Saint Nicholas of Myra (also known as Nicholas of Bari) was a Christian bishop of Greek background from the port city of Patara in Anatolia (in today’s Antalya Province, Turkey) during the Roman Empire. 

Tradition says he was born on 15 March 270 and died on 6 December 343. Because many miracles were credited to his prayers, people called him “Nicholas the Wonderworker.” Over time he became the patron saint of sailors, merchants, archers, repentant thieves, children, brewers, pawnbrokers, toymakers, unmarried people, and students in many parts of Europe. His reputation grew in the usual way early saints’ reputations did: through pious stories. His habit of secretly giving gifts, especially to the poor, eventually turned into the legend of Santa Claus (“Saint Nick”) through the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas.

Historically, very little about Nicholas can be known for certain. The first written accounts of his life were composed several centuries after he died and are full of legendary material. According to tradition, he was born in the wealthy Christian family of a couple in Patara, a seaport in Lycia in Asia Minor. 

One of the oldest and most famous stories about him says that he saved three young girls from being forced into prostitution. Their father was poor and could not provide dowries so they could marry. Nicholas is said to have gone to their house at night on three different nights and thrown bags of gold coins through the window, enough for each girl’s dowry.

Other early legends say that Nicholas calmed a storm at sea, saved three innocent soldiers from being executed, and cut down a tree believed to be haunted by a demon. As a young man he is said to have gone on pilgrimage to Egypt and to the Holy Land (Syria Palaestina). 

After he returned, he became bishop of the nearby city of Myra. During the persecution of Christians under Emperor Diocletian, Nicholas was supposedly imprisoned and possibly tortured, but later released when Constantine became emperor.

Some early lists say Nicholas attended the First Council of Nicaea in 325, but he is not mentioned by writers who were actually there. Much later legends, not supported by early evidence, claim that at the council he slapped the heretic Arius across the face, for which he was stripped of his bishop’s garments and jailed, only to be miraculously restored by Christ and the Virgin Mary in a vision. 

Another late legend says that he brought back to life three children who had been murdered by a butcher, cut up, and pickled in brine to be sold as pork during a famine.

Less than two hundred years after his death, Emperor Theodosius II ordered a church built in Myra in honor of Saint Nicholas, on the site where he had served as bishop, and his remains were placed in a sarcophagus there. 

In 1087, when the region’s Greek Christians had fallen under the control of the Muslim Seljuk Turks and relations between Eastern and Western Christians were tense, merchants from the Italian city of Bari secretly took most of Nicholas’s bones from his tomb without permission and brought them to Bari. There they were placed in the Basilica di San Nicola, where they remain. Later, Venetian sailors took the remaining fragments during the First Crusade and brought them to Venice.

No writings by Nicholas himself survive, and no contemporary historian mentions him, which is not surprising given how troubled that period of Roman history was. Still, by the sixth century his cult was already well established. The building and later renovation of churches dedicated to him, and references by Byzantine writers, show that his name was well known. 

His name appears in some lists as “Nicholas of Myra of Lycia” among the bishops at Nicaea, and he is mentioned briefly in the life of another saint, Nicholas of Sion, who reportedly visited his tomb. The simple fact that he had a tomb people could visit is one of the strongest signs that there really was a historical Bishop Nicholas of Myra.

Around 583, the theologian Eustratius of Constantinople cited one of Nicholas’s miracles, the saving of three generals, as proof that souls could act apart from the body. Eustratius said he found this story in a now-lost “Life of Saint Nicholas,” probably written not long after Nicholas’s death, in the late fourth or early fifth century.

The earliest full biography that still exists is a “Life of Saint Nicholas” written by Michael the Archimandrite in the early ninth century, about five hundred years after Nicholas died. Although it is late, scholars think it uses much older written sources and oral traditions. The exact nature and reliability of those sources is uncertain, but many historians view Michael’s Life as the only account likely to preserve some historical truth.

Some scholars note that Michael’s Life does not include a dramatic “conversion story,” which was common in later saint biographies, suggesting he may have copied an older source written before that style became popular. 

Many stories about Nicholas in Michael’s work resemble stories told about Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century pagan philosopher, whose life was written by Philostratus in the third century. It was common for Christian saints’ legends to borrow from earlier pagan stories. Since Apollonius’ hometown was not far from Myra, it is possible that popular tales about Apollonius were gradually transferred to Nicholas.

One traditional story says that when Nicholas returned from the Holy Land, the bishop of Myra had just died and the priests had decided that the first priest to enter the church in the morning would be chosen as the new bishop. Nicholas went to pray early, was the first to arrive, and so was made bishop. 

Another tradition says that he was imprisoned and tortured during Diocletian’s Great Persecution but later freed by Constantine. This sounds reasonable but is not found in the earliest sources and may therefore not be historical.

A famous early miracle story, first clearly recorded by Michael the Archimandrite, tells how Nicholas saved three innocent men from execution. The governor Eustathius had condemned them to death, but as they were about to be beheaded, Nicholas appeared, grabbed the executioner’s sword, freed the men, and scolded the corrupt officials who had taken bribes. 

Another story has Nicholas appearing in dreams to Emperor Constantine and the consul Ablabius, demanding the release of three generals who had been falsely accused and imprisoned because of lies and bribery. Later versions combine these stories and add details: three trusted generals are forced by bad weather to stop in Myra, Nicholas stops their soldiers from looting, rescues three innocent men from execution with their help, and later appears in dreams to clear the generals’ names after they are slandered.

The legend about Nicholas at the Council of Nicaea says he was a strong opponent of Arianism and a supporter of the doctrine of the Trinity, and that he signed the Nicene Creed. Early lists of council attendees sometimes include his name, sometimes not. Some scholars think his name was added later out of embarrassment that such a famous bishop seemed to be missing; others think he really was there but his name was later removed.

The story that he slapped Arius is only found in sources more than a thousand years after his death and is not considered historically reliable by most historians, though some argue it might be true precisely because it is embarrassing rather than flattering. In later, more dramatic versions, he is stripped of his bishop’s garments, imprisoned, then miraculously freed and restored by Christ and Mary, and the scene of him striking Arius became a popular subject in Eastern Orthodox icons and later artwork.

Another well-known miracle story, from the late Middle Ages, tells of a horrible famine during which a butcher murdered three children, chopped them up, and put their bodies in a barrel to cure them as if they were meat. 

Nicholas discovered the crime and, by making the sign of the cross, brought the children back to life. Modern scholars see no historical value in this story, but it became extremely popular and was often depicted in medieval art. Over time, people began to associate Nicholas with children and with barrels. This helped make him the patron saint of children and, in some people’s minds, of brewers.

Another story about the famine in Myra around 311–312 tells of a ship loaded with wheat bound for Constantinople. Nicholas asked the sailors to unload some grain to help the starving people, but they refused at first, because they had to deliver a precise weight to the emperor. 

Nicholas promised they would not lose anything by helping. When they finally agreed and gave a portion of the wheat, they later discovered that the total weight of the cargo had not changed. Meanwhile, the grain left in Myra fed the people for two years and provided seed for planting.

Traditional accounts agree on the outline of Nicholas’s life: he was born in Patara in Asia Minor, in a wealthy Greek Christian family, and later became bishop of Myra. Different sources give different names for his parents, and some say his uncle was the previous bishop of Myra and ordained Nicholas as a priest. When his parents died, Nicholas is said to have inherited their wealth and given it away to the poor.

The most famous example is the story of the three daughters, where he secretly gave money for dowries. In art, this scene is often shown with Nicholas wearing a hood or cowl, the three daughters in bed in their nightclothes, and sometimes a tree or cross-topped building nearby.

Some historians think this dowry story may have a real historical base because it was recorded relatively early and is not told about other saints in quite the same way. Others point out that a similar story is told about Apollonius of Tyana, but the differences—especially Nicholas’s aim to protect the women from prostitution—fit well with Christian values of the fourth century.

Nicholas is also said to have gone to the Holy Land, where the ship he was on nearly sank in a violent storm. He prayed and scolded the waves, and the storm suddenly calmed, which is why seafarers and travelers came to regard him as their special protector. 

In Palestine, tradition says he lived for a time in a small underground cell or crypt near Bethlehem, the place where Jesus was born. A church dedicated to Saint Nicholas now stands there in Beit Jala, a Christian town that still honors him as its patron saint.

Diocletian was born in the Roman province of Dalmatia, probably near the town of Salona (modern Solin in Croatia), where he eventually retired. His original name was Gaius Valerius Diocles, possibly derived from the name of his mother and her birthplace, Dioclea. His official birthday was 22 December, and based on later accounts that he died at about 68, he was likely born between 242 and 245. His parents were of low social status; some ancient writers say his father was a scribe, others that Diocles himself had once been a freedman of a senator called Anullinus. The first forty years of his life are poorly documented. We know that he was from the Illyrian regions and served as a soldier under the emperors Aurelian and Probus. Later sources claim he held high commands on the Danube frontier, but details of his early career remain uncertain. The first firmly attested point in his life is in 282, when Emperor Carus appointed him commander of the protectores domestici, an elite cavalry bodyguard. This position brought him enough prestige to become consul in 283.

After Carus died suddenly during a successful campaign against Persia—rumored to have been caused either by lightning or by enemy action—his sons Carinus and Numerian became emperors. Carinus took control of the West, ruling from Rome, while Numerian remained with the army in the East. During the return march from Persia, Numerian reportedly developed an eye disease and began traveling in a closed coach. When the army reached Bithynia, the soldiers noticed a foul smell coming from the coach, opened it, and discovered that Numerian was dead. The powerful court official Aper, Numerian’s father-in-law, announced the news in Nicomedia. The generals and tribunes gathered to choose a new emperor and selected Diocles. On 20 November 284, the army of the East met outside Nicomedia and hailed him as Augustus. In front of the assembled troops, Diocles swore that he was not responsible for Numerian’s death and accused Aper of murder. He then killed Aper with his own hand before the soldiers. Soon afterward, Diocles adopted the more Latinized name Gaius Valerius Diocletianus—Diocletian.

Diocletian’s first major challenge was the rival emperor Carinus, who still ruled in the West. Diocletian appointed an experienced senator, Lucius Caesonius Bassus, as his consular colleague, signaling a break with Carinus’ regime and an alliance with the Senate. At the same time, another usurper, Julianus, proclaimed himself emperor in northern Italy and Pannonia, minting coins and briefly complicating the political situation. Carinus defeated Julianus but then had to face Diocletian. In the spring of 285, their armies met on the river Margus in Moesia (in the Balkans). Although Carinus commanded a larger and stronger army, his rule was unpopular; there were accusations that he had mistreated the Senate and seduced the wives of his officers. During the battle, his prefect Aristobulus defected, and Carinus was ultimately killed by his own men. Diocletian emerged as sole emperor recognized by both the eastern and western armies, took their oath of loyalty, and marched toward Italy.

In the early years of his reign, Diocletian probably campaigned against Germanic tribes such as the Quadi and Marcomanni and consolidated his position in northern Italy. It is unclear whether he visited Rome immediately; if he did, he did not stay long. He preferred to rule from strategic provincial centers closer to the frontiers rather than from the traditional capital. Diocletian dated his reign from the day the army proclaimed him emperor, not from senatorial recognition, emphasizing that his power came from military acclamation, not the Senate. Nevertheless, he maintained a working relationship with the senatorial class, appointing prominent senators as consuls and retaining many officials who had served under Carinus. In a show of clemency unusual for that period, he even confirmed Aristobulus—who had betrayed Carinus—as praetorian prefect and later entrusted him with other high offices.

Recognizing that the empire was too vast and troubled for one man to rule effectively, Diocletian soon chose a colleague. In 285 he elevated his trusted fellow officer Maximian to the rank of Caesar, effectively making him junior co-ruler and heir, and soon afterward promoted him to Augustus, making them equal emperors. Together, they divided responsibilities: Diocletian took the East, Maximian the West. They strengthened their bond symbolically by adopting one another’s family names and by presenting themselves in religious terms: Diocletian associated himself with Jupiter (Iovius), the chief god and supreme authority, while Maximian associated himself with Hercules (Herculius), Jupiter’s loyal and powerful helper. This imagery reinforced a vision of cooperative rule in which Diocletian planned and commanded and Maximian acted as his heroic partner.

While Maximian struggled with revolts, including that of Carausius, who set himself up as a breakaway emperor in Britain and parts of northern Gaul, Diocletian focused on securing the Danube frontier and managing relations in the East. He fought Sarmatian and other tribes along the Danube, reorganized the frontier defenses, and fortified key cities. In the East, he took advantage of instability in the Sassanid Persian Empire. Through diplomatic and military pressure, he gained recognition of Roman control over parts of Armenia and Mesopotamia, strengthened the frontier, and earned the title “founder of eternal peace.” In Egypt, Diocletian faced serious rebellion after he attempted to reform taxes and administration. A usurper, Domitius Domitianus, seized control of Alexandria and much of the province. Diocletian personally led a campaign to reclaim Egypt, suppressed the revolt, besieged and captured Alexandria, and then reorganized the province, bringing its bureaucratic and fiscal practices more into line with the rest of the empire.

To stabilize government and succession more permanently, Diocletian created the Tetrarchy in 293. He and Maximian remained senior emperors (Augusti), but each appointed a junior emperor (Caesar): Galerius in the East and Constantius in the West. These four rulers each governed a portion of the empire, with their own courts, armies, and administrative centers, but they were bound by a carefully constructed network of family ties and formal adoptions. The system was meant to provide orderly succession: the Caesars would eventually become Augusti, while new Caesars would be chosen, ideally avoiding civil wars over the throne. The four emperors spent much of their time on campaign or dealing with local crises: Galerius fought Persians and Sarmatians, Constantius eventually defeated Carausius’ regime in Britain, and Diocletian continued to strengthen the Danube and eastern frontiers.

Diocletian was a traditionalist in religious matters and devoted to the old Roman gods. At first his policy toward Christians was relatively tolerant, but around 299–303 a shift occurred. An attempt at divination at court allegedly failed because Christian officials refused to participate in sacrifices. Influenced especially by Galerius and by oracular consultation, Diocletian ordered increasingly harsh measures. Christian soldiers and officials were required to sacrifice or lose their positions; then a series of edicts ordered the destruction of churches, the burning of scriptures, the arrest of clergy, and forced public sacrifices under pain of imprisonment, torture, or death. This period, known as the Great Persecution, was the most severe anti-Christian campaign in Roman history, though it was enforced unevenly: some regions, particularly in the West under Constantius, saw relatively mild application. In the long run, the persecution failed. Within a generation, Christianity would gain imperial favor under Constantine, and later Christian writers portrayed Diocletian as a villain for his role in these events.

In his later years, Diocletian’s health declined. After a taxing campaign on the Danube and a collapse during a public ceremony in Nicomedia, he spent months out of sight and was rumored to be dead. In 305, appearing visibly weakened, he did something unprecedented: he voluntarily abdicated the imperial throne. On 1 May 305, at the same hill near Nicomedia where he had once been proclaimed emperor, he formally laid down his powers. On the same day, Maximian also retired. The two Caesars, Galerius and Constantius, were promoted to Augusti, and two new Caesars—Severus and Maximinus Daia—were appointed. Notably, the adult sons of the Augusti, Constantine and Maxentius, were passed over, a decision that would later help destabilize the system.

Diocletian retired to his native Dalmatia, to a grand fortified palace he had built near Salona, at Spalatum (modern Split in Croatia). There he lived as a private citizen, tending his gardens and enjoying a quieter life far from the intrigues of court. When later emperors and generals urged him to return to power to resolve the civil conflicts that erupted after his retirement, he reportedly refused, saying that if they could see the cabbages he had grown with his own hands, they would never ask him to give up such peace for the storms of power. He lived to see the Tetrarchic system he designed collapse into a new round of civil wars, and to hear of the suicide and condemnation of his former colleague Maximian. Diocletian died in his palace in 311 or 312, possibly by his own hand, leaving behind a transformed empire.

His legacy rests largely on his reforms. Diocletian greatly expanded and reorganized the imperial bureaucracy, dividing the empire into many more provinces grouped into larger dioceses, each overseen by new layers of officials. He separated military and civil authority, giving military command to duces and comites, while governors handled justice and taxes. He strengthened frontiers, especially along the Danube and in the East, and reorganized imperial finances and tax systems. Ideologically, he abandoned the old fiction that the emperor was merely “first among equals,” instead presenting the emperor as a distant, sacred monarch, surrounded by ceremony, jeweled robes, and strict protocol. Though many of his arrangements unraveled after his retirement, Diocletian’s reordering of the state laid much of the groundwork for the later, more centralized and militarized Roman Empire of Late Antiquity.

King Bulan was a historical Khazar ruler, known for his conversion to Judaism, which led to it becoming the state religion of the Khazar Khaganate, likely in the 8th or 9th century CE.

Key Details:

Role: Bulan was a prominent figure in the Khazar ruling elite. He may have been the Khagan (supreme ruler) or the Bek (commander-in-chief/king, who handled military campaigns and day-to-day governance).

Conversion to Judaism: According to Khazar tradition, as described in medieval sources like the Khazar Correspondence and The Kuzari by Yehuda Halevi, Bulan was religiously unaffiliated before his conversion. He invited representatives of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to present their faiths. After hearing their arguments, he chose Judaism, and the royal court and a segment of the Khazar people followed suit. This decision was likely driven by a combination of spiritual motivations and geopolitical considerations, as choosing Judaism allowed Khazaria to remain politically neutral between the rival Byzantine (Christian) and Muslim Caliphate empires.

Name and Identity: His name means "elk" or "hart" in Old Turkic. He is often identified with another figure, Sabriel, and thus is sometimes referred to as Bulan Sabriel.

Legacy: Bulan founded the Bulanid dynasty, which ruled the Khazar Khaganate for several generations. His descendant, King Obadiah, further established and strengthened the Jewish religion within the kingdom by building synagogues and inviting Jewish scholars.

Historical Context: While the fact that the Khazar elite converted to Judaism is widely accepted by historians, the exact date and details of the conversion story are debated, with possible dates ranging from the mid-700s to the mid-800s CE.

King Bulan remains a significant figure in the history of the Khazars and in Jewish history, particularly as the central figure in the literary work The Kuzari, which uses his story as a framework for exploring Jewish philosophy.

King Bulan was the ruler of the Khazar kingdom who is credited with leading the mass conversion of his people to Judaism around the mid-9th century. According to historical sources, Bulan converted after hearing religious arguments from representatives of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and chose Judaism as the religion for his kingdom, a decision that placed the Khazar Khaganate as a Jewish state situated between powerful Christian and Muslim empires.

The Conversion: Sources recount that Bulan's conversion was not immediate, but followed a period of questioning where he invited religious leaders from different faiths to present their cases. After evaluating their arguments, he reportedly chose Judaism.

Political and Spiritual Motivation: While the exact reasons are debated, the conversion may have been motivated by a desire to remain politically neutral between the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic Caliphate, rather than aligning with either Christianity or Islam.

Legacy: The conversion of King Bulan and his court is a significant event in Jewish history, as it led to the Jewish Khazar kingdom that lasted for several centuries. After Bulan, other Khazar rulers, such as Obadiah, continued to strengthen Jewish institutions within the kingdom.

The statement "Rain king james kill mother" is incorrect. It's a misinterpretation of historical events involving King James VI of Scotland (later James I of England) and his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots. Mary Queen of Scots was executed by Queen Elizabeth I of England, not killed by her son James. James was King of Scotland when his mother was executed and he did little to intervene.

After 19 years of imprisonment, Mary, Queen of Scots is beheaded at Fotheringhay Castle in England for her complicity in a plot to murder Queen Elizabeth I.

In 1542, while just six days old, Mary ascended to the Scottish throne upon the death of her father, King James V. Her mother sent her to be raised in the French court, and in 1558 she married the French dauphin, who became King Francis II of France in 1559 but died the following year. After Francis’ death, Mary returned to Scotland to assume her designated role as the country’s monarch.

In 1565, she married her English cousin Lord Darnley in order to reinforce her claim of succession to the English throne after Elizabeth’s death. In 1567, Darnley was mysteriously killed in an explosion at Kirk o’ Field, and Mary’s lover, the Earl of Bothwell, was the key suspect. Although Bothwell was acquitted of the charge, his marriage to Mary in the same year enraged the nobility. Mary brought an army against the nobles, but was defeated and imprisoned at Lochleven, Scotland, and forced to abdicate in favor of her son by Darnley, James.

In 1568, Mary escaped from captivity and raised a substantial army but was defeated and fled to England. Queen Elizabeth initially welcomed Mary but was soon forced to put her friend under house arrest after Mary became the focus of various English Catholic and Spanish plots to overthrow Elizabeth. Nineteen years later, in 1586, a major plot to murder Elizabeth was reported, and Mary was brought to trial. She was convicted for complicity and sentenced to death.

On February 8, 1587, Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded for treason. Her son, King James VI of Scotland, calmly accepted his mother’s execution, and upon Queen Elizabeth’s death in 1603 he became king of England, Scotland and Ireland.

King James I's life and reign provide a significant lens through which to examine the history of homosexuality in 16th and 17th century England. While same-sex relationships were not explicitly legalized or recognized, they were also not universally condemned. The king's close relationships with male favorites, particularly Robert Carr and George Villiers, have been interpreted as evidence of homoerotic attraction, although this interpretation is still debated.

Historical Context and Debate:

Limited Legal Framework:

The term "homosexuality" did not exist in the way it does today. Laws focused on "sodomy," which was defined as sex with a male and specifically excluded sexual acts between women.

Social Norms and Interpretations:

Male-male relationships, especially in courtly settings, were often viewed as public expressions of friendship and patronage rather than necessarily sexual. Sharing beds, exchanging kisses, and other displays of affection were common practices, even among heterosexual men, and these actions are often cited as evidence of King James's sexual preferences, but can also be interpreted as displays of intimacy within the context of his court.

Historians' Perspectives:

Historical accounts of James's life have varied. Some have focused on moral condemnations of his supposed homosexuality, while others have re-evaluated his reign and separated his sexuality from broader judgments about his character and leadership.

Impact of the Civil War:

Some historians, like Michael Young, argue that King James's homosexuality, particularly his spending of state funds on his favorites, may have contributed to the tensions and unrest that led to the English Civil War.

Key Figures and Relationships:

Robert Carr:

A close confidante and advisor to King James, Carr was known for his beauty and was the object of the King's affections.

George Villiers:

Another favorite of King James, Villiers became the Duke of Buckingham and held significant political power.

In Conclusion:

King James's life and relationships provide valuable insights into the complexities of same-sex relationships and the evolving understanding of sexuality in early modern England. While historical accounts often focus on moral judgments and the King's relationships with his male favorites, it is crucial to consider the broader social context and the ambiguities of interpretation in order to gain a more nuanced understanding of this historical period.

Explanation:

Saturnalia was a Roman festival that celebrated the winter solstice and the Roman god Saturn.

The festival began on December 17th and lasted up to seven days.

The festival included food, drink, song, dancing, and games.

The festival was a public holiday and had a carnival-like atmosphere.

During Saturnalia, people gave each other gifts and ate and drank lots.

The festival derived from older farming-related rituals.

The festival included offering gifts or sacrifices to the gods during the winter sowing season.

Related celebrations:

The Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or "Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun", was celebrated on December 25th in the later Roman Empire.

As the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, 25 December became a holy day.

Christ's birthday was commemorated on January 6th from AD 336 until AD 354–60.

Christmas Day emerged from a combination of parts of these different winter festivals.

In Roman mythology, Saturn was an agricultural deity who was said to have reigned over the world in the Golden Age, when humans enjoyed the spontaneous bounty of the earth without labour in a state of innocence. The revelries of Saturnalia were supposed to reflect the conditions of the lost mythical age. The Greek equivalent was the Kronia, which was celebrated on the twelfth day of the month of Hekatombaion, which occurred from around mid-July to mid-August on the Attic calendar.

The Greek writer Athenaeus cites numerous other examples of similar festivals celebrated throughout the Greco-Roman world, including the Cretan festival of Hermaia in honor of Hermes, an unnamed festival from Troezen in honor of Poseidon, the Thessalian festival of Peloria in honor of Zeus Pelorios, and an unnamed festival from Babylon. He also mentions that the custom of masters dining with their slaves was associated with the Athenian festival of Anthesteria and the Spartan festival of Hyacinthia. The Argive festival of Hybristica, though not directly related to the Saturnalia, involved a similar reversal of roles in which women would dress as men and men would dress as women.

The ancient Roman historian Justinus credits Saturn with being a historical king of the pre-Roman inhabitants of Italy:

"The first inhabitants of Italy were the Aborigines, whose king, Saturnus, is said to have been a man of such extraordinary justice, that no one was a slave in his reign, or had any private property, but all things were common to all, and undivided, as one estate for the use of every one; in memory of which way of life, it has been ordered that at the Saturnalia slaves should everywhere sit down with their masters at the entertainments, the rank of all being made equal."

Although probably the best-known Roman holiday, Saturnalia as a whole is not described from beginning to end in any single ancient source. Modern understanding of the festival is pieced together from several accounts dealing with various aspects. The Saturnalia was the dramatic setting of the multivolume work of that name by Macrobius, a Latin writer from late antiquity who is the major source for information about the holiday.

 Macrobius describes the reign of Justinus's "king Saturn" as "a time of great happiness, both on account of the universal plenty that prevailed and because as yet there was no division into bond and free – as one may gather from the complete license enjoyed by slaves at the Saturnalia." In Lucian's Saturnalia it is Chronos himself who proclaims a "festive season, when 'tis lawful to be drunken, and slaves have license to revile their lords".

In one of the interpretations in Macrobius's work, Saturnalia is a festival of light leading to the winter solstice, with the abundant presence of candles symbolizing the quest for knowledge and truth. The renewal of light and the coming of the new year was celebrated in the later Roman Empire at the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the "Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun", on 25 December.

The popularity of Saturnalia continued into the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, and as the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, many of its customs were recast into or at least influenced the seasonal celebrations surrounding Christmas and the New Year.

Note: It is written. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you are turning back to those weak and worthless principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!… Galatians 4:9-10

Note: Colossians 2:20-23 says. If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations: / “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? / These will all perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 

The Herero and Nama genocide or Namibian genocide, formerly known also as the Herero and Namaqua genocide, was a campaign of ethnic extermination and collective punishment which was waged against the Herero (Ovaherero) and the Nama in German South West Africa (now Namibia) by the German Empire. It was the first genocide to begin in the 20th century, occurring between 1904 and 1908. In January 1904, the Herero people, who were led by Samuel Maharero, and the Nama people, who were led by Captain Hendrik Witbooi, rebelled against German colonial rule. On 12 January 1904, they killed more than 100 German settlers in the area of Okahandja.

In August 1904, German General Lothar von Trotha defeated the Ovaherero in the Battle of Waterberg and drove them into the desert of Omaheke, where most of them died of dehydration. In October, the Nama people also rebelled against the Germans, only to suffer a similar fate. Between 24,000 and 100,000 Hereros and 10,000 Nama were killed in the genocide. The first phase of the genocide was characterized by widespread death from starvation and dehydration, due to the prevention of the Herero from leaving the Namib desert by German forces. Once defeated, thousands of Hereros and Namas were imprisoned in concentration camps, where the majority died of diseases, abuse, and exhaustion.

In 1985, the United Nations' Whitaker Report classified the aftermath as an attempt to exterminate the Herero and Nama peoples of South West Africa, and therefore one of the earliest attempts at genocide in the 20th century. In 2004, the German government recognised the events in what a German minister qualified as an "apology" but ruled out financial compensation for the victims' descendants.

 In July 2015, the German government and the speaker of the Bundestag officially called the events a "genocide"; however, it refused to consider reparations at that time. Despite this, the last batch of skulls and other remains of slaughtered tribesmen which were taken to Germany to promote racial superiority were taken back to Namibia in 2018, with Petra Bosse-Huber [de], a German Protestant bishop, describing the event as "the first genocide of the 20th century".

In May 2021, the German government issued an official statement in which it said that Germany

"apologizes and bows before the descendants of the victims. Today, more than 100 years later, Germany asks for forgiveness for the sins of their forefathers. It is not possible to undo what has been done. But the suffering, inhumanity and pain inflicted on the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children by Germany during the war in what is today Namibia must not be forgotten. It must serve as a warning against racism and genocide."

The same year, the German government agreed to pay €1.1 billion over 30 years to fund projects in communities that were impacted by the genocide.

The original inhabitants of what is now Namibia were the San and the Khoekhoe.

Herero, who speak a Bantu language, were originally a group of cattle herders who migrated into what is now Namibia during the mid-18th century. The Herero seized vast swathes of the arable upper plateaus which were ideal for cattle grazing. Agricultural duties, which were minimal, were assigned to enslaved Khoisan and Bushmen. Over the rest of the 18th century, the Herero slowly drove the Khoisan into the dry, rugged hills to the south and east.

The Hereros were a pastoral people whose entire way of life centred on their cattle. The Herero language, while limited in its vocabulary for most areas, contains more than a thousand words for the colours and markings of cattle. The Hereros were content to live in peace as long as their cattle were safe and well-pastured, but became formidable warriors when their cattle were threatened.

According to Robert Gaudi, "The newcomers, much taller and more fiercely warlike than the indigenous Khoisan people, were possessed of the fierceness that comes from basing one's way of life on a single source: everything they valued, all wealth and personal happiness, had to do with cattle. Regarding the care and protection of their herds, the Herero showed themselves utterly merciless, and far more 'savage' than the Khoisan had ever been. Because of their dominant ways and elegant bearing, the few Europeans who encountered Herero tribesmen in the early days regarded them as the region's 'natural aristocrats.'"

By the time of the Scramble for Africa, the area which was occupied by the Herero was known as Damaraland. The Nama were pastorals and traders and lived to the south of the Herero.

In 1883, Adolf Lüderitz, a German merchant, purchased a stretch of coast near Lüderitz Bay (Angra Pequena) from the reigning chief. The terms of the purchase were fraudulent, but the German government nonetheless established a protectorate over it. At that time, it was the only overseas German territory deemed suitable for European settlement.

Chief of the neighbouring Herero, Maharero rose to power by uniting all the Herero.  61  Faced with repeated attacks by the Khowesin, a clan of the Khoekhoe under Hendrik Witbooi, he signed a protection treaty on 21 October 1885 with Imperial Germany's colonial governor Heinrich Ernst Göring (father of Hermann Göring) but did not cede the land of the Herero. This treaty was renounced in 1888 due to lack of German support against Witbooi but it was reinstated in 1890.

The Herero leaders repeatedly complained about violation of this treaty, as Herero women and girls were raped by Germans, a crime that the German judges and prosecutors were reluctant to punish.

In 1890 Maharero's son, Samuel, signed a great deal of land over to the Germans in return for helping him to ascend to the Ovaherero throne, and to subsequently be established as paramount chief.  29  German involvement in ethnic fighting ended in tenuous peace in 1894. 48  In that year, Theodor Leutwein became governor of the territory, which underwent a period of rapid development, while the German government sent the Schutztruppe (imperial colonial troops) to pacify the region

 King Charles III is a descendant of Vlad the Impaler by Trey Knowles

Recap King James of King James bible version killed his own mother to become King. Yes, that King James. He is also a descendant of the dragon Vlad the Impaler also.

Present day of year 2025. King Charles III is a descendant of Vlad the Impaler, the 15th-century Romanian ruler who inspired Bram Stoker's Dracula:

Ancestry

King Charles is the 16th great-grandson of Vlad the Impaler through his great-grandmother, Queen Mary of Teck. Mary is thought to be descended from two of Vlad's sons.

Vlad the Impaler

Vlad the Impaler, also known as Vlad III or Vlad Dracula, was a brutal warlord who impaled his enemies on wooden stakes. His brutal actions inspired Bram Stoker's Dracula, though historians suggest that Stoker based the character more on Romanian folklore.

King Charles's connection to Romania

King Charles has a fascination with Transylvania and owns several properties in Romania, including in Viscri, the Zalanului Valley, Malancrav, and Breb. He visits the region every year and opens up his properties to visitors. He also supports The King's Foundation Romania, which works with local communities to develop practical skills.

Honorary title

In 2017, King Charles was invited by the mayor of Alba Iulia to accept the honorary title of Prince of Transylvania.

The King of England lives in the Dragon House of Vlad the Impaler

Note: These are the people you are dealing with. The eat people.

Vlad III, commonly known as Vlad the Impaler (Romanian: Vlad Țepeș [ˈvlad ˈtsepeʃ]) or Vlad Dracula (/ˈdrækjʊlə, -jə-/; Romanian: Vlad Drăculea [ˈdrəkule̯a]; 1428/31 – 1476/77), was Voivode of Wallachia three times between 1448 and his death in 1476/77. He is often considered one of the most important rulers in Wallachian history and a national hero of Romania.

He was the second son of Vlad Dracul, who became the ruler of Wallachia in 1436. Vlad and his younger brother, Radu, were held as hostages in the Ottoman Empire in 1442 to secure their father's loyalty. Vlad's eldest brother Mircea and their father were murdered after John Hunyadi, regent-governor of Hungary, invaded Wallachia in 1447. Hunyadi installed Vlad's second cousin, Vladislav II, as the new voivode. Hunyadi launched a military campaign against the Ottomans in the autumn of 1448, and Vladislav accompanied him. Vlad broke into Wallachia with Ottoman support in October, but Vladislav returned, and Vlad sought refuge in the Ottoman Empire before the end of the year. Vlad went to Moldavia in 1449 or 1450 and later to Hungary.

Relations between Hungary and Vladislav later deteriorated, and in 1456 Vlad invaded Wallachia with Hungarian support. Vladislav died fighting against him. Vlad began a purge among the Wallachian boyars to strengthen his position. He came into conflict with the Transylvanian Saxons, who supported his opponents, Dan and Basarab Laiotă (who were Vladislav's brothers), and Vlad's illegitimate half-brother, Vlad Călugărul. Vlad plundered the Saxon villages, taking the captured people to Wallachia, where he had them impaled (which inspired his cognomen). Peace was restored in 1460.

The Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed II, ordered Vlad to pay homage to him personally, but Vlad had the Sultan's two envoys captured and impaled. In February 1462, he attacked Ottoman territory, massacring tens of thousands of Turks and Muslim Bulgarians. Mehmed launched a campaign against Wallachia to replace Vlad with Vlad's younger brother, Radu. Vlad attempted to capture the sultan at Târgoviște during the night of 16–17 June 1462. The Sultan and the main Ottoman army left Wallachia, but more and more Wallachians deserted to Radu. Vlad went to Transylvania to seek assistance from Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, in late 1462, but Corvinus had him imprisoned.

Vlad was held in captivity in Visegrád from 1463 to 1475. During this period, anecdotes about his cruelty started to spread in Germany and Italy. He was released at the request of Stephen III of Moldavia in the summer of 1475. He fought in Corvinus's army against the Ottomans in Bosnia in early 1476. Hungarian and Moldavian troops helped him to force Basarab Laiotă (who had dethroned Vlad's brother, Radu) to flee from Wallachia in November. Basarab returned with Ottoman support before the end of the year. Vlad was killed in battle before 10 January 1477.

Books describing Vlad's cruel acts were among the first bestsellers in the German-speaking territories. In Russia, popular stories suggested that Vlad was able to strengthen his central government only by applying brutal punishments, and many 19th-century Romanian historians adopted a similar view. Vlad's patronymic inspired the name of Bram Stoker's literary vampire, Count Dracula.

The name Dracula, which is now primarily known as the name of a vampire, was for centuries known as the sobriquet of Vlad III. Diplomatic reports and popular stories referred to him as Dracula, Dracuglia, or Drakula already in the 15th century. He himself signed his two letters as "Dragulya" or "Drakulya" in the late 1470s.

His name had its origin in the sobriquet of his father, Vlad Dracul ("Vlad the Dragon" in medieval Romanian), who received it after he became a member of the Order of the Dragon. Dracula is the Slavonic genitive form of Dracul, meaning "[the son] of Dracul (or the Dragon)". In modern Romanian, dracul means "the devil", which contributed to Vlad's reputation.

Vlad III is known as Vlad Țepeș (or Vlad the Impaler) in Romanian historiography. This sobriquet is connected to the impalement that was his favorite method of execution.[12] The Ottoman writer Tursun Beg referred to him as Kazıklı Voyvoda (Impaler Lord) around 1500.[12] Mircea the Shepherd, Voivode of Wallachia, used this sobriquet when referring to Vlad III in a letter of grant on 1 April 1551.

Vlad was the second legitimate son of Vlad II Dracul, who was himself an illegitimate son of Mircea I of Wallachia. Vlad II had won the moniker "Dracul" for his membership in the Order of the Dragon, a militant fraternity founded by Sigismund of Luxemburg, King of Hungary. The Order of the Dragon was dedicated to halting the Ottoman advance into Europe.

Since he was old enough to be a candidate for the throne of Wallachia in 1448, Vlad's time of birth would have been between 1428 and 1431. Vlad was most probably born after his father settled in Transylvania in 1429. Historian Radu Florescu writes that Vlad was born in the Transylvanian Saxon town of Sighișoara (then in the Kingdom of Hungary), where his father lived in a three-story stone house from 1431 to 1435. Modern historians identify Vlad's mother either as a daughter or kinswoman of Alexander I of Moldavia or as his father's unknown first wife.

Vlad II Dracul seized Wallachia after the death of his half-brother Alexander I Aldea in 1436. One of his charters (which was issued on 20 January 1437) preserves the first reference to Vlad III and his elder brother, Mircea, mentioning them as their father's "firstborn sons". They were mentioned in four further documents between 1437 and 1439. The last of the four charters also refers to their younger brother, Radu.

After a meeting with John Hunyadi, Voivode of Transylvania, Vlad II Dracul did not support an Ottoman invasion of Transylvania in March 1442. The Ottoman Sultan, Murad II, ordered him to come to Gallipoli to demonstrate his loyalty. Vlad and Radu accompanied their father to the Ottoman Empire, where they were all imprisoned. Vlad Dracul was released before the end of the year, but Vlad and Radu remained hostages to secure his loyalty. They were held imprisoned in the fortress of Eğrigöz, Emit, according to contemporaneous Ottoman chronicles.

Their lives were especially in danger after their father supported Vladislaus, King of Poland and Hungary, against the Ottoman Empire during the Crusade of Varna in 1444. Vlad II Dracul was convinced that his two sons would be "butchered for the sake of Christian peace," but neither Vlad nor Radu was murdered or mutilated after their father's rebellion.

Vlad Dracul again acknowledged the sultan's suzerainty and promised to pay a yearly tribute to him in 1446 or 1447. John Hunyadi (who had by then become the regent-governor of Hungary in 1446), invaded Wallachia in November 1447.

The Byzantine historian Michael Critobulus wrote that Vlad and Radu fled to the Ottoman Empire, which suggests that the sultan had allowed them to return to Wallachia after their father paid homage to him. Vlad Dracul and his eldest son, Mircea, were murdered. Hunyadi made Vladislav II (son of Vlad Dracul's cousin, Dan II) the ruler of Wallachia.

First rule

Upon the death of his father and elder brother, Vlad became a potential claimant to Wallachia. Vladislav II of Wallachia accompanied John Hunyadi, who launched a campaign against the Ottoman Empire in September 1448.

Taking advantage of his opponent's absence, Vlad broke into Wallachia at the head of an Ottoman army in early October. He had to accept that the Ottomans had captured the fortress of Giurgiu on the Danube and strengthened

The Ottomans defeated Hunyadi's army in the Battle of Kosovo between 17 and 18 October. Hunyadi's deputy, Nicholas Vízaknai, urged Vlad to come to meet him in Transylvania, but Vlad refused him. Vladislav II returned to Wallachia at the head of the remnants of his army. Vlad was forced to flee to the Ottoman Empire by 7 December 1448.

We bring you the news that [Nicholas Vízaknai] writes to us and asks us to be so kind as to come to him until [John Hunyadi] ... returns from the war. We are unable to do this because an emissary from Nicopolis came to us ... and said with great certainty that [Murad II had defeated Hunyadi]. ... If we come to [Vízaknai] now, the [Ottomans] could come and kill both you and us. Therefore, we ask you to have patience until we see what has happened to [Hunyadi]. ... If he returns from the war, we will meet him, and we will make peace with him. But if you will be our enemies now, and if something happens, ... you will have to answer for it before God.