by
You cannot be serious, emperor Galerius!
Introduction
Is it likely that the death of the emperor
Galerius (c. 310 AD, conventional dating), could have followed the same
horrible pattern as that of the Seleucid Greek king, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (c.
165 BC, conventional dating)?
After all, we are talking about a separation
- the one ruler from the other - by supposedly not much less than half a
millennium.
My revision of the times does make it much
more likely.
Here it will be greatly simplified.
First of all, king Antiochus himself needs to
be shuttled down the timeline by almost two centuries to the Infancy of Jesus
Christ. Antiochus is the same as Caesar Augustus of Luke 2:1, the Census
emperor.
And Antiochus was also, according to Jewish
tradition, the emperor Hadrian:
Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’
of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus
But emperor Diocletian, the contemporary of
Galerius, was also famous for a Census.
And professor Gunnar Heinsoh had argued,
right against the flow of text book wisdom, that Augustus and Diocletian were,
at least, contemporaneous.
“This transformation from a
more central to a more decentralized administration
did not take place 300 years
after these massive internal conflicts,
but during the time that
Augustus was still emperor. Diocletian did not
organize decentralization to
weaken Rome, but to protect the capital.
Diocletian was not an imitator
of Augustus's reforms. He was directly
responsible
for their implementation”.
Gunnar
Heinsohn
For more on this, see my articles:
Diocletian repeating Augustus?
(13)
Diocletian repeating Augustus?
Filling out Caesar Augustus - and some
who emulated him
(13)
Filling out Caesar Augustus - and some who emulated him
If my revision has any validity, then it
brings Galerius right into chronological range of king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’.
The conventional account of Galerius, leading
up to his nightmare death, would go something like this:
Galerius’
Wartime Walk Of Shame, And Subsequent Revenge, In Ancient Rome - The
Historian's Hut
Galerius’ Wartime Walk Of Shame, And Subsequent Revenge,
In Ancient Rome
By
-
April 15, 2025
Galerius was
a prominent military and political figure from the time of Emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305). During that Roman ruler’s
reign, the governance of Rome’s empire was eventually divided between two
emperors (with the titles of Augustus), and each Augustus had a
subservient Caesar to help manage and defend the realm.
Diocletian appointed Maximian as
his co-emperor in 286 and the positions of the caesars were staffed in 293,
formally beginning the tetrarchy period of Roman government. Constantius Chlorus (father of Constantine)
became the caesar of Augustus Maximian (286-305), and the aforementioned
Galerius became the caesar of Diocletian.
Galerius was an able general and a skilled warrior
whose talents were used to the fullest by Diocletian. Galerius was kept busy on
the frontiers of the Eastern Roman Empire, as threats were present on every flank. Early in their partnership,
Diocletian tasked Galerius with suppressing unrest in Egypt from
293-295. Unrest, however, was not quelled, and a usurper named Achilleus
launched a revolt around 296. At that point, Diocletian personally took control
of the situation and reconquered the rebel regions of Egypt that same year.
Diocletian was not yet done with his campaign when concerning news arrived that
the Sāsānian
Persians had invaded Roman territory in the Mesopotamian vicinity of
Syria.
Mackey’s comment: Sassanian Persians? That is
already a suspicious element:
A Sassanian conquest of Jerusalem during the
lifetime of Mohammed?
The article continues:
Digesting this
information, the emperor decided to remain in Egypt to finish his campaign, but
dispatched Galerius to the Syrian front to repel the Persians.
Galerius began his
response to the Persian invasion in 296 or 297, and marched his forces toward
the positions of the hostile invaders. Unfortunately for the caesar, he lost
track of his foes, or was simply outmaneuvered, resulting in his forces being
caught in a disadvantageous position somewhere between the ancient Mesopotamian
cities of Harran and Callinicum. In the ensuing battle, the Roman forces were
delt a significant defeat by the Persians.
Mackey’s comment: This is somewhat reminiscent of the rout of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ by
the Persians (2 Maccabees 9:1-2):
“Now about that time, Antiochus retreated in disorder
from the region of Persia. For he had entered into the city called Persepolis,
and he attempted to rob a temple and to control the city. Therefore the
multitudes rushed in and the people of the country turned to defend themselves
with weapons; and it came to pass that Antiochus was put to flight by the
people of the country and broke his camp with disgrace”.
The article continues:
Galerius managed to
escape after the disaster, but he had to temporarily retreat from the
frontlines and was forced to embarrassingly return to Diocletian while fresh
troops were mustered for battle.
Diocletian,
understandably, was not pleased with what had occurred, and he decided to
publicly humiliate and shame his caesar as punishment for the disastrous
battle. It was a simple, yet effective, punishment—Diocletian refused to allow
Galerius to ride in the imperial chariots or carriages. Instead, the caesar
(wearing his full regalia) was forced to awkwardly walk on foot in front of the
royal vehicle for about the distance of a mile. This curious detail was
recorded by the historian, Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 4th
century), who wrote:
“Diocletian and his
colleague had employed the Caesars as adjutants who were dispatched hither and
thither about the empire and had no fixed place of residence, and that on one
occasion in Syria, when the Augustus was angry, Galerius in his purple had marched
on foot in front of his carriage for nearly a mile” (Ammianus
Marcellinus, History, 14.11.10). Galerius apparently took the
punishment well and did not make a scene of it. Instead, he focused on clawing
back his prestige from the jaws of defeat—he may have lost the battle, but he
was determined to win the war.
Chastised, given
command of fresh troops, and invigorated by a determination to restore his
honor, Galerius was back on the warpath against the Persians by 298. That year,
he and his Roman forces inflicted an overwhelming defeat on the Persian King,
Narseh (or Narses, r. 293–302). Narseh survived and escaped the battle, but it
was such a cataclysmic defeat for the Persians that Narseh’s military funds,
and even his harem, fell into the hands of the Romans during the course of the
battle. King Narseh subsequently made peace with the Romans. This campaign by
Galerius, followed by successful operations he led against the Marcomanni, the Carpi, and the Sarmatians, cemented his
reputation as a talented general. Galerius remained in Diocletian’s favor and
succeeded him as Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire in 305, ruling until his
death in 311.
Written by C. Keith
Hansley
C. Keith Hansley here spares us the details of his death – but what a
death it was!
It is interesting, too, that the empire has a fourfold
division now (tetrarchy), just as had the empire of the successors of
Alexander the Great, the rival generals or Diadochi.
And, as with Antiochus, so with Galerius, there was an intense
persecution.
C. Keith Hansley spares us any mention of this as well. Galerius
supposedly persecuted the Christians – while king Antiochus had most definitely
persecuted the Jews.
We continue on with the account of the “Grotesque Death”
of Galerius:
The Life And Grotesque
Death Of Emperor Galerius - The Historian's Hut
The Life And Grotesque Death Of Emperor
Galerius
…. Suffice it to say, the precarious tetrarchy government in the Roman
Empire began to crumble during the succession crisis that arose after
Constantius’ death. Along with Galerius and Constantine, there was also Maxentius (r. 306-312), who, with the help of his
father, the retired emperor Maximian, laid claim to Italy, Africa and later
flipped Spain to their side. In order to counteract Constantine and Maxentius,
Galerius elevated to power his followers, Licinius (r. 308-324) and Maximinus (r. 310-313), who aided Galerius in the
central and eastern portions of the Roman Empire.
During these political machinations, the Great Persecution of Christians
was still ongoing in the Roman Empire, with the severity of the oppression
varying greatly depending on the disposition of the ruler in charge of each
region. Constantine, famously, was the most tolerant toward Christians in his
lands, but Maxentius and Licinius also showed leniency. Galerius and Maximinus,
however, were true persecutors. Nevertheless, in 311, Galerius’ health began to
dramatically and horrifically decline, and on his deathbed he decided to issue
an edict calling for the toleration of the Christians and an end to the
persecutions. As recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-339), the edict stated, “Thus,
in view of our clemency and our consistent practice of granting pardon to all
men, we thought it right also in this instance to offer our concession most
cheerfully, so that Christians may exist again and restore the houses in which
they used to assemble, provided that they do nothing against the public order”
(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 8.17.9). ….
Following the edict of toleration, Galerius’ conscience
may have been less heavy, but his health did not improve. Quite the opposite,
his condition became increasingly more disturbing. All accounts of his
condition point to a horrific disease or infection in his pelvic region being
the cause of his demise, and the Christian authors of the accounts made sure to
record as many grotesque and disturbing details as possible about their
tormentor’s end.
Be advised, the following passages are not for the faint
of heart or the full of stomach—you have been warned.
Concerning Galerius’s death, the aforementioned Eusebius stated:
“Divine punishment overtook [Galerius], which started with his flesh and
went on to his soul. An abscess suddenly appeared in the middle of his
genitals, then a deep ulcerous fistula that ate into his inner intestines
incurably. From them came a great mass of worms and a deadly stench, since
gluttony had transformed his whole body, even before the disease, into a great
blob of flabby fat that then decayed, offering a revolting and horrendous
spectacle. Some of the doctors could not endure the excessive, unearthly stench
and were executed. Others, who could give no help because the mass had swollen
beyond any hope of recovery, were put to death with mercy…” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History, 8.16.3-5).
Now, let us compare this with the death of Antiochus
‘Epiphanes’ - Ezekiel’s Fallen King of Tyre - and his belated promises to the
Jews whom he had so cruelly persecuted:
“Your heart became proud
….
So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.
….
So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
All the nations who knew you are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end and will be no more”.
Ezekiel 28:17, 18-19
Cf. Daniel
11:45: “He will pitch his royal tents between the seas
at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no
one will help him”.
2 Maccabees 9:4-12:
The Lord Punishes Antiochus
With great arrogance [Antiochus] said, I will turn
Jerusalem into a graveyard full of Jews. But he did not know that he was
heading straight for God’s judgment. In fact, as soon as he had
said these words, the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him down with
an invisible but fatal blow. He was seized with sharp intestinal pains for
which there was no relief— a fitting punishment for the man who had tortured
others in so many terrible ways! But this in no way caused him to give up
his pride.
Instead he became more arrogant than ever, and breathing
out fiery threats against the Jews, he gave orders to drive even faster. As a
result he fell out of his chariot with such a thud that it made every bone in
his body ache. His arrogant pride made him think he had the superhuman
strength to make ocean waves obey him and to weigh high mountains on a pair of
scales.
But suddenly he fell flat on the ground and had to be
carried off on a stretcher, a clear sign to everyone of God's power. Even
the eyes of this godless man were crawling with worms and he lived in terrible
pain and agony. The stink was so bad that his entire army was
sickened, and no one was able to come close enough to carry him around.
Yet only a short while before, he thought he could take hold of the stars.
….
Antiochus was deeply depressed and suffered constant pain
because of the punishment that God had brought on him, so he finally came to
his senses and gave up his arrogant pride. Then, when he could no longer
endure his own stink, he said,
‘It is right that all mortals should be subject to God
and not think that they are his equal’.
He then began making promises to the Jews (vv. 13-28):
Then this wicked man prayed to the Lord, of whom he was
not like to obtain mercy.
And the city to which he was going in haste to lay it
even with the ground, and to make it a common burying place, he now desireth to
make free.
And the Jews whom he said he would not account worthy to
be so much as buried, but would give them up to be devoured by the birds and
wild beasts, and would utterly destroy them with their children, he now
promiseth to make equal with the Athenians.
The holy Temple also which before he had spoiled, he
promiseth to adorn with goodly gifts, and to multiply the holy vessels, and to
allow out of his revenues the charges pertaining to the sacrifices.
Yea also, that he would become a Jew himself, and would
go through every place of the earth, and declare the power of God.
But his pains not ceasing (for the just judgment of God
was come upon him) despairing of life he wrote to the Jews in the manner of a
supplication, a letter in these words:
To his very good subjects the Jews, Antiochus king and
ruler wisheth much health and welfare, and happiness.
If you and your children are well, and if all matters go
with you to your mind, we give very great thanks.
As for me, being infirm, but yet kindly remembering you,
returning out of the places of Persia, and being taken with a grievous disease,
I thought it necessary to take care for the common good:
Not distrusting my life, but having great hope to escape
the sickness.
But considering that my father also, at what time he led
an army into the higher countries, appointed who should reign after him:
To the end that if any thing contrary to expectation
should fall out, or any bad tidings should be brought, they that were in the
countries, knowing to whom the whole government was left, might not be
troubled.
Moreover, considering that neighbouring princes and
borderers wait for opportunities, and expect what shall be the event, I have
appointed my son Antiochus king, whom I often recommended to many of you, when
I went into the higher provinces: and I have written to him what I have joined
here below.
I pray you therefore, and request of you, that
remembering favours both public and private, you will every man of you continue
to be faithful to me and to my son.
For I trust that he will behave with moderation and
humanity, and following my intentions, will be gracious unto you.
Thus the murderer and blasphemer, being grievously
struck, as himself had treated others, died a miserable death in a strange
country among the mountains.
As the (Simeonite) Jewish heroine had proclaimed more
than half a millennium earlier (Judith 16:17):
‘Woe to the nations that rise up against my
people.
The Lord Almighty will punish them on the day
of judgment.
He will send fire and worms into their flesh;
they shall weep with pain forever’.
Based on Herod ‘the Great’?
According to the “Grotesque Death” article above,
“many scholars” believe, instead, that the death of Galerius was patterned on
that of King Herod ‘the Great’.
Thus we further read:
As told by Eusebius, Galerius died in 311, shortly after releasing the
edict that called for the toleration of Christians. It should be noted that
many scholars believe that the account of Galerius’ death was modeled on, or
inspired by, descriptions of the demise of King Herod (r. 37–4 BCE) that were
written by the historian, Josephus (c. 37/38-100). He wrote:
“From that time on Herod’s disease spread to affect every part of his
body with a range of symptoms. He had a fever (relatively mild), intolerable
itching all over his body, constant pain in his gut, dropsy-like swellings in
his legs, inflammation of the lower abdomen, and gangrene of the genitals,
which bred worms: he also suffered from breathing difficulties, only
comfortable when he was upright, and from convulsions in all his limbs. His
condition had the diviners saying that all this disease was a punishment for
what he had done to the preachers.” (Josephus, The Jewish War,
I.656).
Similarities aside, one should not be too quick to dismiss Eusebius’
account as a mere invention or an unrealistic copy that has no resemblance to
Galerius’ actual death.
Curiously, Eusebius’ fellow Christian author from that time period,
Lactantius (c. 240-320), wrote many similar details in his own account of
Galerius’ death. A word of warning, it is even more disturbing than Eusebius’
version.
With that disclaimer aside, Lactantius wrote:
“And now, when Galerius was in the eighteenth year of his reign, God
struck him with an incurable plague. A malignant ulcer formed itself low down
in his secret parts, and spread by degrees.
The physicians attempted to eradicate it, and healed up the place
affected. But the sore, after having been skinned over, broke out again; a vein
burst, and the blood flowed in such quantity as to endanger his life. The
blood, however, was stopped, although with difficulty. The physicians had to
undertake their operations anew, and at length they cicatrized the wound. In
consequence of some slight motion of his body, Galerius received a hurt, and
the blood streamed more abundantly than before. He grew emaciated, pallid, and
feeble, and the bleeding then stanched. The ulcer began to be insensible to the
remedies applied, and a gangrene seized all the neighbouring parts. It diffused
itself the wider the more the corrupted flesh was cut away, and everything employed
as the means of cure served but to aggravate the disease… his bowels came out,
and his whole seat putrefied. The luckless physicians, although without hope of
overcoming the malady, ceased not to apply fomentations and administer
medicines. The humours having been repelled, the distemper attacked his
intestines, and worms were generated in his body. The stench was so foul as to
pervade not only the palace, but even the whole city; and no wonder, for by
that time the passages from his bladder and bowels, having been devoured by the
worms, became indiscriminate, and his body, with intolerable anguish, was
dissolved into one mass of corruption…” (Lactantius, Of the Manner in
Which the Persecutors Died, chapter 33).
From a herculean war hero to a decaying mass of fat—how the mighty fall,
indeed.
Lactantius’ unnerving account continued, alleging that the physicians
tried to lure out the worms by placing fresh meat against the emperor’s wounds.
It was also noted that the worst symptoms of the disease all took place in the
year of Galerius’ death in 311. Like Eusebius, Lactantius claimed that Galerius
died shortly after the publication of the edict that called for the toleration
of Christians.
Curiously, Galerius’ dying wish was for his wife, Valeria, and his son,
Candidianus, to be looked after by his friend, Licinius. Unfortunately, this
wish was not honorably fulfilled. After Galerius’ death in 311, Licinius did
indeed take the deceased emperor’s wife and son under his watch while he and
Constantine battled against their foes, Maxentius and Maximinus. Yet, in 313,
when Licinius and Constantine emerged victorious as the only two major power
players remaining in the Roman Empire, Licinius took the opportunity to execute
Galerius’ wife and son. It was not long, however, before Galerius’s slain
family was avenged, for Constantine campaigned inconclusively against Licinius
in 316-317, and then finally removed Licinius from power (and subsequently life)
around the year 324. ….
Likewise, the dying wish of Antiochus was for his son
(9:25-26), whose governor had a name very like Licinius, namely Lysias (10:11).
King Herod ‘the Great’, being like Caesar Augustus a
contemporary of the Infancy of Jesus Christ and the Census, does therefore
belong to our revised era for Galerius, it was more likely a later King Herod
who could have served as a basis - at least in part - for the death of
Galerius. Though Antiochus fits much better.
While the New Testament does not inform us about the
death of King Herod ‘the Great’, it does tell of a later Herod - who I claim to
have been Herod Antipas - and it has gruesome elements common to both Antiochus
and Galerius:
The inconvenient death of which King Herod
vitiated his apotheosis?
(4) The
inconvenient death of which King Herod vitiated his apotheosis?
Though the circumstances
are quite different.
No comments:
Post a Comment