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.