aeschylus); with the powerful Phoenician fleet on the right flank next to Mount Aigaleo, the Ionian contingent on the left flank and the other contingents in the centre.

Diodorus says that the Egyptian fleet was sent to circumnavigate Salamis, and block the northern exit from the Straits. If Xerxes wanted to trap the Allies completely, this maneuver would have made sense (especially if he was not expecting the Allies to fight). However, Herodotus does not mention this (and possibly alludes to the Egyptian presence in the main battle), leading some modern historians to dismiss it; though again, others accept it as a possibility. Xerxes had also positioned around 400 troops on the island known as Psyttaleia, in the middle of the exit from the straits, in order to kill or capture any Greeks who ended up there (as a result of shipwreck or grounding).

Opening phase
Regardless of what time they entered the straits, the Persians did not move to attack the Allies until daylight. Since they were not planning to flee after all, the Allies would have been able to spend the night preparing for battle, and after a speech by Themistocles, the marines boarded and the ships made ready to sail. According to Herodotus, this was dawn, and as the Allies "were putting out to sea the barbarians immediately attacked them". If the Persians only entered the straits at dawn, then the Allies would have had the time to take up their station in a more orderly fashion.

Aeschylus claims that as the Persians approached (possibly implying that they were not already in the Straits at dawn), they heard the Greeks singing their battle hymn (paean) before they saw the Allied fleet:

"ὦ παῖδες Ἑλλήνων ἴτε ἐλευθεροῦτε πατρίδ᾽, ἐλευθεροῦτε δὲ παῖδας, γυναῖκας, θεῶν τέ πατρῴων ἕδη, θήκας τε προγόνων: νῦν ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀγών.

O sons of the Greeks, go, Liberate your country, liberate Your children, your women, the seats of your fathers' gods, And the tombs of your forebears: now is the struggle for all things."

Herodotus recounts that, according to the Athenians, as the battle began the Corinthians hoisted their sails and began sailing away from the battle, northwards up the straits. However, he also says that all the other Greeks denied this story. If this did in fact occur, one possible interpretation is that these ships had been a decoy sent to reconnoitre the northern exit from the straits, in case the arrival of the encircling Egyptian detachment was imminent (if indeed this also occurred). Another possibility (not exclusive of the former) is that the departure of the Corinthians triggered the final approach of the Persians, suggesting as it did that the Allied fleet was disintegrating. At any rate, if they indeed ever left, the Corinthians soon returned to the battle.

Approaching the Allied fleet in the crowded Straits, the Persians appear to have become disorganised and cramped in the narrow waters. Moreover, it would have become apparent that, far from disintegrating, the Greek fleet was lined up, ready to attack them. However, rather than attacking immediately, the Allies initially appeared to back their ships away as if in fear. According to Plutarch, this was to gain better position, and also in order to gain time until the early morning wind. Herodotus recounts the legend that as the fleet had backed away, they had seen an apparition of a woman, asking them "Madmen, how far will ye yet back your ships?" However, he more plausibly suggests that whilst the Allies were backing water, a single ship shot forward to ram the nearest Persian vessel. The Athenians would claim that this was the ship of the Athenian Ameinias of Pallene; the Aeginetans would claim it as one of their ships. The whole Greek line then followed suit and made straight for the disordered Persian battle line.

Main battle
The details of the rest of the battle are generally sketchy, and no one involved would have had a view of the entire battlefield. Triremes were generally armed with a large ram at the front, with which it was possible to sink an enemy ship, or at least disable it by shearing off the banks of oars on one side. If the initial ramming was not successful, marines boarded the enemy ship and something similar to a land battle ensued. Both sides had marines on their ships for this eventuality; the Greeks with fully armed hoplites; the Persians probably with more lightly armed infantry.

Across the battlefield, as the first line of Persian ships was pushed back by the Greeks, they became fouled in the advancing second and third lines of their own ships. On the Greek left, the Persian admiral Ariabignes (a brother of Xerxes) was killed early in the battle; left disorganised and leaderless, the Phoenician squadrons appear to have been pushed back against the coast, many vessels running aground. In the centre, a wedge of Greek ships pushed through the Persians lines, splitting the fleet in two.

According to Plutarch, Ariabignes was killed by Ameinias and Socles (Σωκλής) of Pallene. When Ariabignes attempted to board on their ship, they hit him with their spears, and thrust him into the sea. Plutarch also mentions that it was Artemisia who recognized Ariabignes' body floating among the shipwrecks and brought it back to Xerxes.

Herodotus recounts that Artemisia, the Queen of Halicarnassus, and commander of the Carian contingent, found herself pursued by the ship of Ameinias of Pallene. In her desire to escape, she attacked and rammed another Persian vessel, thereby convincing the Athenian captain that the ship was an ally; Ameinias accordingly abandoned the chase. However, Xerxes, looking on, thought that she had successfully attacked an Allied ship, and seeing the poor performance of his other captains commented that "My men have become women, and my women men". The friendly ship she sank was a Calyndian ship and the king of the Calyndians, Damasithymos (Δαμασίθυμος) was on it. None of the crew of the Calyndian ship survived.

The Persian fleet began to retreat towards Phalerum, but according to Herodotus, the Aeginetans ambushed them as they tried to leave the Straits. The remaining Persian ships limped back to the harbour of Phalerum and the shelter of the Persian army. The Athenian general Aristides then took a detachment of men across to Psyttaleia to slaughter the garrison that Xerxes had left there.

The exact Persian casualties are not mentioned by Herodotus. However, he writes that the next year, the Persian fleet numbered 300 triremes. The number of losses then depends on the number of ships the Persian had to begin with; something in the range of 200–300 seems likely, based on the above estimates for the size of the Persian fleet. According to Herodotus, the Persians suffered many more casualties than the Greeks because most Persians did not know how to swim.

Xerxes, sitting on Mount Aigaleo on his throne, witnessed the carnage. Some ship-wrecked Phoenician captains tried to blame the Ionians for cowardice before the end of the battle. Xerxes, in a foul mood, and having just witnessed an Ionian ship capture an Aeginetan ship, had the Phoenicians beheaded for slandering "more noble men". According to Diodorus, Xerxes "put to death those Phoenicians who were chiefly responsible for beginning the flight, and threatened to visit upon the rest the punishment they deserved", causing the Phoenicians to sail to Asia when night fell.

Aftermath
In the immediate aftermath of Salamis, Xerxes attempted to build a pontoon bridge or causeway across the straits, in order to use his army to attack the Athenians; however, with the Greek fleet now confidently patrolling the straits, this proved futile. Herodotus tells us that Xerxes held a council of war, at which the Persian general Mardonius tried to make light of the defeat:

"Sire, be not grieved nor greatly distressed because of what has befallen us. It is not on things of wood that the issue hangs for us, but on men and horses...If then you so desire, let us straightway attack the Peloponnese, or if it pleases you to wait, that also we can do...It is best then that you should do as I have said, but if you have resolved to lead your army away, even then I have another plan. Do not, O king, make the Persians the laughing-stock of the Greeks, for if you have suffered harm, it is by no fault of the Persians. Nor can you say that we have anywhere done less than brave men should, and if Phoenicians and Egyptians and Cyprians and Cilicians have so done, it is not the Persians who have any part in this disaster. Therefore, since the Persians are in no way to blame, be guided by me; if you are resolved not to remain, march homewards with the greater part of your army. It is for me, however, to enslave and deliver Hellas to you with three hundred thousand of your host whom I will choose."

Fearing that the Greeks might attack the bridges across the Hellespont and trap his army in Europe, Xerxes resolved to do this, taking the greater part of the army with him. Mardonius handpicked the troops who were to remain with him in Greece, taking the elite infantry units and cavalry, to complete the conquest of Greece. All of the Persian forces abandoned Attica, however, with Mardonius overwintering in Boeotia and Thessaly; the Athenians were thus able to return to their burnt city for the winter.

The following year, 479 BC, Mardonius recaptured Athens and led the second Achaemenid destruction of Athens (the Allied army still preferring to guard the Isthmus). However, the Allies, under Spartan leadership, eventually agreed to try to force Mardonius to battle, and marched on Attica. Mardonius retreated to Boeotia to lure the Greeks into open terrain and the two sides eventually met near the city of Plataea (which had been razed the previous year). There, at the Battle of Plataea, the Greek army won a decisive victory, destroying much of the Persian army and ending the invasion of Greece; whilst at the near-simultaneous Battle of Mycale the Allied fleet destroyed much of the remaining Persian fleet.

Significance
The Battle of Salamis marked the turning point in the Greco-Persian wars. After Salamis, the Peloponnese, and by extension Greece as an entity, was safe from conquest; and the Persians suffered a major blow to their prestige and morale (as well as severe material losses). At the following battles of Plataea and Mycale, the threat of conquest was removed, and the Allies were able to go on the counter-offensive. The Greek victory allowed Macedon to revolt against Persian rule; and over the next 30 years, Thrace, the Aegean Islands and finally Ionia would be removed from Persian control by the Allies, or by the Athenian-dominated successor, the Delian League. Salamis started a decisive swing in the balance of power toward the Greeks, which would culminate in an eventual Greek victory, severely reducing Persian power in the Aegean.

Like the Battles of Marathon and Thermopylae, Salamis has gained something of a 'legendary' status (unlike, for instance, the more decisive Battle of Plataea), perhaps because of the desperate circumstances and the unlikely odds. A significant number of historians have stated that Salamis is one of the most significant battles in human history (though the same is often stated of Marathon). In a more extreme form of this argument, some historians argue that if the Greeks had lost at Salamis, the ensuing conquest of Greece by the Persians would have effectively stifled the growth of Western Civilization as we know it. This view is based on the premise that much of modern Western society, such as philosophy, science, personal freedom and democracy are rooted in the legacy of Ancient Greece. Thus, this school of thought argues that, given the domination of much of modern history by Western Civilization, Persian domination of Greece might have changed the whole trajectory of human history. The celebrated blossoming of hugely influential Athenian culture occurred only after the Persian wars were won.

Militarily, it is difficult to draw many lessons from Salamis, because of the uncertainty about what actually happened. Once again the Allies chose their ground well in order to negate Persian numbers, but this time (unlike Thermopylae) had to rely on the Persians launching an unnecessary attack for their position to count. Since it brought about that attack, perhaps the most important military lesson is to be found in the use of deception by Themistocles to bring about the desired response from the enemy.

According to Plutarch, the previously undistinguished Cimon "obtained great repute among the Athenians" due to his courage in battle; this reputation later enabled him to launch his political career.

Anchorage discovery
On March 17, 2017, archaeologists announced that they had uncovered the partially submerged remains of the anchorage used by the Greek warships prior to the Battle of Salamis. The location of the ancient mooring site is on the island of Salamis, at the coastal Ambelaki-Kynosaurus site.

Ancient sources

 * Herodotus, The Histories Perseus online version
 * Aeschylus, extract from The Persians
 * Ctesias, Persica (excerpt in Photius's epitome)
 * Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica
 * Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
 * Ephorus, Universal History
 * Plutarch, Themistocles
 * Cicero, On the Laws

Modern sources

 * Blakesley, J. W. (1853) "On the Position and Tactics of the Contending Fleets in the Battle of Salamis (With a Map.)" in the Proceedings of the Philological Society.
 * Burn, A. R. (1985). "Persia and the Greeks" in The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenid Periods, Ilya Gershevitch, ed. Cambridge University Press.
 * Fehling, D. (1989). Herodotus and His "Sources": Citation, Invention, and Narrative Art. Translated by J.G. Howie. Leeds: Francis Cairns.
 * Gongaki, Konstantina, Preka-Papadema, Panagiota, Kalachanis, Konstantinos, and Antonopoulos, Panagiotis, "Astronomical Calculation of the Dating the Historical Battles of Marathon, Thermopylae and Salamis Based on Herodotus' Description", Scientific Culture, Vol. 7, No. 2, (2021), pp. 81-99.
 * Green, Peter (1970). The Year of Salamis, 480–479 BC. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson (ISBN 0-297-00146-9).
 * Green, Peter (1998). The Greco-Persian Wars. Berkeley: University of California Press (hardcover, ISBN 0-520-20573-1) (paperback, ISBN 0-520-20313-5).
 * Hale, John R. (2009) Lords of the Sea. Viking Press. ISBN 978-0-670-02080-5
 * Hanson, Victor Davis (2001). Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power. New York: DoubleDay, 2001 (hardcover, ISBN 0-385-50052-1); New York: Anchor Books (paperback, ISBN 0-385-72038-6).
 * Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους (History of the Greek nation) vol Β, Εκδοτική Αθηνών (Editorial Athens) 1971.
 * Holland, Tom (2005). Persian Fire. London: Abacus (ISBN 978-0-349-11717-1).
 * Köster, A. J. (1934). Studien zur Geschichte des Antikes Seewesens. Klio Beiheft 32.
 * Lazenby, J. F. (1993). The Defence of Greece 490–479 BC. Aris & Phillips Ltd. (ISBN 0-85668-591-7).
 * Lee, Felicia R. (2006). A Layered Look Reveals Ancient Greek Texts The New York Times, 27 November 2006.
 * Morrison, John S., Coates, J.F. & Rankov, B.R. (2000) The Athenian Trireme: The History and Reconstruction of an Ancient Greek Warship Second Edition. Cambridge: CUP (ISBN 978-0521564564)
 * Strauss, Barry (2004). The Battle of Salamis: The Naval Encounter That Saved Greece—and Western Civilization. New York: Simon and Schuster (hardcover, ISBN 0-7432-4450-8; paperback, ISBN 0-7432-4451-6).
 * Strauss, Barry (2004). The Battle of Salamis: The Naval Encounter That Saved Greece—and Western Civilization. New York: Simon and Schuster (hardcover, ISBN 0-7432-4450-8; paperback, ISBN 0-7432-4451-6).
 * Strauss, Barry (2004). The Battle of Salamis: The Naval Encounter That Saved Greece—and Western Civilization. New York: Simon and Schuster (hardcover, ISBN 0-7432-4450-8; paperback, ISBN 0-7432-4451-6).
 * Strauss, Barry (2004). The Battle of Salamis: The Naval Encounter That Saved Greece—and Western Civilization. New York: Simon and Schuster (hardcover, ISBN 0-7432-4450-8; paperback, ISBN 0-7432-4451-6).

title: Battle of Salamis


text:
Justin I

Justin I (Iustinus; Ἰουστῖνος; c. 450 – 1 August 527), also called Justin the Thracian (Justinus Thrax; Ἰουστῖνος ὁ Θρᾷξ), was Eastern Roman emperor from 518 to 527. Born to a peasant family, he rose through the ranks of the army to become commander of the imperial guard and when Emperor Anastasius died, he out-maneouvered his rivals and was elected as his successor, in spite of being around 68 years old. His reign is significant for the founding of the Justinian dynasty that included his eminent nephew, Justinian I, and three succeeding emperors. His consort was Empress Euphemia.

He was noted for his strongly orthodox Christian views. This facilitated the ending of the Acacian schism between the churches of Rome and Constantinople, resulting in good relations between Justin and the papacy. Throughout his reign, he stressed the religious nature of his office and passed edicts against various Christian groups seen at the time as non-Orthodox. In foreign affairs, he used religion as an instrument of state. He endeavoured to cultivate client states on the borders of the Empire, and avoided any significant warfare until late in his reign.

Early career
Justin was a peasant and possibly a swineherd by occupation, from the region of Dardania, part of the Prefecture of Illyricum. He was born in the hamlet Bederiana near Naissus (modern Niš, Serbia). He was of Thraco-Roman or Illyro-Roman descent, spoke Latin and only rudimentary Greek, and bore, like his companions and members of his family (Zimarchus, Dityvistus, Boraides, Bigleniza, Sabbatius, etc.), a Thracian name. His sister Vigilantia (born c. 455) married Sabbatius and had two children: the future emperor Petrus Sabbatius Justinianus (born 483) and Vigilantia (born c. 490). The younger Vigilantia married Dulcissimus (or Dulcidio) and had at least three children: the future emperor Justin II (born c. 520); the future general Marcellus; and Praejecta (born c.  520), who married the senator Areobindus.

As a young man, he and two companions left Dardania in order to escape the poverty of the region. Taking refuge in Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, they possessed nothing more than the ragged clothes on their backs and a sack of bread among them. Illiterate at the time of his arrival there, Justin joined the newly formed palace guard, the excubitors. He served in various positions, campaigning against the Isaurians and the Sassanian Persians and was noticed for his bravery. Because of his ability he was successively appointed a tribune, a comes, a senator and, under the Emperor Anastasius I, the influential position of comes excubitorum, commander of the palace guard. During this period he married Lupicina; no surviving children are recorded from this marriage. According to contemporary historian Procopius, Lupicina was a barbarian slave who had been Justin's concubine before their marriage.

Succession
During the night of 8–9 July 518, Anastasius died and his silentarii, a senior servant, summoned Justin and Celer to his deathbed. Celer was the magister officiorum (master of offices) and commander of the palace regiments of the Scholae Palatinae, a force of parade-ground display troops. By morning the event had been announced throughout the capital, Constantinople. The high officials, including John of Cappadocia, the recently appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, were summoned to the Great Palace for the election of a new emperor. Meanwhile, the people gathered in the Hippodrome of Constantinople and awaited the proclamation of the name of the new emperor. Anastasius had died childless but had a host of known relatives. This extensive family included several viable candidates for the throne. His brother Paulus had served as consul in 496. According to John Malalas, the praepositus sacri cubiculi (grand chamberlain), Amantius, had intended to have Theocritus, commander of an elite guard unit, elected to the throne. Theocritus and Amantius were relying on their control of a large military force and on buying the support of the other officials. Amantius was said to have given a substantial sum of money to Justin in order to buy his support. However, Justin controlled a smaller, but higher-quality group of soldiers, and used the money to buy support for himself. He was elected as the new emperor by the council and was proclaimed emperor in the Hippodrome as JustinI.

His wife became his empress consort under the name Euphemia. The name was probably chosen for reasons of respectability. The original Euphemia was a Christian martyr during the Diocletianic Persecution. She was a local saint of Chalcedon and the Council of Chalcedon (451) had taken place in a cathedral consecrated in her name. The selection of this name was an early indication that Justin and Lupicina were fervent Chalcedonian Christians. The population of the capital was supportive because of his strong Chalcedonian position on the fierce Christological debate of the time, in opposition to his predecessor's Monophysite leanings.

Emperor
Justin cemented his position by assassinating potential opponents, especially anti-Chalcedonian supporters of Anastasius. Both Amantius and Theocritus were executed nine days after the election. A career soldier with little knowledge of statecraft, Justin surrounded himself with trusted advisors. The most prominent of these was his nephew Flavius Petrus Sabbatius, whom he adopted as his son and invested with the name Iustinianus (Justinian).

Foreign affairs
Justin endeavoured to cultivate client states on the borders of the Empire, and avoided any significant warfare until late in his reign.

In 497 Anastasius had agreed with Theoderic, the Ostrogothic king of Italy, that he would rule Italy as Anastasius' deputy. This preserved Italy as nominally a part of the Empire, and neutralised a potentially dangerous neighbour. The arrangement suited Theodoric, as the Ostrogoths were a small aristocratic minority in Italy and the blessing of Constantinople helped reconcile the majority of the population to their rule. The feelings of the majority of Italians towards the Empire were mixed, as Anastasius was a Monophysite, while they were Chalcedonian. The Ostrogoths were Arians, and there was a tendency to consider both them and Monophysites as different breeds of heretics. With a strongly Chalcedonian emperor on the throne and the Italian-based papacy formally healing the rift the situation became less stable. Initially relations were friendly. Theodoric's son-in-law Eutharic was appointed consul in Constantinople in 519 and confirmed as Theodoric's heir. Eutharic died in 522, by which time Justin's policies, possibly influenced by Justinian, had become more anti-Arian. In 526 Theodoric died, leaving Eutharic's ten-year-old son Athalaric as heir to the throne.

A number of initiatives in respect of neighbouring states were founded on religious motives, and were usually developed by Justinian as he assumed more power towards the end of Justin's reign. Kaleb I of Aksum was probably encouraged to aggressively enlarge his empire by Justin. Contemporary chronicler John Malalas reported that Byzantine merchants were robbed and killed by the Jewish king of the south Arabian kingdom of Himyar, causing Kaleb to claim, "You have acted badly because you have killed merchants of the Christian Romans, which is a loss both to myself and my kingdom." Himyar was a client state of the Sassanian Persians, perennial enemies of the Byzantines. After Kaleb invaded Himyar around 523, Justin saw what is now Yemen pass from Sassanian control to the rule of an allied Christian state.

A number of small states on the borders of the Byzantine Empire and of Sassanian Persia were constant areas of contention between the two powers. The Georgian Principality of Iberia was in the Sassanian sphere of influence, but was Christian. Iberian bishops were sent to Antioch in the Byzantine Empire to be consecrated. Vakhtang I of Iberia was encouraged into war with the Sassanians. A "fervent Christian", his religious policies were "part and parcel of his larger strategic aims". After a lengthy struggle he was defeated and Iberia subjugated as a Sassanian province in 522.

Lazica was another border state; it was Christian, but in the Sassanid sphere. Its king, Tzath, wished to weaken Sassanid influence. In 521 or 522, he went to Constantinople to receive the insignia and royal robes of kingship from Justin's hand and to make his submission. He was also baptized as a Christian and married a Byzantine noblewoman, Valeriana. After having been confirmed in his kingdom by the Byzantine emperor, he returned to Lazica. Shortly after Justin's death, the Sassanids attempted to forcibly regain control, but were beaten off with assistance from Justin's successor.

In 524, the Sassanid emperor Kavadh I approached Justin asking that he formally adopt his youngest son, Khosrow, in order to secure his succession over his elder, but less favoured, brothers. Justin was agreeable, but, aware that, being childless himself, an adopted Persian son would have a claim on the Byzantine throne, offered adoption according to barbarian custom. The Persians were insulted and broke off all negotiations. In 526, the Byzantines raided Persian Armenia at Justinian's initiative. Justinian was increasingly taking control of policy from his aging uncle. The raiding parties were led by two of Justinian's up-and-coming military protégees, Sittas and Belisarius. The raids achieved little, other than to make a statement of intent.

Religion
Justin's reign is noteworthy for the resolution of the Acacian schism between the eastern and western branches of the Christian church. On ascending the throne Justin invited Pope Hormisdas to Constantinople for negotiations. Justinian sent a similar, but separate, invitation; said to have been closer to a summons. Hormisdas promptly despatched a delegation to Constantinople with instructions to state the orthodox position rather than to negotiate. Carrying out a policy developed by his nephew Justinian, the future emperor, Justin endorsed Rome's view on the question of the dual nature of Christ. On 28 March 519, in the cathedral of Constantinople in the presence of a great throng of people, a reluctant Patriarch John II accepted the formula of Pope Hormisdas and the end of the schism was concluded in a solemn ceremony.

For the first three years of his reign Justin persecuted the Monophysites, even serving soldiers. Thereafter he adopted a more pragmatic approach. In 523 Justin issued a strict edict against Arianism. Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths and ruler of Italy, was an Arian himself, as were most Ostrogoths. He despatched Pope John I, Pope Hormisdas' successor, to Constantinople with firm instructions to obtain a policy reversal. John received an exceptionally warm welcome; the population of Constantinople applauded him, Justin laid on celebrations, prostrated himself at the Pope's feet and insisted on being re-crowned by the Pope's hands. John did not succeed in having the edict overturned, it seems that he did not press the matter. On his return to Italy an enraged Theodoric had him flung into prison, where he shortly died.

Again encouraged by Justinian, Justin increasingly expressed his position as emperor as a religious one. He claimed that "we have been elected to the empire by favour of the indivisible Trinity. Edicts were endorsed with "We continuously commit ourselves to all plans and actions in the name of Jesus Christ". In either 519 or 522 Justin abandoned the tradition of depicting pagan symbols on the reverse of his coins and seals. "During the reign, the characteristic identifying the reverse female figure as Victory, a high girdle below the breasts, was substituted by a tunic, therefore identifying the figure as an angel." This was a very public and widespread restatement of the Empire as a Christian state.

Later years
The later years of the reign of Justin were marked by increased tension with the Empire's neighbours, especially the Ostrogoths, and the Sassanids. In 526 Antioch was destroyed by an earthquake with an estimated 250,000 deaths. Justin arranged for sufficient money to be sent to the city for both immediate relief and to start reconstruction. The rebuilding of the Great Church and many other buildings was overseen by Ephraim, the comes Orientis, whose efforts saw him replace Euphrasius as the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch. Many of the buildings erected after the earthquake were destroyed by another major earthquake in November 528, although there were far fewer casualties.

Procopius of Caesarea's Byzantine historia indicate that Justin I's mental faculties had begun to decline in his old age, going as far as to write "the Emperor, as an idiot and advanced in age, caused the laugh of the environment, and was also accused of delays in decisions and inability for his duties."

Justinian
During his uncle's reign Justinian successively occupied the positions of comes domesticorum, commander of the imperial guard, patrician, and, in 521, consul. In 525, Justin repealed a law that effectively prohibited a member of the senatorial class from marrying women from a lower class of society, including the theatre, which was considered scandalous at the time. This edict paved the way for Justinian to marry Theodora, a former mime actress, and eventually resulted in a major change to the old class distinctions at the Imperial court. She came to participate in Justinian's rule with very significant and powerful influence. Justin's health began to decline and he formally named Justinian as co-emperor and, on 1 April 527, as his successor. On 1 August Justin died and was succeeded by Justinian.

Legacy
The Cilician city of Caesarea was renamed Justinopolis in 525, in honour of Justin I. The name persisted until the 12th century when Thoros I, king of Armenian Cilicia, made it his capital and renamed it Anazarbus.

title: Justin I


text:
Talk:Montauban

This was the entire original article:

 * Pierre de Fermat, a French mathematician, was born in Beaumont-de-Lomagne in 1601.

Seems totally irrelevant to me. Bryan Derksen

Don't know what to do with this one; Google only found 27 results for  - at least two of which were for this article. --maveric149, Saturday, April 6, 2002

 * Try searching for "montauban fermat". Apparently, Beaumont-de-Lomagne is near Montauban. Still not terribly informative, though. Brion VIBBER

"ravages of the Albigensians"
Was it the ravages of the Albigensians or the ravages of the Albigensian crusade...? -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montauban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060724225046/http://catholique-montauban.cef.fr/images/arts_et_culture/cath_1950.jpg to http://catholique-montauban.cef.fr/images/arts_et_culture/cath_1950.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Montauban