Usually, the fall of an empire is marked by a major event. For example, the Third Reich of Germany fell after World War Two, and the Imperial Empire in Star Wars fell after the destruction of the second Death Star. However, this is not the case with the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire fell into obscurity due to a series of events that eventually resulted in a complete loss of power. That said, it is important to establish that it did actually fall, and did not simply transform into the Byzantine Empire. There is no disputing that the Byzantine Empire carried on some of the aspects of Roman culture – after all, it was directly derived from the Roman Empire. But the vast differences between the Roman and Byzantine cultures mark the emergence of the fall of one empire and the emergence of another. Brought on by the divisions of the Empire, barbaric invasions and assimilations, and the rise of Christianity, the Roman Empire did indeed fall.

            The division of the Roman Empire in 293 by Diocletian was one of the first major signs that the Empire was in its decline. The massiveness of the Empire was becoming too much to govern only from Rome. Corruption was rampant after the third century crisis, so Diocletian divided the empire into four territories. A century later, Honorius and Arcadius split the empire into Eastern and Western halves – the Western half later dying out as the ‘old’ Rome, and the Eastern half living on as the Byzantine Empire. The separation allowed different cultural influences to permeate into each half. The barbarian influence was felt more in the Western half (ultimately leading to its fall), while Christianity had a bigger influence in the Eastern half. Over time, the two halves grew apart in culture. Attempts by Byzantine emperors such as Justinian to re-conquer parts of the Western half and reestablish classic Roman culture and land were in vain. The wars against the newer kingdoms were too costly, and the culture had been altered too much to be shifted back into the classic Roman state.

These divisions were made necessary mainly by the third century crisis, a combination of  “[W]ar, money troubles, and natural disasters […]”[1] that resulted in the weakening of Roman power. Germanic invasions took a toll on Roman coffers. This forced emperors to institute inflation, which severely weakened the Roman economy. Also, earthquakes and disease epidemics diminished food supplies and killed many Romans. The combination of all of these issues led to corruption and political instability, which in turn made the empire begin to fragment. This was necessary for Diocletian to reorganize the empire. The reorganization allowed for better ruling of the Roman Republic – Diocletian established a hierarchical system with subdivisions and states within each of the four territories.  However, civil wars later on split the Empire even further, resulting in the East-West division. The effects of the third century crisis were still being felt, and allowed barbarians to penetrate the borders of the Western Roman Empire, leading to its downfall.

            In an Empire as big as the Romans’, it is nearly impossible to police and guard every area and border – a task that was made even harder by a damaged economy that emanated from the third century crisis. As a result of this, barbarians such as the Goths, Vandals, and Huns found it increasingly easier to penetrate the Roman perimeter. Making it even easier for the barbarians to infiltrate was the fact that “[…] the fourth-century emperors encouraged the migrations. […] [T]hey recruited foreign warriors for the Roman army.”[2] When the tribal mercenaries migrated into Rome, they would bring their families with them too, integrating themselves into Roman society. Also encouraging the migration of people from the tribes of the outskirts of the Empire into Rome was flight from violence, particularly that of the Huns. When the Huns invaded, they forced the tribal people to move into the imperial region. The tribes would then plead with the Roman leaders for protection, who in turn would accept, provided they received military service. This is important, as it ultimately allowed outsiders to rise up in the Roman bureaucracy to places of power. However, the corruption inherent in such a large empire made these deals fall apart. Roman officers “[…]mistreated [the Visigoths], they starved; the officials forced them to sell some of their own people into slavery in return for dogs to eat.”[3] This led the Visigoths to rebel in 378 B.C.E., putting them in a position to negotiate terms with the Roman emperor at the time, Theodosius I. “[…] His concessions to the Visigoths established the terms […]: permission to settle permanently inside the imperial borders, freedom to establish a kingdom under their own laws, the title of ‘federates of the empire”, and large annual payments from the empires.” This deal solidified the ability of the Visigoths to completely insert themselves into Roman society. The success of the infiltration of the Visigoths encouraged other tribes fleeing the Huns, like the Vandals, to migrate into the empire and establish their own kingdoms.

The increasing presence of outside influences weakened the Empire as a whole, both economically and socially. The newcomers’ culture made its way into Roman culture, which was made easier by an increasing lack of national identity stemming from the third century crisis and the various divisions. Traditional Roman culture was still lived on to an extent by the Eastern Roman Empire, but in the Western Roman Empire, it was quickly disappearing.  As mentioned earlier, non-Roman influence in the military and the bureaucracy was gradually increasing. Customs and laws of the Germanic tribes merged with that of the Romans, with the small kingdoms established within the empire growing in power. An example of this is seen in The Burgundian Code, a code of laws of the Eastern Germanic tribe, the Burgundians: “If anyone strikes out the teeth of a Burgundian of the highest class, or of a Roman noble, let him be compelled to pay fifteen solidi.”[4] This excerpt demonstrates the parity between the barbarians and the Romans. The punishment for an upper class Roman and an upper class Burgundian was exactly the same.

Eventually, the accumulating power and influence of the barbarians resulted in the seizing of the Roman throne, by a German called Odoacer, who although served officially as “the eastern emperor’s assistant”[5], really held all the power and could rule as he saw fit. This marked the end of the Western Roman Empire, and while it is not the sole factor of the fall of the Roman Empire, it is certainly a marking point of how far it had fallen. The assimilation of the Barbarians into the Roman Empire helped shift the culture of the

            When Christianity was first introduced to Roman society, it was met with persecution. Many aspects of Christianity worked against its acceptance – its denial of the classical gods, the supposed savior being a “[…] a man whom the imperial government had crucified as a criminal”[6], and its progressive thought which in general was disruptive for the time period. The persecution continued with emperor Diocletian, but was stopped by Constantine. By passing the Edict of Milan in 313, which proclaimed “[…] free choice of religion for everyone […]”[7], Constantine ushered in a new era of tolerance that allowed Christianity to grow and flourish not just as a religion, but as a culture. This, along with the conversion to Christianity by Constantine illustrates the rise of Christianity in Europe. So much of classical Roman culture was tied to their polytheistic gods, so when Christianity became a major force, it shaped the Byzantine culture into something that had Roman influence, but was not distinctly Roman. Also, the growing power of Church leaders served to undermine that of emperors, further diminishing their power. The presence of Christianity in the Byzantine Empire was not a direct cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. The fall was already happening; the presence of Christianity simply helped the new Byzantine culture establish itself as different from that of the classical Romans.

            Although the Roman Empire fell, its legacy was still lived on by the Byzantine Empire. And even after the Byzantine Empire collapsed, there have been many attempts to resuscitate the classical Roman culture. The Carolingian Renaissance, the Italian Renassiance, and efforts by Justinian and other Byzantine Emperors all attempted to revive the Roman customs. But despite the culture living on, the Roman Empire itself had fallen as a result of the integration of barbarians into Roman society, the presence of Christianity, and the division of the empire, which further decreased the national identity.

[1]  -Hunt, 205

[2] -Hunt, page 236

[3] -Hunt, page 238

[4] -Lualdi, 117

[5] -Hunt, 241

[6] -Hunt, 199

[7] -Hunt, 221

This was an interesting new aspect to society, and it also offers us a question even today. In a world where roles are assigned to both men and women, where do you stand if you consider yourself neither man nor woman? Do we always have to be one or the other? In Byzantine society, eunuchs were often considered to have feminine qualities, although people saw them as males. They were looked at as inferior men because of the fact that they could not produce sperm.

How does Aristotle have anything to do with this subject? Aristotle’s teachings on medicine were paramount in the study of gender. Aristotle is known for his contributions to science, such as classifications, but his ideas were very flawed. His notion of the two sexes was based on a hierarchical structure that held men as superior to women. The main entity that makes a woman was considered the empty womb, while the man was considered the sex with the ability to produce the baby. Today, people acknowledge that the woman’s ovaries is also what makes her different, as well as her hormones. In fact, it has been discovered that every part of the body is different between men and women, except for the eyes. Putting the bodies of men and women on a hierarchical ladder is now considered foolish, because male and female bodies are completely different. It may seem strange, but the way the two bodies were compared using an Aristotelian view, actually helped people undermine the woman’s body.

It may seem that we should compare females and males and acknowledge their similarities in order to achieve equality today. But doing so would be neglecting the truth. It is important today that we see the power in all types of bodies. The female body is not an empty, passive form.

To learn more, read “Byzantine Medical Lore and the Gendering of Eunuchs” by Kathryn Ringrose.

Introduction:

Considered one of the most crucial emperors of the Late Antiquity, Constantine introduced the foundations of modern European civilization. His reign was full of action. His military achievements were and are still praised today. His support for Christianity, among other things, makes him a historic decision maker. I will now start from the beginning and provide details on his birth, elaborate on his reign, talk about Christianity, and conclude on his sickly death. 

Birth:

Born as Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus on the 27th of February in 272 AD, Constantine’s birthplace is Naissus, present day Nish in Serbia. His parents are Emperor Constantius and St. Helena. He had three sisters, of whom one was Constantia. Under his second wife Minerva, Constantine had a son named Crispus.

Reign:

He was declared emperor by his troops the moment his father died in 306. However, he declined and appointed himself the title of Caesar. The first major battle Constantine fought took place in 312 BC. Fought between Constantine and Maxentius, who were brothers-in-law, the battle took place on the Milvian Bridge over the Tiber River. Although Constantine miscalculated the number of Maxentius’s forces, which were in reality far greater, the battle was in favor of Constantine, who eventually won. The reason for his victory apparently lies in a vision Constantine had on his way to Rome before the battle. The story is that Constantine and his entire army had seen a cross with the Greek letters “X (Chi)” and “P (Rho)”, which are the first two letters of Christ, in front of the sun; It is also said that Constantine heard the following line in Latin: In hoc signo vinces, which translates to “With this sign, you will conquer.” This led Constantine to command all of his soldiers to paint the cross on their shields. Thus, Constantine became a chief supporter of Christianity.

Prior to this battle, the Roman Empire was ruled by four emperors, or tetrarchs. They were Licinius, Galerius, Maxentius, and Constantine. Galerius had died through natural causes in 311 BC. Constantine’s victory against Maxentius allowed him to rule the western half of the Roman Empire alone. Thus, only two emperors remained: Licinius and Constantine, who fought against each other in 324 near Byzantium. After the battle, Constantine declared that Byzantium would be the capital city. Not only was it a token of Constantine’s victory, but Byzantium was a peninsula, surrounded by the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, which would enable it to be a major center of trade. Byzantium was renamed to Constantinople, which we now know as Istanbul in Turkey. 

Christianity:

                As I said before, Constantine was a principal devotee of Christianity. His first significant association with the well-being of Christians lies in the Edict of Milan. Signed in 313, the Edict of Milan was an agreement between Constantine and Licinius to allow religious toleration throughout the Roman Empire. Soon, Emperor Theodosius would decree that Christianity be the only accepted religion in the Roman Empire.

                Other ways Constantine embraced Christianity were: appointing Christian advisors, paying the clergy high salaries, making the life of a pastor a life of luxury, sponsoring the construction of church buildings, and even took the liberty to replace all pagan deities with a monotheistic God in Constantinople, while others followed suit. Regarding himself as the thirteenth apostle, Constantine definitely had an influence on Christianity.

Death:

                Constantine had fallen ill after Easter in 337. Knowing he was to die soon, he requested that he be baptized in the Jordan River. He was baptized on his deathbed by Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia. He died on the 22nd of May, and his body was carried to the Church of the Holy Apostles, his current mausoleum. 

Coming the power after the death of her husband, Emperor Leo IV, Irene ruled the Eastern Roman Empire as regent for her son. As Empress, she reestablished the traditional divinity of Christian icons, slowing a movement away from the worship of images. The degree that accomplished this launched a period of great creativity in Byzantine art. Constantine VI, her son, assumed the throne in 790 and banished her, then accepted her return as co-ruler. Irene then arrested him, had him blinded and threw him into prison, reclaiming sole power over the empire. Eventually the aristocracy dethroned her and banished her the Aegean island of Lesbos.

While being similar in a few ways, the two halves of Europe were more different than each other. For example, Western Europe relied mainly on princes and the Pope, to lead the government and religious practices. In contrast, The Byzantine Empire relied on a single emperor to rule their government and religion. Western Europe triumphed from their princes and the Pope ruling since they soon overcame The Byzantine Empire. This was because having more than one ruler can hold together an empire or countries better than one ruler. The princes had control of the government in their areas, and the Pope had control of the entire religion in Western Europe. Having the Pope and the princes dealing with separate issues is better than having just one emperor deal with all of their issues. Another difference of the two halves of Europe was the monasteries and nunneries. Western Europe believed that they should have both priests and nuns teaching and preaching to other people. The Byzantine Empire did not feel that nuns were needed in their empire to preach and to teach other people. This was the most likely cause for the many people in the empire converting to their barbaric enemies religions. If The Byzantine Empire had used nuns to preach and teach their people, instead of having just priests and monasteries, the people would not have converted the their enemies. Hence, The Byzantine Empire, and Western Europe were greatly different than each other.

Though the two halves of Europe were very different than each other, they were also similar in ways too. For instance, Western Europe had a feudal system in which a land owner gave land to another person in exchange for military service. The Byzantine Empire had family-based militaries in which they helped each other out, and the people felt as if their emperor Alexius Comnenus “was not a ruler but a lord, conceiving and calling the empire his own house.” Although this family-based military system held out for over one hundred and fifty years, if The Byzantine Empire had a feudal system they would have had a much bigger military and lasted even longer than they did. Western Europe lasted much longer than The Byzantine Empire with their feudal system because they had a much larger military due to much land being given away in return for military protection. As well as having a similar military service to protect their lands, both halves of Europe adopted the same or similar laws. Several Byzantine emperors had called for new laws and edicts to be made for their empire. The most famous of these laws and edicts to be made was the Corpus Juris Civilis. In the eleventh century however, Western Euorpe began to adopt this collection, and use it instead of their canon and feudal law. If Western Europe had adopted these laws and edicts much sooner, this half of Europe might have fell just as The Byzantine Empire had in 1453. Thus, despite big differences between the two halves of Europe, they were also greatly similar in ways.

Both Western Europe and The Byzantine Empire were similar in ways relating to their government and military tactics, but different in ways relating to the way each half of Europe ruled its territory. Western Europe believed in using nuns and nunneries to teach their people, as well as having two rulers ruling different parts of the government. The Byzantine Empire felt that there was no need for nuns and nunneries and had only one emperor ruling its empire. Both halves of Europe had similar military tactics either relating to or using the feudal system for protection. Also some laws and edicts made by The Byzantine Empire were used in the later stages of Western Europe. Both halves of Europe during this time greatly influenced each other, as well as having differences between them which might have caused The Byzantine Empire to fall.

Procopius, a historian living in Constantinople at the time, vividly described the plague and its effects. He pointed out that often, in the first day of infection, nothing very serious was evident but, on the second day, a bubonic swelling developed in the groin, armpits, or on the thighs and mental problems began to appear. Some went into a deep coma while others became delirious. Death came quickly to many while others lived forseveral days. When small black pustules appeared in the skin, the infected individual usually died within a day. Another symptom, vomiting blood, almost always led to death within a few hours. The physicians of that time tried a variety of cures but the results were always the same: again and again the cases that they fully expected to live died and the ones who seemed to the physicians to be hopeless lived on far beyond the period of the pandemic.

In the sixth century there was no significant understanding of bacteria and their role in the spread of diseases, and nothing was yet known anywhere about genes and their critical influence in determining who survived and who did not. These are the reasons for the perplexity experienced by the physicians when they tried their best to save the sick and the results were disappointing. It was the same centuries later when the same Black Death that overtook Constantinople in 542 swept over London in 1665. Many people in London, such as gravediggers, who were constantly exposed to infected bodies, stayed quite healthy while those who had just a single exposure to the infection died within two days. U.S. researchers who investigated this problem in the late 1990s solved the problem: those who had a particular gene, commonly known as Delta 32, did not catch the disease if they inherited this gene from both parents.

If they received the gene from only one parent, they got sick but they recovered. The same gene in HIV patients is now known to be the reason for them escaping the consequences of that particular infection. Procopius went on to describe the disease in Constantinople by showing how it affected pregnant women. Here, as in the general population, death came to both mother and baby but, in a few instances, either a mother died at the time of childbirth while the child survived or else a child died and the mother survived. It seems likely that in these rare cases the Delta 32 gene had been inherited from one parent. One common cause of death that seemed to have escaped the attention of Procopius was inflammation of the lungs, usually followed by spitting blood.

Death followed quickly in these cases. Overall, the 542 pandemic ran its course over a time period of four or five months, a common sequence in other places at different times. At its peak, 10,000 died daily. The disposal of dead bodies overwhelmed the whole city. At first, friends and relatives attended to burials but very soon, with bodies being left unattended in streets and homes, huge pits were dug for mass disposal of the dead. Even these arrangements were inadequate so, with more and more bodies piling up, men removed the tops of the towers on the city walls and threw bodies into the spaces inside the wall.

The great leaders of the Roman Empire saw the whole inhabited world as their domain of responsibility, yet when Justinian became emperor there had not been any additions to the empire’s traditional territory since its acme in the second and third centuries. A glance at a map of the empire in second century and then one in the sixth reveals the enormous amount of shrinking that had taken place in the intervening four hundred years. Justinian was determined to change this condition and push back the existing frontiers to encompass as much as possible of the known world. The Greek city of Byzantium became the new Rome in the year 330. It was named Constantinople in honor of Emperor Constantine who established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Justinian ruled this eastern empire from 527 to 565 and, in the first half of that period, he set about restoring the size and prestige of the former empire. In many ways his reign therefore represented a preservation of the Roman past.

There was an unbroken tradition in Roman law that had continued from the earliest days of the empire into the sixth century. Justinian felt that the preservation and renewal of these laws was as important as the recovery of former territory and he set about getting the work done. It was an immense task, one that was to last far beyond the life of the Byzantine Empire and serve in later centuries as the basis of European jurisprudence. The work was begun in 528 when Justinian appointed ten jurists to compile a new codification of the statute law and it was completed a year later. The next task was even bigger, the preparation of a summary of jurisprudence from the great Roman lawyers of the second and third centuries. This involved the reading of two thousand manuscript books, assessing the key matters of content, and reducing the total amount of material to one fifth of the original. All this took three years of hard work. Justinian had a reputation of being a very hard worker and he inspired these writers by his own example. His staff often used to find him busy at work in the middle of the night.

Once the work of codification and summary of jurisprudence had been completed, no further commentary on the law was permitted. The code and the summary, or digest as it was called, now represented the whole of the law. Any new legislative acts were referred to as novels; they usually dealt with issues in ecclesiastical and public affairs. One very long novel dealt with Christian marriage law. It was a sign of the times, particularly the changed times that accompanied the move of the empire’s capital from Rome to Constantinople, that all of these novels were written in Greek, not Latin. Furthermore, Justinian knew that many Roman laws had never been popular in the Greek east so local preferences frequently replaced old Roman laws. Hellenic traditions affecting family, inheritance, and dowry, for example, appeared in the new legislation. In addition, the power of the father, traditional in old Roman thought, was now considerably weakened. Christian influences too appeared in much of the newer legislation.

There was a desire to make law more humane, an emphasis that came from Justinian’s interest in including the idea of a love of humanity, and it was expressed in laws protecting the weak against the strong, favoring the slave against the master, debtor against creditor, and wife against husband. These improvements may seem small today but they represented a huge advance from the days of the old Roman Empire. Justinian’s role in the Black Death pandemic needs to be examined because it was he who greatly extended the activities of the empire into Africa, the place that was the source of the Black Death. His first moves were directed at recapturing some of the lost lands of the west. His armies invaded the Vandal and other kingdoms, one after another, in a series of bitter wars from 540 onward, and in all of these he achieved considerable success. He made the Germanic kings servants of the eastern empire but there remained the difficult problem of religious purity. Justinian was devoted to the Nicene Creed, brought in by Constantine as the official religion of the empire, but the Germanic kings were practicing and preaching a form of Christianity considered heretical by the established church. The Vandals were most zealous and quick to seize orthodox churches in order to convert them into different places of worship. The Vandals were so few in number that they resorted to terror in order to control their subjects so their kingdom became a police state in which orthodox Christians were stripped of property rights, and frequently of freedom and even of life. When a delegation of orthodox Christians from Africa appealed to Justinian to fulfill his role as defender of the faith, he decided that the time had come to bring Africa back under the control of the empire. The immediate incentive for attacking the hundred-year-old Vandal kingdom in Africa was soundly based. Their king, Hilderic, had fostered good relations with the orthodox Christians. Exiled bishops had been recalled and churches reopened, but in 530 he was deposed by his cousin Gelimer and, from his prison, Hilderic appealed to Justinian. Even so, Justinian was uncertain about taking action because an earlier expedition had led to disaster.

Finally, after much deliberation, Justinian went ahead with the invasion of Africa, convinced that the restoration of true Christianity justified it. The expedition set sail in 533 under the command of Belisarius. The field army numbered 18,000 men, 10,000 of them infantry and 5,000 cavalry. There were also some others. In Sicily, Belisarius got the welcome news that Gelimer was unaware of the offensive and had sent 5,000 men and 120 ships under his brother Tata to put down a rebellion in Sardinia. The expedition from Constantinople landed in Tunisia, and the army marched along the coast toward Carthage while the fleet accompanied it offshore. Gelimer’s reaction was to put Hilderic to death and then march out to resist the invasion. His tactics were poor, perhaps due to inadequate planning, and he was routed. Belisarius marched on and took possession of Carthage. Gelimer fled westward and joined his troops who had been recalled from Sardinia, but within a few months suffered another defeat near Carthage. Gerlimer hid for a time with local tribesmen but finally surrendered. Belisarius went back to Constantinople with his captives and booty and Justinian arranged a victory celebration for him when he arrived, somewhat like the old Roman celebrations that followed successful military campaigns. About two thousand of the captives were conscripted into the army of Justinian.

Quite apart from his military successes and defense of traditional Christianity, Justinian achieved fame because of his extensive building program. The outstanding illustration of his work, one that still survives in the Istanbul of today, is the Hagia Sophia. There was an earlier church on the site that would become Hagia Sophia’s, built by Constantius in 360. He was the son of Emperor Constantine who had freed the Christian faith from centuries of sufferings. The earlier church was known as the Great Church. In 404, this church was razed by protestors and, later, in 415, rebuilt. It was too fell victim to an invading heretics in 532. Justinian, a strong defender of orthodox, defeated the howling heretics and told that the construction to commence on a brand new basilica. Construction work lasted from 532 to 537 and the new church was consecrated in 537. The Basilica had a huge dome and this demanded new skills and new materials in order to support the weight of the dome. No one had ever previously attempted this. There were no steel beams available at this time so the dome had to be supported by great pillars and walls. The church itself measured 260 by 270 feet, the dome rose 210 feet above the floor, and the overall diameter of the dome was 110 feet.

Some awareness of the danger of earthquakes was known at the time but everyone was convinced that the huge structures employed would meet any threat. They were wrong. Parts of the church and dome were destroyed subsequently in an earthquake and large buttresses had to be added to the supports. In 1204, Roman Catholic crusaders invaded sacked Constantinople, leaving behind a lasting legacy of dislike among Orthodox Christians.

Today, Justinian’s dreams of restoring the greatness of the old Roman Empire are long forgotten but the magnificent Church of the Holy Wisdom, which is the interpretation of the words Hagia Sophia, is still admired. It is a tourist attraction because it dominates the skyline of the modern city. Such was its stability over the centuries that, during an earthquake in Constantinople in 1999, the safest place for people was considered to be the Hagia Sophia. It is the mother church of all Eastern Christians of the Byzantine liturgical tradition both the Orthodox and the Greek Catholic. The reign of Justinian proved to be a major factor in all of the history of late antiquity. Paganism finally lost out and the Nicene Creed that Constantine had established in the fourth century was almost universally recognized.

From a military viewpoint, it marked the last time that the Roman Empire could go on the offensive with any hope of success. Africa and many other areas had been recovered. When Justinian died, the frontiers he had secured were still intact but it was the degree of restoration of the old empire that he had won back and the accompanying greatly expanded trade with the rest of the known world that led to the pandemic which destroyed so much of Constantinople and cut short all further military campaigns. Justinian had not created the disease, but he created the pandemic, which followed the movements of men and goods in Justinian’s greatly expanded empire. Without the empire and its huge shipments of grain and cloth from Africa, it is difficult to imagine how the First Pandemic could ever have hit Constantinople at such an early date.

Due to its three-thousand year old history, it is considered as one of the oldest still existing cities of the world. Istanbul has been chosen as the European Capital of Culture for 2010. Istanbul is sometimes called the “City on Seven Hills” because the historic peninsula, the oldest part, was built on seven hills, and is also represented with seven mosques at the top of each hill.

Cognomens are fanciful names, usually given by others, that were affixed before or after a person’s name. For example: Ivan IV of Russia is better remembered as “Ivan the Terrible” and William I of England is better known as “William the Conqueror.”

Sobriquets, on the other hand, are names that have become identified with a specific person. Examples include: “Scourge of God” is identified with Attila the Hun, while “The Little Corporal” with Napoleon I (Bonaparte) of France. But in some cases, a sobriquet can replace an individual’s personal name; and that particular individual is instead referred to by this nickname even in scholarly works. An example would be the Roman emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus, who is more commonly known by his nickname Caligula.

Many historical personages are given popular nicknames, some of which can be quite interesting and amusing. Let’s look at some of them.

Ivailo (of Bulgaria) “Lakhanas”

Bulgarians slaughters the Byzantines

A swine herder, who led a peasant’s uprising that killed Constantine I in 1277 and ruled as emperor of Bulgaria from 1278 until 1279. Being a peasant, he was nicknamed after vegetables: one of them was “Bărdokva,” which is Bulgarian for “Lettuce” or “Radish.” He was also called “Lakhanas,” which means “Cabbage.”

Constantine V “Kopronymus”

Byzantine emperor from 741 to 755 AD. Though despotic, he was a capable emperor and military leader. He was also an iconoclast, and therefore received from his enemies, principally the iconophiles, a very insulting Greek nickname “Kopronymus,” literally “Dung-named,” due to his alleged repute of having defecated in the waters of regeneration during his baptism.

Catherine de’ Medici, “The Maggot from Italy’s Tomb”

“Catherine de’ Medici” (c1555), painting by François Clouet

Born to a wealthy 16th century Catholic Florentine ruling family, she was once a queen and regent of France. She was chiefly responsible for the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 1572, in which more than three thousand Huguenot Protestants were slain. Her ruthless character has gained her many unflattering nicknames, one of which was “The Maggot from Italy’s Tomb”, coined by the French historian Jules Michelet.

Raymond A. Spruance, “Electric Brain”

United States Navy admiral under whose command won a crucial victory in the greatest naval battle of World War II, the Battle of Midway, turning the tide of the war against Japan in the Pacific. For having exhibited leadership of exceptional intellectual competence and quick thinking skills, he was given the nickname “Electric Brain.”

Frederick I of Wurttemberg, “The Great Belly-Gerent”

The first king of Wurttemberg (1805-1816), part of modern day Baden-Wurttemberg state in southwestern Germany. He received the nickname “The Great Belly-Gerent” for his extreme obesity, about which Napoleon I (Bonaparte) of France remarked that he was especially created by God to demonstrate how far human skin can stretch without breaking.

John George I of Saxony, “Beer Jug”

“Johann Georg I of Saxony” (1652), Portrait by Franz Luycx.

Succeeded Christian I as elector of Saxony in 1611 and governed for forty five years. He was given the name “Beer Jug” because of his addiction to alcoholic beverages particularly beer, which, in combination with his indecision, would cost his electorate precious opportunities for possible dominance and territorial expansion.

Ragnar “Lodbrok”

One of the more celebrated Vikings in history; he lived his life as a pirate, invading and raiding nation after nation, and came to rule as king of Denmark, Sweden and Finland around the eighth or ninth century. He earned the cognomen “Lodbrok”, which means “Hairy Breeches,” because of his special fondness for wearing trousers sewn out of animal skins.

Malcolm IV, the Maiden

Succeeded his grandfather David I as king of Scotland in 1153 when he was only eleven years old. Later historians would give him the nickname “The Maiden”, not in any way to suggest any lack of strength on his part but because for the vow of chastity he had made, for his profound religious zeal and for having died unmarried at a very young age of twenty three in 1165.

Charles II of Spain (Carlos II el Hechizado)

“King Charles II of Spain“ by Don Carreno de Miranda

The last Habsburg king of Spain (1675-1770). He suffered from frequent bouts of epileptic seizures, mental retardation and severe physical defect, which rendered him unable to govern effectively. He was nicknamed “El Hechizado”, Spanish for “The Bewitched,” in the belief that his disabilities were the result of his being possessed by demons, that priests were often summoned to exorcise him.

Manuel Noriega, “Pineapple Face”

Military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989. Infamous for his cruelty and barbarity, he was eventually sentenced to be jailed at a US federal prison for crimes that include murder, drug trafficking, money-laundering and human rights abuses in 1992. His detractors gave him the contemptuous nickname “Pineapple face” on account of his pockmarked face.

Click on the following for more interesting history articles:

• 10 Bizarre Deaths in History
• 10 (More) Bizarre Deaths in History
• 10 (Ultimate) Bizarre Deaths in History
• Unusual Wills and Testaments
• Premature Obituaries 1
• Premature Obituaries 2
• Famous Teen Deaths
• Birthday Deaths