Category: History

Witness the transformation across time and interpret the past of human societies while shedding light on the most prominent events.

How Many Siblings Did Shakespeare Have?
William Shakespeare (1564–1616) had a total of seven siblings. Shakespeare’s siblings were named Margaret, Gilbert, Joan, Anne, Joan (the second Joan), Richard, and Edmund. However, Shakespeare actually had five siblings at the time he was born. His older sisters, Margaret and Joan (the first Joan) had died before Shakespeare’s birth in 1564.
Shakespeare’s Siblings
Shakespeare had a total of four sisters and three brothers. His oldest sister, Joan, and his other older sister, Margaret, had died before Shakespeare was born. While he was alive, William Shakespeare had two sisters (Joan and Anne) and three brothers (Gilbert, Richard, and Edmund).
Before His Birth:
In a family of eight, Shakespeare was the third child. Joan, his eldest sister, was born in 1558 but only survived for 2 months. Margaret, the second oldest sister, was born four years later, in 1562, but she survived for around five months.
After His Birth:
William was born in 1564, and Gilbert, William’s first younger sibling, arrived two years later, in 1566. In 1569, the second Joan was born, the third sister in the family. In 1569, Richard was born, then in 1571, Anne, and then in 1580, Edmund.
The List of Shakespeare’s Siblings
1. Joan Shakespeare (1558–1558) lived for 2 months.
2. Margaret Shakespeare (1562–1563) lived for 5 months.
3. Gilbert Shakespeare (1566–1612) lived for 46 years.
4. Joan Shakespeare (1569–1646) lived for 77 years.
5. Anne Shakespeare (1571–1579) lived for eight years.
6. Richard Shakespeare (1574–1613) lived for 39 years.
7. Edmund Shakespeare (1580–1607) lived for 27 years.
Only Shakespeare’s younger sister, Joan, who was five years his junior, made it to old age. Joan continued to thrive for another 30 years after William’s death in 1616. She died at the age of 77, which was a whole century in those days.
Joan Shakespeare (Sister)
Painting by Rita Greer, depicting the Great Plague of 1665 in London.
Joan (1558–1558), the first child of the parents John and Marry, was christened in the month of September 1558. Two months later, though, she passed away. As the oldest sibling of William Shakespeare, she died six years before William’s birth.
She likely died during a typhus and influenza epidemic in 1559 and 1560. Another possible reason for her death is the bubonic plague.
This very contagious bubonic plague had at least a 30% mortality rate within two weeks of infection at the time. The disease led to lymph node enlargement (buboes) in the body.
Margaret Shakespeare (Sister)
Margaret’s baptism is the final one recorded on this page of the Parish Register of Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon. (Source: Shakespeare Documented)
Margaret (1562–1563), the second child of the Shakespeare family, was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. She was baptized on December 2, 1562, at Holy Trinity Church. She was Shakespeare’s second older sibling.
Margaret died five months after her birth, on April 30, 1563. Similar to his sister Joan, Margaret probably suffered from the bubonic plague, which scourged England at the time in 1563.
During the London Plague in 1563, more than 20,000 deaths were documented in the city and the surrounding parishes. About a quarter of London’s inhabitants lost their lives.
During the London Plague in 1563 more than 20,000 deaths were documented in the city and the surrounding parishes. About a quarter of London’s inhabitants lost their lives.
The baptismal record for Margaret is in Latin. From March 1558 to early 1561, the register was actually written in English.
Gilbert Shakespeare (Brother)
On March 5, 1610, Gilbert Shakespeare signed a document as a witness. (Source: Shakespeare Documented)
Little is known about Gilbert Shakespeare (1566–1612), William’s third (or first younger) sibling. It is believed that he worked as a haberdasher (a small dealer) in London during the 1590s and returned to Stratford around the year 1600.
At this time, Shakespeare’s 107-acre land purchase from John Combe in May 1602 was “seisin” (a formal procedure for taking possession) to him. He apparently never left Stratford and died there in February 1612, around the age of 46.
Gilbert Shakespeare was christened on October 13, according to documents in both London and Stratford. While working as a haberdasher in the London parish of St. Bride’s in 1597, he held surety for William Sampson, a clockmaker from Stratford.
On May 1, 1602, Gilbert accepted the land transfer on William’s behalf. The property was located in Old Stratford. A bill of complaint was initiated on November 21, 1609, against him and many others by Joan Bromley, a widow from Stratford.
Gilbert put his name to a Stratford lease as a witness on March 5th, 1610. On February 3, 1612, the burial of Gilbert Shakespeare was recorded in the Stratford register. He was never married.
Joan Shakespeare (Sister)
The Shakespeare’s House on Henley Street in Stratford Upon Avon.
Shakespeare had two sisters of this name. As the second Joan of the Shakespeares (the parents might have referred to the Second Coming of Joan of Arc), she was the only sibling of William who lived longer than him, to the old age of 77.
Joan (1569–1646) tied the knot with William Hart, a hatter, in the years leading up to 1600. William (1600–46; not the poet), Mary (1603–07), Thomas (1605–61), and Michael (1608–18) were the fruits of their marriage.
The burial of Joan’s husband took place on April 17, 1616, a week before William Shakespeare died. He was sued for debt in 1600 and 1601; that’s pretty much what we know about this husband.
In his will, Shakespeare bequeathed Joan the western house on Henley Street, where she was already residing, as well as twenty pounds and all of his clothing as an actor. This same house is designated as “Shakespeare’s Birthplace” today.
She passed away in 1646 as Shakespeare’s fourth (or second younger) sibling and was buried on November 4.
Her son Thomas, who had married in 1633, held the house after her passing. By her will, Shakespeare’s granddaughter Elizabeth Hall left that and the next house to Joan’s grandson, also named Thomas. Until Thomas Court purchased the houses in 1806, they stayed in the family.
A chair manufacturer named John Shakespeare Hart (1753–1800) is buried in Tewkesbury Abbey with a headstone that incorrectly identifies him as the sixth descendant of the poet Shakespeare. His son William and grandson Thomas are buried at the city’s Baptist burial ground.
Anne Shakespeare (Sister)
Anne Shakespeare (1571–1579) was baptized on September 28, 1571, and she was buried on April 4, 1579. Her parents paid 8 pennies for the “bell and pall” to take part in her funeral. A pall was a piece of fabric draped over a coffin or used to carry one. She was the last sibling (sister) of William Shakespeare.
Most of the information about her comes from the Chamberlain’s Account, published by the London Record Society.
Richard Shakespeare (Brother)
Shakespeare family coat of arms, given in 1596 to John Shakespeare.
Young Richard Shakespeare (1574–1613) was christened on March 11, 1574, as the seventh child of the glover John Shakespeare and Mary Arden. He was the sixth (or fourth younger) sibling of William.
However, we pretty much lose track of him in history. All that is known about him is that on July 1, 1608, he was ordered to appear before the Stratford ecclesiastical court for an unnamed offense and was fined a shilling. It is believed to constitute Sabbath desecration. The fine was given to Stratford’s poor people.
He was laid to rest on February 4, 1613, in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, at about the age of 38, the day following his brother Gilbert’s first anniversary of death.
Shakespeare’s grandfather was likely also named Richard Shakespeare and lived as a farmer in Snitterfield. This Richard Shakespeare was first mentioned in 1529 and passed away in 1560 or 1561.
Edmund Shakespeare (Brother)
Edmund Shakespeare’s parish recording. “X” added by a later hand highlight its significance. (Source: Shakespeare Documented)
The last of William Shakespeare’s siblings was given the name Edmund (1580–1607), presumably in honor of his uncle Edmund Lambert, to whom they had just mortgaged a portion of their inheritance—a house and land in Wilmcote.
The two children of that name were possibly goddaughters of Aunt Joan, Lambert’s wife. More than anyone else in the family, Edmund seems to have been influenced by his playwright brother. He followed William to London and started acting professionally. His acting company was never recorded, probably because he wasn’t all that significant.
Edmund does not seem to have attained any particular distinction in his field, but he was just 28 or 27 years old when he passed away on December 31, 1607.
He is said to have fathered an illegitimate child in London who was buried on August 12th, 1607, on the grounds of St. Giles Church outside Cripplegate, months before Edmund’s death.
His son appears as “Edward, son of Edward Shackspeere” in the documents recorded by the parish clerk. This shows the lack of desire to distinguish between names with similar sounds at the time, like Edward and Edmund.
A forenoon wail of the large bell signaled Edmund’s funeral only a few short months later, on New Year’s Eve, at the Southwark church of St. Mary Overy. This twenty-shilling funeral was rather pricey. The cost of a burial in the church’s graveyard was just two shillings, and the lower bell could only ring for a maximum of one shilling.
Evidently, Edmund was loved by his wealthy brother William. John Fletcher and Philip Massinger, the primary playwrights for the King’s Men—the acting company that William Shakespeare spent most of his career as a member of—would also be buried in this area, also known as St. Saviour’s.
Were Shakespeare and His Siblings Close?
Shakespeare’s upbringing in a reasonably well-to-do family in Stratford-upon-Avon would have encouraged a feeling of family unity; however, particular data regarding his connections with his other siblings is limited.
Possibly, as the oldest son, he should have helped and supported his younger siblings all the time. However, personal notes and letters were not as common or comprehensive in Shakespeare’s day. As a result, we have to piece together the details of his sibling relationships.
William tried to show his love for his siblings whenever possible. He once arranged a burial for his eldest brother Edmund that was 10 to 20 times more expensive and detailed than usual burials at the time.
Shakespeare gave his sister Joan, the only sibling he had at the time, a significant amount of money and a house in his will. William’s younger brother, Gilbert Shakespeare, was also deeply involved in his brother’s theatrical activities until his untimely death in 1612.
References
Parish register e n try recording Margaret Shakespeare’s baptism | Shakespeare Documented, Folger.edu
William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. By Samuel Schoenbaum, 1987 – Google Books
A Life of William Shakespeare by Sidney Lee, Gutenberg.org
July 10, 2023
Potsdam Giants: Breeding Extremely Tall Humans for Battle
July 7, 2023
Pepin the Short’s Height: How Tall Was Pepin the Short Really?
How tall was Pepin the Short? Pepin III (714–768), often known as Pepin the Younger, was a major figure in early medieval Europe. From 751 until 768, he ruled as king of the Franks and was instrumental in founding the Carolingian dynasty. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire owe much to the stability that Pepin established in Western Europe. The mystery surrounding Pepin’s height and the question of how tall Pepin the Short was is still a mystery without concrete evidence.
And the earliest evidence regarding Pepin III being called “the Short” actually comes from the 11th century, two centuries after his death.
Curiosity Regarding Pepin the Short’s Height
Würzburg, Alte Mainbrücke, statue Pepin the Short. (Dguendel, CC BY 4.0)
The disparity between Pepin the Short’s moniker and the successes of his reign has led many to speculate about the king’s actual height. His influence on the Frankish realm and the later Carolingian reign makes Pepin the Short’s real height intriguing.
But the reality is that, over the course of history, many notable people have been given illustrative titles and descriptions that did not accurately represent their actual status. For instance, we know that Napoleon’s height was inaccurately described as short, but it was just his towering soldiers who surrounded him all the time.
Considering the contradiction of Pepin III’s moniker “the Short”, you might be wondering if there are any hard proofs or reputable sources that might shed light on Pepin the Short’s height.
The short answer is no. How tall Pepin the Short was is not known. But if we had to speculate based on the average height of the time, Pepin the Short’s height could be less than 5 feet 7 inches (170 cm).
But there is more to this story.
Lack of Historical Records
A drawing of Pepin the Short by J.-E. Buschmann, 1845.
The lack of reliable historical sources from the 8th century makes it difficult to learn about Pepin the Short’s physicality, such as his height. Physical descriptions of people in historical records from this time, such as their height, are sketchy at best.
Rather than focusing on the personal details of their kings, chroniclers of the time recorded the major political events, military operations, accomplishments, genealogical lineage, and problems with the reigns. Recording the height of ancient and medieval figures was never a common practice.
Due to its relative insignificance, the height of the medieval kings and queens was seldom addressed or documented in these accounts. This is also true when it comes to Charlemagne’s height as the son of Pepin the Short. The nature of these chronicles contributes to the lack of facts concerning Pepin the Short’s height today.
But you can always make educational guesses:
Theories and Speculations on How Tall Pepin Was
1912 drawing of Pepin the Short, fighting a bull and a lion. (Source)
Why was Pepin called the Short? Numerous historians and academics have spoken on the subject of Pepin the Short’s height, each with their own theory and opinion. The following are the most widely held beliefs and speculations about how tall Pepin the Short was:
Theory One: He Was Just Shorter
Pepin III might be given the nickname “the Short” because he was obviously shorter than other people of his day. We know for a fact that following the Norman Conquest in 1066, the average height of a man living at the end of the early medieval period was around 5 feet, 7.7 inches (172 cm). Today, this figure is around 5 feet 11 inches (180 cm).
Let’s say even if Pepin’s height was around the 5 feet 7 inches (170 cm) mark, that would still be enough to name the king “the Short”.
Theory Two: He Was Just Relatively Shorter
However, the same hypothesis also points to the fact that many members of the Frankish aristocracy were quite tall and intimidating, suggesting that the word “short” might just be a relative term in relation to Pepin’s family.
This theory assumes that Pepin the Short was probably of ordinary height for his period but seemed smaller compared to his ancestors. Considering Charlemagne’s tall height of 6 feet and 0.5 inches (1.84 meters), this approach holds some weight. Because Charlemagne was considered a giant at the time.
Pepin was the son of Charles Martel, who in 732 led the French to victory against the invading Muslims at the Battle of Tours. And Charles Martel is never described for his short stature. It is also possible that he was taller than his son, Pepin.
Theory Three: A Misunderstanding of His Latinized Name
During the Middle Ages, kings often derived Latinized versions of their names to emphasize their connection to the Roman Empire. The name Pepin was also known as Pippin and Peppin, and the Latinized version of this name would be Pippinus, Pipinus, and Pepinus.
Since the word “Pippinus” meant “little Pippin” or “young Pippin” in Latin, Pepin’s moniker “the Short” might have been a misreading of his Latinized name.
Theory Four: A Shift in Wording
(W. Commons)
Since Charlemagne’s father, great-grandfather (Pepin of Herstal), and great-great-great-grandfather (Pepin of Landen), as well as two of his sons, all had the same name (Pepin), it became essential to give each branch of the Carolingian Pepin family a unique moniker.
Pepin of Herstal, the grandfather of Pepin the Short, was called “brevis,” which means “short” in Latin. And the earliest evidence regarding Pepin III being called “the Short” actually comes from the 11th century, two centuries after his death.
According to one theory, the word “minor” (as used by the Young) has been replaced with “brevis” and then “parvus” in time, which simply meant “short.”
Long after Pepin’s death, in the late 9th century, the monk Notker Balbulus wrote a little treatise on the lives of Pepin and Charlemagne. Pepin the Hunchback, the illegitimate oldest son of Charlemagne, is mentioned.
The contemporary historian Einhard, the author of the Vita Karoli, depicts this son as handsome but hunched-back. Using Einhard’s story, Notker also mentions that he, too, had a hunchback but includes the observation that he was a dwarf.
“Pippin himself, a dwarf and a hunchback, was cruelly scourged, tonsured, and sent for some time as a punishment to the monastery of Saint Gall; the poorest, it was judged, and the straitest in all the emperor’s broad dominions.”
Early Lives of Charlemagne by Eginhard and the Monk of St. Gall, edited by Prof. A. J. Grant – Gutenberg.org
Theory Five: He Ruled for Too Short
An alternative theory proposes a distinct sense of the word “Short.” Some historians disagree on whether the nickname was meant to reflect Pepin’s small stature or the short duration of his rule. Pepin III ruled from 751 until his death in 768, a period of 17 years.
While 17 years of reign may not be that short, his son Charlemagne ruled for 46 years, and this was around the typical length of a king’s rule for the day.
Therefore, calling him “Short” might be a way to draw attention to the fact that he was the first monarch of the Carolingian dynasty. His dynasty would be linked to Charlemagne in later history.
Visual Representations of Pepin the Short
Pepin the Short is not shown in any contemporary artwork. All the creative representations of him have been made after his death. Since there aren’t many historical paintings or sculptures from the 8th century, even fewer paintings show Pepin explicitly.
Only some later works attempted to depict Pepin the Short’s height. Some medieval manuscripts show him towering above his contemporaries, but they were probably intended to convey a sense of his superiority. At the same time, some later paintings tended to minimize Pepin’s height, perhaps owing to his moniker.
Who Was Pepin the Short?
King of the Franks from 751 to 768, Pepin III was also known as Pepin the Short. He founded the Carolingian dynasty and was Charlemagne’s father. He was the son of Charles Martel, who in 732 led the French to victory against the invading Muslims at the Battle of Tours. St. Boniface’s mission to convert the Saxons and reform the Frankish church had his backing.
In Italy, he helped the church defeat the Lombards and give them territories that would later become the Papal States. In 754, Pope Stephen II anointed him. In 768, he passed away, and his remains were moved to the Basilica of St. Denis.
Despite being one of the most important European kings in history, having a predecessor and a successor nicknamed “the Great” (Charlemagne) and “the Hammer” (Charles Martel) while he was referred to as “the Short” didn’t help the popularity of Pepin III in history.
Fun Fact
His name in French, Pépin le Bref, is associated with the expression “bref, comme dirait Pépin,” which roughly translates to “well, as Pépin would say.” In this context, “bref” means “short,” giving rise to the humorous connection between Pepin’s nickname and the expression.
References
Early Lives of Charlemagne by Eginhard and the Monk of St Gall Edited by Einhard and Notker Balbulus, Gutenberg.org
The Franks, from their first appearance in history to the death of King Pepin – By Walter Copland Perry · 1857
The History of Charlemagne By George Payne Rainsford James · 1832
July 6, 2023
Charlemagne’s Height: How Tall Was Charlemagne by Evidence?
How tall was Charlemagne (742–814)? Charlemagne, or Carolus Magnus in Latin, reigned as king of the Frankish Empire from around 747 until his death in 814. There is no portrait of Charlemagne that has remained from his period in history. How well do we know his physical characteristics? Charlemagne was known to be quite tall, especially when compared to the average height of the Middle Ages and the relatively short stature of his father, Pepin the Short. According to scientific estimations, Charlemagne’s height was around 6 feet and 0.5 inches, or 1.84 meters.
- See Also: The Crown of Charlemagne: History, Origin, and Design
Historical Sources Regarding Charlemagne’s Height
Karl von Blass (1815–1894) painted a scene in which Charlemagne warns several careless students. (Public Domain)
After spending several years in Charlemagne’s court, the Frankish scholar Einhard penned a revealing portrait of the emperor in his Vita Karoli Magni. According to that, the Frankish King was 7 feet tall. However, according to the standard foot measurement (12.6 in / 32 cm) of the time, Charlemagne would have been 7 feet and 4.2 inches (2.24 m) tall.
An extract from his account reads as follows:
Karl [Charlemagne] was sturdy and strong, with a tall stature that was not excessive. It is well known that his height has been seven times the length of his foot. He had a round head, large and lively eyes, a slightly long nose; he had beautiful gray hair and a cheerful and joyful face. His appearance was always impressive and dignified, whether he was standing or sitting. Although his neck was somewhat thick and short, and his belly protruded slightly, these flaws were not very noticeable given the symmetry of his limbs. His gait was confident, his entire posture masculine, and his voice clear, although not as powerful as one might expect from his size. […] He dressed in the national attire of the Franks: a linen shirt on his body, linen trousers covering his thighs; over that, he wore a tunic trimmed with silk; his lower legs were wrapped in leg bands. He then bound his calves with bands and wore boots on his feet. In winter, he protected his shoulders and chest with a vest made of otter or marten fur. Over that, he wore a blue cloak. He always wore a sword belt [See: Sword of Charlemagne] with a hilt and sheath made of gold or silver.
— Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne (Vita Karoli Magni).
- See Also: The Throne of Charlemagne: A Rather Dull Throne with Great History
Scientific Evidence on How Tall Was Charlemagne
Not as many people in the early medieval era, including members of royalty, had their heights recorded as they do now. But for centuries, Charlemagne’s height was known to be between 6 feet, 3.5 inches (1.92 m) and all the way through 7 feet, 4.2 inches (2.24 m).
However, research on Charlemagne’s preserved bones and the size of his tomb has revealed that he was actually 6 feet (1.84 m) tall rather than the 7 feet and 4.2 inches (2.24 m) that Einhard claimed. This is still making the Father of Europe taller than usual for his day.
It’s safe to assume that Charlemagne was a cut above the typical man of his day. In 2014, the bone study conducted by Swiss researcher Frank Rühli indicated that Charlemagne’s height was 6ft 0.5in (184 cm), much above the normal male height of 5ft 6.5in (169 cm) at his time. To put things into perspective, Charlemagne would have to be 6ft 4.8in (195 cm) tall today to create the same level of height difference.
His Physicality
Despite his height, Charlemagne was slim in build. According to the same research that used CT scans, MRIs, and macroscopy, the Holy Roman king weighed roughly 172 pounds (78 kg), or 22 on the body mass index scale.
Thus, Charlemagne was no behemoth, but rather a skinny guy. His title “The Great” reflected his political greatness rather than his tall stature. But it’s still reasonable to believe that the Frankish king’s elevated perspective was helped along by the man’s lofty height.
- See Also: The Talisman of Charlemagne: An Old Relic with a Possibility of Truth
How Tall Was Charlemagne Compared to People of His Time?
The medieval people were shorter, but they were not dwarves. According to another study, following the Norman Conquest in 1066, the average height of a man living at the end of the early medieval period was around 5ft 7.7in (172 centimeters). Today, this figure is around 5 feet 11 inches (180 cm).
Thus, when compared to the typical man of his day, Charlemagne stood around 4.7 inches (12 cm) taller than them.
Charlemagne would still tower above the typical contemporary American by more than 3.5 inches (9 cm), given that the average height of a man in the United States is now 69.1 inches (175.4 cm).
Comparing Charlemagne’s height to that of the ordinary medieval man is like comparing the average height of an American man to that of an Indonesian man, which is 62.2 inches (158 cm).
Historical Figures Who Were Taller Than Charlemagne
Charlemagne has been known for his tall stature for centuries, but he was in no way the tallest ever. Here are some of the other European leaders and historical figures who were taller than the already tall Holy Roman Emperor:
- Edward IV of England, at over 6 feet 4 inches (193 cm), was one of the tallest British rulers on record. In 1461, he overthrew King Henry VI of England and ascended to the throne.
- Peter the Great, the monarch of Russia, was a towering figure at 6 feet 7 inches (201 cm) in height. Between the years 1682 and 1725, he was Russia’s leader.
- James Kirkland, an Irishman, fought for the Prussians among the unusually tall Potsdam Giants unit. One of the tallest soldiers in history, he was reputedly 7 feet, 1.5 inches (217 cm) tall.
- Maximinus Thrax (d. 238 AD), was said to have been nearly 8 feet tall. According to ancient Roman sources, his sandals were twice as big as the standard army size. Thrax fashioned a thumb ring out of his wife’s bracelet.
Charlemagne’s Physical Presence in Medieval Europe
Charlemagne visiting a school. Lithograph in colors by E. Crété after an illustration by H. Grobet, Histoire de France, Paris, Émile Guérin, 1902.
Were leaders of other nations or people around the Frankish King also amazed at Charlemagne’s tall stature? This is a valid question considering the relatively short height of some of the most dominant figures of history, such as Hitler, Alexander the Great, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, or even Napoleon.
The physical size of Charlemagne was well known among his contemporaries, especially considering the era in which he lived. In fact, contemporary historians like Einhard (770–840) noted his towering stature as a contributing factor to his intimidating persona.
For instance, scholars in Charlemagne’s court, such as the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin (d. 804), remarked on Charlemagne’s tall height. The scholar was a close friend of Charlemagne’s only sister, Gisela, Abbess of Chelles. Charlemagne is also mentioned in Theophanes’ (d. 817) chronicles, although he makes no reference to the emperor’s height. The tall king died on January 28, 814, in Aachen.
Why Was Charlemagne Called “the Great”?
Charlemagne, or “Charles (Karl) the Great,” was not called “The Great” because of his tall stature. Charlemagne earned the title “the Great” not because of his size but because of the profound influence he had on European history. His influence on European politics, culture, and religion, as well as his military victories, helped him achieve this title.
The name “Charlemagne” comes from a combination of the names “Charles” and “magne:”
- Charles: This name is derived from the Old High German word “karlaz,” which means “free man” or “man of the people.” It was a popular name among Germanic peoples and appeared in a number of distinct forms throughout the Germanic languages. The Latin version of Charles is “Carolus” and Charlemagne is for Carolus Magnus.
- Magne: The Latin adjective magnus, meaning “great” or “large,” is the source of the English noun “magne.” It was a common way to express admiration for someone of stature or importance.
Why the Length of Feet Was Different in Medieval Times
One foot is around 12 in. or 30.48 cm today, and back in the days of Charlemagne, the length of a foot was a bit longer. Was it because people’s feet were longer at that time than they are today? Probably not. While Charlemagne was alive, one foot measured 12.6 in., or 32 cm.
This is because the precise length of a foot has changed through time and across geographic locations. Different towns or areas in medieval Europe could have employed different standards due to regional variances in measures. This was because of the absence of universally accepted standards for measuring.
The length of one foot began to be standardized throughout the Renaissance. The British Imperial Measurement System established the foot at 12 inches.
References
The Life of Charlemagne, Translator: A. J. Grant.
Highs and lows of an Englishman’s average height over 2000 years | University of Oxford
Charlemagne – By Matthias Becher – 2003
The Charlemagne Legend in Medieval Latin Texts
July 5, 2023
Roza Shanina: One of the Finest Female Snipers of World War II
Roza Shanina was one of the few female snipers in a special Soviet Union platoon during World War II. She was the first female sharpshooter and a recipient of the Order of Glory for her service on the 3rd Belorussian Front. At that point, she had more than 20 kills to her name. Roza Shanina gained notoriety for her skill at doublet shooting, in which two rounds are fired in a single breath in quick succession at moving targets. Roza Shanina was killed in combat in January 1945, months before the war’s official conclusion, and she was just 20 years old at the time. Roza is still remembered as a national hero in Russia today.
A sniper’s invincibility, patience, persistence, and capacity to withstand cold, starvation, immobility, and agony can demoralize any adversary. Although it is about ending people’s lives, a sniper’s job is still an art form in which they master skills that most people don’t have.
A sniper’s major weapon is ruthlessness. Roza Shanina’s desire for vengeance against her brothers, who had perished in the war, drove her to become one of the best snipers in World War II at the age of 20. The Nazi authorities were so afraid of this young woman that Canadians dubbed her “the unseen terror of East Prussia” (source). She almost made it to the end.
Roza Shanina’s Early Life
On April 3, 1924, Roza Shanina was born in the little town of Ed’ma in the Velsky District of the Vologda Oblast. The Shaninas were a typical, big family; in addition to her sister Yulia, her five brothers Sergei, Pavel, Fyodor, Lassalle, Mikhail, and Marat all grew up there. They also took in and cared for three orphans: Elena, Stepan, and Razum Butorin.
The flamboyant Marxist revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg inspired Roza’s name in the first place. Yegor Shanin, the father, was an active party member and Soviet activist. The mother, Anna Shanina (Ovsyannikova), was a milkmaid in the commune where she raised her family.
After serving in the Black Sea Fleet, Grandpa Mikhail Shanin was honorably discharged and helped form the Bogdanovskaya commune, which brought together a total of five families to achieve that. Yegor Shanin, Roza’s father, was named the commune’s first chairman.
One of the lesser-known pictures of Roza Shanina.
Roza Shanina’s life story was pieced back together using information from her journal as well as the narratives of locals and newspaper articles. Roza attended the seven-year Eden primary school in the little town of Bereznik and graduated. To achieve that, Roza and her brothers walked over 6 miles (10 kilometers) to school every day.
Roza Shanina started her career in pedagogy after completing seven courses. Her parents strongly disagreed with her choice, but Roza had always stood out due to her determination and perseverance. She left her home with a note and settled in with her brother in Arkhangelsk. Roza was eventually assigned a bed in the dorm.
Roza made a lot of close friends once she joined the school’s Komsomol (The All-Union Leninist Young Communist League). They enjoyed themselves, taking leisurely strolls around the park and trips to the movies, blissfully unaware that their tranquil existence would soon come to an abrupt end.
Roza had to work to help pay for college expenses after World War II broke out. Her professional history started as a kindergarten teacher. The adoration of her little friends and the respect of their parents made her job satisfying.
Roza Shanina Became One of the First Female Snipers
The Soviet government planned to train a team of women to be snipers in early 1942. Before that, both of Shanina’s older brothers had enlisted in the military on their own. Roza had already decided to join the front lines when one of her brothers was killed during the war in 1941. After some time, two of her other brothers were also killed.
Roza Shanina and other World War II Soviet female snipers.
Sergei, Mikhail, and Fyodor were her three elder brothers, and they were among the first to go to the front. Mikhail passed away in 1941, Fyodor in 1942, and Sergei in February 1945.
Following her completion of the general education program in 1942, Roza reported to the Arkhangelsk municipal military registration and recruitment office that she wanted to be one of the women snipers.
The Soviet Union had started sending out female shooters because of their flexible bodies and the general consensus that they were more patient, meticulous, and clever than their male counterparts.
Shanina was admitted into the Vsevobuch program for universal military training on June 22, 1942, when she was still a resident of the dormitory. One year later, in June 1943, Shanina submitted her application to the Central Women’s Sniper Training School and was accepted. In that year, she enrolled in a sniper training academy, where she continued her education among other future women snipers.
The friendly, outgoing Roza had no trouble making close connections with others in this new environment as well. Aleksandra “Sasha” Yekimova and Kaleriya “Kalya” Petrova, two of her other sniper friends, were all around her in her later years.
Roza Shanina and her friends Aleksandra Sasha Yekimova and Kaleriya Kalya Petrova.
Joining the Front Line
After displaying great skills and accuracy in sniping, Roza was given a position as a teacher at the sniper school. But despite that, she chose to serve on the front lines instead. After being drafted, Roza began to serve her country by fighting for the 338th Infantry Division.
In the spring of 1944, when Operation Bagration (a Soviet Belarusian strategic offensive operation) initially got underway, Roza shot her first target. It’s not like she had it easy; she subsequently stated that she couldn’t stop her hands from shaking and that she felt chilly all the way through.
Eventually, Shanina got indifferent to death and found purpose in her work, as she recorded in her journal. Roza now became a ruthless sniper who never lost her cool, even when she was in the direct line of fire from a massive piece of artillery. Shanina displayed amazing bravery and heroism as the number of her victims climbed daily.
Russian female snipers of World War II before leaving for the front, April 1, 1943.
In April 1944, the valiant shooter received her first award, the Order of Glory. Roza was also promoted to the rank of corporal in the army. At this time, Roza Shanina had killed 18 soldiers and officers.
Following the battle of Smolensk, Roza was given the responsibility of leading a team of female snipers. It was no surprise since Roze’s positive attitude and candor had endeared her to her teammates.
One edition of the military newspaper detailing the fighting on the Belorussian front included a profile and photograph of Roza Shanina. The same publication also included testimonials from her superiors, friends, and subordinates, all referencing that she was a hero.
Taking Initiatives
At a later time, the infantry and the sniper unit were to stay in the rear guard for a massive offensive assault. Roza, however, was not content with the situation as it was, so she hastened to the front lines and took part in the action with scouts while her group remained in ambush.
Since the beginning of June 22, 1944, when the Soviet Union launched its massive assault operation Bagration, Shanina’s unit was given orders to advance westward on the second round, to avoid endangering the lives of snipers. The women snipers were exhausted after a month and a half of intensive warfare, so they were told to take advantage of any breaks to rest and not to join the fighting of infantry detachments.
The Soviet Union’s armed forces decided in June 1944 to stop using female snipers at the front. Shanina ignored the command and kept fighting with her fellow women soldiers to help the Red Army advance.
Shanina wanted to be a rifleman in a battalion or a reconnaissance company, despite the command to the contrary. But the higher-ups were against it since any fighter could take Roza’s position in the infantry but not in an ambush.
Roza disobeyed the commander’s instructions during the Vilnius offensive for the city and charged into the front rather than waiting in an ambush. Although such insubordination could have resulted in a tribunal, she got away with a disciplinary penalty from the Komsomol. Only by taking captives and getting them to the commander did Shanina manage to escape severe punishment.
At this time, even the TsZHSHSP (Central Women’s Sniper Training School) leadership had recognized Shanina’s exceptional sniping skills, praising her for her ability to fire doublets (two bullets in rapid succession) at moving targets.
After the fourth hunting sortie in the sniper logbook of Private Shanina, the number of eliminated soldiers became two-digit, and in the distance column from the ambush to the target, the observer noted “200 m” twice.
Her Signature: The Doublet
The female Russian snipers in WW2, including Roza Shanina.
After World War II, publications detailing the experiences of Soviet women soldiers were released; one of these books recalled Shanina’s go-to tactic, the doublet. Roza fired two rounds practically simultaneously in the span of a single breath, showing that she was adept at engaging a moving enemy. Her “signature” move was widely regarded as a mastery of the greatest quality for a long time.
Just a few short months into her service, Roza Shanina had already amassed evidence of achievement in the form of a sniper book. It had already reached the double-digit mark in terms of the number of opponents vanquished. Superiors acknowledged this twenty-year-old sniper’s accomplishments and gave Roza a Medal for Courage.
She was one of the first female snipers to win the Medal of Courage, and her exploits earned her fame in propaganda booklets.
Separate platoons of women snipers were needed for several missions. They took part in a large-scale operation in Lithuania to wipe out the enemy near the Belarusian city of Vitebsk. Shanina’s hard work and bravery were recognized, and she was awarded the second degree of the Order of Glory.
The move to East Prussia occurred in September 1944 for Shanin. Another 26 enemy units were added to the list of those that were taken down. The enemy snipers that hide in a tree, or “cuckoos,” as they were dubbed, were Roza Shanina’s main objective. After the war, Lt. Col. Nikolay Krylov mentioned this in his memoirs.
Roza detested the Nazis with a passion, and she knew that her two brothers, Fyodor and Mikhail, had never returned from the front. She could not bear to wait on the sidelines, and she was always impatient to join the fight.
In recognition of this young female sniper’s bravery, Shanina received the “For Courage” medal as well as many honorary orders. After being mildly injured in one of the fights, Roza was taken to the hospital to recover.
Her Personal Life
Roza Shanina’s diary. (Image)
The Great Patriotic War erased generations of people’s lives. So many young men and women gave up their lives at home to fight for their country against an enemy they despised. Roza was no different; she kept studying at the pedagogical school, pursued science after work, and taught in a kindergarten during the day.
Despite being in love with a boy called Misha Panarin, the famed woman sniper did not organize her personal life. When the young man passed away, Roza wrote in her notebook that she was struggling to accept that Misha was no longer with her. The log was created on October 10, 1944.
Later in the same diary, Roza revealed that, in addition to Misha, she had developed an affection for a man named Nikolai. But Shanina didn’t give marriage a second thought since she didn’t think it was the proper moment for her.
Roza planned to go to university after the war. But if she didn’t make it, she’d just spend the rest of her life taking care of abandoned children.
Death of Roza Shanina
The unit in which Shanina served was involved in fierce fighting at the start of 1945 in the Prussian city of Reichau. On January 17, she wrote in one of her letters that she had little hope of survival since 72 of her battalion’s 78 troops had been killed and she couldn’t leave the self-propelled gun due to heavy enemy artillery fire.
Rose joined a new fight ten days after sending this letter. She ran to defend the wounded commander of the artillery unit during another barrage, but shrapnel struck her fatally.
A page from the 144th Infantry Division’s inventory of irretrievable fatalities from January 25 to February 10, 1945 (Rosa Shanina No. 16). (Image)
Two troops discovered Shanina on January 27th, disemboweled and with her chest split open by a shell piece. The doctor at the hospital was unable to save Senior Sergeant Shanina.
On January 28, 1945, the famed sniper girl passed away following massive blood loss. Roza’s final words were said to her caregiver, Ekaterina Radkina, as she lay dying in her arms.
There was just one thing the sniper girl was sorry about, and that was not doing enough for her country. One of the first and arguably the best female snipers in history died just months before the end of the war. After going through possibly four years of hell, she almost made it to the end.
According to Rosa’s sniper book, she killed 59 German troops and commanders, including 12 snipers. Other sources mention 54, and current researchers estimate Roza killed 62 soldiers.
None of the four Shaninas children who enlisted to fight came back.
As soon as Roza Shanina died, she was laid to rest in the town of Reichau. Her body was relocated to the settlement of Znamensk, Russia, after the war, where a marble memorial still stands today.
Memorial
According to the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper of 1924, many of Shanina’s “colleagues” lacked the shooting precision that she had, which made her one of the finest snipers of World War II.
The Allied press, notably the American publications of 1944–1945, highly praised this Soviet sniper woman. The youngster, however, showed no signs of reaction to her fame and even said that others had overrated her.
Roza Shanina has a boulevard named after her in the city of Arkhangelsk (named after Archangel Michael), and she is also honored at professional shooting contests.
She died in the area of Kaliningrad, and a monument was also built there. There is also a military museum at the school where she attended. With blue eyes and fair blonde hair, Roza Shanina was a patriotic Russian girl with a rare talent for sharpshooting.
References
Soviet Sniper: The Memoirs of Roza Shanina by Roza Shanina – 2020
Roza Shanina Russian Sniper by Robert Corrigan – 2015
Lady Death: The Memoirs of Stalin’s Sniper by Lyudmila Mykhailvna Pavlichenko – 2018
“Unseen terror of East Prussia:” Ottawa Citizen – Google News Archive Search
July 3, 2023
Throne of Charlemagne: A Rather Dull Throne with Great History
The Throne of Charlemagne is one of the historically most important pieces of furniture in the Aachen Cathedral in Germany. It is remarkable that such a simple-looking throne could garner so much interest. Even though it is known as the Throne of Charlemagne, its provenance as the seat of the legendary ruler is still up for debate. The throne is said to have the qualities of a relic, although its unassuming look leaves much to the imagination. There are so many mysteries around the Throne of Charlemagne.
What Made the Throne of Charlemagne Special?
A Myth or Relic
Napoleon Bonaparte and the Throne of Charlemagne in Aachen by Henri-Paul Motte (1846–1922). Napoleon prayed at the tomb of Charlemagne before his coronation and never sat on the throne out of respect for the man.
There is no evidence to suggest that the throne ever belonged to Charlemagne. The name “Throne of Charlemagne” is never directly mentioned in the sources. The throne’s minimalist form begs the question of what it represents and whether or not its construction gives it reliquary overtones.
The Throne of Charlemagne is often referred to as a myth or religious relic. According to the story, all Holy Roman monarchs wanted to be crowned at Aachen, and only the one who sat on the king’s throne was king. And, although it is not directly confirmed, Charlemagne was on the throne at the time.
The throne from its left side. The overall design elements of the Throne of Charlemagne are actually lacking in quality and detail. (Image: Torsten Maue – Flickr)
But why would monarchs choose to sit on this throne while others were more prosperous? Because even Charlemagne wasn’t crowned king in Aachen but in Noyon in 768. And he most likely attended the masses held in the Palatine Chapel on this throne.
But this is where the throne really shines as a religious relic. The material evidence and the fact that Charlemagne’s canonization occurred in 1165 lend credence to this idea and the throne’s status as a “secondary relic“.
The overall design elements of the Throne of Charlemagne are very lacking in quality and detail. The German chronicler Widukind von Corvey’s 936 account is the only one that specifically mentions a throne in the gallery.
No Contemporary Reference
The exhibition model of the Throne of Charlemagne at the Centre Charlemagne. (Image: Kleon3)
On the occasion of Otto the Great’s coronation at Aachen, a mere 122 years after Charlemagne’s death, a throne is mentioned. However, the fact that the throne is not mentioned in Einhard’s (d. 840) “The Life of Charlemagne” raises serious issues regarding whether or not it existed during Charlemagne’s lifetime and whether or not Charlemagne actually sat on it.
This is similar to other objects that are said to belong to Charlemagne, such as the Talisman of Charlemagne, the Crown of Charlemagne, or the Sword of Charlemagne.

It is not evident from the records that there was ever a throne in Aachen Cathedral during Charlemagne’s reign between 768 and 814. A plethora of probes have been carried out to answer this question.
In 1899, the architect Joseph Buchkremer was the first to investigate the origins and design of the Throne of Charlemagne. Modern researchers, archeologists, and architects still use Buchkremer’s findings as evidence in their arguments for the throne. Some of their views were diametrically opposed to Buchkremer’s, while others confirmed certain aspects.
The Design of the Throne of Charlemagne
The original flooring is still present around the Throne of Charlemagne. (Image: Torsten Maue – Flickr)
Even though it is kept very basic for a mighty king, the Throne of Charlemagne still manages to make quite an impression visually.
The throne itself is constructed out of marble slabs, while the lower construction includes a stairway. There is also an altar on the back of the throne dedicated to Nicasius of Rheims, but it has little significance to the throne since it was added later in 1305.
The Altar of Nicasius of Rheims, on the back of the Throne of Charlemagne. (Image: Berthold Werner)
The Throne of Charlemagne has a limestone base. A smaller eastern half and a bigger western half make up the base plate. A riveted cross holds up four stone pillars that support the structure. The pillars are supported by profiled plinths that are placed immediately on top of the slabs. The stairway is just in front of them. These stairs have six steps and lead to the throne.
The six-step structure is comprised of four antique column drums. The real royal seat has a wooden framework within it and is topped with four marble slabs. The marbles, along with the steps, are believed to have been imported from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, c. 800.
However, owing to air raid shelters and other factors during World War II, the Parian marble’s surface is now darker, discolored, and covered with vertical drip tracks.
Six bronze brackets, bent at right angles, hold the plates in place; these are riveted to the plates themselves. Two vertical support boards and a seat plate make up the hardwood interior structure. The throne’s marble panels have seen better days; their original place of use was not the throne. Wear and tear, such as scratches, provide evidence of this.
The throne from its right side. The Nine Men’s Morris board game on the Throne of Charlemagne. (Image: ACBahn)
Those slabs were probably used as flooring. Moreover, they are completely covered with graffiti. Writing on the floor was a common practice during lengthy waits in medieval and ancient times. Especially discernible are images of the Nine Men’s Morris board game and a crucifixion scene.
However, the crucifixion scene is controversial. Some researchers identify this graffiti, while others point out that it’s lacking two key elements. Included in this are the feet, the cross trunk, and the hint of a head, complete with an aureole (a religious halo).
The Throne of Charlemagne in the Aachen Cathedral reflects a rather alternative conception of a throne, one that is not associated with lavish ornamentation.
Was the Throne of Charlemagne Real?
Historians do not fully endorse the throne due to a lack of supporting evidence. The throne may not have been in existence during Charlemagne’s lifetime, although there are still several claims that it was in use by Charlemagne.
The setting of the throne might provide information about its age. Joseph Buchkremer inspected the throne in 1899. Behind the throne is the Nicasius Altar, which Buchkremer removed so that it could be restored. After removing the ruined altar, he discovered a worn surface underneath. Buchkremer explained the deterioration of the stairwell by pointing out that it had previously been modified.
The medieval archaeologist Sven Schütte deduced subsequently that the actual throne was being constructed on brand-new foundations. The floor’s Carolingian-era date is another evidence of the throne’s tremendous antiquity. The pink Carolingian mortar, which was broken due to an earthquake, lends credence to this theory. Buchkremer uses more evidence to prove that Charlemagne occupied the throne.
According to him, the fact that most of the monarchs who succeeded Charlemagne wished to be crowned at Aachen, on Charlemagne’s throne, explains why the throne was possibly there throughout Charlemagne’s lifetime.
The use of an ancient column drum method to build the steps is potential evidence that they were built during Charlemagne’s reign. This theory is based on the fact that Charlemagne imported several pieces of Italian marble. The foundation stones also have a similar composition. Stones are identical in profile and proportions to those used in St. Mary’s Church.
Similarly, the dovetail structure of the throne was already commonplace in antiquity but was extensively employed throughout the Carolingian era.
Since Charlemagne went about building his Aachen Cathedral and St. Mary’s Church with great care and precision, historian Lobbedey concludes that the cathedral’s technical flaws disprove that the throne was built under the emperor’s supervision.
References
But the bronze lattice door in front of the throne might be a convincing proof of the throne being in the gallery since it was built and Charlemagne’s usage of it, as claimed by Buchkremer. The bronze lattice is fairly elaborate or ornamented, and this door would be unnecessary if there wasn’t a royal artifact seen through it.
Both Einhard and Buchkremer referred to Charlemagne’s palatine chapel in Aachen as a “porticus” (a chapel or burial place in a church). This reference points to another entrance, and this entrance, like the throne, would be located in the same gallery. The porticus potentially served as a passageway between Charlemagne’s private quarters and the throne, potentially providing him with an unobstructed view of the octagon below.
The throne was installed in the church’s central octagon, which serves as the palatine chapel’s main area.
In this light, Einhard makes specific reference to the “porticus” in the “Vita Karoli Magni,” but never once brings up the throne. It’s possible that the “porticus” served different purposes as well. Therefore, this text cannot prove that the throne in the gallery existed in Charlemagne’s reign.
The Throne of Charlemagne also missed out on opportunities to be more luxurious and impressive. Some historians conclude that this “extraordinary simplicity” indicates the monarch’s advanced years, instead of Charlemagne’s reign. So, calling the throne “Charlemagne’s Throne” might be a stretch.
Radiocarbon Dating
The internal wooden construction, which is on display at the Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, formerly had a marble sitting plate that has since been lost. St. Stephen’s Purse and other Imperial Regalia were housed under it on a shelf. This oakwood panel was dated to about the year 800 using radiocarbon technology.
The tree, whose wood was used to construct the throne, was cut down somewhere between 760 and 824, most likely in 798. This corrects the earlier assertions that the wood used in the throne was of Carolingian origin (800–888).
Some historians argue that it is not possible to conclude that the complete throne was constructed in the year 800 based on the dating of the wood alone. Given the present level of knowledge and technology, an absolute date is still not attainable.
Since the throne was not mentioned at all in contemporaneous sources, the conclusions of the dating of the wood of the throne might be misleading, even if they do match within the lifetime of Charlemagne.
The Throne of Charlemagne at a Glance
What is the significance of the Throne of Charlemagne?
The Throne of Charlemagne is a historically important piece of furniture in the Aachen Cathedral in Germany. While its connection to Charlemagne is still debated, it holds mythical and religious significance as a relic associated with the legendary ruler. It is believed that sitting on the throne symbolized kingship, and it is considered a secondary relic due to its association with Charlemagne’s canonization.
Is the Throne of Charlemagne confirmed to have belonged to Charlemagne?
There is no direct evidence to suggest that the throne actually belonged to Charlemagne. The name “Throne of Charlemagne” is not mentioned in historical sources, and it is not mentioned in Einhard’s “The Life of Charlemagne.” Its association with Charlemagne is based on legends and traditions surrounding the coronation rituals at Aachen.
What is the design of the Throne of Charlemagne like?
The Throne of Charlemagne has a simple design. It is constructed of marble slabs with a limestone base. The structure includes a stairway and features an altar dedicated to Nicasius of Rheims at the back, which was added later. The throne itself has a wooden framework inside and is topped with marble slabs. The surface of the marble has been discolored and damaged over time.
Are there any contemporary references to the Throne of Charlemagne?
There are no contemporary references to the Throne of Charlemagne during Charlemagne’s reign. The first mention of a throne in Aachen Cathedral comes from Otto the Great’s coronation, 122 years after Charlemagne’s death. The lack of contemporary references raises questions about its existence during Charlemagne’s lifetime.
June 26, 2023
Talisman of Charlemagne: An Old Relic with a Possibility of Truth
The Talisman of Charlemagne is a 2.9-inch (7.3-cm) long, golden talisman in Carolingian style, set with pearls and red and green stones, perhaps rubies or spinels, and emeralds. It is an encolpion, or portable reliquary, that dates back to the 9th century. This talisman is one of the pieces from the Reims Cathedral Treasury in France that has been kept in the Palace of Tau in Reims. The Talisman of Charlemagne is the only artifact that can be reliably linked to the Frankish king, unlike the Crown of Charlemagne and the Sword of Charlemagne.
The Talisman’s Origin
The Talisman of Charlemagne is on display in the Palace of Tau, Reims, France.
Charlemagne is supposed to have received this talisman in 801 as a gift from Harun al-Rashid (d. 809), the Caliph of Baghdad. The caliph also sent a water clock, the white elephant Abul-Abbas, and Chinese silk to the emperor.
The goldsmithing of the talisman is not in Arabic style. In 1166, when Charlemagne’s coffin was opened at Aachen in Germany, the talisman was supposedly discovered on the emperor’s chest.
It is made of gold using a highly intricate casting technique that was challenging during the Early Middle Ages. It is adorned with precious gemstone cabochons of round and rectangular shapes, as well as pearls. The absence of any figural or animal ornamentation is seen as further evidence of the talisman’s Arabic origin.
Design of the Talisman of Charlemagne
On one side of the Talisman of Charlemagne is a central sapphire of roughly 190 carats (1.34 oz; 38 g), opaque and of quite coarse size, concealing a relic of the True Cross that was transparently apparent through a glass cabochon that was definitely substituted in the 19th century.
Two pieces of wood, shaped like a cross, are housed in this talisman’s cabochon “heart.” These wood pieces are said to have originated from Jesus’ crucifixion on Calvary Hill. This inclusion has been believed to increase the talisman’s enchantment.
The True Cross inside the Talisman of Charlemagne. The glass cabochon is filled with air bubbles, visible in both reflected and transmitted light (left and right, respectively). The wooden cross and silk thread can be seen clearly in both pictures. (Image credit: G. Panczer).
Gold is worked in filigree and granulation techniques, and all the precious stones are mounted in bezel settings. We can make out pearls, garnets, and emeralds set at the four corners of the jewel’s face and its edge.
The stones on the Talisman of Charlemagne are cabochon-cut and polished, bringing out their color rather than their shine. The 53 gems and pearls have been carefully placed in a harmonic pattern that takes into account their form and color.
Contradictions Regarding the Talisman of Charlemagne
The talisman itself is from the 9th century, but the gold chain is more modern. It’s possible that one of Charlemagne’s successors, not the emperor himself, ordered the talisman. During the late Middle Ages, many items were eventually linked to Charlemagne, despite having been created between the seventh and eleventh centuries.
The art historian Jean Taralon claimed that the Talisman of Charlemagne originally contained the Virgin Mary’s hair and milk. But it was later replaced with a piece of the holy cross in 1804 and then by the stone in 1870. However, this idea is at odds with the testimony that Marc-Antoine Berdolet, Bishop of Aachen, presented to Napoleon Bonaparte on 23 Thermidor, Year XII (or 1804).
According to that, the reliquary “contains a small cross made of the wood of the holy cross, found on the neck of Saint Charlemagne when his body was exhumed from his sepulcher in 1166.” Berdolet was testified to under penalty of excommunication, and his description excludes any substitution of the Talisman of Charlemagne.
Two engravings, published by Gerhard Altzenbach (left, 1664) and Jacobus Harrewijn (right, 1711), both represent the treasury of Aachen Cathedral. The Talisman of Charlemagne appears in the center of both engravings.
A few historians mention an engraving by W. Hollar that features a reliquary bearing the Virgin Mary’s hair. The engraving displays a part of the Treasury of Aachen from the 17th century. According to that, the Treasury of Aachen did not include the Talisman of Charlemagne.
Gemological Analysis of the Talisman of Charlemagne
Under the direction of the gemology professor Gérard Panczer, two campaigns (2016 and 2018) of on-site gemological analyses employing spectroscopic methods were conducted on the Talisman of Charlemagne for the first time. Geoffray Riondet, an expert in antique jewelry and a lawyer, was of particular assistance.
In particular, they allowed the provenance of the colored gemstones to be identified. Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka) was formerly known for its sapphire mines. The center sapphire, which did not have any enhancement treatment by heating, was one of the biggest sapphires known in Europe before the 17th century.
Bernard Morel claimed that the relics with such large gemstones could not be produced until Philip II of France returned from the Third Crusade (1189–1192). Because gemstones of this size were very unusual in Europe at the time of Charlemagne and could only be obtained from the East.
This theory of origin also holds true when examining the remarkably large gemstones adorning the Crown of Charlemagne.
The blue cabochon made from glass is doped with cobalt, which supposedly reveals a relic of the True Cross, and it had originally replaced a stone. Garnets were mined in southern India and Sri Lanka for the most part.
The emeralds have a similar chemical fingerprint to those found in Egypt’s Djebel Zabara. During the 1964 repair of the Talisman of Charlemagne, one of the stones was replaced with an emerald that currently displays the features of the Habachtal deposit in Austria.
History of the Talisman of Charlemagne
Felix Cottreau’s 1834 portrait of Hortense de Beauharnais, wearing the Talisman of Charlemagne.
Caliph Harun al-Rashid supposedly sent this reliquary to Charlemagne of the Frankish Kingdom as a gift in 801. The keys of the Holy Sepulcher, the flag of Jerusalem, an ivory hunting horn, a saber from Damascus, and finally the Talisman of Charlemagne were all stored in the same treasury collection.
After being preserved in the Aachen Treasury until the early 19th century, the Talisman of Charlemagne is said to have been found at the exhumation of Charlemagne’s remains, either under Emperor Otto III in 1000 or under Frederick Barbarossa on January 8, 1166, but this is rather speculative.
According to others, the Talisman of Charlemagne was really crafted much later, in the 12th century. The earliest documentation of the talisman dates back to the 12th century; however, it wasn’t given the name “Talisman of Charlemagne” until 1620.

Charlemagne’s ownership of the talisman is not attested to in any historical records. Still, the scholar-abbet Alcuin (735-804), a contemporary of Charlemagne, wrote of the growing practice of carrying reliquaries with bits of saints’ relics around one’s neck.
This practice caught on and persisted in Catholicism for centuries, leaving room for the possibility that such a talisman was created much later.
During her coronation in 1804, Napoleon’s wife, Empress Joséphine, wore the Talisman of Charlemagne. It was later inherited by her daughter, Hortense de Beauharnais, who passed it on to her son, Napoleon III.
Later, Napoleon III gave it to Empress Eugénie de Montijo, who donated the talisman to the city in 1919 to help restore the cathedral in Reims, which had been bombarded during World War I.
The Talisman of Charlemagne at a Glance
What is the Talisman of Charlemagne?
The Talisman of Charlemagne is a 2.9-inch (7.3-cm) long, golden talisman in Carolingian style, set with pearls and red and green stones, possibly rubies or spinels, and emeralds. It is a portable reliquary dating back to the 9th century and is currently displayed at the Palace of Tau in Reims, France.
What is the origin of the Talisman of Charlemagne?
According to historical accounts, the Talisman of Charlemagne was supposedly gifted to Charlemagne in 801 by Harun al-Rashid, the Caliph of Baghdad. It is said to have been discovered on Charlemagne’s chest when his coffin was opened in 1166. However, there are contradictory theories suggesting it may have been crafted later, possibly in the 12th century.
What is the design of the Talisman of Charlemagne?
The Talisman of Charlemagne features a central sapphire of approximately 190 carats that conceals a relic of the True Cross. The talisman is adorned with pearls, garnets, and emeralds, and it is made of gold using filigree and granulation techniques. The gemstones are cabochon-cut and the overall design is devoid of figural or animal ornamentation.
Are there any contradictions regarding the Talisman of Charlemagne?
Yes, there are contradictions surrounding the talisman. While it is from the 9th century, the gold chain attached to it is more modern, suggesting a possible replacement. Additionally, there are differing accounts regarding the original contents of the talisman, with some claiming it contained the Virgin Mary’s hair and milk, while others suggest it held a piece of the holy cross.
References
The Talisman of Charlemagne: New Historical and Gemological Discoveries – Gia.edu
Medieval Art: Treasures of Saint Denis:Crown of Queen Jeanne d’Evreux – Pitt.edu
The History of Charlemagne – George Payne Rainsford James, 1833 – Google Books
Charlemagne – Father of a Continent – Alessandro Barbero, 2004 – Google Books
June 22, 2023
Crown of Charlemagne: History, Origin, and Design
The Crown of Charlemagne is a crown worn by French kings upon their coronation. Many French kings simply named their imperial crowns the “Crown of Charlemagne,” just like Napoleon Bonaparte did in 1804. When the king’s crown was destroyed for some reason, the queen’s crown would be used in royal ceremonies, including the coronation of the new king. And there were two pretty similar crowns of Charlemagne, which were formerly part of the regalia of the French monarchy but were lost when the first one was melted by the Leaguers in 1590, and the second Crown of Charlemagne was destroyed during the French Revolution in 1793. Before that, it remained in use until the coronation of King Louis XIV in 1775, and the Treasury of Saint-Denis subsequently received it as a donation.
History of the Crown of Charlemagne
Michel Félibien’s 1706 engraving of one of the Saint-Denis treasure boxes, with the Crown of Charlemagne at the bottom right and the Sword of Charlemagne on the left wall.
The Origin of the Crowns and Their Gemstones
Among the Ancien Régime regalia, the Sword of Charlemagne, Joyeuse, also survived to this day. There is no written evidence that would allow us to pinpoint when the first Crown of Charlemagne was made or even whether both crowns were a matched set or just two comparable pieces, of which one would have been a later replica.
According to one theory, the origin of the Crown of Charlemagne lies with Charles the Bald (d. 877 AD), Charlemagne’s grandson. A simple circlet of four curving rectangular jeweled plates was crafted for the king in the 9th century.
The Crown of Charlemagne by Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528)
Given the significance of the gemstones and their quantity, Bernard Morel claimed that the crowns could not be produced until Philip II of France returned from the Third Crusade (1189–1192). In fact, at the time, stones of this size were very unusual in Europe and could only be obtained from the East.
Therefore, the French king could not have had two crowns so lavish in gems, particularly valuable stones of various sorts, fashioned before the Third Crusade on the Levant (See also: Crusades).
The Crown of Charlemagne Over Time
The Crown of Charlemagne, also known as the Crown of Saint Louis. A painting by Dom Michel Félibien.
Crowns worn during the coronations of Philip II of France and his Danish bride Ingeborg are almost indistinguishable from one another and have been variously referred to as the Crown of Charlemagne (or sometimes as the Crown of Saint Louis):
The second marriage of King Philip II of France to Ingeborg of Denmark took place on August 14, 1193. It was a holy day the day after, so the king put on the Crown of Charlemagne. In 1223, Philip II left his and the queen’s crowns to the Treasury of Saint-Denis through a will, which also included the Sword of Charlemagne at the time.
The two crowns were later presented to Louis VIII and Blanche of Castile shortly after their coronation at Reims in 1223. Instead of honoring his father’s request, the king chose to pay the monks a substantial quantity of money in exchange for the return of the two crowns.
The Restoration of the Crowns
The reign of Louis IX began in 1226. In 1261, he chose to permanently restore the two crowns to the Abbey of Saint-Denis, with a scroll explaining that they were created for the coronation of kings and queens and are displayed above the morning altar during solemn feast days.
This is how the crowns of both the king and queen became part of the church’s collection. All kings and queens up to Henry III of France (d. 1589) were crowned with the Crown of Charlemagne. The only exceptions were John II (d. 1364), who had himself crowned with the holy crown, and Charles VII (d. 1461), who did not have the treasury when Joan of Arc took him to Reims.
The Catholic League (1576) was funded in part by the dukes of Mayenne and Nemours, who in 1590 seized the throne and established it in their names. As time went on, the almost identical crown owned by the queen was used during coronations. Those two crowns were successively dubbed the “Crown of Charlemagne”.
Originally crafted for the Holy Roman Emperor Otto the Great’s coronation in 962 at the imperial monastery of Reichenau, the Reichskrone was later recognized as the Crown of Charlemagne and featured prominently on the escutcheon of the Holy Roman Empire‘s Arch-Treasurer and atop the coat of arms of the Habsburg emperors, as seen in the Hofburg Palace in Vienna.
The Design of the Crown of Charlemagne
The exact description of the crowns of Charlemagne was recorded in an inventory conducted in 1534 by the treasury. The inventory noted in Latin that there was a striking similarity between two crowns.
Circlets
Both crowns of Charlemagne were made of pure gold, with the king’s weighing approximately 9 lb (4 kg) with all the stones of the cap and the silver chains. They were made up of a wide band and four rectangular plates joined together at the base by systems of hinges to form the base circle.
The engraving of the crown by Dom Michel Félibien and a watercolor painting by Montfaucon allow us to determine that each of these four rectangular plates had a huge and exquisite fleur-de-lis at their center, the decorative symbol of French heraldry.
The circlet and the fleurons comprised a total of 48 gemstones, distributed as 16 balas rubies (spinel), 16 emeralds, and 16 sapphires. Each element (a plate and a fleuron) was decorated in the same way.
Three rubies framed the emerald-studded base of the fleur-de-lis. Each rectangular plate has four sapphires at its corners, a ruby in the middle, two emeralds on each side, and a third emerald positioned below.
The two crowns of Charlemagne looked almost similar, with the exception that the queen’s was somewhat smaller, lighter, and adorned with smaller, less uniform jewels.
Cap
A 200-carat ruby and 112 pearls decorated the crown’s conical inner headpiece, which belonged to the king. King John II (d. 1364) ordered this regal velvet headgear, which had a crimson tint.
The ruby was placed on a square pillar, and the headpiece had 12 strands of 9 rosette beads. The pillar’s collar was fastened to the cap using four gold bands and four more pearls, making a cross. Around the pillar’s base is an inscription in Latin that honors the benefactor of the crown.
Henry II had the satin-lined velvet cap of the Crown of Charlemagne recreated in 1547.
References
Medieval Art: Treasures of Saint Denis:Crown of Queen Jeanne d’Evreux – Pitt.edu
The History of Charlemagne – George Payne Rainsford James, 1833 – Google Books
Charlemagne – Father of a Continent – Alessandro Barbero, 2004 – Google Books
June 21, 2023
Possible Look of Jesus Based on Historical Evidence
Christians mark the day in 30 or 31 AD when the Romans crucified Jewish itinerant preacher Yeshua bar Yosef – “Jesus, son of Joseph.” But what does history know about the possible appearance of Jesus? The New Testament places the birth of Yeshua or Jesus (which came from Iesous in Greek), during the reign of the Roman Jewish client King Herod. Since Herod died in 4 BC, the birth of Jesus must have occurred earlier (contrary to today’s calendar system that would subsequently bear his name), most likely between the years of 7 and 4 BC. So, what did Jesus look like in real life?
The Birthplace of Jesus
Although the tale of his birth appears in two of the four canonical gospels, it may have been added as an afterthought to connect Jesus to the hometown of King David and the related messianic prophecy. Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth is a more plausible candidate for his birthplace (see also: Was the Star of Bethlehem Real?). There he was raised by his craftsman father Joseph (Yosef) and his wife Mary (Myriam), together with his [half] siblings, and Jesus was likely taught both the Bible and his father’s crafts.
What Did Jesus Look Like?
Christianity is the largest religion in the world today, but throughout the years many other sects and denominations have formed, each with its own canon of Scripture, rituals, festivals, and, of course, depictions of Jesus or the Christ figure. Jesus has been pictured in many ways, yet scholars cannot agree on a single one.
Yeshua or Jesus, the Jewish rabbi, was already transformed by the Romans into a European figure with a short Roman haircut and a Greek philosopher’s beard in order to fit in with their society.
Jesus was depicted as a shepherd with sheep to resemble Hermes, the herald of gods in Greek mythology. He also appeared as the ruler of the gods in splendid garments like Zeus or Jupiter.
Another depiction of Jesus is as the sun god (like Helios or Sol Invictus) with a chariot and aureole, a radiant light around the head or body. Last but not least, the Romans even depicted Jesus as a Roman emperor in armor and a purple cloak.
Various Depictions of Jesus
Below are historical depictions of Jesus’ appearance, popular images, and paintings in art. Some of them are among the oldest drawings of Jesus.
One of the earliest depictions of Jesus from the 3rd century AD, Dura-Europos, Syrian Desert.
The above depiction is from the 3rd century AD, and it was discovered in the border city of Dura Europos, which was founded in 300 BC in the Syrian Desert. The city was used during Hellenistic, Parthian, and Roman times.
One of the earliest depictions of Jesus is from the 3rd century AD, Dura-Europos, Syrian Desert.
The drawing shows Jesus without a beard, with curly short hair, a garment, and sandals. His legs still show a darker skin color, which is in line with the Middle Eastern desert people of the time. Jesus with white skin is the work of European artists.
Jesus as “The Good Shepherd” from the Catacombs of St. Callixtus in Rome, 3rd century AD.
From the Catacomb of Callixtus near Rome, the 3rd century AD depiction portrays Jesus as a shepherd with a long beard and carrying a flock of sheep on his shoulders.
This depiction shows Jesus with a light skin color, European clothing, and body proportions that varied according to the artist’s origin. The purpose of this drawing was to align Jesus’ status with the ancient Roman god(s) of shepherds, Hermes or Pales.
Jesus as a sun god on a mosaic under St. Peter’s Basilica, 3rd century AD, Rome.
The above mosaic from the 3rd century AD, found under St. Peter’s Basilica, depicts Jesus riding a chariot and wearing solar rays. In this mosaic, Jesus is depicted as the sun god Sol Invictus or Helios, which was the official sun god of the Roman Empire. He rides a chariot and scatters aureole lights around his head.
Jesus with a philosopher’s beard and toga on a Roman tombstone, c. 290–310 AD.
Approximately 290–310 AD, a Roman gravestone depicted Jesus dressed as a sage with a toga and beard. He is seen with the philosopher’s beard of the ancient Greek civilization, including their traditional clothing. Jesus is gesturing the hand of benediction with his right hand, which originates from Saint Peter and his ulnar nerve entrapment disease.
Jesus from the Catacombs of Saints Marcellinus and Peter in Rome, 4th century AD.
Jesus has a short haircut and is dressed in a Roman toga in a 4th-century AD painting in the Catacombs of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, Rome. The catacombs date to the same period. Jesus looks similar to his sun god depiction from the 3rd century AD.
The Catacombe di Commodilla near Rome, dating to the 4th century AD, depicts Jesus with long hair, a beard, and southern European facial features.
Catacombe di Commodilla near Rome, dating to the 4th century AD, depicts Jesus with long hair, a beard, and southern European facial features.
Jesus in the Roman basilica of Santa Pudentiana, c. 400–410 AD.
In the Roman basilica of Santa Pudentiana in Rome, about 400–410 AD, Jesus is shown enthroned as the ruler of the universe in the form of a god-king similar to Jupiter or Zeus in ancient Greek.
The depiction of Jesus in the tomb of the Roman Empress Galla Placidia, 5th century AD.
From the tomb of the Roman Empress Galla Placidia in Ravenna (5th century AD) comes a depiction of Jesus as a young man with a flock of sheep. Jesus was often depicted as a god of shepherds in ancient Rome, similar to Hermes or Pales.
Jesus as a Roman emperor with Byzantine armor and a purple cloak, 6th century AD.
Featuring Byzantine armor and a purple robe, this 6th-century AD mosaic from the Italian city of Ravenna depicts Jesus as a triumphant monarch. The wearing of a tyrian purple robe with gold thread detailing denoted a position of authority in ancient Rome. This is one of the rare depictions of Jesus with braided hair.
The Look of Jesus Varied Around the World
In response to the European Jesus, other nations crafted their own depictions of Jesus, tailoring his look to suit the norms of the local community in terms of clothes, hairstyle, traits, skin color, and facial features.
Local “Jesuses” such as the Ethiopian, Persian, Chinese, Korean, Haitian, Indonesian, Afro-American, or Indian Jesus evolved alongside the standard European Jesus with a fair complexion and long brown/blonde hair, although they have nothing in common with the original model.
Jesus of Byzantium in St. Catherine Monastery.
St. Catherine Monastery’s (565 AD) Icon of Jesus of Byzantium in Sinai. This is one of the later depictions of Jesus, as it is from the 6th century.
Chinese Jesus, 9th century AD.
A 9th-century silk artwork of Jesus from China’s Mogao Caves. The Mogao Caves are a network of 500 temples in Gansu province, China. The nearby city of Dunhuang is an oasis at a religious and cultural crossroads on the Silk Road.
10th-century Uyghur depiction of Jesus.
10th-century Uyghur depiction of Jesus on a banner for a Manichaean sanctuary in Qocho or Kara-Khoja. Also known as Idiqut, it was a Uyghur kingdom created in 843.
A 1220 painting of a northern European Jesus.
Bishop Conrad IV of Tann’s 1220 painting of a northern European Jesus for the Speyer Evangeliary. It is an illuminated gospel book dating back to the 11th century, also known as the Codex Aureus of Speyer or the Golden Gospels of Henry III.
Christ Carrying the Cross by Niccolo Frangipane, 16th century.
Niccolo Frangipane’s 1574 depiction of the European Jesus. The picture is owned by the Museo Carmen Thyssen in Malaga, Spain.
Islamic Jesus, 1580.
One of the rare examples of an Islamic Jesus. This is a Persian miniature from about 1580 depicting Jesus and his followers eating together.
Jesus, and John the Baptist, 1723.
This is a painting by Northern European artist Francesco Trevisani from 1723 depicting Jesus and John the Baptist. In this Italian painting, the appearance of Jesus is completely transformed into that of a European figure.
African Jesus, the 1900s.
Jesus and John the Baptist on the African continent, as seen in a 20th-century Ethiopian Psalter.
20th century Afro-American Jesus.
In a picture from the 20th century, Vincent Barzoni depicts an Afro-American Jesus. Barzoni is known for many of his similar depictions of Jesus.
Javanese Jesus, c. 1927–1930.
The Javanese Jesus is located at the Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic Church in Ganjuran, Indonesia. The statue is dated to c. 1927–1930.
Chinese Jesus, 1930s–1940s.
The Chinese painter Bai Huiqun’s picture from the 1930s or 1940s depicts Jesus Christ of China with two ladies.
Haitian Jesus and John the Baptist in local dresses.
Haitian Jesus and John the Baptist in local dresses. A painting in the Cathédrale de la Sainte-Trinité of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, about the 1950s.
Korean Jesus, 1962.
Korean Jesus, as shown in a 1962 artwork by Korean artist Jang Un-sang.
Native American Jesus, 1997.
A painting by John Giuliani from 1997 depicts Jesus in Navajo garb as a Navajo Indian.
The Real Appearance of Jesus According to Science
Exactly how did Jesus really appear? We can’t say for sure since no one has ever painted a lifelike painting of him. However, it is possible to reconstruct the typical look of the ancient Jewish community in Galilee.
The genetic and anatomical examinations of bone findings allow us to make judgments about the likely appearance of Jesus. He presumably shared his family’s light brown eyes, wavy or curly black hair, and overall look with his close relatives.
The only way to know for sure is to conjecture, but given his cultural background, a short beard is also a safe bet. There are two more recent depictions of Jesus that may not be too far off the mark when it comes to his real look:
The look of Jesus according to an accurate reconstruction of a male Galilean.
The more likely appearance of Jesus while he was alive. This is according to the reconstruction of a male Galilean from the 1st century AD.
There is no way to tell for sure what Jesus looked like since neither his body nor any contemporaneous art has been preserved. Based only on bone discoveries and descriptions, all we can do is speculate on what an ordinary man from his native nation could have looked like in his lifetime.
Bas Uterwijk, a Dutch photographer, created this artistic recreation of Jesus.
The above image, on the other hand, is more of an idealized look at Jesus by a Dutch photographer named Bas Uterwijk. It is still more accurate than the European Jesus.
Egyptian mummy portrait of a bearded man from Faiyum, c. 161–180 AD
This antique portrait is likewise quite similar to the reconstructed image of Jesus. However, the man represented is not from Galilee. It is an Egyptian mummy portrait of a bearded man from Faiyum, Egypt, c. 161–180 AD.
Evidence from Today
The ancient Levantine culture was radically different from that of the present Western world. The ordinary ancient Israeli was significantly more brown than the average modern Westerner because they spent so much time outside working or traveling in the scorching Mediterranean heat.
This was particularly true of men like Jesus, who traveled a lot, while King Herod, who most likely spent his time inside, had a significantly paler complexion. This is especially apparent in the looks of some modern-day Israeli shepherds, who live much as their ancestors did:
A Jewish shepherd in the Judean Hills. (Photographer: SHP/Barry Searle)
The Appearance of Jesus at a Glance
What did Jesus look like in real life?
The exact appearance of Jesus is unknown since there are no preserved contemporaneous art or physical remains. However, based on historical and cultural context, it is believed that Jesus had brown eyes, wavy or curly black hair, and shared physical characteristics with his close relatives from the ancient Jewish community in Galilee. He likely had a short beard as well.
How was Jesus depicted in different cultures and eras?
Jesus has been depicted in various ways throughout history and in different cultural contexts. In European depictions, he was often portrayed with fair skin, long brown/blonde hair, and European clothing. In Roman depictions, Jesus was depicted as a god of shepherd, a sun god, and even as a Roman emperor.
Are there any scientific reconstructions of Jesus’ appearance?
While there is no definitive scientific reconstruction of Jesus’ appearance, some attempts have been made based on genetic and anatomical examinations of bone findings and the typical look of the ancient Jewish community in Galilee.
Is there any contemporary evidence supporting the appearance of Jesus?
The ancient Levantine culture, including ancient Israel, had people with darker complexions due to spending significant time outdoors in the Mediterranean heat. Based on this, modern-day Israeli shepherds, who maintain a similar lifestyle to their ancestors, can offer some insight into the possible appearance of Jesus.
How did the depiction of Jesus evolve over time?
The depiction of Jesus has evolved throughout history as different cultures and artistic styles emerged. Early depictions, such as those from the 3rd century AD, showed Jesus with shorter hair, a garment, and sandals, reflecting the cultural context of the time. Later, during the Roman period, Jesus was depicted as a shepherd, a sun god, and even as a Roman emperor, incorporating elements from Greco-Roman mythology and imperial imagery.
References
What Did Jesus Look Like? By Joan E. Taylor · 2018
Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People – By Harry Ostrer · 2012
The Appearance of Christ in the Etheric Spiritual-Scientific Aspects of the Second Coming – By Sergei O. Prokofieff, Simon Blaxland-de Lange · 2012
June 14, 2023
Buckler Shield: Everything About the Buckler in History
Typically made of metal, a buckler shield (German: faustschild; French: boce; Italian: brochiero) is a tiny round shield measuring between 8 and 16 inches (20–40 cm) in diameter. The primary use of this cold weapon was to complement a sword or spear. A buckler supported a handle on its backside. They were single-handed shields that the warrior held in his fist, thus the name “fist shields.”
Buckler Shield
Type: Melee weapon
Origin: European Antiquity
Utilization: Military and civilian
Size: 12–18 inches (30–45 cm)
Weight: 1.1 to 2.2 lb (0.5–1 kg)
The use of bucklers on medals throughout classical antiquity indicated public promises made to the gods for the protection of a ruler; such shields were known as votive bucklers and were displayed in public places like temples and shrines. One votive specimen is seen below:
Origin of the Buckler Shield
(Flickr)
The name comes from the Old French term bocler which means “shield with a boss” and it points to the ancient shield design called shield boss or umbo. It is an iron sphere in the shield’s center that allows more effective deflecting of sword attacks.
The shield’s design allowed the fist to rest just under the umbo, or at the level of the weapon’s center of gravity, for the best possible balance.
This central piece (umbo) was so effective that it paved the way for the invention of a new shield: the buckler shield. The rest of the shield was made as small as possible so that its user could swing the shield boss around more easily.
Both mounted and foot soldiers frequently used the buckler along with the one-handed sword in the 13th and 14th centuries. However, their presumed historical usage period currently ranges from the High Middle Ages (1000–1300 AD) into the Renaissance (14th–17th centuries).
A 14th–16th centuries buckler shield, Art Institute of Chicago, public domain.
The buckler gradually became less useful as other forms of weaponry improved, although it was nevertheless often shown in combat scenes alongside the rapier, sword, dagger, and knife until the 17th century. Its modest weight and compact size made it the weapon of choice among civilians.
History of the Buckler Shield
The Arabs were the first people to start using fist shields. Shields worn by the Arab cavalry were originally 24 inches (60 cm) in diameter but were eventually trimmed down.
The buckler shields first appeared in Europe around 1100 AD, and the Byzantines (the Eastern Romans) popularized them in the 13th century, after which they spread throughout the continent. Before that, the shield boss design was already used on Roman shields.
Both the Celts and the Franks reportedly used this small shield. The shield was widely used in Western Europe throughout the 12th and 13th centuries. This era includes the first documented use of the term in French literature.
The bucklers were quite common in mid-13th-century Iceland during the Age of the Sturlungs. The same shield spread to Germany and England in the 14th century. It was most widely used by Italy and Spain throughout the 15th and 16th centuries.
Counter-attacking with the buckler shield against the mordhau technique. (Flickr)
They were traditionally employed by Scottish highlanders and were even present at the Battle of Culloden in 1746, when they were mostly utilized by officers.
The oldest of the manuscripts from the 13th to mid-14th centuries on the art of sword fighting describes the “sword and buckler” approach. This specific manuscript is Royal Armouries Ms. I.33 and it was written around 1300 in Latin in the Holy Roman Empire which corresponds to Franconia in southern Germany.
The manuscript only contains fighting techniques with a one-handed sword and buckler and thus represents the most comprehensive single source on dealing with this shield. It is the earliest known surviving European combat manual and is currently stored in the Royal Armouries at Leeds, United Kingdom.
Widely Used Throughout Europe
The information in this book suggests that buckler combat was widely practiced throughout Europe at the time. The Italian style of fencing, which also included the buckler combat method, acquired significant clout among the elite in the 16th century.
The Bolognese fencing treatises by Antonio Manciolino and Achille Marozzo at the start of the 16th century in Italy discuss the use of these shields. According to them, it was one of the most “fashionable” weapons of the Renaissance period in Italy.
In this period, the buckler shield was in vogue. The young men and women of that era wore it on their sword belts and took it wherever they went. The shield could be slung over the shoulder or hung from a belt, or it could be attached to the hilt of the sword.
At the end of the 16th century, the shield was no longer used by the Venetian fencing school. They armed their left arm with a parrying dagger instead of this shield. The use of the sword and buckler tactic was discontinued after this time.
The buckler was the weapon of choice for bowmen, crossbowmen, and pikemen. This little shield worn at the waist did not restrict mobility, and it performed a respectable job of protecting the hand that parried the opponent’s sword during hand-to-hand combat.
A Wide Range of Shapes and Constructions
Material
The buckler shields were made of a wide variety of materials. They often included wooden canvas with metal reinforcements like iron strips of varying widths and a metal or shield boss set in the center. Their boards were similar in thickness to the Scandinavian shields, at about 0.24–0.32 inches (6–8 mm).
Both the wood and the metal used in this shield benefited from being painted or tinned. Brass rivets were often used as fasteners.
In other versions, the whole shield was made up of a single metal plate or many metal pieces. Because of its diminutive size, a buckler could be manufactured entirely of metal (unlike large shields).
There were also versions where the shield’s base was made of leather, and it was outfitted with several metal pieces. They were occasionally used in fencing schools.
Shape
The majority of buckler shields were round, although the German author Hans Talhoffer’s (1420–1490) fencing book, as well as miniatures and bas-reliefs, often show a broad range of shapes. Because these shields varied in size and shape and were not uniform.
A rare variant with a very large shield boss and curled-up edges can be seen (above) in the fencing manuals of Hans Talhoffer.
There were rectangular, trapezoid, oval, or teardrop-shaped bucklers. Their cross sections varied from flat, concave, convex, and wavelike. However, there were two primary designs during the Middle Ages:
- The first main design was a round shield with the handle positioned directly behind the central boss. These shields came in various shapes, sizes, and thicknesses. Some featured protective protrusions at the top and bottom or serrated edges, as described in Hans Talhoffer’s fencing manual, while others had closed rings, as seen in a replica from the Wallace Collection.
- The second main design was a rectangular shield with dents or corrugations, as suggested by Achille Marozzo in his work Opera Nova.
Size
Herbert Schmidt claims that the buckler could extend to a maximum of 18 inches (45 cm) in size. Today, the shield is reconstructed as part of historical European martial arts. Modern reconstructions often peak in the center at a height of 12–14 inches (30–35 cm).
Several contemporary fencing groups have recreated the art of sword and buckler combat. Since medieval fencing manuals were sometimes written more as a memory aid for the author than as a pedagogical work, their interpretation is not always apparent.
How Useful Was the Buckler Shield?
The buckler was typically employed in three primary ways:
1. Hand Protection: It was utilized to safeguard the armed hand, ensuring it was covered and shielded as frequently as possible during combat.
2. Deflection: One of the key functions of the buckler was to deflect incoming blows from adversaries. It serves as a defensive tool, redirecting attacks away from the wielder.
3. Counterattack: Following a successful parry, the buckler can be effectively used to strike the opponent. It becomes a versatile offensive weapon, allowing the wielder to deliver impactful hits in response to an opponent’s attack.
Many historical records show that they were more often used than other shields by both the upper and lower classes and by military forces. In Spain, the use of a sword and buckler together was common. When it came to foot combat, it was highly popular in both Germany and England.
Although it was a defensive weapon in its own right, this shield had many offensive uses as well. As seen in several pieces of fencing literature and combat drawings, it was also an extremely powerful counterattacking weapon.
The buckler shield acted as both a passive defense and a secondary weapon against attackers. Because of its lightweight and rounded design, it was simple to use. It could be used to deflect an attack and then immediately counter it, due to its strength and sharp edges.
The End of the Buckler Shields
Due to the increased use of pikes, spontoons, halberds, ahlspiessen, and crossbows by infantry in the late Middle Ages (1300–1500 AD), the shields were no longer used as frequently as before. In fact, not all 16th-century fighters wore heavy armor either, which lowered their chances of survival.
It took tremendous finesse to block an arrow with a buckler shield. Therefore, it provided poor protection against projectiles and throwing weapons. Weighing roughly 2.2 pounds (1 kg), it wouldn’t have been enough to stop the strikes of a polearm or flamberge either.
However, the buckler’s use in warfare against one-handed weapons, the primary weapon of medieval infantry, was incontestable. Any pikeman could easily carry a short, edged weapon with him, but carrying his buckler behind his back would still provide a significant advantage on the battlefield.
In Culture
- A popular video game called Elden Ring (2022) features a detailed model of this shield with a description “Best suited for those prepared to take the risk to reap their reward.“
The Buckler Shield at a Glance
What is the origin of the buckler shield?
The buckler shield originated in Europe around 1100 AD, with the Byzantines popularizing its use in the 13th century. Its central boss, which made it effective at deflecting sword attacks, was a design cue from Roman shield bosses. The name comes from the Old French term “bocler,” meaning “shield with a boss.”
How was the buckler shield used in combat?
This shield served multiple purposes in combat. Firstly, it provided hand protection, ensuring the armed hand was covered and shielded during combat. Additionally, it acted as a defensive tool by deflecting incoming blows from adversaries and redirecting attacks away from the wielder. Lastly, it could be used for counterattacks, allowing the wielder to strike the opponent following a successful parry. Its lightweight and rounded design made it easy to maneuver and deliver impactful hits.
What were the main designs and sizes of buckler shields?
Buckler shields exhibited various designs and sizes. The majority were round, with the handle positioned directly behind the central boss. However, rectangular, trapezoid, oval, and teardrop-shaped ones also existed. The shields could have flat, concave, convex, or wavelike cross sections. In terms of size, they could range from a maximum of 18 inches (45 cm) in diameter, although modern reconstructions often peak at a height of 12-14 inches (30-35 cm).
When did the use of buckler shields decline?
The use of buckler shields declined in the late Middle Ages (1300-1500 AD) due to the increased use of other weapons such as pikes, halberds, and crossbows by infantry. Its effectiveness against projectiles and throwing weapons was limited, and it offered less protection against polearms. However, they remained popular in foot combat in Germany and England.
References
I.33 collection – Royal Armouries
Buckler | Etymology, origin and meaning of buckler by Etymonline
A Catalogue of European Bucklers by Herbert Schmidt – Amazon Books
Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods And Techniques by John Clements, 1998 – Goodreads
June 13, 2023
Tiberius Claudius Narcissus Rose from Slavery in Ancient Rome
Tiberius Claudius Narcissus rose from slavery to become a prominent figure in ancient Roman politics in about the 1st century AD. With the support of Emperor Claudius, Narcissus rose from the ranks of Roman slaves to one of the highest levels of government. He served as a powerful imperial secretary and advisor to the Roman Emperor Claudius and made up the backbone of the imperial government. Just like other former slaves, he adopted the surname (“Claudius”) of his former master.
See also: The Price of a Slave in Ancient Rome in Today’s Dollars
A Roman Emperor Who Put Emphasis on Merit
Many contemporary historians see Emperor Claudius as a “great prince.” He was very interested in politics, and he stressed the need for logic and change in government and the military.
Furthermore, to ensure the efficient administration of the ever-growing imperial government, he believed that appointing people to crucial positions solely based on their aristocratic lineage was not ideal. He advocated for capable bureaucrats who had proven their loyalty to the emperor through their talents and achievements.
As a “former slave,” Tiberius Narcissus was an ideal choice for Claudius. Because of his undying devotion to the emperor, Narcissus was given greater authority than anyone else. He gained a fortune through his considerable influence with the emperor.
In ancient Rome, when an emperor released a slave, the former slave would be obligated to remain loyal to him out of gratitude and the customary sense of responsibility. Given their humble origins, it was also highly improbable for someone who was born into slavery and later freed to attain a prominent position within Roman authority.
See also: What Was Daily Life Like in Ancient Rome?
Ex-Slaves Ran the Roman Politics
Quick-witted, skilled ex-slaves ran the Roman politics around the emperor throughout Claudius’ reign, increasing both their number and their influence unlike anything witnessed in history before.
The political authority of the aristocracy was diminished, marking a transition from “emperor-bureaucratic centralization” to the establishment of absolute royal power.
The Roman nobility was the primary group to resist this change. It was believed that slaves had “stolen” politics, which was formerly the domain of aristocrats.
During Claudius’ reign, various assassination plots by aristocrats were uncovered, and Claudius murdered many of them, causing even greater animosity among the aristocracy.
See also: What Has Not Changed Since the Time of Ancient Rome?
Claudius had physical disabilities, as described by Suetonius: “His knees were weak; he faced difficulty walking; he stuttered often; and he experienced hearing impairment. He also had a tendency to drool and had a runny nose.” Recent research has pointed to cerebral palsy as a likely cause of these symptoms.
Although his intelligence was unquestionable outside of the realms of law and reform, many ancient nobles considered Claudius unsuitable to be emperor because of his infirmity.
That’s why most Roman historians often had a dim view of Claudius. However, one explanation for this is that the nobility were the ones who had the leisure time and resources to document the past. That’s why current scholarship agrees that he was “a very good ruler.”
See also: Was Julius Caesar a Good Leader? The Leadership of Caesar
Tiberius Claudius Narcissus: A Notable Ex-Slave in Roman Politics
The slave Tiberius Claudius Narcissus was a notable figure during the reign of Claudius. Tiberius Narcissus’ life is not well known, but we do know that Emperor Claudius bought him as a “former slave” and, after realizing his brilliance, set him free to work for the emperor as a government official.
He was Claudius’ right-hand man. So much so that his role as “Secretary Liaison” for the emperor gave Narcissus considerably more authority than his job description implied. He was responsible for a wide range of political choices.
For instance, Emperor Claudius’ greatest accomplishment, the “Roman Conquest of Britain,” included a tribute to Narcissus.
When the Roman army in AD 44 refused to go on an expedition to Britannia, the emperor sent Narcissus as his deputy to deal with the rebels.
Narcissus decided to taunt the soldiers and invoke the spirit of “Saturnalia,” a festival where slaves temporarily hold power over their masters. Witnessing a former slave now serving as their leader, Narcissus made the army put down the uprising and embark on the daring expedition in an extraordinary turn of events.
As part of the program of clearing the land, Tiberius Narcissus was also given the massive task of canalizing Fucine Lake in Italy to reduce the water level.
Britannicus and Nero in a Clash for the Throne
Claudius had a significant “successor problem” in his old age. The first and second wives did not produce any offspring, whereas the third wife did have a son (Britannicus). Unproven rumors suggest Narcissus plotted with Claudius’s third wife Valeria Messalina to have a number of individuals killed. On top of that, doubts arose regarding the legitimacy of the child due to Messalina’s infidelity coming to light, which led to the disqualification of her claim.
“Agrippina the Younger,” (15–59 AD) the emperor’s fourth wife, gave birth to “Nero,” who was a “candidate successor” in the lineage of the emperor since he was a fourth-generation descendant of Emperor Augustus via the maternal line.
There were two camps within Claudius’ bureaucracy: the “Nero faction” and the “Britannicus faction,” with Claudius and Britannicus at odds and Nero seen as his heir apparent. Britannicus was retained as a backup in case Nero was assassinated.
However, Narcissus did not have faith in the fourth empress and demanded that Claudius remove Nero’s inheritance, name Britannicus emperor, and install him.
The Death of Narcissus
Agrippina, Claudius’ fourth wife, is widely believed to have plotted with the nobility to poison her husband so that Nero might ascend to power. However, contemporary scholarship suggests that Claudius may have died of natural causes. Nero, being just 17 years old, became Emperor upon the unexpected death of Claudius.
Agrippina, the emperor’s mother, had considerable power and quickly confronted Narcissus, the powerful leader of the Britannicus faction, whom the nobility despised. Without delay, Narcissus was arrested and sentenced to death, and within a few weeks of Claudius’ passing, he was executed by beheading in October, 54.
Before his arrest and death, he burned all of Claudius’ letters to prevent Nero from exploiting their contents.
Upon Nero’s ascension to the throne, Agrippina, who held significant influence, ruthlessly orchestrated a campaign to eliminate those who opposed Nero’s rise to power. As a result, Narcissus and numerous accomplished former slave officials appointed by Emperor Claudius met their demise, while Britannicus fell victim to poisoning.
Nevertheless, as time passed and Nero reached adulthood, he grew increasingly dismissive of his mother’s involvement in political matters, leading to Agrippina’s diminishing influence. Moreover, due to her opposition to Nero’s mistress, Nero made the drastic decision to have his own biological mother executed.
Nero had a disdain for advisers who offered dissenting opinions and systematically removed them from his circle. He surrounded himself with individuals who flattered him, and as a result, the empire’s finances rapidly deteriorated, cementing his name as one of the most notorious tyrants in Roman history.
Eventually, a nobility-led uprising would result in Nero’s death. He was the last direct descendant of the Julio-Claudian dynasty to hold the title of emperor.
Historians have long overlooked Claudius and Narcissus. Even though he was held in low regard by noble historians of the time, Claudius had his share of successes and shortcomings. To further his own interests, Narcissus ingratiated himself with the emperor, assumed political power, and became a man who rose from slavery in ancient Rome.
Recent studies have shed light on the “prejudice” of early historians and led to a reevaluation of Claudius’ accomplishments, including his policy reforms, legal reforms, and conquest of Britannia. This reevaluation also sheds light on the ex-slave Narcissus’ life.
The verdict of history remains enigmatic.
In passing, it’s also widely believed that the influential Roman Emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305 AD) was himself the child of a slave.
References
Caesar’s Blood: Greek Tragedy in Roman Life – By Rose Williams · 2013
Romans: A Pastoral and Contextual Commentary – By Andrew B. Spurgeon · 2020
Emperors of Rome: The Monsters – From Tiberius to Theodora, AD 14–548 – By Paul Chrystal · 2018
June 10, 2023
Haitian Revolution: The First Black Supremacist Country in History
Haiti was the first black supremacist country in history. Despite the severe circumstances, many Africans were forced to work on the sugar plantations of the “Island of Death,” or Haiti. Despite the terrible working conditions and high mortality rate among the blacks during the first decade, the slaves were brought in as though they were “disposable.” Slaves revolted against Napoleon Bonaparte‘s troops, achieved independence for Haiti, and founded a new country based on the principle of “black supremacy.” Yet, the international oppression the country suffered afterward at the hands of Western European nations would prove terrible.
Saint-Domingue, the Crown Jewel of France’s Colonies
France established colonies all over the globe in the middle of the 18th century, including North America, the Caribbean, and India. Nonetheless, there were colonies inside the large imperial domains that were far more lucrative.
Haiti (green circle), formerly known as Saint-Domingue.
Sugar cane and coffee beans were gathered in great quantities in Saint-Domingue, processed into white sugar, and sent to Europe. The result was a huge payday. Saint-Domingue supplied 60% of the world’s coffee and 40% of the world’s sugar.
The value of exports to France from Saint-Domingue at the time was comparable to that of exports to England from the original 13 American colonies.
About one million French citizens out of 25 million were directly engaged in Saint-Domingue imports at the time, while another three million French citizens were in Saint-Domingue, reaping the economic advantages of the island indirectly.
But the lives of African slaves were sacrificed to achieve this prosperity.
Every year, Haiti received the forced importation of over 20,000 additional African slaves. Their primary function was to ensure a sufficient supply of slaves.
Slaves were subjected to deplorable working conditions and often little nourishment. Slaves were not permitted to be treated or educated if they were ill, and diseases like yellow fever and malaria were common.
Thus, after a year, half of all black slaves perished, and by three years, only around 15-20% were still alive. The white slave owners believed that it was more profitable to labor their black employees to death and replace them with fresh slaves as soon as possible.
Among the island’s 40,000 whites, 20,000 free blacks, and 450,000 black slaves, there was considerable racial discrimination, with whites at the top.
However, in 1791, a massive uprising of African slaves occurred.
A Massive Uprising of African Slaves
Battle for Palm Tree Hill, Haitian Revolution (1791–1804) by January Suchodolski (1797–1875), 1845.
Slaves in northern St. Domingue staged a huge uprising on August 22, 1791, after months of planning. Black slaves with a vendetta led by Toussaint Louverture (1743–1803) killed numerous whites, but eventually, the uprising stalled.
Both Britain and Spain engaged in the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804) because of the conflict that the French revolutionary government launched with them in Europe.
However, due to concerns that their own slaves in the area could rise up if this revolutionary slave army were to win the uprising and gain independence, Britain and Spain decided to oppose the slaves of Haiti.
Despite that, the slave army of Haiti defeated the armies of Britain, Spain, and Napoleon over the course of 13 years to achieve independence in 1804. It became the world’s first freed slave nation, or, in other words, the first country formed by slaves.
The First Black Supremacist Country
Louverture’s lieutenant and the head of the black army, Jean-Jacques Dessalines (1758–1806), took control of the government of the Republic of Haiti.
As a former slave, Dessalines had a strong resentment against white civilization for its historically demeaning treatment of Haitian slaves. His first significant policy as dictator was the “1804 Haitian Massacre”, in which he ordered the death of all remaining white inhabitants on the island after he had won independence for Haiti.
Nearly all of Haiti’s white population had been wiped out after an estimated 5,000 deaths, which was not comparable to the deaths of black slaves over the last decades.
buy singulair online https://petlosshelp.net/memorialhalloffame/html/singulair.html no prescription pharmacy

Jean-Jacques Dessalines made no special effort to cover up this slaughter, claiming:
“We responded to these cannibals with force, matching crime with crime and sorrow with sorrow. I defended my country and sought retribution for the American nations.”
Jean-Jacques Dessalines after the 1804 Haitian Massacre.
A bill was passed prohibiting whites from holding citizenship or owning property in Haiti after the nation was designated a “black country.” This was with the exception of the small number of Germans and Poles who actually fought for Haiti’s independence.
It was a governmental structure that blatantly promoted “black supremacy.”
The Aftermath of the Events
However, due to its policies of black supremacy, the Republic of Haiti as a whole faced considerable discrimination from Western countries. Since nations like the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, etc.
buy aurogra online https://petlosshelp.net/memorialhalloffame/html/aurogra.html no prescription pharmacy

had too many slave colonies, the fear was that if Haiti—a country formed by revolted slaves—established diplomatic ties with the colonizer countries, their own slaves would rise up in rebellion as well.
The Republic of Haiti was unable to trade with any nation for a very long time, despite being the world’s leading exporter of coffee and sugar prior to gaining independence.
As a prerequisite for establishing diplomatic ties, France imposed a demand for reparations, insisting Haiti settle outstanding obligations to France before granting France the role of mediator in international affairs. The requirement was to “compensate the white exiles from Haiti with the value of Haiti’s property.
buy tetracycline online http://www.biop.cz/slimbox/css/png/tetracycline.html no prescription pharmacy

” The computation of “Haiti’s property value” included the worth of the emancipated slaves, which was a source of profound embarrassment.
For emancipated slaves, this entailed being told, “If you want to establish diplomatic relations, you must pay the value of your former enslaved status.”
A Short-Lived Black Supremacy
The government of Haiti agreed to this stipulation and paid 15 million francs in reparations because the country realized that the island’s economy could not function without commerce. That was more than twenty years worth of tax money for Haiti.
In addition to all that, in France, the payments were made via high-interest loans from major French banks.
The government of Haiti was unrealistically optimistic when it assumed that resuming commerce and paying off its obligations would happen as soon as diplomatic connections were restored and sugar and coffee exports resumed at previous levels.
However, since many sugar and coffee manufacturing facilities had been abandoned for almost a decade, rendering them useless, and the Haitian government was deeply in debt, the country’s economy quickly crumbled.
More than 80% of the government’s tax income was supposed to be utilized to settle the debt after the reparations deal of 1825. Therefore, the island’s economy was highly taxed to collect the means to repay it, which made the island even more economically unviable.
With the implied threat that “if you do not pay, you will be bombed,” the French government threatened to send military ships to Haiti if the payback was not made on time.
The Haitian government kept making loan payments until 1947, by which time the country had fallen into extreme poverty.
Haiti Today
The current GDP per capita in Haiti is around $1120 as of 2023.
In 2003, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti voiced his strong opposition to the French government during a United Nations address, denouncing the 1825 reparations as unjustifiable. He emphatically called for Haiti to receive reparations amounting to 21 billion US dollars.
buy stromectol online http://www.biop.cz/slimbox/css/png/stromectol.html no prescription pharmacy

But the French government quickly shot down the idea.
The former French president François Hollande and others have claimed that France has a “moral debt” to Haiti.
buy kamagra gold online https://petlosshelp.net/memorialhalloffame/html/kamagra-gold.html no prescription pharmacy

But in February 2010, French President Nicolas Sarkozy paid a visit to Haiti, the first by a French President, and brushed aside the idea of making reparations, declaring, “There is no legal obligation for compensation.”
France maintains its stance, emphasizing that there is no liability for compensation.
June 8, 2023
Obuch: A Civilian Weapon with Less Killing Potential
June 3, 2023
How Long Did Europeans Consider Themselves “Romans”?
The term “Romans” was often associated with a sense of connection to the Roman Empire and its legacy. Many Russian Tsars claimed themselves to be the successors of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire. Hence the Latin name for Roman emperors, “caesar”, is where the word “tsar” originates. This claim served as a legal and historical justification for Russia’s southward expansion and particularly its intervention in the Balkan Peninsula. The same can be said for the Ottoman Empire in Turkey: in 1453, Mehmed the Conqueror named himself “Kaiser-i Rum” or “Caesar of the Romans”.
Do Romanians Consider Themselves Romans?
In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, there was a decline in direct identification with Roman heritage. However, elements of Roman culture, law, and governance continued to inspire many European cultures that were once part of the Empire.
There are still people who hold such beliefs: They are the Romanians. The Romanian national anthem Awaken Thee, Romanian (also the former national anthem of Moldova) contains the following lyrics:
Wake up Romanians from your sleep of death
Into which you’ve been sunk by the barbaric tyrants.
Now or never, sow a new fate for yourself
To which even your cruel enemies will bow!
Now or never, let us show the world
That through these arms, Roman blood still flows;
And that in our chests we still proudly bear a name
Triumphant in battles, the name of Trajan!
“Deșteaptă-te, române!” The national anthem of Romania and the former national anthem of Moldova.
During the reign of Emperor Trajan (r. 98–117 AD), the Roman Empire reached its zenith, and present-day Romania was part of its territory. Today, the Romanians still take pride in their Roman roots, which can be traced back to the empire. In fact, the name “Romania” itself means “Land of the Romans” in Latin.
So, there are Europeans who still consider themselves “Romans” today. But even outside of Romania, there are remnants of Roman influence that persisted for a considerable period of time.
The Last of the Romans
The idea of a “Holy Roman Empire” developed throughout the Middle Ages, especially between the 8th and 15th centuries. Despite being separate from the actual Roman Empire, this group claimed descent from the city of Rome and saw its populace as “Romans,” while working to maintain and revitalize Roman customs.
Its emperors, like Charlemagne, highlighted their ties to the Roman Empire, and its territory included portions of modern-day Germany, Italy, and Central Europe.
In fact, Europeans continued to use the title “Holy Roman Emperor” up until 1806, when the Austrian Empire, which emerged in the wake of the Napoleonic Empire, formally dissolved the title.
However, the actual use of this title was merely as “Emperor” or “Emperor of the Romans” (in Latin: Imperator Romanorum, in German: Kaiser der Römer). Whether the people of Germany and Austria truly considered themselves “Romans” is a separate matter, but the term “Roman Empire” remained longer than the original nation.
Therefore, the name of the country governing the region now known as Germany continued to incorporate “Rome” until the 19th century. It is unclear how long the people in the present-day German region considered themselves “Romans,” but this formal designation endured.
Moreover, Napoleon Bonaparte named his son Napoleon II the “King of Rome.” Napoleon himself sought coronation from the Pope in Rome, emphasizing the continuity with Rome. Thus, the title of Emperor of the French also symbolized a strong connection to Rome and the Romans.
The Nations That Considered Themselves Romans
The Russian monarchs, or Tsars, claimed descent from the Romans and founded a new concept of an empire they called the ‘Third Rome’. They considered themselves the inheritors of the Byzantine Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, and claimed to be the rightful successors to the Roman imperial legacy. This concept was first formulated in the 15th–16th centuries in the Tsardom of Rus’.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire, often known as the Habsburg Empire, always insisted that it was rightfully titled “Emperor of the Romans.” The Habsburgs ensured the survival of the medieval-era Holy Roman Empire. The Habsburg rulers retained the titles of Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary even though the empire was primarily symbolic by the time of World War I.
The Ottomans, too, claimed they were the rightful heirs to the throne of Rome. The Ottomans considered Constantinople (today’s Istanbul) to be the legitimate continuation of the Roman imperial capital since they recognized themselves as the rightful heirs of the Eastern Roman Empire. By calling themselves “Kayser-i Rûm,” or “Caesar of the Romans,” they drew attention to the fact that their empire was descended from the Romans.
In Italy, during the era of Benito Mussolini’s fascist party (until 1945), there was a serious political appeal at the national level to foreground the “Roman identity.” This appeal, however, came to an end. The term “popolo di eroi” (people of heroes), as mentioned in the fascist party anthem, referred to the Romans, who envisioned the revival of a new Roman Empire centered around the Mediterranean.
Hail, people of heroes,
hail, immortal Fatherland,
your sons were born again
with the faith and the ideal.
Your warriors’ valour,
your pioneers’ virtue,
Alighieri’s vision,
today shines in every heart.
…
“Giovinezza” (Italian for ‘Youth’), official hymn of the Italian National Fascist Party,
Adolf Hitler‘s Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) later adopted the raised-arm salute that the fascist party had previously borrowed from the Roman salute. This political symbolism aimed to evoke a sense of connection to the glorious and imperial past of ancient Rome.
However, other European powers did not accept these claims. And this historical discrepancy regarding the European nations considering themselves “Romans” has been a source of various conflicts up to this day.
When Did Europeans Detach from the Roman Identity?
Up until the First World War, there were a few more countries vying for the title of Roman Emperor alongside Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey, regardless of whether other countries recognized them or not.
However, the European powers, including Western and Southern Europe, which were once considered part of the so-called Roman world, gradually detached their countries from the Roman identity.
This began as early as the time of Henry VIII, the former King of England, during the period of religious revolution when many peripheral countries shifted from Latin to their local languages as the court and church languages in the 16th century. The complete disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire, which had already become a mere formality, occurred around the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815).
The End of “Romans”
The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire during the Napoleonic Wars marked the disappearance of any entity in Western Europe claiming the title of Roman Emperor and their populace as “Romans”.
During this period, the concept of nation-states emerged, leading to the complete abandonment of a conscious affiliation with Rome and the Roman populace. These underlying perceptions still contribute to the complex relationship between Western Europe and countries like Turkey and Russia today.
Today, Romania and the Romanian people are the only European nation that openly and officially consider themselves “Romans,” who were once the citizens of the Roman Empire and ruled by the Roman Emperor Trajan (53 AD–117 AD).
June 2, 2023
What Has Not Changed Since the Time of Ancient Rome?
What has not changed since the time of ancient Rome? Given the profound impact of ancient Rome on human civilization, it is possible that at some point in medieval Europe people held a strong belief that “civilization is in decline,” vividly recognizing the many changes that had occurred in ancient Rome. Visiting any ancient Rome exhibitions prompts you to contemplate, “Wasn’t the foundational aspect of human existence, ensuring comfortable living conditions, already well-established during the ancient Roman era?” This question serves as a poignant reminder of the remarkable advancements achieved during that time.
Rental Housing
The Romans were not the first to realize the financial benefits of renting out their homes to tenants in return for monthly payments. The practice dates back far further than that. So many people rented their houses in ancient Rome because Plebeians (lower- or middle-class citizens) made up about 95 percent of Rome’s population. Typically, a family would pay a year’s worth of rent in advance to live on the insula’s first level since it was the costliest. Similar to current apartment complexes, landlords would rent out ground-floor spaces to businesses.
Tenancy agreements: Several aspects of Roman rental housing from antiquity have survived to the present day. One such aspect was the availability of tenancy agreements, in which renters would make a monetary commitment to their landlords in exchange for the right to inhabit a property for a certain amount of time.
Maintaining properties: Another feature that has endured is the responsibility of landlords to maintain rental properties. In ancient Rome, landlords were expected to ensure that the rented dwellings were in habitable condition by performing necessary repairs and upkeep.
Dispute resolution mechanisms: Landlord-tenant disputes were prevalent in ancient Rome, mirroring the characteristics of today’s rentals. The rights of both tenants and landlords were protected by the law, just as they are today. Problems with rent payments, property maintenance, and the enforcement of contractual duties were resolved with the use of these procedures. Rental housing has always had a need for fair and reasonable remedies, and conflict resolution methods.
See also: What Was Daily Life Like in Ancient Rome?
Tableware
Ancient Roman dishes, plates, serving platters, and more. (Image: MrJennings-Flickr)
Plates and bowls: There were several characteristics of Roman tableware that have survived to the present day. The Romans used plates and bowls made of clay, bronze, or silver for their dinner tables. These containers were not only useful for serving food, but also added visual appeal to the dining experience. Ceramic and porcelain dishes and bowls are still widely used in modern households. The continued use of these basic pieces of tableware exemplifies the ongoing impact of ancient Roman tableware on contemporary eating customs.
Utensils: Another piece of Roman dinnerware that has survived the test of time is the utensil. We still follow the ancient Roman practice of using cutlery like spoons, forks, and knives when we dine. Utensils have served the same essential purpose throughout history, despite variations in form and substance.
Drinking vessels: There was a consistent theme running through the form and function of ancient Roman drinking containers. Wine, water, and other drinks were often consumed from cups and goblets crafted from pottery, glass, or precious metals. Glass, ceramic, and metal continue to be popular materials for drinking vessels in the modern period. These dishes’ longevity exemplifies how ancient Roman and contemporary cultures value similar qualities in their tableware: utility, beauty, and social importance.
Decorative elements: Ancient Roman tableware is also famous for the legacy of its ornamental aspects. Their dinnerware was embellished with intricate engravings, patterns, and motifs. Even in modern times, tableware with detailed designs, exquisite patterns, or unique touches is highly prized.
See also: Since When Do Westerners Use Cutlery?
Coinage
A denarius coin with a portrait of Julius Caesar.
Although coinage had been in use long before the time of the Roman Empire, the Romans did much to improve upon it and standardize it.
Standardized denominations: Ancient Roman coinage shares several similarities with modern-day currency systems. Just as today’s coins and banknotes have standardized denominations, Roman coins were issued at fixed values. The gold aureus, silver denarius, and bronze sestertius were among the commonly used denominations, ensuring consistency and facilitating transactions.
Portraits of national leaders: Secondly, similar to how modern currencies feature portraits of national leaders, Roman coins prominently displayed the likenesses of emperors and other influential individuals.
Inscriptions and symbols: Additionally, both ancient Roman coins and modern currencies bear inscriptions and symbols. Roman coins contained important information such as the issuing authority’s name, denomination, and minting year, while modern currencies feature similar inscriptions denoting their country of origin and value.
Luxury Homes
Atrium interior, Ancient Rome. Image: daheshmuseum.org
While some of the features of luxury houses may have changed since ancient Rome, the desire for a pleasant place to live has not. Luxury homes and villas were available even in ancient Rome, with amenities such as heated floors, mosaic-tiled ornate walls, decorative floors, and even indoor plumbing, all of which still exist in today’s houses.
Atrium: The hallmarks of a well-appointed Roman home have survived the centuries. Atriums are open areas in the middle of a home that often include a skylight or other opening to let in light and air. This architectural feature is still admired because of the positive impact it has on a home’s airiness and brightness.
Plumbing system: The sophisticated Roman plumbing systems delivered flowing water to residences, allowing for the installation of luxuries like baths and toilets in individual bathrooms. The Romans’ innovative plumbing and widespread access to clean water for personal cleanliness attest to their awareness of the value of such amenities. There’s little question that this aspect of ancient Roman dwellings affected the evolution of plumbing systems in houses throughout history.
Hypocaust system: This novel underfloor heating system was another standout. Hot air or steam that was circulating under the flooring heated the chambers. Because of its usefulness throughout the year, not only during the winter, the hypocaust has been a popular addition to homes for ages. Multiple heated rooms, such as the caldarium, tepidarium, and frigidarium, provided a luxurious bathing experience.
Enclosed garden: The peristyle, an enclosed garden or courtyard framed by columns, enhanced the tranquility of the Roman outdoors. The idea of creating a personal sanctuary inside one’s own dwelling is still highly prized in contemporary design.
Private rooms: The design of a typical Roman home, known as a domus, contained distinguishing features that continue to influence modern architectural layouts. Private dining areas like the tricliniums offered elegant spaces for reclining and enjoying meals in ancient Rome. These areas, furnished with couches and low tables, facilitated the Roman tradition of dining while reclining, creating a relaxed and sociable atmosphere for residents and their guests. This design element still exists today.
An architectural principle that hasn’t changed much in modern home construction was how the Romans met their demand for solitude by clearly dividing their living space into public and private areas.
Aqueducts
The Segovia Aqueduct is an aqueduct that was constructed during the era of the Roman Emperor Trajan (98–117 AD) and is still in use today to transport water.
The Romans built massive aqueducts to bring water from faraway areas to populated areas. While improvements in water transportation technology and materials have been made, the idea of using constructed buildings to provide potable water to urban centers has not changed.
They were and still are crucial for transporting water from where it is abundant to where it is limited, whether 2,000 years ago in ancient Rome, Italy, or today in California. Engineers have created brand-new aqueducts to transport water over long distances, frequently hundreds of miles.
Oldest running aqueduct: Some of Rome’s fountains even get their water supply from a Roman aqueduct that is still in use today. The Acqua Vergine, which was first constructed in 19 BC and has undergone several restorations, is still in use today. It is the oldest running aqueduct in the world today.
Oldest survived aqueduct: The Segovia Aqueduct (also known as El Puente for “The Bridge”) is an aqueduct that was constructed during the era of the Roman Emperor Trajan (98–117 AD) and is still in use today to transport water from the Frio River to the city of Segovia in Spain, a distance of 10 miles (16 km).
Although not exactly “today,” the Bogotá, Colombia, aqueduct, completed in 1955, stands out as one of the recently built, modern aqueducts.
City Planning
Grid layout: Ancient Rome’s gridiron or cardo and decumanus street plans used a grid pattern to partition the city into square and rectangular sections. Many contemporary towns throughout the globe still have this grid layout.
Public spaces: The Romans placed a premium on the development of public spaces in urban areas. Civic, economic, and social life often converged in public gathering places like plazas and squares in ancient Rome. The public realm remains a focal point of urban planning in today’s cities.
Infrastructure: Ancient Rome’s infrastructure was state-of-the-art and much admired for its extensive network of well-constructed roadways, aqueducts for water supply, and sewage facilities. Although these aspects of infrastructure have been upgraded throughout history, they still serve as the basis for contemporary urban planning.
Zoning: The Romans were early adopters of zoning laws, which were designed to separate residential and commercial areas of a city. Partitioning land for different uses (such as residential, commercial, and industrial) is a tenet of today’s city planning.
Monumental architecture: The ancient Romans built several very impressive buildings, including amphitheaters, temples, and public baths. Iconic structures and landmarks still stand as representations of cultural value in today’s cities.
Focus on public health: Public health was a primary concern for the ancient Romans when designing cities. Public amenities such as latrines and water fountains were installed to encourage good personal hygiene.
Transportation: Rome built an enormous network of roads, bridges, and docks, which aided commerce and communication. Cities today still spend money on transportation infrastructure like this.
Legal Systems
Cesare Maccari (1840-1919 CE) painted this fresco showing Cicero’s denunciation of Catiline as a conspirator before the Roman senate. Cicero lived from 106-43 BCE. (Rome’s Palazzo Madama)
Codification: The Twelve Tables (450 BC) were only one example of the complex legal rules enacted by Ancient Rome. Many modern legal systems still heavily rely on this principle of codification.
Precedent: The Roman legal system adopted the notion of precedent, wherein prior rulings provided a binding precedent for new cases. This tenet remains important to the common law system in use by many nations today.
Legal professions: Advocates (the ancient Roman equivalent of lawyers) and judges also played an important role in ancient Roman society. The importance of attorneys and judges as experts in the law remains unchanged in today’s legal systems.
Legal rights: The property rights, contract protections, and the guarantee of a fair trial are only a few examples of the individual liberties acknowledged by ancient Roman law. Legal safeguards in contemporary countries are still conceptualized in terms of these ideas.
Legal procedures: The examination of witnesses and the presentation of evidence were two examples of the legal processes and norms that were strictly adhered to in ancient Roman judicial proceedings. Modern legal systems share a commitment to procedural fairness and due process with their historical precedents.
References
SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard, 2015, Goodreads
Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the City at the Height of the Empire by Jérôme Carcopino, 2013 – Amazon Books
History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, 1776-88, The Project Gutenberg eBook
May 31, 2023

Buckler Shield
Type:	Melee weapon
Origin:	European Antiquity
Utilization:	Military and civilian
Size:	12–18 inches (30–45 cm)
Weight:	1.1 to 2.2 lb (0.5–1 kg)

Category: History

Shakespeare’s Siblings

Before His Birth:

After His Birth:

The List of Shakespeare’s Siblings

Joan Shakespeare (Sister)

Margaret Shakespeare (Sister)

Gilbert Shakespeare (Brother)

Joan Shakespeare (Sister)

Anne Shakespeare (Sister)

Richard Shakespeare (Brother)

Edmund Shakespeare (Brother)

Were Shakespeare and His Siblings Close?

Curiosity Regarding Pepin the Short’s Height

Lack of Historical Records

Theories and Speculations on How Tall Pepin Was

Theory One: He Was Just Shorter

Theory Two: He Was Just Relatively Shorter

Theory Three: A Misunderstanding of His Latinized Name

Theory Four: A Shift in Wording

Theory Five: He Ruled for Too Short

Visual Representations of Pepin the Short

Who Was Pepin the Short?

Fun Fact

Historical Sources Regarding Charlemagne’s Height

Scientific Evidence on How Tall Was Charlemagne

His Physicality

How Tall Was Charlemagne Compared to People of His Time?

Historical Figures Who Were Taller Than Charlemagne

Charlemagne’s Physical Presence in Medieval Europe

Why Was Charlemagne Called “the Great”?

Why the Length of Feet Was Different in Medieval Times

Roza Shanina’s Early Life

Roza Shanina Became One of the First Female Snipers

Joining the Front Line

Taking Initiatives

Her Signature: The Doublet

Her Personal Life

Death of Roza Shanina

Memorial

What Made the Throne of Charlemagne Special?

A Myth or Relic

No Contemporary Reference

The Design of the Throne of Charlemagne

Was the Throne of Charlemagne Real?

References

Radiocarbon Dating

The Throne of Charlemagne at a Glance

What is the significance of the Throne of Charlemagne?

Is the Throne of Charlemagne confirmed to have belonged to Charlemagne?

What is the design of the Throne of Charlemagne like?

Are there any contemporary references to the Throne of Charlemagne?

The Talisman’s Origin

Design of the Talisman of Charlemagne

Contradictions Regarding the Talisman of Charlemagne

Gemological Analysis of the Talisman of Charlemagne

History of the Talisman of Charlemagne

The Talisman of Charlemagne at a Glance

What is the Talisman of Charlemagne?

What is the origin of the Talisman of Charlemagne?

What is the design of the Talisman of Charlemagne?

Are there any contradictions regarding the Talisman of Charlemagne?

History of the Crown of Charlemagne

The Origin of the Crowns and Their Gemstones

The Crown of Charlemagne Over Time

The Restoration of the Crowns

The Design of the Crown of Charlemagne

Circlets

Cap

The Birthplace of Jesus

What Did Jesus Look Like?

Various Depictions of Jesus

The Look of Jesus Varied Around the World

The Real Appearance of Jesus According to Science

Evidence from Today

The Appearance of Jesus at a Glance

What did Jesus look like in real life?

How was Jesus depicted in different cultures and eras?

Are there any scientific reconstructions of Jesus’ appearance?

Is there any contemporary evidence supporting the appearance of Jesus?