Isaac handed him over to the city mob and for three days he was exposed to their fury and resentment, remaining for that period tied to a post and beaten. His right hand was cut off, his teeth and hair were pulled out, one of his eyes was gouged out, and, among many other sufferings, boiling water was thrown in his face, punishment probably associated with his handsomeness and life of licentiousness. At last, led to the Hippodrome of Constantinople, he was hung up by the feet between two pillars, and two Latin soldiers competed as to whose sword would penetrate his body more deeply, and finally his body, according to the representation of his death, was torn apart.
I think there should have been an honourable mention of Julius Caesar.
Not always good to be king………
In fact you lived on the edge constantly, trusting almost no one. It would have to be a massive thirst for power that would overcome the daily fear.
Who needs that?
If I was in line for the throne, back in the medieval days, I’d have signed a document renouncing the throne, headed to the New World, founded Dayton Ohio and invented the airplane.
Neither the (whole) Roman nor the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empires ever vested the idea of “emperor” with legitimacy; indeed, for centuries “emperor” was technically not an office. Consequently the emperor had no better claim to the throne than any governor, general, or bath attendant with a razor. Anyone could be emperor…and, too often just anyone was.
Both Western and Chinese cultures came up with the idea of a rightful king, someone whose role could not be challenged (much; the “Mandate of Heaven” theory does justify rebellion…if it succeeds). The rightful king is pretty much safe from coups and politically-motivated assassination (although there are other reasons why the crowned head rests uneasily).
“Both Western and Chinese cultures came up with the idea of a rightful king, someone whose role could not be challenged (much; the “Mandate of Heaven” theory does justify rebellion…if it succeeds). The rightful king is pretty much safe from coups and politically-motivated assassination (although there are other reasons why the crowned head rests uneasily).”
All that did was move the goalposts slightly – now the king had to prove he was rightful. And the guys who wanted the throne would claim the present king wasn’t “rightful”.
Edward II learned the hard way that being the rightful king would not save you.
Look at Elizabeth I – a direct descendant of Henry VIII. Yet as the daughter of Boleyn, she was declared illegitimate. Ed VI gave the crown to Jane Grey and Lizzie was cut right out….then queen Mary, then Lizzie yadda yadda yadda…..
“rightful” was in the eyes of the beholder and the wielder of the poison or sword or dagger.
“rightful” was in the eyes of the beholder and the wielder of the poison or sword or dagger.
Well, duh. Of course it was — and is; why is Elizabeth II rightful queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or Akihito rightful Son of Heaven…or Barack Hussein Obama rightful President of the United States of America?
There is a difference between, “He is the ruler because it is the will of God, or the People, or something”, and “He is the ruler because I haven’t gotten around to killing him yet”.
“the idea of a rightful king, someone whose role could not be challenged..”
Oh yeah…just ask King Harold (1066) about kingships not being challenged.
But Godwinson’s England — indeed, the infant Western culture of which it was barely a part — hadn’t invented the idea of “the rightful king” yet. I’d put the idea as having arisen in the early 13th century CE, as shown by both John Softsword’s problems — admittedly, not insurmountable ones — in his conflict with his nephew Arthur, and Philip Augustus deciding that he could dispense with having his crowned king in his lifetime.
“But Godwinson’s England — indeed, the infant Western culture of which it was barely a part — hadn’t invented the idea of “the rightful king” yet. ”
Sure it had.
First off, there was Offa in the middle 700’s – he made deals with the Pope and started the whole “divine right of kings” and the “king appointed by god” scams.
@LeoII: “Julia, is that you?”
“There is a difference between, “He is the ruler because it is the will of God, or the People, or something”, and “He is the ruler because I haven’t gotten around to killing him yet”. ”
Only to the starry-eyed romantic. Back then everyone was in on the scam and knew how the game was played.
You REALLY think that the guys who killed Edward II were sweating out god’s retribution? Or gave god a moment’s thought?
Well, I think Mitt Romney must have had something to do with Numerian’s death.
Wasn’t that a scene from Game of Thrones?
Don’t know about GoT, but it was a scene in some recent cop show, heavy on forensics.
GoT had a character have gold poured over his head, not down his throat, but it’s similar.
Hard to top Valerian.
Some of the Byzantine emperors died just as horribly:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronicus_I_Comnenus
Isaac handed him over to the city mob and for three days he was exposed to their fury and resentment, remaining for that period tied to a post and beaten. His right hand was cut off, his teeth and hair were pulled out, one of his eyes was gouged out, and, among many other sufferings, boiling water was thrown in his face, punishment probably associated with his handsomeness and life of licentiousness. At last, led to the Hippodrome of Constantinople, he was hung up by the feet between two pillars, and two Latin soldiers competed as to whose sword would penetrate his body more deeply, and finally his body, according to the representation of his death, was torn apart.
I think there should have been an honourable mention of Julius Caesar.
Not always good to be king………
In fact you lived on the edge constantly, trusting almost no one. It would have to be a massive thirst for power that would overcome the daily fear.
Who needs that?
If I was in line for the throne, back in the medieval days, I’d have signed a document renouncing the throne, headed to the New World, founded Dayton Ohio and invented the airplane.
Neither the (whole) Roman nor the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empires ever vested the idea of “emperor” with legitimacy; indeed, for centuries “emperor” was technically not an office. Consequently the emperor had no better claim to the throne than any governor, general, or bath attendant with a razor. Anyone could be emperor…and, too often just anyone was.
Both Western and Chinese cultures came up with the idea of a rightful king, someone whose role could not be challenged (much; the “Mandate of Heaven” theory does justify rebellion…if it succeeds). The rightful king is pretty much safe from coups and politically-motivated assassination (although there are other reasons why the crowned head rests uneasily).
“Both Western and Chinese cultures came up with the idea of a rightful king, someone whose role could not be challenged (much; the “Mandate of Heaven” theory does justify rebellion…if it succeeds). The rightful king is pretty much safe from coups and politically-motivated assassination (although there are other reasons why the crowned head rests uneasily).”
All that did was move the goalposts slightly – now the king had to prove he was rightful. And the guys who wanted the throne would claim the present king wasn’t “rightful”.
Edward II learned the hard way that being the rightful king would not save you.
Look at Elizabeth I – a direct descendant of Henry VIII. Yet as the daughter of Boleyn, she was declared illegitimate. Ed VI gave the crown to Jane Grey and Lizzie was cut right out….then queen Mary, then Lizzie yadda yadda yadda…..
“rightful” was in the eyes of the beholder and the wielder of the poison or sword or dagger.
Well, duh. Of course it was — and is; why is Elizabeth II rightful queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or Akihito rightful Son of Heaven…or Barack Hussein Obama rightful President of the United States of America?
There is a difference between, “He is the ruler because it is the will of God, or the People, or something”, and “He is the ruler because I haven’t gotten around to killing him yet”.
“the idea of a rightful king, someone whose role could not be challenged..”
Oh yeah…just ask King Harold (1066) about kingships not being challenged.
But Godwinson’s England — indeed, the infant Western culture of which it was barely a part — hadn’t invented the idea of “the rightful king” yet. I’d put the idea as having arisen in the early 13th century CE, as shown by both John Softsword’s problems — admittedly, not insurmountable ones — in his conflict with his nephew Arthur, and Philip Augustus deciding that he could dispense with having his crowned king in his lifetime.
“But Godwinson’s England — indeed, the infant Western culture of which it was barely a part — hadn’t invented the idea of “the rightful king” yet. ”
Sure it had.
First off, there was Offa in the middle 700’s – he made deals with the Pope and started the whole “divine right of kings” and the “king appointed by god” scams.
@LeoII: “Julia, is that you?”
“There is a difference between, “He is the ruler because it is the will of God, or the People, or something”, and “He is the ruler because I haven’t gotten around to killing him yet”. ”
Only to the starry-eyed romantic. Back then everyone was in on the scam and knew how the game was played.
You REALLY think that the guys who killed Edward II were sweating out god’s retribution? Or gave god a moment’s thought?
Well, I think Mitt Romney must have had something to do with Numerian’s death.
That’s why Seamus won’t get in the car.