The funniest historical nickname
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15365
Printed Date: 08-Jun-2024 at 04:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The funniest historical nickname
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Subject: The funniest historical nickname
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 09:35
|
Ever wondered how on earth to keep Louis VIII and X apart? Henry IV and V? George I to V? Of course the numbers are relatively new, people did not use to number their kings. But to keep them apart they had to do something, and the answer was nick-naming....
You thought Charles the Fat, William the Silent and Ethelred the Unready had bad luck in names?
How about Ketil Flat-nose, or Olaf the Peacock....
So, what is the single most stupid, embarassing and wildly funny nickname for a historical person you ever came across? ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Replies:
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 11:15
|
Erasmo of Narni had a pretty stupid nickname. Gattamelata, the honeyed cat. Although if we were going for rulers I'd say Caligula (not really a nickname though). How does a man named "little boots" get to be ruler of the largest empire in the world? ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 11:56
|
In that case, it is not a nickname, but a family: Well, maybe it is not "historical" name yet, but i will be ahead of the history: The name of the russian admiral, who is the commander of Russia's Baltic Fleet is Vladimir Kuroedov. In bulgarian language "Kuroedov" means: "dick-eater"(who eat dicks). But i doubt, that he knows how famous is his family name in Bulgaria.  Just for an evidence: http://www.wps.ru/en/pp/kursk/2001/04/19/2.html - - http://newsfromrussia.com/main/2003/04/23/46262.html ------------- |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 23:01
|
Olof of Sweden's mother was Sigrid the Strong-Minded. She was a very strong-willed and controlling woman and Olof's nickname soon was Olof the Lap-King. Later, he got into all manner of expensive wars and his pitiless subjects changed the moniker to Olof the Tax-King. Poor France, beset by Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, and Charles the Simple... |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 05:09
You mean Olof Skotkonung? I thought he was called 'tribute' king because he was forced to pay tribute to the Danish kings...
As well as Louis the Pious, Louis the Stammmerer, Louis the Fat, Louis the Saint, Robert the Pious, Philips the Beautiful, John the Good and Louis the Spider King....
 -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: alexISS
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 06:48
|
Byzantine Emperor Constantine V Kopronymous (Κωνσταντίνος Ε' ο Κοπρώνυμος), nickname Kopronymous meaning "Dung Named"
------------- "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music" Groucho |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 07:02
That's right, that one is just awful. Apparently given to him after he made a most unfortunate accident in the baptismal waters as an infant, hostile Byzantine iconodule historians spitefully attached it to the Emperor. ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 18:15
|
William the Bastard, also known as William the Conquerer.
------------- 
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 07:17
|
Ethelred the Unready?
The oddity recently, made much of in Britain, was when Luxembourg's Jacques Santer became President of the EC in 1995. Jacques Santer is of course a French translation of John Lackland, the name given to King John (of England, that is).
------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 17:44
|
Julian the Apostate is a pretty bad one too, true he did despise Christianity but fought and died for the good of Constantinople.
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 00:04
| Ethelred the Unready was undoubtedly one of the most incompetent kings ever, and Julian the Apostate undoubtedly one of the most evil. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 04:47
|
I dont think Ethelred the Unready was such a bad king, he just had a LOT of bad luck... If he would have been a really bad king, he would not have reigned that long. The name comes from Old-English, and apparently 'Unprepared' would have been a better translation, and was given because he became king at such a young age.
Or perhaps he was a bad king...
-------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 08:06
| Bigus Dickus. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 08:10
|
Let's not forget Byzantine Emperor Michael the Sot (the 3rd), earning his nickname through extravegant debauchery and drinking. BTW, I rather like Julian the Apostate, he was a good deal more inspired than most of the Emperors of his age. ------------- |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 08:28
Both of them called so,by their enemies and their puppet-historians. Julian by christian historians, and Michael by those of the new Macedonian dynasty-iconophils. Its surprising how some capable and good emperors where treated by byzantine historians. For example those of the "Isaurian" dyansty. Leo III and his son Constantine,won some brilliant battles,actually saving the empire by Saracens and Bulgarians, but they were called "isaurians"-a tribe of southeastern asia minor ,although its probable that they were from Byzantine Syria. Isaurians had a really bad reputation as a tribe of thiefs and murderers ,so these bad iconoclast emperors deserved this nickname! |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 09:40
I think Michael probably did earn his nickname through his behaviour. He was an iconodule himself and the son of the arch-iconodule the Empress Theodora. Besides, the Emperor Leo VI was thought to perhaps have harboured loyalty to Michael through the possibility of being his son. The Isaurians were indeed a bunch with a bad reputation, earnt in the 5th century when these ruly warriors were used to replace the German foederati. Though it was not unsual to name dynasties after their place of origin and to do so in a mistaken fashion. The Amorium dynasty was, whilst the Macedonian dynasty was also (and wrongly named at that). That got me thinking, how about Alexius V Murtzuphlus, Murtzuphlus meaning "bushy eyebrowed" or something like that. Where his nickname came from is rather obvious. ------------- |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 09:54
You are right MIchael was iconophil/dule  ,but the historians of the Macedonian dynasty really destroyed his reputation,in order to "purify" his asassination by Basil I,the founder of the macedonian dynasty.
(The story is really old-take a look at "bad Saul" ,who was trying to kill "poor David" ..bad poor David,just asassinate the legal king and took his place
As for the Isaurians,i ve written that they were named so,although probably Syrians. |
Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 16:30
|
The wallachian ruler Radu Praznaglava (1421, 1423, 1424 - 1426, 1427) Prazna glava means "Empty head"(in bulgarian). ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 16:50
|
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 00:13
Inspired to murder!  |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 04:37
He personally was not responsible for murders on the scale of most other Emperors who killed off relatives and fellow courtiers. His persecutions of Christianity were also mild compared to the persecutions the Christian Emperors dished out to the pagan (and to other Christians who so much as dared disagree over triflingly minor matters of faith). Overall he was a hard working and capable man who did his best for his nations and probably would have achieved great things had he only reigned longer. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 09:47
|
Gore Vidal's novel Julian is excellent. ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 22:38
|
Julian was a visionary but i think he wanted to accomplish too much too soon.
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 00:15
|
This emperor was the son of Julius Constantius, and the nephew of Constantine the Great. He studied the rudiments of grammar under the inspection of Mardonius, a eunuch, and a heathen of Constantinople. His father sent him some time after to Nicomedia, to be instructed in the Christian religion, by the bishop of Eusebius, his kinsman, but his principles were corrupted by the pernicious doctrines of Ecebolius the rhetorician, and Maximus the magician. Constantius, dying the year 361, Julian succeeded him, and had no sooner attained the imperial dignity than he renounced Christianity and embraced paganism, which had for some years fallen into great disrepute. Though he restored the idolatrous worship, he made no public edicts against Christianity. He recalled all banished pagans, allowed the free exercise of religion to every sect, but deprived all Christians of offices at court, in the magistracy, or in the army. He was chaste, temperate, vigilant, laborious, and pious; yet he prohibited any Christian from keeping a school or public seminary of learning, and deprived all the Christian clergy of the privileges granted them by Constantine the Great. Biship Basil made himself first famous by his opposition to Arianism, which brought upon him the vengeance of the Arian bishop of Constantinople; he equally opposed paganism. The emperor's agents in vain tampered with Basil by means of promises, threats, and racks, he was firm in the faith, and remained in prison to undergo some other sufferings, when the emperor came accidentally to Ancyra. Julian determined to examine Basil himself, when that holy man being brought before him, the emperor did every thing in his power to dissuade him from persevering in the faith. Basil not only continued as firm as ever, but, with a prophetic spirit foretold the death of the emperor, and that he should be tormented in the other life. Enraged at what he heard, Julian commanded that the body of Basil should be torn every day in seven different parts, until his skin and flesh were entirely mangled. This inhuman sentence was executed with rigor, and the martyr expired under its severities, on June 28, A.D. 362. Donatus, bishop of Arezzo, and Hilarinus, a hermit, suffered about the same time; also Gordian, a Roman magistrate. Artemius, commander in chief of the Roman forces in Egypt, being a Christian, was deprived of his commission, then of his estate, and lastly of his head. The persecution raged dreadfully about the latter end of the year 363; but, as many of the particulars have not been handed down to us, it is necessary to remark in general, that in Palestine many were burnt alive, others were dragged by their feet through the streets naked until they expired; some were scalded to death, many stoned, and great numbers had their brains beaten out with clubs. In Alexandria, innumerable were the martyrs who suffered by the sword, burning, crucifixion and stoning. In Arethusa, several were ripped open, and corn being put into their bellies, swine were brought to feed therein, which, in devouring the grain, likewise devoured the entrails of the martyrs, and in Thrace, Emilianus was burnt at a stake; and Domitius murdered in a cave, whither he had fled for refuge. The emperor, Julian the apostate, died of a wound which he received in his Persian expedition, A.D. 363, and even while expiring, uttered the most horrid blasphemies. He was succeeded by Jovian, who restored peace to the Church. After the decease of Jovian, Valentinian succeeded to the empire, and associated to himself Valens, who had the command in the east, and was an Arian and of an unrelenting and persecuting disposition. A section of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 00:37
This source you have provided is obvious Christian propaganda. It
approaches the subject as though anyone who dared deviate from
Christian instruction is wicked or bad. Just look at this sentence:
So in other words, any views or philosophies not in line with the Chuch are automatically pernicious, and their effects are to corrupt? Obviously your source is not balanced and has no tolerance for other religious viewpoints or philosophies. Julian himself received one of the finest educations available and sat at the feet of some of the leading scholars of his day. He was exposed to a wide range of perspectives, Christian, pagan and otherwise. He was far better informed and educated than most men of his day and throughout his life showed clear scholarly talent, and yet he chose paganism. Let's move on.
Fallen into disrepute? Hardly, instead it had been discarded by the imperial family and persecuted by them. Paganism was still widely popular, especially in Rome itself. Your source shows clear errors in how it frames its information. Moving on.....
No particulars have been handed down to us? Then where is the historical validity in these claims? If your source wants to say people died during Julian's reign, it may do so. But let's get real here, you have provided us with a few specific citations of actual murders, only one of which (Basil) is directly attributed to Julian himself. By 4th century standards, this is incredibly good. Overall Julian reinvigorated the Roman military and was far more tolerant than the Christian Roman Emperors. Julian was a conscientious ruler, gifted with a learned mind and endowed with a far better education than most of his predecessors or any of his successors.
As your source notes, his personal conduct was nothing short of excellant. He reversed the persecutions instituted under the Christians only a couple of decades before and in a bid to see they did not return he constrained Christians in their access to powerful positions. He reversed the disproportionate and excessive privileges awarded to the Christians and as your source notes, allowed free exercise of religion (something Christianity never really grasped, we had to wait for the arrival of secularism before other religions in the West could truly be practiced with a guarantee of expression and safety). ------------- |
Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 03:03
OK, now i understand what exactly is "the missing" thing in his head. Thanks! ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 05:36
|
Percival...hmm that is a vaguely humourous name...haha - Percival..HAHA!
------------- |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 22:33
Vlad Tepez aka Vlad the Impaler aka "Draculla" 
well not that funny but odd enough...
------------- 
|
Posted By: Lepidodendron
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 02:31
|
I have always found Heinrich Jasomirgott (duke of Austria, c. 1107-1177) a funny name. It looks like the beginning of an oath or something. The other way around: Byzantine emperor Zeno was born with the name Tarasicodissa. (He was an Isaurian from Anatolia.) |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 08:30
|
ok i know it's not history YET, but you heard it here first. Bush the Crap
Nows that's a nickname ------------- |