Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement, regional or global, in which each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to join in a collective response to threats to, and breaches of, the peace. Collective security is more ambitious than systems of alliance security or collective defence in that it seeks to encompass the totality of states within a region or indeed globally, and to address a wide range of possible threats. While collective security is an idea with a long history, its implementation in practice has proved problematic. Several prerequisites have to be met for it to have a chance of working.

History[link]

Early mentions[link]

Collective security, as suggested by many, is one of the most promising approaches for peace and a valuable device for power management on an international scale. Cardinal Richelieu proposed a scheme for collective security in 1629, which was partially reflected in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. In the eighteenth century many proposals were made for collective security arrangements, especially in Europe.

The concept of a peaceful community of nations was outlined in 1795 in Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.^[1] Kant outlined the idea of a league of nations that would control conflict and promote peace between states.^[2] However, he argues for the establishment of a peaceful world community not in a sense that there be a global government but in the hope that each state would declare itself as a free state that respects its citizens and welcomes foreign visitors as fellow rational beings. His key argument is that a union of free states would promote peaceful society worldwide: therefore, in his view, there can be a perpetual peace shaped by the international community rather than by a world government.^[3]

Bahá'u'lláh (1817–1892), the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, prescribed collective security as a means to establish world peace in his writings during the 19th century:

The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world's Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquility of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation.^[4]

International co-operation to promote collective security originated in the Concert of Europe that developed after the Napoleonic Wars in the nineteenth century in an attempt to maintain the status quo between European states and so avoid war.^[5][6] This period also saw the development of international law with the first Geneva Conventions establishing laws about humanitarian relief during war and the international Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 governing rules of war and the peaceful settlement of international disputes.^[7][8]

The forerunner of the League of Nations, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), was formed by peace activists William Randal Cremer and Frédéric Passy in 1889. The organization was international in scope with a third of the members of parliament, in the 24 countries with parliaments, serving as members of the IPU by 1914. Its aims were to encourage governments to solve international disputes by peaceful means and arbitration and annual conferences were held to help governments refine the process of international arbitration. The IPU's structure consisted of a Council headed by a President which would later be reflected in the structure of the League.^[9]

At the start of the twentieth century two power blocs emerged through alliances between the European Great Powers. It was these alliances that came into effect at the start of the First World War in 1914, drawing all the major European powers into the war. This was the first major war in Europe between industrialized countries and the first time in Western Europe the results of industrialization (for example mass production) had been dedicated to war. The result of this industrial warfare was an unprecedented casualty level with eight and a half million members of armed services dead, an estimated 21 million wounded, and approximately 10 million civilian deaths.^[10][11]

By the time the fighting ended in November 1918, the war had had a profound impact, affecting the social, political and economic systems of Europe and inflicting psychological and physical damage on the continent.^[12] Anti-war sentiment rose across the world; the First World War was described as "the war to end all wars",^[13][14] and its possible causes were vigorously investigated. The causes identified included arms races, alliances, secret diplomacy, and the freedom of sovereign states to enter into war for their own benefit. The perceived remedies to these were seen as the creation of an international organization whose aim was to prevent future war through disarmament, open diplomacy, international co-operation, restrictions on the right to wage wars, and penalties that made war unattractive to nations.^[15]

Collective security in the League of Nations[link]

After World War I, the first large scale attempt to provide collective security in modern times was the establishment of the League of Nations in 1919-20. The provisions of the League of Nations Covenant represented a weak system for decision-making and for collective action. An example of the failure of the League of Nations' collective security is the Manchurian Crisis, when Japan occupied part of China (which was a League member). After the invasion, members of the League passed a resolution calling for Japan to withdraw or face severe penalties. Given that every nation on the League of Nations council had veto power, Japan promptly vetoed the resolution, severely limiting the LN's ability to respond. After two years of deliberation, the League passed a resolution condemning the invasion without committing the League's members to any action against it. The Japanese replied by quitting the League.

A similar process occurred in 1935, when Italy invaded Ethiopia. Sanctions were passed, but Italy would have vetoed any stronger resolution. Additionally, Britain and France sought to court Italy's government as a potential deterrent to Hitler, given that Mussolini was not yet in what would become the Axis alliance of World War II. Thus, neither enforced any serious sanctions against the Italian government. Additionally, in this case and with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the absence of the USA from the League of Nations deprived the LN of another major power that could have used economic leverage against either of the aggressor states. Inaction by the League subjected it to criticisms that it was weak and concerned more with European issues (most leading members were European), and did not deter Hitler from his plans to dominate Europe. The Ethiopian monarch Emperor Haile Selassie I continued to support collective security though, having assessed that impotence lay not in the principle but in its covenantors commitment to honor its tenets.

One active and articulate exponent of collective security during the immediate pre-war years was the Soviet foreign minister Maxim Litvinov. However, there are grounds for doubt about the depth of Soviet commitment to this principle, as well as that of Western powers. After the Munich Agreement in September 1938 and the passivity of outside powers in the face of German occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 it was shown that the Western Powers were not prepared to engage in collective security against aggression by the Axis Powers together with the Soviet Union, Soviet foreign policy was revised and Litvinov was replaced as foreign minister in early May 1939, in order to facilitate the negotiations that led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany, signed by Litvinov's successor, Vyacheslav Molotov, on August 23 of that year. The war in Europe broke out a week later, with the German invasion of Poland on September 1.

Recent events[link]

The 1945 United Nations Charter, although containing stronger provisions for decision-making and collective military action than those of the League of Nations Covenant, does not represent a complete system of collective security, but rather a balance between collective action on the one hand and continued operation of the states system (including the continued special roles of great powers) on the other.

Cited examples of the limitations of collective security include the Falklands War. When Argentina invaded the islands, which are overseas territories of the United Kingdom, many UN members stayed out of the issue, as it did not directly concern them. There was also a controversy about the United States role in that conflict due their obligations as an Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the "Rio Pact") member. However, many politicians who view the system as having faults also believe it remains a useful tool for keeping international peace.

The role of the UN and collective security in general is also evolving given the rise of internal state conflicts since the end of WWII, there have been 111 military conflicts world wide, but only 9 of which have involved two or more states going to war with one another. The remainder have either been internal civil wars or civil wars where other nations intervened in some manner. This means that collective security may have to evolve towards providing a means to ensure stability and a fair international resolution to those internal conflicts. Whether this will involve more powerful peacekeeping forces or a larger role for the UN diplomatically will likely be judged from a case to case basis.

Theory[link]

Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement in which all states cooperate collectively to provide security for all by the actions of all against any states within the groups which might challenge the existing order by using force. This contrasts with self-help strategies of engaging in war for purely immediate national interest. While collective security is possible, several prerequisites have to be met for it to work.

Sovereign nations eager to maintain the status quo, willingly cooperate, accepting a degree of vulnerability and in some cases of minor nations, also accede to the interests of the chief contributing nations organising the collective security. Collective Security is achieved by setting up an international cooperative organisation, under the auspices of international law and this gives rise to a form of international collective governance, albeit limited in scope and effectiveness. The collective security organisation then becomes an arena for diplomacy, balance of power and exercise of soft power. The use of hard power by states, unless legitimised by the Collective Security organisation, is considered illegitimate, reprehensible and needing remediation of some kind. The collective security organisation not only gives cheaper security, but also may be the only practicable means of security for smaller nations against more powerful threatening neighbours without the need of joining the camp of the nations balancing their neighbours.

The concept of "collective security" forwarded by men such as Michael Joseph Savage, Martin Wight, Immanuel Kant, and Woodrow Wilson, are deemed to apply interests in security in a broad manner, to "avoid grouping powers into opposing camps, and refusing to draw dividing lines that would leave anyone out."^[16] The term "collective security" has also been cited as a principle of the United Nations, and the League of Nations before that. By employing a system of collective security, the UN hopes to dissuade any member state from acting in a manner likely to threaten peace, thereby avoiding any conflict.

Basic assumptions[link]

Organski (1960) lists five basic assumptions underlying the theory of collective security :^[17]

• In an armed conflict, member nation-states will be able to agree on which nation is the aggressor.
• All member nation-states are equally committed to contain and constrain the aggression, irrespective of its source or origin.
• All member nation-states have identical freedom of action and ability to join in proceedings against the aggressor.
• The cumulative power of the cooperating members of the alliance for collective security will be adequate and sufficient to overpower the might of the aggressor.
• In the light of the threat posed by the collective might of the nations of a collective security coalition, the aggressor nation will modify its policies, or if unwilling to do so, will be defeated.

Prerequisites[link]

Morgenthau (1948) states that three prerequisites must be met for collective security to successfully prevent war :

• The collective security system must be able to assemble military force in strength greatly in excess to that assembled by the aggressor(s) thereby deterring the aggressor(s) from attempting to change the world order defended by the collective security system.
• Those nations, whose combined strength would be used for deterrence as mentioned in the first prerequisite, should have identical beliefs about the security of the world order that the collective is defending.
• Nations must be willing to subordinate their conflicting interests to the common good defined in terms of the common defence of all member-states.

Collective defense[link]

Current major military alliances

  NATO, CSDP

  SCO(Not a Military Bloc), CSTO

  SADC

  PSC

Collective defense (also collective defence) is an arrangement, usually formalized by a treaty and an organization, among participant states that commit support in defense of a member state if it is attacked by another state outside the organization. NATO is the best known collective defense organization. Its now famous Article V calls on (but does not fully commit) member states to assist another member under attack. This article was invoked after the September 11 attacks on the United States, after which other NATO members provided assistance to the US War on Terror in Afghanistan.

Collective defense has its roots in multiparty alliances, and entails benefits as well as risks. On the one hand, by combining and pooling resources, it can reduce any single state's cost of providing fully for its security. Smaller members of NATO, for example, have leeway to invest a greater proportion of their budget on non-military priorities, such as education or health, since they can count on other members to come to their defense, if needed.

On the other hand, collective defense also involves risky commitments. Member states can become embroiled in costly wars in which neither the direct victim nor the aggressor benefit. In the First World War, countries in the collective defense arrangement known as the Triple Entente (France, Britain, Russia) were pulled into war quickly when Russia started full mobilization against Austria-Hungary, whose ally Germany subsequently declared war on Russia.

See also[link]

• NATO
• Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance
• European Common Security and Defence Policy
• Shanghai Cooperation Organization
• Collective Security Treaty Organization
• African Union
• Peace and Security Council
• Union of South American Nations
• First World War
• Second World War
• Soviet-German relations before 1941

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

• Beer, Francis A., ed. (1970). Alliances: Latent War Communities in the Contemporary World. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. 
• Bourquin, Maurice (1936). Collective Security, A record of the Seventh and Eighth International Studies Conference. Paris: International Institute. 
• Claude Jr., Inis L. (2006). Collective Security as an Approach to Peace in: Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations ed. Donald M. Goldstein, Phil Williams, & Jay M. Shafritz. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth.  pgs. 289-302
• Ghosh, Peu (2009). International Relations (Eastern Economy Edition ed.). New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Ltd. pp. 389. ISBN 978-81-203-3875-3. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=y88qTWmqb7oC. Retrieved 15 October 2010. 
• Lowe, Vaughan, Adam Roberts, Jennifer Welsh and Dominik Zaum, The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945 Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, paperback, 794 pp. ISBN 978-0-19-958330-0.
• Organski, A.F.K. (1958). World Politics. Borzoi books on International Politics (1 ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 461. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=cL0zAAAAIAAJ. Retrieved 15 October 2010. 
• Roberts, Adam and Dominik Zaum, Selective Security: War and the United Nations Security Council since 1945 (Adelphi Paper no. 395 of International Institute for Strategic Studies, London), Abingdon: Routledge, 2008, 93 pp. ISBN 978-0-415-47472-6.
• Wight, Martin (1977). Systems of States ed. Hedley Bull. London: Leicester University Press.  pp. 149

External links[link]

• de Wet, Erika, Wood, Michael. Collective Security, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
• President Carter's Nobel Lecture

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: The article lacks structure and needs more background information (as well as sources).. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (December 2011)

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2011)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2011)

There are many people in history who are commonly appended with the phrase "the Great", or who were called that or an equivalent phrase in their own language. Other languages have their own suffixes such as e Bozorg and e azam in Persian and Urdu respectively.

In Persia, the title "the Great" at first seems to be a colloquial version of the Old Persian title "Great King". This title was first used by the conqueror Cyrus II of Persia.^[1]

The Persian title was inherited by Alexander III of Macedon (336–323 BC) when he conquered the Persian Empire, and the epithet "Great" eventually became personally associated with him. The first reference (in a comedy by Plautus)^[2] assumes that everyone knew who "Alexander the Great" was; however, there is no earlier evidence that Alexander III of Macedon was called "the Great".

The early Seleucid kings, who succeeded Alexander in Persia, used "Great King" in local documents, but the title was most notably used for Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC).

Later rulers and commanders began to use the epithet "the Great" as a personal name, like the Roman general Pompey. Others received the surname retrospectively, like the Carthaginian Hanno and the Indian emperor Ashoka the Great. Once the surname gained currency, it was also used as an honorific surname for people without political careers, like the philosopher Albert the Great.

As there are no objective criteria for "greatness", the persistence of later generations in using the designation greatly varies. For example, Louis XIV of France was often referred to as "The Great" in his lifetime but is rarely called such nowadays, while Frederick II of Prussia is still called "The Great". A later Hohenzollern - Wilhelm I - was often called "The Great" in the time of his grandson Wilhelm II, but rarely later.

Rulers[link]

• Abbas I of Persia (1571–1629), Shah of Iran
• Akbar (1542–1605), ruler of the Mughal Empire of South Asia, mainly India
• Alain I of Albret (1440–1522), French aristocrat
• Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), King of Macedonia, Persia, Greece, Egypt, and all of Mesopotamia
• Alexander I of Georgia (1386–1446), King of Georgia
• Alfonso III of León (c. 848-910), King of León, Galicia and Asturias
• Alfred the Great (848/849-899), King of Wessex
• Antiochus III the Great (c. 241–187 BC), ruler of the Seleucid Empire
• Ashoka the Great (c. 304–232 BC), Indian emperor of the Maurya dynasty
• Ashot I of Iberia “the Great”(died 826/830), presiding prince of Iberia (modern Georgia),
• Askia Mohammad I (c. 1442–1538), ruler of the Songhai Empire
• Bhumibol Adulyadej (born 1927), King of Thailand
• Bolesław I Chrobry (967-1025), sometimes called "the Great", first King of Poland
• Bruno the Great (925–965), Archbishop of Cologne and Duke of Lotharingia (also listed in the following section)
• Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (1736–1809), founder and ruler of the Rattanakosin Kingdom (in what is now Thailand)
• Cnut the Great (c. 985 or 995-1035), King of Denmark, England, Norway and parts of Sweden
• Casimir III the Great (1310–1370), King of Poland
• Catherine the Great (1729–1796), Empress of Russia
• Chandragupta II (reigned 375-413/415), also known as Vikramaditya, ruler of the Gupta empire in India
• Charlemagne (died 814), King of the Franks and Emperor of the Romans
• Chulalongkorn (1853–1910), King of Siam (now Thailand)
• Chlothar II (584-629), King of Neustria and King of the Franks
• Conrad, Margrave of Meissen (c. 1097-1157), Margrave of Meissen
• Constantine I (c. 272-337), Roman emperor
• Cyaxares the Great (c. 625-585 BC), third king of Media
• Cyrus the Great (c. 600 BC or 576 BC–530 BC), founder and ruler of the Persian or Achaemenid Empire
• Darius the Great (550 – 486 BC), third ruler of the Persian Empire
• Devapala (died 850), ruler of the Pala Empire in the Indian subcontinent
• Dionysius I, Greek tyrant of Syracuse^[3]
• Ferdinand I of León and Castile (c. 1015–1065), King of León and Count of Castile
• Frederick the Great (1712–1786), King of Prussia
• Genghis Khan (1162?-1227), founder and Great Khan of the Mongol Empire
• Gero (c. 900–965), ruler of Marca Geronis, a very large march in Europe
• Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (1594–1632), King of Sweden, founder of the Swedish Empire, and noted military leader
• Gwanggaeto the Great, King of Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea^[4][5]
• Hanno the Great, the name of three leaders of Carthage, in the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd centuries BC
• Henry I, Duke of Burgundy (946–1002)
• Henry IV of France (1553–1610), King of France and King of Navarre
• Herod the Great (73/74 BC-4 BC), King of Judea
• Hugh the Great (898-956), Duke of the Franks and Count of Paris
• Hugh Magnus of France (1007–1025), co-King of France
• Hugh I, Count of Vermandois (1057–1101)
• Humphrey I de Bohun (died c. 1123), Anglo-Norman aristocrat
• Ivan III of Russia (1440–1505), Tsar of Russia
• John I of Portugal (1358–1433), King of Portugal and the Algarve
• John II of Aragon (1398–1479), King of Aragon and, through his wife, King of Navarre
• Justinian I (483-565), Byzantine Emperor
• Kamehameha I (c. 1758-1819), first King of Hawai'i
• Kanishka (died c. 127), ruler of the Kushan Empire in Central Asia and parts of India
• Kvirike III of Kakheti (1010–1029), King of Kakheti in eastern Georgia
• Kublai Khan (1215–1294), Mongol ruler in the 13th century and Emperor of China; founder of the Yuan Dynasty
• Llywelyn the Great (c. 1172–1240), Prince of Gwynedd and de facto ruler of most of Wales
• Louis I of Hungary (1326–1382), King of Hungary, Croatia and Poland
• Mangrai the Great (1238–1317), Lanna, northern Thailand
• Emperor Meiji (1852–1912), Emperor of Japan
• Mircea I of Wallachia (1355–1418)
• Mithridates II of Parthia (died 88 BC), ruler of the Parthian Empire (in present day Iran)
• Mithridates VI of Pontus (134 BC–63 BC), ruler of Pontus and the Bosporan Kingdom
• Mstislav I of Kiev (1076–1132), Grand Prince of Kievan Rus
• Naresuan (1555–1605), King of Ayutthaya
• Narai (1633–1688), King of Ayutthaya (in what is now modern Thailand)
• Odo the Great (died c. 735), Duke of Aquitaine
• Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor (912-973)
• K'inich Janaab' Pakal (603-683), ruler of the Mayan city-state of Palenque
• Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa (1123–1186), King of Sri Lanka
• Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia (died 1075), King of Croatia
• Peter the Great (1672–1725), Tsar of Russia
• Peter III of Aragon (1239–1285), King of Aragon and King of Sicily
• Pompey (106 BC-48 BC), military and political leader of the late Roman Republic, rival of Julius Caesar
• Radama I (1793–1828), first king of greater Madagascar
• Raja Raja Chola I (c. 947-1014), Indian emperor of the Cholas.^[6][7][8]
• Rajendra Chola I (reigned 1014–1044), Tamil King of India
• Ramesses II (reigned 1279 BC – 1213 BC), considered the greatest pharaoh of Ancient Egypt
• Ram Khamhaeng (around 1237 to 1247-1298), King of Sukhothai (in present day Thailand)
• Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona (1082–1131), also Count of Provence and various other counties
• Rhodri the Great (c. 820–878), King of Gwynedd (in present day Wales)
• Roman the Great (after 1160-1205), Grand Prince of Kiev
• Saladin (c. 1138-1193), Kurdish Sultan of Egypt and Syria, founder of the Ayyubid dynasty, and victor over the Crusaders
• Samudragupta (c. 335–375), ruler of the Gupta empire in the Indian subcontinent
• Sancho III of Navarre (c. 992-1035), King of Kingdom of Navarre
• Sargon of Akkad (died c. 2215 BC), ruler of the Akkadian Empire
• Sejong the Great (1397–1450), Korean king^[9]
• Shapur II (309-379), king of the Sassanid Empire, Persia
• Simeon I of Bulgaria (864/865-927), ruler of the First Bulgarian Empire
• Stephen III of Moldavia (1433–1504), Prince of Moldavia (Romania)
• Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia (c. 1308-1355), King of Serbia and Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks
• Taksin (1734–1782), King of the Thonburi Kingdom (Thailand)
• Tamar (1160-1123), Queen of the Georgian Empire
• Timur (1336–1405), better known as Tamerlane, founder of the Timurid Dynasty
• Theobald II, Count of Champagne (1090–1151), Count of Blois and of Chartres as Theobald IV, Count of Champagne and of Brie
• Theodoric the Great (454-526), King of the Ostrogoths, regent of the Visigoths and a viceroy of the Byzantine Empire
• Theodosius I (347-395), Roman emperor
• Tigranes the Great (140-55 BC), Emperor of Armenia
• Tiridates III of Armenia (285-339), King of Armenia
• Umar (c. 586 to 590–644), second caliph of the Muslim Empire
• Valdemar I of Denmark (1131–1182), King of Denmark
• Valentinian I (364-375), Roman Emperor
• Vladimir I of Kiev (c. 958-1015), ruler of Kievan Rus
• Vytautas (c. 1350-1430), archduke of the Lithuanian Grand Duchy
• William I, Count of Burgundy (1020–1087), Count of Burgandy and Mâcon
• William V, Duke of Aquitaine (969-1030), also Count of Poitou
• Xerxes I (519-465 BC), King of Kings of the Achaemenid Empire (Persia)
• Yu the Great (c. 2200-2100 BC), legendary ruler in ancient China

Religious figures[link]

• Abraham the Great of Kashkar (ca. 492-586), monk and saint of the Assyrian Church of the East
• Abraham Kidunaia (died c. 366, hermit, priest, and Christian saint of Mesopotamia
• Albertus Magnus (1193/1206–1280), medieval German philosopher and theologian
• Anthony the Great (c. 251–356), early Christian saint of Egypt
• Babai the Great (c. 551–628), Assyrian church leader
• Basil of Caesarea (330-379), Greek bishop and theologian
• Bruno the Great (925–965), Archbishop of Cologne and Duke of Lotharingia (also listed in the previous section)
• Euthymius the Great (377-473), abbot and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox saint
• Gertrude the Great (1256-c. 1302), German Benedictine, mystic, theologian and Roman Catholic saint
• Pope Gregory I (c. 540-604)
• Hiyya the Great, 3rd-century rabbi, Palestine
• Pope John Paul II (1920–2005)
• Pope Leo I (c. 391 or 400-461)
• Macarius of Egypt (c. 300-391), Egyptian hermit
• Pope Nicholas I (c. 800-867)
• Photius I of Constantinople (c. 810–c. 893), Eastern Orthodox saint and Patriarch of Constantinople
• William of Maleval (died 1157), founder of the Catholic congregation of Williamites

Other[link]

• Beli Mawr, a figure in medieval Welsh literature and genealogies
• Emmy the Great, folk singer
• Matteo Rosso the Great, Roman politician and father of Pope Nicholas III
• Prokop the Great, Hussite general in Bohemia

See also[link]

• Epithet
• List of monarchs by nickname
• List of nicknames of European Royalty and Nobility: G-I
• James, son of Zebedee, also known as James the Greater, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus
• Ajax (mythology), called Ajax the Greater
• Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, whose common honorific "Mahatma" means "Great Soul"

Notes[link]

A Persian miniature, Dhul-Qarnayn with the help of jinn, building the Iron Wall to keep the barbarian Gog and Magog from civilized peoples. (16th century Persian miniature).

Gog and Magog (Hebrew: גּוֹג וּמָגוֹג‎‎ Gog u-Magog; Arabic: يَأْجُوج وَمَأْجُوج‎ Yaʾjūj wa-Maʾjūj) are names that appear primarily in various Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures, as well as numerous subsequent references in other works. Their context can be either genealogical (as Magog in Genesis 10:2) or eschatological and apocalyptic, as in Ezekiel and Revelation. They are sometimes individuals, sometimes peoples, and sometimes geographic regions. The passages from Ezekiel and Revelation in particular have attracted attention due to their prophetic descriptions of conflicts said to occur near the "End times".

Etymology[link]

The etymology of both the names Gog and Magog remains uncertain. The ma- at the beginning of Magog may indicate a land, or it may mean "from", so that Magog means "of the land of Gog" or "from Gog". Gog may originate as the Hebrew version of the name of Gyges of Lydia, who made his kingdom a great power in the early 7th century BC, but this explanation, although common, is not universally accepted.^[1] A different theory is that "Magog" might be a reference to Babylon, by turning BBL ("Babylon" in Hebrew script, which originally had no vowel-signs) into MGG (Magog), but this account, like the others, has problems.^[2]

Texts[link]

Genesis and Chronicles[link]

Chapter 10 of the Book of Genesis, commonly called the "Table of Nations", names some 70 descendants of Noah from whom "the nations spread out over the earth after the Deluge." Noah has three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, and Magog is one of the sons (the second) of Japheth:

This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.^[3]

1 Chronicles begins with a list of genealogies repeating that in the Table of Nations but continuing well beyond. In chapter 5, among the many descendants of Reuben, first of the twelve sons of the patriarch Jacob, it mentions an individual named Gog.^[4]

Ezekiel[link]

The two names first appear together in chapters 38 and 39 of the Book of Ezekiel, but here Magog is a place and not an individual:^[5]

Son of man, direct your face towards Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince, leader of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy concerning him. Say: Thus said the Lord: Behold, I am against you, Gog, the prince, leader of Meshech and Tubal.^[6]

Ezekiel lived in the first half of the 6th century BC, and the earliest possible date for the prophecy is c. 585 BC.^[7] Scholars disagree, however, as to whether Ezekiel 38-39 was part of the original text (compare, for example, Joseph Blenkinsopp, who believes it to be a late addition,^[8] and Daniel Block, who argues for its original status).^[9] Its prophecy of a savage foe from the north is based on Jeremiah 1:3-16, where Jeremiah is talking about the Babylonians;^[8] Ezekiel turns this into an eschatological enemy who will come "in the latter years," an apocalypse at the end of time.^[1]

Gog's allies - Meshech and Tubal, Persia, Cush and Put, and "Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north" - are all, with the exception of Persia, taken from the Table of Nations.^[8] Meshech, Tubal, Gomer and Beth Togarmah can be identified with real 8th and 7th century peoples, kings or kingdoms of Anatolia, modern Turkey.^[10] "Why the prophet's gaze should have focused on these particular nations is unclear," says Daniel Block in a recent study of Ezekiel 25-48, but suggests that their remoteness and reputation for violence and mystery "made Gog and his confederates perfect symbols of the archetypal enemy, rising against God and his people."^[11] Cush (Sudan or Ethiopia) and Put (Libya) are sons of Ham according to Genesis 10, while Persia is located to the east, and is not mentioned in Genesis 10 at all. Since Ezekiel insists on a northerly situation of Gog and his allies, many commentators believe that these three names were added later, although this too is disputed.^[12]

Intertestamental period[link]

Around the middle of the 2nd century BC, the Sibylline Oracles mention the "land of Gog and Magog" as "situated in the midst of Aethiopian rivers", but in a second mention links it with the "Marsians and Dacians", in eastern Europe; in both cases they are about to receive "woe," and according to Boe, "there can be little doubt about the direct use of Ezekiel's oracles" in their composition.^[13]

The Book of Jubilees, known from about the same time, mentions Magog as a son of Japheth to whom land is allocated, while Gog is a region on Japheth's borders.^[14] 1 Enoch tells how God stirs up the Medes and Parthians (instead of Gog and Magog) to attack Jerusalem, where they are destroyed; an indebtedness to Ezekiel 38-39 has also been asserted.^[15] In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Messiah will rule "over all the peoples and Magog,"^[16] and Magog is allocated land next to Gomer, the first son of Japheth.^[17] The sole fragment where the two names are combined as "Gog and Magog" is too small to be meaningful.^[15] The 1st century Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum is notable for listing and naming seven of Magog's sons, and mentions his "thousands" of descendants.^[18]

The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, made during this period, occasionally introduces the name of Gog where the Hebrew original has something else. Thus at Numbers 24:7 it replaces Agag, a mysterious but clearly powerful figure, with Gog, and at Amos 7:1 the Greek has Gog as the leader of a threatening locust-like army.^[1] The Greek translation of Ezekiel takes Gog and Magog to be synonyms for the same country, a step which paved the way for the Book of Revelation to turn "Gog from Magog" into "Gog and Magog."^[2]

Book of Revelation[link]

By the end of the 1st century, Jewish tradition had long since changed Ezekiel's Gog from Magog into Gog and Magog, the ultimate enemies of God's people, to be destroyed in the final battle.^[19] The author of the Book of Revelation tells how he sees in a vision Satan rallying Gog and Magog, "the nations in the four corners of the Earth," to a final battle with Christ and his saints:

When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the Earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.^[20]

Ezekiel's Gog from Magog was a symbol of the evil darkness of the north and the powers hostile to God,^[1] but in Revelation, Gog and Magog have no geographic location, and instead represent the nations of the world, banded together for the final assault on Christ and those who follow him.^[21]

Qur'an[link]

In Surat Al-Kahf ("The Cave", 18:83–98) of the Qur'an, a pious king called Dhul-Qarnayn ("He of the Two Horns (or he who witnessed two centuries)") journeys to the edge of the earth, where he finds people who are suffering from the mischief of Gog and Magog. Dhu'l-Qarnayn then makes a wall of copper and iron to keep Gog and Magog out, but warns that it will be broken down at the time appointed by Allah.^[22] In sura 21, Al-Anbiyā (The Prophets), the wall is mentioned again: Allah tells his Prophet (Mohammed) that there is a "prohibition upon [the people of] a city which We have destroyed that they will not return until [the dam of] Gog and Magog has been opened and thou shall see them, from every higher ground, descending."^[23] According to Saḥīḥ al-Bukhāri, Gog and Magog are human beings, and the city mentioned in Surat 21 is Jerusalem.^{[citation needed]}

Rabbinic Literature[link]

According to the Radak commenting on Zechariah 14, this part of Zechariah refers to the war of Gog and Magog, that in the end of days Jerusalem will be the battle ground of Gog and Magog.^[24]

Identifying Gog and Magog[link]

Separate passages in the "Jewish Antiquities" and "Jewish War" of the 1st century Jewish historian and scholar Josephus show that Jews of that time identified Gog and Magog with the Scythians: Alexander the Great, Josephus said, locked these horse-riding barbarians of the far north behind the Caucasus mountains with iron gates.^[25] A version of this story formed the basis of the Qur'anic tale of Dhul-Qarnayn.^[26]

Some early Christian writers (e.g. Eusebius) identified Gog and Magog with the Romans.^[27] After the Roman Empire became Christian this was no longer possible and attention switched to Rome's northern barbarian enemies. Ambrose (d.397) identified them with the Goths,^[28] and Isidore of Seville confirmed that people in his day supposed that the Goths were descended from Magog "because of the similarity of the last syllable".^[29] The idea that Gog and Magog were connected with the Goths was longstanding; in the mid-16th century, Archbishop of Uppsala Johannes Magnus traced the royal family of Sweden back to Magog son of Japheth, (Magnus identified two of Magog's sons as Suenno, progenitor of the Swedes, and Gethar (also known as Gog or Gogus), ancestor of the Goths).^[30]

In the 6th century, the Byzantine historian Procopius (d. after 562) saw Attila and the Huns as the nation locked out by Alexander, and a little later other Christian writers identified them with the Saracens.^[31] Still later, Gog and Magog became identified with the Khazars, whose empire dominated Central Asia in the 9th and 10th centuries. In his 9th century work Expositio in Matthaeum Evangelistam, the Benedictine monk Christian of Stavelot referred to them as descendants of Gog and Magog, and says they are "Circumcised and observing all [the laws of] Judaism";^[32] the 14th century Sunni scholar Ibn Kathir also identified Gog and Magog with the Khazars,^[33][34] as did a Georgian tradition, which called them "wild men with hideous faces and the manners of wild beasts, eaters of blood".^[35] According to the famous Khazar Correspondence (c. 960), King Joseph of Khazaria claimed to be a descendant of Magog's nephew Togarmah.^[36]

The Mongols were the next barbarians. Early in the 13th century reports began to reach Europe of a mysterious and invincible horde from the east that destroyed Muslim empires and kingdoms, leading kings and popes to take them for Prester John, marching to save Christians from the Saracens; but when they entered Poland and Hungary and annihilated Christian armies, a terrified Europe concluded that they were "Magogoli", the offspring of Gog and Magog, released from the prison Alexander had constructed for them and heralding Armageddon.^[37]

The Mongolian armies decided to turn back because of the death of Genghis Khan back in the East and their defeat in the Battle of Ain Jalut in Palestine. Gog and Magog became the subject of literature. The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, a 14th best-seller, associated the Jews with Gog and Magog, saying the nation trapped behind the Gates of Alexander comprised the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.^[38] Marco Polo located Gog and Magog as regions of Tenduk, a province belonging to the legendary Prester John, and governed by one George, fourth in descent from the original John. According to this account Gog (locally Ung) is inhabited by a tribe called the Gog, whilst Magog (or Mongul) is inhabited by Tatars. The 14th century Muslim traveller Ibn Battuta reported that "the rampart of Yajuj and Majuj" was "sixty days' travel" from the city of Zeitun;^[39] the translator notes that Ibn Battuta has confused the Great Wall of China with that built by Dhul-Qarnayn.^[40]

A German tradition claimed a group called the Red Jews would invade Europe at the end of the world; the "Red Jews" became associated with different peoples, but especially the Eastern European Jews and the Ottoman Turks.^[41]

Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages, including Rashi, Radak and others, had associated no specific nation or territory with Magog, beyond locating it to the north of Israel.^[42] In the early 19th century some Chasidic rabbis identified Napoleon's invasion of Russia as "The War of Gog and Magog" which would precede the coming of the Messiah, so that the Emperor filled the role of Gog.^[43] In the 20th century Hitler was seen as a likely candidate.^[27]

During the Cold War the idea (first advanced by Wilhelm Gesenius in the mid-1800s) that Russia itself had the role of Gog gained popularity (since Ezekiel's words describing him as "prince of Meshek" - rosh meshek in Hebrew - sounded suspiciously like Russia and Moscow).^[8] This interpretation has been taken up by several Christian authors and preachers since then (such as Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth; Grant R. Jeffrey's Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny; M. R. De Haan's The Signs of the Times; Tim LaHaye's Are We Living in the End Times?).

The popularity of this theory during the Cold War can be seen in that it was openly advocated in 1971 by the then Governor of California, Ronald Reagan. During a dinner address to state legislators Reagan said "Ezekiel tells us that Gog, the nation that will lead all of the other powers of darkness against Israel, will come out of the north. Biblical scholars have been saying for generations that Gog must be Russia. What other powerful nation is to the north of Israel? None. But it didn’t seem to make sense before the Russian revolution, when Russia was a Christian country. Now it does, now that Russia has become Communistic and atheistic, now that Russia has set itself against God. Now it fits the description of Gog perfectly."^[44]

With the closing of the Cold War, some Christian thinkers who accepted this interpretation altered it after the fall of the Soviet Union (such as Pat Robertson who advocated it in his 1982 book The Secret Kingdom, but in 1992 suggested Gog was "Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan"^[45]). Other Christian thinkers do not consider the fall of communism to have any relevance in maintaining their interpretation that Russia is Gog (such as Chuck Missler in his book Magog Invasion).

The biblical interpretation that Russia is Gog, is one that some Russians believe themselves according to historian Christopher Marsh. He writes "Russians and Ukrainians, [are] two peoples with a long history of looking to the Bible for clues to their past and future. At least as far back as the Primary Chronicle, the Rus' looked to scripture for such clues and found them from Genesis to Revelations. They were the descendants of Noah's third son, Japheth, giving themselves direct lineage to the diluvian period, and they were of the tribe of Magog (or Gog), in the land of Rosh. The implications of such identity as expressed in Revelations, where the Gog and Magog were both thrown out of heaven, apparently didn't matter to those drawing these lines. Ancestors were found in the Bible, and that was enough."^[46]

Gog and Magog in Britain and Ireland[link]

Giants[link]

Gog and Magog figures located in the Royal Arcade, Melbourne (Australia)

Despite their generally negative depiction in the Bible, Lord Mayors of the City of London carry images of Gog and Magog (depicted as giants) in a traditional procession in the Lord Mayor's Show. According to the tradition, the giants Gog and Magog are guardians of the City of London, and images of them have been carried in the Lord Mayor's Show since the days of King Henry V. The Lord Mayor's procession takes place each year on the second Saturday of November.

The Lord Mayor's account of Gog and Magog says that the Roman Emperor Diocletian had thirty-three wicked daughters. He found thirty-three husbands for them to curb their wicked ways; they chafed at this, and under the leadership of the eldest sister, Alba, they murdered their husbands. For this crime they were set adrift at sea; they washed ashore on a windswept island, which they named "Albion" - after Alba. Here they coupled with demons and gave birth to a race of giants, whose descendants included Gog and Magog.^[47]

An even older British connection to Gog and Magog appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's influential 12th century Historia Regum Britanniae, which states that Goemagot was a giant slain by the eponymous Cornish hero Corin or Corineus. The tale figures in the body of unlikely lore that has Britain settled by the Trojan soldier Brutus and other fleeing heroes from the Trojan War. Corineus supposedly slew the giant by throwing him into the sea near Plymouth; Richard Carew notes the presence of chalk figures carved on Plymouth Hoe in his time. Wace (Roman de Brut), Layamon (Layamon's Brut) (who calls the giant Goemagog), and other chroniclers retell the story, which was picked up by later poets and romanciers. John Milton's History of Britain gives this version:

The Island, not yet Britain, but Albion, was in a manner desert and inhospitable, kept only by a remnant of Giants, whose excessive Force and Tyrannie had consumed the rest. Them Brutus destroies, and to his people divides the land, which, with some reference to his own name, he thenceforth calls Britain. To Corineus, Cornwall, as now we call it, fell by lot; the rather by him lik't, for that the hugest Giants in Rocks and Caves were said to lurk still there; which kind of Monsters to deal with was his old exercise.

And heer, with leave bespok'n to recite a grand fable, though dignify'd by our best Poets: While Brutus, on a certain Festival day, solemnly kept on that shore where he first landed (Totnes), was with the People in great jollity and mirth, a crew of these savages, breaking in upon them, began on the sudden another sort of Game than at such a meeting was expected. But at length by many hands overcome, Goemagog, the hugest, in hight twelve cubits, is reserved alive; that with him Corineus, who desired nothing more, might try his strength, whom in a Wrestle the Giant catching aloft, with a terrible hugg broke three of his Ribs: Nevertheless Corineus, enraged, heaving him up by main force, and on his shoulders bearing him to the next high rock, threw him hedlong all shatter'd into the sea, and left his name on the cliff, called ever since Langoemagog, which is to say, the Giant's Leap.

Michael Drayton's Poly-Olbion preserves the tale as well:

Amongst the ragged Cleeves those monstrous giants sought:

Who (of their dreadful kind) t'appal the Trojans brought

Great Gogmagog, an oake that by the roots could teare;

So mighty were (that time) the men who lived there:

But, for the use of armes he did not understand

(Except some rock or tree, that coming next to land,

He raised out of the earth to execute his rage),

He challenge makes for strength, and offereth there his gage,

Which Corin taketh up, to answer by and by,

Upon this sonne of earth his utmost power to try.

Gog Magog Hills[link]

The Gog Magog Downs are about three miles south of Cambridge, said to be the metamorphosis of the giant after being rejected by the nymph Granta (i.e. the River Cam). The dowser Thomas Charles Lethbridge claimed to have discovered a group of three hidden chalk carvings in the Gogmagog Hills. This alleged discovery is described at length in his book Gogmagog: The Buried Gods,^[48] in which Lethbridge uses his discoveries to extrapolate a primal deity named 'Gog' and his consort, 'Ma-Gog', which he believed represented the Sun and Moon. Although his discovery of the chalk figures in the Gogmagog Hills has been dogged by controversy, there are similarities between the name and nature of the purported 'Gog' and the Irish deity Ogma, or the Gaulish Ogmios.

Gog and Magog in Ireland[link]

"Gog and Magog giving Paddy a Lift Out of the Mire." From Punch magazine, 1846

Works of Irish mythology, including the Lebor Gabála Érenn (the Book of Invasions), expand on the Genesis account of Magog as the son of Japheth and make him the ancestor to the Irish through Partholón, leader of the first group to colonize Ireland after the Deluge, and a descendant of Magog, as also were the Milesians, the people of the 5th invasion of Ireland. Magog was also the progenitor of the Scythians, as well as of numerous other races across Europe and Central Asia. His three sons were Baath, Jobhath, and Fathochta.^[49]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Category:Gog and Magog

Gog and Magog in Colorado[link]

Two rock outcroppings visible from Manitou Springs Colorado named after the two giants.

Gog and Magog in Canada[link]

Gog and Magog are also names given to two rock formations near Friendship Col, 2000 feet above the Alpine Club of Canada's Fairy Meadows hut in the northern Selkirk Mountains of British Columbia, Canada.

References[link]

• BHS refers to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

This article lacks information such as ISBNs for the books listed in it. If the {{Cite book}} or {{Citation}} templates are in use, you may add ISBNs automatically. Specific concerns can be found on the Talk page. Please improve this article if you can.

Bibliography[link]

• Bietenholz, Peter G. (1994). Historia and fabula: myths and legends in historical thought from antiquity to the modern age. Brill. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZFjXaCAWoOUC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=Bietenholz+Historia+and+fabula&source=bl&ots=jWwMpOo82A&sig=AhyAv80oPI5Zni4DPv0x3TTNx0Y&hl=en&ei=F8rDTZezH42GvAPyzIibAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Blenkinsopp, Joseph (1996). A history of prophecy in Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=6P9YEd9lXeAC&pg=PR4&dq=The+prophetic+literature:+an+introduction++By+David+L.+Petersen&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q=Gog%20and%20Magog&f=false. 
• Block, Daniel I. (1998). The Book of Ezekiel: chapters 25-48. Eerdmans. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uYemhagtCpgC&pg=PA478&lpg=PA478&dq=The+Book+of+Ezekiel:+chapters+25-48+Daniel+Isaac+Block&source=bl&ots=n29kaAIQws&sig=oQBxUj23DnJXsyIq9LVEmILuglY&hl=en&ei=0d_BTczGL42gvgP7naGjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Bøe, Sverre (2001). Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38-39 as pre-text for Revelation 19,17-21 and 20,7-10. Mohr Siebeck. http://books.google.com/books?id=vettpBoVOX4C&pg=PA91&dq=Gog+Magog+Gyges&hl=en&ei=19s0TbqqEYmIvgPF7JnqCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gog%20Magog%20Gyges&f=false. 
• Boring, Eugene M (1989). Revelation. Westminster John Knox Press. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=FVRIOJVkg7cC&pg=PP4&lpg=PP4&dq=Boring+Revelation&source=bl&ots=wzKoGuVeY0&sig=3wUxZgY8Bj5ba-EamFfUMWnFT8I&hl=en&ei=Q4vCTeeTBoHGvQPb5MXDAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Brook, Kevin A (2006). The Jews of Khazaria. Rowman&Littlefield. 
• Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd. "The Gog and Magog Tradition in Revelation 20:8". http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DAyzzK7COmoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+book+of+Ezekiel+and+its+influence&source=bl&ots=lBes1rP_Tb&sig=h3txGLa63DdxqjCvTA4dI0AAr74&hl=en&ei=IyB_TaiQMo6kuAO05-nYBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.  in de Jonge, H.J; Tromp, Johannes (2007). The book of Ezekiel and its influence. Ashgate Publishing. 
• Christensen, Arne Søby (2002). Cassiodorus, Jordanes, and the History of the Goths: Studies in a Migration Myth. Museum Tusculanum Press. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=AcLDHOqOt4cC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=Cassiodorus,+Jordanes,+and+the+History+of+the+Goths&source=bl&ots=exBLTysOef&sig=zzdiTO_t1AFZWnEmHfI91WR0HwM&hl=en&ei=L0fDTa73FIvCvQPL9qSrAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Derry, T.K (1979). A history of Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland. University of Minnesota Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=eDh5z2_K_S0C&pg=PA129&dq=Christina+Magog&hl=en&ei=3UvDTcGrKou8uwOxy_yvAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Christina%20Magog&f=false. 
• Gow, Andrew Colin (1995). The red Jews: antisemitism in an apocalyptic age, 1200-1600. Brill. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yp5O_rPI7nsC&dq=The+red+Jews+google+books&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=6z3DTdzIHZKGvAPl_PCxAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&sqi=2&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Marshall, Robert (1993). Storm from the East: from Ghengis Khan to Khubilai Khan. BBC Books. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=YQleM5Yc0VAC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=Robert+Marshall+Storm+from+the+East&source=bl&ots=b-5aBbPbqr&sig=7qxUTYOdZGqPPvR-8EYGRP4iHbM&hl=en&ei=v93DTYmgCYWEvgPQn5GgAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Mounce, Robert H (1998). The Book of Revelation. Eerdmans. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=06VR1JzzLNsC&pg=PP4&lpg=PP4&dq=The+Book+of+Revelation+Robert+H.+Mounce&source=bl&ots=ulSNoeNkM5&sig=T4rKqHA_zmd6uDMpVfCjo1DJB-U&hl=en&ei=s4nCTbHJNou2vQOw7JnMAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Petersen, David L (2002). The prophetic literature: an introduction. John Knox Press. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Z9zLXRhNl9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+prophetic+literature:+an+introduction++By+David+L.+Petersen&source=bl&ots=x2l4xWqd5q&sig=dxUaoRtrkNXw5NHPlCsLLMIe4D0&hl=en&ei=SuIrTZaqOYOAvgPcqpmQCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Van der Toorn, Karel; Becking, Pieter; Van der Horst, Bob (1999). Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible. Brill. http://books.google.com/books?id=yCkRz5pfxz0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dictionary+of+Deities&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Westrem, Scott D. "Against Gog and Magog". http://books.google.com.au/books?id=PdEywwxcQ0wC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=The+last+place+that+Johannes+Witte+de+Hese+vists&source=bl&ots=J9Sh0vnVnd&sig=rBW1C9CTLCXQPSvHl7-BTf6LfBg&hl=en&ei=4WTCTarqLsTHrQek5MT2Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false.  in Tomasch, Sylvia; Sealy, Gilles (1998). Text and territory: geographical imagination in the European Middle Ages. University of Pennsylvania Press. 

External links[link]

• Agog over Bush's comments on Gog and Magog
• Yajuj wa Ma'juj (Gog and Magog) according to Islam
• Christian website explaining Gog and Magog from their point of view.